Saturday, February 7, 2009

Democrat Model of Government

I've been having a long discussion with Anonymous in one of the comment threads (though I suspect it's someone from work) about the stimulus package and taxes. Here's my (vastly) simplified explanation of how Democrats were elected:

- 3 voters: one working and two are not
- take 2/3 of wages from the working person and give 1/2 to each of the non-working person
- 2 politicians: one promises tax cuts and the other promises more "social justice" by taxing the "rich"
- hold an election
- Democrat wins with 2 votes to 1

Of course, the politicians are also voters and there are a lot of non-economical issues in the last election (e.g., pure Bush-hatred). But since voters vastly outnumber politicians and the poor (or those receiving entitlements) outnumbering the rich (people who pay most of the taxes), I believe my point is valid. Add to the mix some super-rich people feeling guilty about their wealth (who may not even pay taxes) and hustlers convincing the poor that their entitlements are a right, I don't see how Republicans ever got elected in the first place. I guess the split is closer to 50/50 than the 33/67 portrayed above.

Model also falls apart if the one working person decided to pack up and retire to China or Thailand in a few years.


Arg! I just had a dream last night. I was arguing with someone at church about illegal immigration and taxes; not sure who "won" since I woke up before it was over. Maybe I should just shut up, bend over, and take it (higher taxes) in order to save my sanity. A Republican/Libertarian vote in California is next to useless.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Your scenario seems very reasonable, and I agree that a major reason for the Democratic victory is the economic situation. But if you look back at the mid-term elections during 2006 the Democrats had a historic sweeping victory even though there was no economic crisis (at least not as obvious as today). Guess that shows non-economical issues do have a very important weight (if not equal) to economical issues.