good points, let me try to explain my point of view. Lets get 2 groups of people A and B. A is middle class and above while B is lower middle class and below. Lets assume that B is larger than A and is growing larger than A. (should be an easy assumption since it is similar to reality) Assuming free markets and whatnot, with the mantra of self reliance, I would think that the majority B would eventually get tired of hearing that they are poor because they don't work enough..... tired of blaming themselves for everything when they are constantly seeing others living better that seem no less deserving than they do. The majority now think that something should be done, given the democracy/republic in govt. affairs it is possible to do something about it and demand things.
So here is the breaking point. Things can be given to group B little by little through the political process. If nothing happens for group B what will then happen. I would assume that you anger a group (especially a majority) enough that the result would be riots/revolution and other forms of rebellion.
If you think that revolts won't happen, ask yourself this.. Who has more to loose, the guy with a house, business, cars, workers (Group A) or the guys flipping burgers (sorry all you burger flippers) (Group B).
So if group A doesn't give in, the result is chaos. The point at which chaos will happen is seen as being further away (more extreme differences in groups A and B) for republicans and closer (less differences in groups A and B) for democrats.
So did any of this make sense? It did in my mind, but I don't know now. How else can you justify the democratic point of view of more govt programs (ie. moving to more socialistic)? It can't be that they are in it (to be more socialistic) for personal gains can it? Seems difficult to make money by giving it to people. I guess it depends whose money they are giving away.
Keep it going. Good thoughts.
