What makes people vote republican

[Friday on my mind]

^
Why would anti immigration rhetoric piss off native born hispanics? Just because they're from the same country their ancestors are from? I'm not pissed that Germans aren't always let in or deported.

I'm pissed that we allow the worst of the worst in with a free ride, regardless of nationality.

Blacks, hispanics and other minorities vote democrat due to their being pandered to and babied as if they can't fend for themselves.

Because it was seen as not just anti immigrant rhetoric but anti-hispanic.Might play well for some republican congressman in very white districts(and it did for some of them) but nationally it hurts them.GWB being from Texas understood that and that was why he was not a party to that more extreme rhetoric and supported things like McCain-Kennedy,although McCain has now swung right on that himself to appease the pub base.
And I like your analysis of why minorities vote democratic.Hows that different then saying the whites who vote for republicans is because they are a bunch of racist SOB's who are too stupid unless they are rich whites to see they are being played? :1orglaugh

 

[ninetysixcavy]

Well many White Americans still have an issue with race. If white americans being a minority were fielding their 1st Presidential candiate in this countries history after a dealing with history of slavery and Jim Crow laws. I think I am safe to assume, Most White americans would be on the band wagon to vote for the candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9132.html

Justify it all you want. It's still a "race based" vote.

Just so you know if only 90% of blacks vote for Obama I would be surprised as Gore and Kerry got 90% of the black vote as well.So for blacks to vote for the democratic candidate is nothing new or about the color of the candidate.This all relates to my earlier post on what will the future of the republicans be if they don't get some diversity somehow in their party and attract new people.They were making inroads with hispanics once (GWB got like 40% hispanic vote) but a lot of that has been undone by their anti-immigration rhetoric which has pissed off a lot of even native born hispanics.

If my memory serves me, McCain authored McCain-Kennedy. :nono: McCain is about as bad as it gets; a border state sell-out whore who loves cheap labor. Fuck, if Obama took a stand against immigration I'd vote for him.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Justify it all you want. It's still a "race based" vote.

This year's Presidential election?

 

[girk1]

He can do whatever he wants. He's a citizen. Bitter? I am not bitter. Inside I laugh because I know the real situation--despite going to my University only to see Latino, black, asain, GLBT orgs of all kinds and the only kind I could be a member of doesn't exist, because it would be racist (on second thought, maybe I am bitter?). So don't tell me who the racist is. Not to mention the fact that polls show 90% of African Americans plan to vote for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color...fucking walking hypocracy... :nono:

Solely on the basis of his color & not his Platform & universal inspiration?

Blacks have voted over 80% Democrats in Presidential Elections since 1964:

'64(82% Black vote DEM '68(92% Blacks voted D
'72(over 80% DEM '76(82% Blacks voted D
'80(83% Blacks vote DEM
'84(91% Blacks voted D. I guess they didn't like Reaganomics:1orglaugh


'88(89% voted D
'92 & '96 (Blacks voted 83% & 84% Clinton D
2000 (Blacks voted 90% for Gore & 2004 88% Blacks voted Kerry . I guess they voted for those VERY WHITE MEN because of their skin color?

(Blacks have not voted over 15% Republican since 1960. Because after LBJ signed the Civil Rights ACT & Voting Rghts ACT of 1964 all of the angry
White Supremist/Segregationist/Dixiecrats who had disenfranchised Blacks for a century ran to the Republican Party)

Black presidential candidates like Shirley Chisholm,Al Sharpton:1orglaugh,Alan Keyes,Lunora Fulani,Carol Mosley Braun, Cynthia McKinney NEVER got near the amount of support Barack Obama has in the African American community.So that flies in the face of the MYTH that Blacks are only voting for a candidate like Obama based upon color. It's PLATFORM.
They truly beleive in & TRUST the DEM PLATFORM of inclusiveness & compassion as they didn't recieve much of it themselves throughout American history perhaps:dunno:.Obama & Jesse Jackson are the only two African American presedential candidates evfer to receive over 80% of Black support.

So what hypocrisy do you see?


