The radically-reduced-diet studies on mice have also tended to show that those longer-living mice are rather more lethargic. So even if it does extend your life, there will probably be serious tradeoffs. Then again, not overeating, and eating healthier overall, is a pretty good policy.
1) Currently 23% of the electorate identifies as Republican, versus 32% for Democrats and 39% as independents. In other words, hardly “about half” of the people are Republican.
2) Check your math comparing Richard S. Russell’s statement with yours. In which world, exactly, does 1% equal 50%? As Night-Gaunt put it, we know that not all Republicans are rich. It’s the policies we’ve got to consider. And right now, the Republican Party is very, very, very much on the side of the rich, currently waaaaay more than the Democratic Party in this regard.
Yet the national, state, county city etc. elections are evenly divided (except for corrupt places like Chicago where the Democrats win no matter what the vote is) between Republican and Democrats so it is beck to 50 50.
It is true that the Democrats have controlled the house much more that the Republicans and that is where the tax laws are written that favor the rich. Even when they have the Senate, House and the White House they do nothing to change the laws that favor the rich.
@cepaI suppose you haven’t heard the word “gerrymandering”? It’s why the courts are currently forcing Florida to redraw its electoral maps.
And yes, both Republicans and Democrats have been writing tax laws favoring the rich particularly since Reagan set that into motion. Except that when the 2007–2008 financial crash happened, Democrats voted to ease the tax burden on the middle class and put a teeny-weeny bit back onto the wealthy. Since which point the wealthy have gone ballistic, and the Kochs have poured hundreds of millions into defeating Democratic candidates. Oh, and the Democrats managed to get the Affordable Care Act passed, which also does not favor the rich, but does very much help poor and middle-class folks. (Well, except the poor folks who are out of luck because they live in a Republican-ruled state that has refused the Medicaid expansion because that would be to violate the purity of Republican ideology. And help poor folks. Which amount to the same things for the GOP.)
But I suppose your arguments about this mean that you think the rich have gotten too much, and the poor and middle class not enough? If so, welcome to the club!
braindead Premium Member about 9 years ago
The Republican health care system is for you to die sooner.
cepa about 9 years ago
’If all the rich people are Republicans and since about half the people are Republicans, where is mine?
Maybe it is being held by the Clinton who by their tax returns are in the top half of the one percenters.
agrestic about 9 years ago
The radically-reduced-diet studies on mice have also tended to show that those longer-living mice are rather more lethargic. So even if it does extend your life, there will probably be serious tradeoffs. Then again, not overeating, and eating healthier overall, is a pretty good policy.
agrestic about 9 years ago
1) Currently 23% of the electorate identifies as Republican, versus 32% for Democrats and 39% as independents. In other words, hardly “about half” of the people are Republican.
2) Check your math comparing Richard S. Russell’s statement with yours. In which world, exactly, does 1% equal 50%? As Night-Gaunt put it, we know that not all Republicans are rich. It’s the policies we’ve got to consider. And right now, the Republican Party is very, very, very much on the side of the rich, currently waaaaay more than the Democratic Party in this regard.
cepa about 9 years ago
Yet the national, state, county city etc. elections are evenly divided (except for corrupt places like Chicago where the Democrats win no matter what the vote is) between Republican and Democrats so it is beck to 50 50.
It is true that the Democrats have controlled the house much more that the Republicans and that is where the tax laws are written that favor the rich. Even when they have the Senate, House and the White House they do nothing to change the laws that favor the rich.
agrestic about 9 years ago
@cepaI suppose you haven’t heard the word “gerrymandering”? It’s why the courts are currently forcing Florida to redraw its electoral maps.
And yes, both Republicans and Democrats have been writing tax laws favoring the rich particularly since Reagan set that into motion. Except that when the 2007–2008 financial crash happened, Democrats voted to ease the tax burden on the middle class and put a teeny-weeny bit back onto the wealthy. Since which point the wealthy have gone ballistic, and the Kochs have poured hundreds of millions into defeating Democratic candidates. Oh, and the Democrats managed to get the Affordable Care Act passed, which also does not favor the rich, but does very much help poor and middle-class folks. (Well, except the poor folks who are out of luck because they live in a Republican-ruled state that has refused the Medicaid expansion because that would be to violate the purity of Republican ideology. And help poor folks. Which amount to the same things for the GOP.)
But I suppose your arguments about this mean that you think the rich have gotten too much, and the poor and middle class not enough? If so, welcome to the club!