The impossibility of everyone being rich

[_ajax18]

Yes, I failed to account for outright lies and dishonest pandering to the poorer ranks in the Republican party.

Perhaps the greatest political feat of all time has been the success of the Republican party in convincing so many poor people to vote against their own self interests, even to the point of getting them to defend the right of rich people and corporations to avoid paying taxes.

I'v heard plenty of guilt trips for not wanting to give up more of my paltry wage to nonworkers, teen breeders, and immigrants but I've never heard that it was in my self interest to do so.

It's also impossible for all of the billion people in this world who would like to come to the U.S.A., have babies on American soil, capitalize on free healthcare. education, and affirmative action and live the American dream to do so.

I never made even close to $200k/year and I am firmly confident that it's been in my best interest to be Republican.

[_EAllusion]

It might fulfill your abstract moral interests Ajax, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there's pretty much no way that it is in your personal economic self-interest to consistently vote Republican. You're a beneficiary of wealth redistribution, not a victim.

I personally despise the liberal cliché' of bemoaning that so many working class people vote Republican against their own economic self-interest because the implication is that one ought to vote one's pocketbook. I find that appalling. You should vote for what is right, not what personally benefits you. When they align, great. When they don't, do the right thing. Moreover, it's not as though economics is the only issue that political parties have an affect on.

It's also impossible for all of the billion people in this world who would like to come to the U.S.A., have babies on American soil, capitalize on free healthcare. education, and affirmative action and live the American dream to do so.

I think you've confused America with Canada.

[_Kevin Graham]

I personally despise the liberal cliché' of bemoaning that so many working class people vote Republican against their own economic self-interest because the implication is that one ought to vote in one's pocketbook. I find that appalling. You should vote for what is right, not what personally benefits you. When they align, great. When they don't, do the right thing. Moreover, it's not as though economics is the only issue that political parties have an affect on

I don't find it appalling at all because it is just a fact of reality. We're not saying vote Democrat because you'll get more money in return. That isn't it at all and makes no sense really. So by voting Democrat because I don't want my union outlawed, my wages decreased, my taxes increase to pay for Bank bailouts, etc, I'm being selfish? No, I'm just defending my rights as a worker, which are under constant attack by the far Right.

We're saying that if you vote Republican, you're electing officials who do not care for your interests. So workers voting republican are voting for a group of politicians who are generally against unions, against workers rights, against progressive taxes, against unemployment benefits, etc. It is a matter of not pulling the trigger of the gun aimed at your own head. It isn't a matter of stuffing your own pockets. But wealthy Republicans generally vote republican for THAT EXACT REASON. They know that a Republican President is almost always going to be trying to cut his taxes, decrease regulations on corporations so the wealthy can continue to screw over everyone else. For them it is all about getting more money and using government power to do it. For Democrats it is about social and economic justice for the most part. No one is going to get rich for voting Democrat. But when corporations are willing to dump hundreds of millions into a Republican's campiagn, that's because they know they will get twice that in return. It is just another business investment in their eyes. Buying politicians. Democrats are for sale too, but Republicans follow a political ideology that is friendlier to venture capitalists who are always looking for a quick return on a risky investment.

I think you've confused America with Canada.

LOL! True that.

[Guest]

I have something in common with low-income tea partiers. I vote against my own bottom line almost every election.

If things go as I hope they will, my taxes will go up at the end of this year. But I believe we will all be better off, because important government programs we all need will be better funded.

Many low-income conservative voters I have talked with live in a fantasy world, however. They believe they are actually paying to support other moochers (usually minorities), even though they pay next to nothing themselves.

[_krose]

Ajax:

I asked this in another thread, but perhaps you didn't see it.

You continue to talk about welfare spending. What do you include in the category of "welfare spending" by the federal government, other than the obvious food stamp program?

[_Kevin Graham]

I have something in common with low-income tea partiers. I vote against my own bottom line almost every election.

If things go as I hope they will, my taxes will go up at the end of this year. But I believe we will all be better off, because important government programs we all need will be better funded.

Many low-income conservative voters I have talked with live in a fantasy world, however. They believe they are actually paying to support other moochers (usually minorities), even though they pay next to nothing themselves.

That's actually a great point Krose!

[_ajax18]

Ajax:

I asked this in another thread, but perhaps you didn't see it.

You continue to talk about welfare spending. What do you include in the category of "welfare spending" by the federal government, other than the obvious food stamp program?

I saw it but I didn't respond because I didn't see it going anywhere. Granted some of these come under state government, but it's still welfare.

disability
social security
medicare
medicaid
pre-school
public education to a large extent
government subsidized housing
and many more less obvious welfare programs like the government programs to teach illegal immigrants English such as the one I actually had a job doing and subsequently lost because it became clear under the Bush administration that these people were far from legal.

Roads, national defense, a limited police force... those are things that everybody should benefit from in theory. On the contrary, the first list above is only available to those who find favor in the eyes of the government bureaucret empowered to distribute them. If you're denied you're only option is to spend more money in legal fees trying to fight it in court. The rich are a small portion of tax revenue because there aren't near as many of them as we like to think and they have the resources necessary to get out of paying. The way I see it the middle class is basically being asked to pay for the above programs twice, once for themselves and once again for those who can't/won't. It's similar to the uninsured motorist insurance coverage we're required by law to purchase to insure us against those who refuse to pay for car insurance.

When I look at the level of dental care provided to medicaid children vs. what is available to children of middle class parents with private health insurance policies, the level of unfairness becomes even more stark. It's a total screw on the middle class. You're really better off adopting a strategy for survival in which you look as poor as possible on paper, have your children young when you can't pay for it, and spending what little you have immediately. Saving and planning is being punished instead of rewarded.

[_ajax18]

But I believe we will all be better off, because important government programs we all need will be better funded.

Are you including yourself in the "we" that will be better off? How is that possible if you're voting against you're own bottom line.

[_ajax18]

It might fulfill your abstract moral interests Ajax, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there's pretty much no way that it is in your personal economic self-interest to consistently vote Republican

How little would a person have to make before it is in his financial interest to vote Democrat? Let's assume he has three children which is the maximum number you can have if I understand it correctly (and if it's consistently applied this way) that you can have and get a tax break for doing so. I can't imagine that would be $200k/year would it?

[_moksha]

If I were a mouse, I would vote for Cheese, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Doesn't matter if the sound bite is benighted, Mitt has his finger on our tiny pulse.

This bring to mind the heart-head separation. Everyone wants a mountain of cheese, but our heads should tell us there is but a finite amount of cheese. Even with increased cheese, the Mitt's of the world would still hoard the Camembert.

I hope my brothers down in the hole will not all fall victims to this refined Heartsell®.