Before the South Carolina primaries Hillary Clinton was getting over 50% Black support until a few racially insensitive gaffes by Bill & Hillary & when all Americans, Black & WHITE, got to know Obama he transcended race. He has inspired many different Americans & foreigners throughout the world. Did you see the 200,000 in Germany:dunno: Enthusiasm in France,England,Africa,Japan,Brazil,etc.

Obama has transcended America's tiny confines of race & inspired millions throughout the world.

I assume you will simply ignore this FACT just as you ignored the FACT ,I proffered ,that MOST & not a handful Of Dems voted AGAINST the IRAQ war.

 

[Friday on my mind]

^^^ Great detailed and backed up with stats post!

And to the folks here who talk about those bad ole tax and spend liberal democrates.Have you forgotten who has been in charge the last 8 years.Bush and the republicans have spent as they say like drunken sailors and even worse it was all borrowed.Much worse then it ever was under Clinton.So good luck thinking the republicans are going to win in 2008 with that old liberal big spending refrain.McCain is going to be in real trouble with whats happening with the financial system and the banks which is very much due to the lack of regulation on these buisnesses which is one of the basic policys of the republicans.McCain can try to say he is not part of that but again good luck John on trying to sell that one, you have been a republican senator who supported deregulation for 30 years almost.But now you are the outsider thats going to go to washington and reform it,sure ya are.:rofl:

 

[prof_porn]

Judging my the GOP's current flag bearers, we have nothing that right wing in mainstream GB politics. Our conservatives routinely say in a US context they'd vote Democrat. I dont see how such a party gains support in the USA.

They'd be close to extreme here.

 

[bombardier52]

That's an interesting point, except that after-call malaise would impact Democratic voters too, yes? And if no, why not?

Great question. The percentage increase of votes is about 15-25 percent higher in the 2000 then the 2004 election. The larger numbers of republican voters in those counties misleads you into thinking that the increase is a larger percentage.

 

[ham hock]

And to the folks here who talk about those bad ole tax and spend liberal democrates.Have you forgotten who has been in charge the last 8 years.Bush and the republicans have spent as they say like drunken sailors and even worse it was all borrowed.Much worse then it ever was under Clinton.So good luck thinking the republicans are going to win in 2008 with that old liberal big spending refrain.

Nancy Pelosi has been in charge of the "do nothing" congress which has an approval rating in the single digits, lower than Bush's. her excuse for not getting anything done is "we were trying to end the war" which means surrender at all costs and she wasn't even successful at that thank goodness.

I give Mccain full credit for pushing for the very unpopular troop surge risking political consequences and getting us ahead in Iraq :hatsoff: to bush's credit, we've had no more terroist attacks on our soil despite lots of attempts so you are safe to wank another day.

Clinton rode the .com boom and much of the housing boom. Bush inherited the .com bust and 9/11 came just after that, then the war so to be fair that needs to be taken into consideration. i'm not a Bush supporter just calling it as I see it.

to suggest that obama is not a tax raising, big government is the end all solution, ultimate left liberal of all time is ignoring the obvious.

 

[bombardier52]

Friday, judging by the few answers that you've recieved for these questions so far, I think the best answer to the question, "What makes people vote republican?", is blind ignorance and/or dishonest cynicism. Which means the responders don't actually know the answer to your questions, which means they are ignorant, or they do know the answers but they choose to give you a bullshit line like, "The majority of the country is white so that's why the republican party is 99.9% white", which would make them dishonest cynics.

Hopefully someone will come along and give thoughtful, coherent answers to your questions and prove me wrong.

There is the outside chance that it really isn't worth responding to someone that assumes you think the way you do out of "blind ignorance or dishonest cynicism."

The article that I posted to start this post was about understanding was a link from another article

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/

where the author drew this conclusion:

For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.

Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’

Things that make you say mmmmm

 

[Friday on my mind]

Nancy Pelosi has been in charge of the "do nothing" congress which has an approval rating in the single digits, lower than Bush's. her excuse for not getting anything done is "we were trying to end the war" which means surrender at all costs and she wasn't even successful at that thank goodness.

