Do you all realize that the Republican concept was based on the premise of expecting sugar daddies?

[The Backlash Cometh]

I get it now. Hardcore Democrats (not the DLC) believe in the power of Uncle Sam; Republicans believe in the trickle down effect, I call it, the sugar daddy effect. That's where the rich are suppose to redistribute the wealth by creating jobs for everyone. Though, I just learned, that it isn't just jobs that they were expected to contribute to society, but an expectation that they would invest in their communities, donating labor or supplies to build large buildings and monuments that would carry their names; and sponsor community events, like Hoe downs and movie festivals.

Right now, there are Republicans who are actually "getting it". Well, in their own way. They are blaming the wealthy for not contributing more of their wealth to society to avoid this economic downturn, and show the nay-sayers that Republican policy works. One even said that it was the fault of the rich that the country was going to be turned over to "socialists," and the Republicans deserved what's coming because of their greed, sucking up the profits in the community and giving none of it back in return.

This illumination came when it was shown how the rich used their clout to gain access that gave them the wealth to begin with; that access, of course, allowed them to circumvent the usual democratic and ethical procedures meant to safeguard the welfare of the public. They took their share and then they showed their community their backsides.

That's where the disconnect happened in the Republican party. That's why so many people voted against their own interests. They really did expect the rich to shower them with jobs and pay for the kind of community projects which, atleast, superficially, ameliorate the unease among the members of the public who increasingly feel marginalized by the process.

That's why the Republican party failed. They never expected the rich to be such greedy, selfish people.

[KansDem]

1. They took their riches and stuck them in Lichtenstein banks

"Trickle down" became "trickle on"

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Dems should point this out, over and over again.

Many of the ills of society are because government and the networks allowed these connected people to stick it to the public.

[htuttle]

3. "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief..."

"...that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Why isn't that quote getting more press?

[unpossibles]

4. good point. Horatio Alger story indeed!

I also have noted that the ultra-rich tend to support Democrats. In my opinion, someone like Warren Buffet endorsing Obama is the perfect example of why Obama's economic and financial strategies are better than McCain's. I hardly imagine that anyone at that level of wealth would vote for someone who is a "socialist" or who would hurt his holdings. He knows that wealth is created from the bottom up, not top down. Hell, he knows he is in the group which will be the "hardest hit" and I'm sure he also knows he will still make more under the strong economy of the Democrats than the weak growth under Republicans.

[spinbaby]

5. I think their world view is based on Victorian literature

You know, those stories of the poor-but-worthy orphan whose stellar qualities are recognized by some rich person. Republicans seem to believe that if they are just worthy enough and think positive thoughts, then they, too, will be rewarded with riches.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. A public park is a socialistic institution, and I love public parks.

Does that make me a socialist?

To some degree it has to.


The soul of the Repos are hard core utopian ideologues. From the utopian evangelicals to the utopian free marketeers, the Repos are very good at fooling themselves.