« The Buck Stops Here Today | Main | Pennies from Heaven »



Nice try, but the facts just don't bare you out on this argument.

Republican and the little guy

Opposed the SCHIP program that provides matching funds to states in for health insurance to families with children. The program was designed with the intent to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Opposed any rise in the minimum wage.

Democrats and the little guys

Provided a healthy economy and environment in which real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president. What is even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families...grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House.


Presidents and Income Inequality




Economy fares much better under Democratic presidents than Republicans'

• In the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3 percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under Democrats it rose 10.3 percent implying a 41 percent increase in their investments.

• Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 per year since World War II. Under Republican presidents, the national debt has increased by an average of 10.1 percent.

• For the same period, unemployment rate was 4.8 percent under Democrats compared to 6.3 percent under Republicans.

• Comparing the last 15 years, under Clinton-Gore administration, the national debt was reduced significantly, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew and Americans had more job opportunities. With Bush-Cheney administration we are seeing fewer jobs created since the Great Depression, record deficits, record household debt, record bankruptcies and increased number falling into poverty. And nearly 50 million have no health insurance. Between the two administrations, we saw the biggest contrast, it went from the biggest budget surplus in history to the largest deficit in history.

• Under Bush administration, there was a sweeping tax cut plan in 2001: the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans received 43 percent of the gain. In just a year and a half, the federal government’s projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion vanished quickly. In 2000, there was a surplus of $236 billion, in 2004 there was a deficit of $413 billion.

John Pepple

Nice try, Greg, but (all) the facts don't bear (not "bare") you out. The key here is that ALL the facts must be looked at, and not just a selection that makes you look good. In fact, the biggest story that liberals and leftists don't want to hear about is how so many little guys over the last forty years have stopped voting for the Democrats. And they stopped voting for the Democrats because they were sick of the way that Democrats were imposing costs on them.

Here are some of them. The environmentalists rarely take the poor into account. They simply push policies without thinking about how the poor will be affected. For example, last summer there were Democrats who wanted the price of gas to go to $9/gallon. Exactly how is that helping the poor?

Then there's the way the Democrats screwed up our schools over the last forty years. They screwed them up so much that even blacks, who generally support the Democratic party, now want vouchers. Poor people use the schools to help them, but if the schools are screwed up, they aren't helped.

Then there's the fact that so many Democrats these days are content with the way that American society treats those of us who went to ordinary universities. The Democrats have fallen in with this. It's been 24 years since the Democrats last nominated someone who didn't go to Harvard or Yale. Since most poor people, if they go to college at all, go to an ordinary university, how is this helping them?

Then there's affirmative action. Is there any good reason why a white woman from a rich background can avail herself of affirmative action, while a white man from a poor background cannot? How is this being friendly to the poor? Would you support expanding affirmative action to include class background? I bet not.

Then there's the expression "privileged white male." What this entails is that all white males are lumped together as a privileged group, even though some of them are poor. Affirmative action helps women and blacks get jobs that white males would otherwise have gotten. Have you ever thought about which white males don't get those jobs? Isn't it likely that poorer white males rather than richer white males are the losers here?

Finally, Democrats are soft on crime, and crime hurts the poor in numerous ways. Democrats may think they are helping the poor by being soft on crime, but they are really hurting them.

The Democrats used to have class as their number one concern, but that vanished back in the 1960s. Today, as best as I can see, their concerns in order of importance are something like this: (1) race, (2) gender, (3) the environment, (4) sexual orientation, (5) the Third World, (6) the disabled, (7) animals, and (8) class. I do not think that having class be so low among their concerns makes Democrats very responsive to class issues. There are in fact many Democrats who are more concerned about polar bears than they are about poor people.

And even when they are concerned about poor people, they think about them in antiquated ways. It is ridiculous to assume that the worker today is in the same situation as the worker of the 1950s, simply because the worker of today has to worry about environmentalists coming along and imposing unnecessary costs on the company, which in turn may either drive it out of business or force it to move to the Mexico.

When everything is looked at, Greg, and not just what you want to look at, the Democrats just aren't that kind to the poor.


Well said, John. You forgot only one thing: Democrats are far better than Republicans in promoting the scam that they are the "representatives of the little guy."

The comments to this entry are closed.