I give Mccain full credit for pushing for the very unpopular troop surge risking political consequences and getting us ahead in Iraq :hatsoff: to bush's credit, we've had no more terroist attacks on our soil despite lots of attempts so you are safe to wank another day.

Clinton rode the .com boom and much of the housing boom. Bush inherited the .com bust and 9/11 came just after that, then the war so to be fair that needs to be taken into consideration. i'm not a Bush supporter just calling it as I see it.

to suggest that obama is not a tax raising, big government is the end all solution, ultimate left liberal of all time is ignoring the obvious.

Republicans had control of congress untill the elections in 2006.And this claim that Obama is some big taxing liberal is based on just right wing noise.Same thing was said about Clinton,and Clinton was much more fiscally reponsible than eithier of the Bushes .His(Obama's) proposal is to return the tax structure to basically what it was under Clinton which would mean a raise of about 3% for the top income group.Actually I think his promise to give tax cuts to the middle class may be in real danger now, as by the time he takes office that may be impossible with the govt now having given almost a trillion dollar of bail outs to the financial sector.When Bush leaves things are going to be so bad with so much money committed any new president will have very little room to do anything.Maybe we could get some sanity and cut the defense budget in half or something similar to free up some money for tax cuts and investments in infrastructure and new energy initatives.But barring any dramatic cuts there I don't see how anything very big can be done to help the economy.At some point we need to do something about the deficits which were much lower under Clinton but have exploded under Bush and start actually paying for things again instead of just borrowing from China.You know if you find out what Al Queda was hoping to accomplish with the 9/11 attacks it is clear Bush has played right into their hands.They hoped we respond in such a way that diminished our standing in the world and particulary in the mideast and that we would spend so much resources on it that we would drive our economy to ruin.The 1st part of that is already done and the 2nd part is coming fast.The 2nd part is not just being caused by the trillions we spent on the wars,but was also aided by the republicans pro-buisness lack of regulation philosophy.But if we had the money we are spending/spent on the wars we would be in a lot better shape to pay for the financial mess the republicans have gotten us into at home.

There is the outside chance that it really isn't worth responding to someone that assumes you think the way you do out of "blind ignorance or dishonest cynicism."

The article that I posted to start this post was about understanding was a link from another article

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/

where the author drew this conclusion:



Things that make you say mmmmm

1st let me say I thought my questions were reasonable and factually correct.It was just asking if no matter what your reasons are for voting republican if the republican party having such a lack of diversity was a concern.I guess that is an uncomfortable qurestion.
2nd I understand how you feel about your thread.I have started threads that did not go the way and get the responses I would have hoped for myself.You expected a bunch of "yeah your right, people vote republican because those dems are a bunch of tax and spend liberals,who will surrender to the terrorists,have no morals,and don't obey god and want our guns" responses,that affirmed the correctness of what you thought to begin with.I looked at your link to a link which starts with a progressive who says Liberals don't get why people vote for republicans and don't get the appeal of a Palin and then references another link that says Liberals feel contempt for and are incapable of understanding the consevative POV.I think she and the 2nd guy are just wrong there.The contempt between the 2 groups is a 2 way street and liberals understand conservatives just as well as vice-versa IMO.Personally I think it is much easier for liberals to understand the conservative POV then the other way round.As the prof Jonathan Haidt said.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
"People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world."


Much easier to understand a simplistic black and white vision of the world and issues then a much more complex one with more shades of grey.Liberals may not agree with that vision but we understand it.

