Uncle Sam is their Sugar Daddy

[Mojo]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

This has been brought up before, but can use another reinforcement. Secular women (and even church women) have drifted further towards liberal politics. One of the big reasons? Uncle Sam provides the protections they either reject or don't feel confident in receiving from the men around them. The article mentions poverty becoming a female phenomenon.

Wonder why? I believe it's two-pronged.

1) These women are rejecting the thought of a protector/provider man and rely on Uncle Sam.
2) Many men are not reliable enough to be trusted with being strong leaders and providers (wussification)

Thoughts?

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps because the Democratic Party has become reliant on winning female votes, its policies are attuned to women’s priorities. Women are more likely to live below the poverty threshold and rely on food stamps and other welfare services—part of a global phenomenon known as “the feminization of poverty.” This fact may make them more receptive to Democrats’ relatively consistent promises to expand the welfare state.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It’s fascinating. What is even more intriguing is that married women tend to be much more conservative than unmarried women.

 

[rockfox]

It’s fascinating. What is even more intriguing is that married women tend to be much more conservative than unmarried women.

That is a big key that the article completely ignores. As marriage rates have gone down, the share of women voting liberal has gone up.

The article is merely an attempt to paint the GOP as the problem, and as being anti-woman. Case in point...

Women’s politics changed a little, and party politics changed a lot.

Which is ridiculous as the modern GOP is far to the left of where it used to be, and the same goes for society as a whole.

Women tend to care about security, provision, fairness, and inclusiveness; as you would want from a mother watching over a house. But that instinct backfires in the realm of making wise decisions in politics.

 

[Mojo]

Which is ridiculous as the modern GOP is far to the left of where it used to be, and the same goes for society as a whole.

Socially, further right.
Fiscally, much further left.

I'm old enough to remember the term of Rockefeller Republican. That's pretty far left.

I'm not sure when a Republican president or Congress last submitted a balanced budget or seriously tried to cut spending. Republicans used to be deficit hawks and the party of responsible fiscal policy. Bush pushed Medicare C and Trump has talked about huge infrastructure spending. Our debt (under a a Republican) is outrageous....I don't want to keep going. That used to be the territory of the Left.

But, at least rhetorically, men of all stripes see the world of politics much differently than the average modern, "liberated" woman (who isn't really liberated. She's tied the knot with Uncle Sam long ago).

 

[steve]

I'm not sure when a Republican president or Congress last submitted a balanced budget or seriously tried to cut spending. Republicans used to be deficit hawks and the party of responsible fiscal policy. Bush pushed Medicare C and Trump has talked about huge infrastructure spending. Our debt (under a a Republican) is outrageous....I don't want to keep going. That used to be the territory of the Left.

The Bush’s were not conservative, they were globalists in league with the left.
Trump has been fighting the war on many levels but has chosen to play the existing fiscal game because he didn’t have enough authority to win on that level also. I think that we have entered a new era, now that the left has expended all of their ammunition and strengthened him in the process. The next five years will be very different.

Yes, females were created to nurture. We need their strength of nurturing in the family, but government fails when it focuses on nurturing. The reason that government exists is to protect, and that is what males were designed to do.
When women are in proper relationship with men, the two genders moderate each other. Women vote conservatively and men govern benevolently.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think everyone's realised they're never actually going to ever pay off their debts, so they've decided to just keep spending until there's an excuse to default on it all. Both sides of the political aisle, most Western countries - but the USA in particular, as given the reserve status of the dollar they've got even more freedom to spend without consequence.

And when you don't have to balance the books, you don't have to tax fairly either. You can freely use taxes to punish "bad" stuff and tax breaks or subsidies to reward "good" stuff, without caring whether it all balances in the end. Tax becomes a social manipulation tool rather than the source of your budget. This is why we're getting "sin taxes" all over the West, especially in the area of global warming hysteria.

 

[FollowingHim]

Just saw this, and I think some of you will find it quite interesting:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/crash-party

History shows Republican control of government is historically rare and when this control happens for more than 2 years a market crash has occurred every single time.

Don’t yell at me, that’s just the history. If there’s a crash the GOP controlled the Senate for more than 2 years. Every single time. The ONLY time that there was no crash was during the 2 years the GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency in the 2 year period in 1954-1955. But as soon as the Senate is controlled by Republicans for more than 2 years a crash has occurred every single time.

 

[steve]

Evidently every time that it’s due to crash three years down the road because of the policies put in place by the Democrats, they let the Republicans have the reins and take the fall.

 

[FollowingHim]

And that is seriously a possibility. Over here, there's a tag-team approach between the two major parties. We have 3 year political terms, and very consistently each party is in power for 3 terms, then the other for 3 terms, and back.

Our nominally "left-wing" party, Labour, is in for 9 years. They introduce all the new, radical ideas that the powers-that-be want to introduce. Spend tonnes of money and raise taxes to achieve it.