 

[bombardier52]

Republicans had control of congress untill the elections in 2006.And this claim that Obama is some big taxing liberal is based on just right wing noise.Same thing was said about Clinton,and Clinton was much more fiscally reponsible than eithier of the Bushes .His(Obama's) proposal is to return the tax structure to basically what it was under Clinton which would mean a raise of about 3% for the top income group.Actually I think his promise to give tax cuts to the middle class may be in real danger now, as by the time he takes office that may be impossible with the govt now having given almost a trillion dollar of bail outs to the financial sector.When Bush leaves things are going to be so bad with so much money committed any new president will have very little room to do anything.Maybe we could get some sanity and cut the defense budget in half or something similar to free up some money for tax cuts and investments in infrastructure and new energy initatives.But barring any dramatic cuts there I don't see how anything very big can be done to help the economy.At some point we need to do something about the deficits which were much lower under Clinton but have exploded under Bush and start actually paying for things again instead of just borrowing from China.You know if you find out what Al Queda was hoping to accomplish with the 9/11 attacks it is clear Bush has played right into their hands.They hoped we respond in such a way that diminished our standing in the world and particulary in the mideast and that we would spend so much resources on it that we would drive our economy to ruin.The 1st part of that is already done and the 2nd part is coming fast.The 2nd part is not just being caused by the trillions we spent on the wars,but was also aided by the republicans pro-buisness lack of regulation philosophy.But if we had the money we are spending/spent on the wars we would be in a lot better shape to pay for the financial mess the republicans have gotten us into at home.




1st let me say I thought my questions were reasonable and factually correct.It was just asking if no matter what your reasons are for voting republican if the republican party having such a lack of diversity was a concern.I guess that is an uncomfortable qurestion.
2nd I understand how you feel about your thread.I have started threads that did not go the way and get the responses I would have hoped for myself.You expected a bunch of "yeah your right, people vote republican because those dems are a bunch of tax and spend liberals,who will surrender to the terrorists,have no morals,and don't obey god and want our guns" responses,that affirmed the correctness of what you thought to begin with.I looked at your link to a link which starts with a progressive who says Liberals don't get why people vote for republicans and don't get the appeal of a Palin and then references another link that says Liberals feel contempt for and are incapable of understanding the consevative POV.I think she and the 2nd guy are just wrong there.The contempt between the 2 groups is a 2 way street and liberals understand conservatives just as well as vice-versa IMO.Personally I think it is much easier for liberals to understand the conservative POV then the other way round.As the prof Jonathan Haidt said.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
"People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world."


Much easier to understand a simplistic black and white vision of the world and issues then a much more complex one with more shades of grey.Liberals may not agree with that vision but we understand it.

I had no thoughts that the thread would make anyone change sides. I like having sides. Without them you have, oh I don't know, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Cuba...

What I hoped for was that people would try to see how the other side of the aisle thinks and how they arrive at their conclusions. What this thread turned into was pretty much as the article predicted. I don't care what someones beliefs are but it helps to get things done if you attempt to understand.

I started thinking about this subject when I read Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias." He points out that reporters who as a general rule lean left something like 80-20 are not knowingly biasing their reporting. They think the way they think is "right." Or put another way, everyone thinks this way. So when they think Palin is a crazy anti-abortion person or Steve Forbes has a wacky tax plan it's because they see those issues as cut and dry as murder is wrong. Most of would think that anyone that thought murder was okay was on the fringe of humanity. You can take a stand that murder is wrong and who would question that?

The two articles I linked to seemed to back up Goldberg's supposition in my estimation.

As for the lack of diversity in the republican party. Interesting, but I don't ever think of it or think it that relevant. There seem to be plenty of visible people of color in the party, Michael Steele, Condi, Powell, Jindal. The party has what it stands for and I think anyone that believes the same is more than welcome to the party. One's color is about as important to me as what color shirt someone is wearing and it does not concern me at all.

 

[Torre82]

The beauty of a thread such is this is that we see what may happen, what will happen and try to imagine the unthinkable and acknowledge the people with their fingers grasped firmly around those nuclear launch codes are simply.. not so intelligent.

The possibility of world war 3 or hell, any actual war is a frightening prospect that most people these days never even consider. They're too concerned with gas, taxes and menial issues like gay rights and what a woman decides to do with her kid. In a government where a choice of VP is to appeal to a crowd rather than govern a superpower.. or to even consider someone with barely a second thought like the impulsive McCain ticket did.. whew.

I'd like to take the quote 'There are no atheists in foxholes' and put so many things in the place of that word ATHEISTS. Not a friggin' thing matters if worse comes to worse. In a depression where you're poor as hell and cant afford to have another child, who would you run to for an abortion that you opposed back when you were wealthy and fat? In a war does it matter if the guy laying down covering fire for you is a fag? Menial bullshit by people who are polishing the brass on the gaw-damn Titanic.

So many Americans wield this naive kind of an attitude about politics, military force and governement but we've been shown time and time again for decades that the people in power arent even normal people. They're friggin' idiots. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, the list goes on if you include more like.. VP's, congressmen.. just, bleh.

While I vote Obama, he has to back up those claims. The one claiming change since the beginning of his bid for the top seat better start us on the road to repair, otherwise he's going to lose all support. You lose the liberals, they might just tell the conservatives in the strong republican areas to go right ahead and 'assassinate that colored fella'.

Anyway.

 

[JohnnyThompson]

Repubs foolishly try to counter that blacks are voting Obama because he is Black ,but fail to tell you that they(Blacks) have voted overwhelmigly DEM the past four(4) decades:

'80(83% DEM) 84(91% DEM) 88(89% DEM) 92(83% DEM) 96(84% DEM)

2000 & 04(Blacks voted 90% & 88% Dem. so you cannot blame Blacks for Bush:1orglaugh)

That doesn't tell the whole story though...because many blacks that never voted before will vote for Obama simply because he is Black. The Republicans do have a point here. It is true that many people will not vote for Obama because he is Black but also many will because he is, either because they want to see and be a part of history OR because they are Black themselves or want a Black person as President.

 

[Facial_King]

That doesn't tell the whole story though...because many blacks that never voted before will vote for Obama simply because he is Black. The Republicans do have a point here. It is true that many people will not vote for Obama because he is Black but also many will because he is, either because they want to see and be a part of history OR because they are Black themselves or want a Black person as President.

...and plenty of whites who never voted before (or, in some cases, never voted GOP before) will vote for McCain simply because he is white, and they don't want a black guy in the White House.

:hatsoff:

 

[titsrock]

Not many people will be voting Republican this coming election. I suspect the Dems will see the greatest voter turnout in 40 years and the Pubs will see their lowest voter turnout in 40 years. Al Gore had 500,000 more votes than Dubya in 2000. Obama will have probably triple that edge coupled with wins in Florida and Ohio which might give him a thumping majority of electoral votes....

There does seem to be a problem with the way we conduct our elections because John McCain is the absolute worst Pub candidate for prez this cycle. Mitt Romney should be the Pub choice. I bet half the Pub base would be in favor of doing a candidate swap right now if they could do it.

Did anyone just sit back and laugh at McCain this week?

Monday--"The fundamentals of the economy are sound!"
Tuesday--"The fundamentals of the economy, meaning the AMERICAN WORKER!--are sound!"
Wednesday--"These are difficult times. I'm a deregulator by nature. We shouldn't bail out anything."
Thursday--"Clearly the bailout of AIG is needed and also the other companies that have received help needed our help, my friends."
Friday--"Senator Obama has not admitted his poor judgment in this crisis. Senator Obama has been ground zero of Washington insider politics and Wall St. corruption. We are at this critical situation because of Obama's mistakes! Oh and let's fire FEC chief Christopher Cox too, well, because I said so!"

 

[bombardier52]

Not many people will be voting Republican this coming election. I suspect the Dems will see the greatest voter turnout in 40 years and the Pubs will see their lowest voter turnout in 40 years. Al Gore had 500,000 more votes than Dubya in 2000. Obama will have probably triple that edge coupled with wins in Florida and Ohio which might give him a thumping majority of electoral votes....

There does seem to be a problem with the way we conduct our elections because John McCain is the absolute worst Pub candidate for prez this cycle. Mitt Romney should be the Pub choice. I bet half the Pub base would be in favor of doing a candidate swap right now if they could do it.

Did anyone just sit back and laugh at McCain this week?