Then the nominally "right-wing" party (that's actually just "not-quite-so-far-left"), National, gets the reins. They inherit an economy in disarray, but crucially they don't repeal anything Labour put in place. They manage the dip in the economy, fine-tune everything, and make small adjustments to whatever Labour did to make it work smoothly. They also, by not repealing it and getting it working, normalise it all in the minds of the people (particularly important when the changes were moral rather than economic).

Once the economy is working well again, and what was "radical" 18 years ago (before Labour started their previous run in power) has been completely accepted by the electorate, and there are new ideas to be promoted to the populace through the media, they vote Labour back in to make the next run of radical changes. Labour inherits a good, working economy, and presides over the boom years, using the freedom these times give them to implement new policies, until the boom has been destroyed again.

Left, right, left, right, marching each with a clearly defined role in the march to a common destination, while most of the populace think they're in a real democracy.

Everywhere's the same.

 

[Joleneakamama]

And that is seriously a possibility. Over here, there's a tag-team approach between the two major parties. We have 3 year political terms, and very consistently each party is in power for 3 terms, then the other for 3 terms, and back.

Our nominally "left-wing" party, Labour, is in for 9 years. They introduce all the new, radical ideas that the powers-that-be want to introduce. Spend tonnes of money and raise taxes to achieve it.

Then the nominally "right-wing" party (that's actually just "not-quite-so-far-left"), National, gets the reins. They inherit an economy in disarray, but crucially they don't repeal anything Labour put in place. They manage the dip in the economy, fine-tune everything, and make small adjustments to whatever Labour did to make it work smoothly. They also, by not repealing it and getting it working, normalise it all in the minds of the people (particularly important when the changes were moral rather than economic).

Once the economy is working well again, and what was "radical" 18 years ago (before Labour started their previous run in power) has been completely accepted by the electorate, and there are new ideas to be promoted to the populace through the media, they vote Labour back in to make the next run of radical changes. Labour inherits a good, working economy, and presides over the boom years, using the freedom these times give them to implement new policies, until the boom has been destroyed again.

Left, right, left, right, marching each with a clearly defined role in the march to a common destination, while most of the populace think they're in a real democracy.

Everywhere's the same.

Mystery Babylon's M.O. neatly articulated! When people figure out who is behind it "Rumplestillskin's" game is up and the great whore gets paid back. I wish more Christians could see that "The emperor has no clothes" (authority from Yah to do what it's doing). It's like a runaway train that YHWH is steering. All we can do is trust Him.

 

[rockfox]

That used to be the territory of the Left.

Exactly, since FDR the Democrats have been pushing the marker left, while the GOP complains, but when the GOP comes to power they staunchly defend the status quo.

But go back 150 years, and both parties were far more socially conservative than the GOP is now. In the details though it gets a little trickier as while the GOP was generally conservative, the southern Democrats were staunch traditionalists. So for example the GOP seems to have been bigger boosters of women's voting. However prior to the rise of Rockefeller Republican's, the party old guard was very much more conservative. Regional differences complicate things too. In the late 20th century rural state Dems were much more conservative than coastal GOPers. But with the DNC becoming the funny farm, that dynamic is mostly gone.

But this idea that the GOP courting the Evangelical right made them somehow more socially conservative doesn't really amount to much; they're mostly 2nd or 3rd wave feminists.

Evidently every time that it’s due to crash three years down the road because of the policies put in place by the Democrats, they let the Republicans have the reins and take the fall.

Close. It's because crashes are engineered by the Federal Reserve, the control of which does not change.

Then the nominally "right-wing" party (that's actually just "not-quite-so-far-left"), National, gets the reins. They inherit an economy in disarray, but crucially they don't repeal anything Labour put in place. They manage the dip in the economy, fine-tune everything, and make small adjustments to whatever Labour did to make it work smoothly. They also, by not repealing it and getting it working, normalise it all in the minds of the people (particularly important when the changes were moral rather than economic).

Once the economy is working well again, and what was "radical" 18 years ago (before Labour started their previous run in power) has been completely accepted by the electorate, and there are new ideas to be promoted to the populace through the media, they vote Labour back in to make the next run of radical changes. Labour inherits a good, working economy, and presides over the boom years, using the freedom these times give them to implement new policies, until the boom has been destroyed again.

Left, right, left, right, marching each with a clearly defined role in the march to a common destination, while most of the populace think they're in a real democracy.

Everywhere's the same.

Same here in the US. This is a function of the artificial left-right political spectrum. This is less of a problem in the EU though in those countries which have parliamentary systems. 'Conservatives' conserve the status quo, whatever that may be. They never actually roll anything back.

 

[Joleneakamama]

. It's because crashes are engineered by the Federal Reserve, the control of which does not change.

True.
The book "Billions for the Bankers Debts for the people" is good. Most people just think the way it is is normal.
Of course I like The Money Masters documentary too.

Eye opening. Too bad most average Americans want to "see" tv programs instead of truth.