Monday--"The fundamentals of the economy are sound!"
Tuesday--"The fundamentals of the economy, meaning the AMERICAN WORKER!--are sound!"
Wednesday--"These are difficult times. I'm a deregulator by nature. We shouldn't bail out anything."
Thursday--"Clearly the bailout of AIG is needed and also the other companies that have received help needed our help, my friends."
Friday--"Senator Obama has not admitted his poor judgment in this crisis. Senator Obama has been ground zero of Washington insider politics and Wall St. corruption. We are at this critical situation because of Obama's mistakes! Oh and let's fire FEC chief Christopher Cox too, well, because I said so!"

What makes you think it will be a thumping other then you think McCain is an idiot? I'm hearing a lot of excitment from people on the republican side that I haven't heard in months. I get the feeling it's going to be a close one again.

 

[titsrock]

Is it fair to keep a party in control of the White House given these economic times? Aren't we better off, as a nation, to honestly say, "Hmm. Things haven't turned out well in these past years. The economy, gas prices, inflation, pointless occupation in Iraq, no Osama, torturing, unemployment, empty homes and shops across the country, unsafe food and toys. Yup, it's time for new leadership in the White House."

Bombardier--are you aware of the Misery Index? The current Misery Index is at the same point as it was when Papa Bush was seeking reelection. He lost.

 

[bombardier52]

Is it fair to keep a party in control of the White House given these economic times? Aren't we better off, as a nation, to honestly say, "Hmm. Things haven't turned out well in these past years. The economy, gas prices, inflation, pointless occupation in Iraq, no Osama, torturing, unemployment, empty homes and shops across the country, unsafe food and toys. Yup, it's time for new leadership in the White House."

Bombardier--are you aware of the Misery Index? The current Misery Index is at the same point as it was when Papa Bush was seeking reelection. He lost.

I can see where you are coming from for sure. But your logic assumes an electorate using the same logic as you. Other than gas prices your list doesn't really sway me. Short of more oil or more nuclear power and much better electric cars I don't see where that can be solved.

 

[girk1]

That doesn't tell the whole story though...because many blacks that never voted before will vote for Obama simply because he is Black. The Republicans do have a point here. It is true that many people will not vote for Obama because he is Black but also many will because he is, either because they want to see and be a part of history OR because they are Black themselves or want a Black person as President.

What is it that people don't understand:dunno: African Americans have voted around 85% or better Democrat (VERY VERY WHITE DEMOCRATS like Al Gore/Mondale/Kerry) ever since 1964.
Blacks who had been disenfranchised for over a Century found a Party that is ACTIVELY INCLUSIVE , Empathetic,etc... For centuries BLAcks were EXCLUDED & shown little EMPATHY in this coutry yet no one can understand why they are attracted to what they saw in Denver (DNC).Did anyone see the diversity at the democratic convention?(Blacks/Whites/Hispanics/Gays/Pacific Islanders,etc.....)
Compare it with the sight at the Republican National convention.

If Alan Keyes(Black) had actually won the Republican nomination & ran against Kerry or Gore he still would have gotten no more of the Black vote than George Bush. IT is PLATFORM not color. There have been nearly 10 Black presidential candidates & they(Blacks) only supported two(Jesse Jackson & Obama) because they were both very inspirational guys. Yes more Blacks will be mobilized , but younger WHITES(especially college students) have been mobilized by Obama as well:dunno:

That is another Republican ploy to paint Obama as "THE BLACK" candidate when the guy captivated 200,00 WHITES in Germany, as well as millions of Whites in America & other countries:France,England,Africa,Brazil,etc.....


If Republicans would like to test this theory they are welcome to put Alan Keyes or Condi Rice on the ticket & see them get less than 10% Black vote as well.:wave2:

 

[MrSerena]

You really can't blame black people for wanting a black president, the US has never had one and maybe those blacks in the poorer ghettos of US cities will have a vastly improved life under Obama, in fact poor people of all races. Obamas tax breaks for the working and middle classes is a logical idea. The rich should have a tax increase, to basically generate extra wealth for the economy.

The rapper LL Cool J has said in a recent interview, that he was glad to pay more taxes, to help those in need.