Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Voting against your interests...
SFGbob
Member Posts: 32,205
in Tug Tavern
One of the favorite criticisms that leftists have of conservative/Republican voters is how they vote against their "class" interests. Now libs usually drop the word class but when they talk about voting against your interests that's what they mean.
Their argument is essentially that middle class Republicans would be better off if they voted for the Rats because the Republican only care about the rich people and the Rats want to give you all kinds of "free" shit paid for by the rich people that would benefit the middle class Republicans.
Putting aside that this is a completely Marxist world view, I've always wondered how liberals think it's in a middle class family's interest to support something like the Green New deal which is going to screw middle class families with higher energy costs, and tons of dislocation and pain while we transition to this new Green utopia. We've just seen California pull the plug on the their high-speed rail project after wasting billions of our tax dollars. How does trying to duplicate that boondoggle all across the nation benefit the interests of middle class voters. And before you claim that AOC and company will do it smarter and better than California did, what's your basis for making that claim? A complete Federally funded high speed rail system will face the very same corruption, land use issues, environmental hurdles, not to mention that people don't want to ride trains when they can fly, just like they did here in California.
How is it in the middle-classes interest to pay for this?
Their argument is essentially that middle class Republicans would be better off if they voted for the Rats because the Republican only care about the rich people and the Rats want to give you all kinds of "free" shit paid for by the rich people that would benefit the middle class Republicans.
Putting aside that this is a completely Marxist world view, I've always wondered how liberals think it's in a middle class family's interest to support something like the Green New deal which is going to screw middle class families with higher energy costs, and tons of dislocation and pain while we transition to this new Green utopia. We've just seen California pull the plug on the their high-speed rail project after wasting billions of our tax dollars. How does trying to duplicate that boondoggle all across the nation benefit the interests of middle class voters. And before you claim that AOC and company will do it smarter and better than California did, what's your basis for making that claim? A complete Federally funded high speed rail system will face the very same corruption, land use issues, environmental hurdles, not to mention that people don't want to ride trains when they can fly, just like they did here in California.
How is it in the middle-classes interest to pay for this?
Comments
And before you go bananas about citing evidence and proof and all that happy horse shit, let's level set and say this is all anecdotal. There's no big data study out there validating this point one way or the other. I will concede that it is a talking point of those who are politically sympathetic to the left. So be it.
But, I'm one person who has made that very statement. And I've heard it made several times over. In each instance, we? were not talking about truly middle class people. We? were talking about old people on limited fixed incomes and others who rely on government subsidy of one kind or the other for various reasons. And, able bodied people who are unencumbered but just don't make a lot of money ... low education, low whatever. They're poor now and they'll be poor when they're old. A lot of those people, right or wrong, are in Trump's base. A lot of other people are in his base, too, but we're not talking about those people.
The basic reason for the comment is that, from a distance anyway, it would appear that a McConnell-led senate would be at least slightly more hostile to entitlement and safety net programs than would the other side. I'm sure there are 50,000 counters to that admittedly very generalized claim, but there you have it. So, for example, I made the comment to my in-laws, at least one of whom will no doubt wind up on my door step. I like their odds better under a Democratic regime, at least for the medium term, than under a neo-populist Rep. regimen. My in-laws have nothing to gain by being pulled in, as they are, to imaginary border emergencies and other loaded calls to patriotism for the purpose of supporting a bunch of shit that has little or nothing to do with their well being. They need strong SS and Medicare benefits. That's what they need. Not protection from Mexicans.
I'm all ears.
There's no big data point validating that leftist are constantly talking about Republican voters voting against their interests?
Man that was some long winded bullshit just to say you had nothing.
I assume you don't think poorly of the rich people who support the Rats, voting against their class interests, correct?
I made a point that in my anecdotal experience, X is the case, not Y, as you painted it. The fabled study to which I refer, and said didn't exist, is one that would 'prove', as you are fond of demanding of others (but not everybody), that your version of it is right and mine is wrong, or vice versa.
Comprende ese? And you go around taking people to task for not responding with substance. LOL.
I thought you were so fucking smart and good at debating substance. It turns out you're just a little girl who needs to change her tampon, but who will post 80,000 times until you get the last word. What a worthless piece of shit your whore mother shat out of her ass the day you were born.
Can't wait for you to come back and bring up some made-up victory of yours from 3 weeks ago.
You have absolutely nothing.
There's no big data study out there validating this point one way or the other.
So you're a wordy liar.
Yes, but that's not the point for making the comment. Implicit in any such comment is a view by the person making it that some interests are more important than others. If I thought that they'd be better off financially, or more financially secure, with one party over another, I'd conclude that it's in their interests to vote for that party, notwithstanding that the other party may do, or talk about doing, a bunch of other shit that they like. That's my bias, and I own it. When you're old and you didn't make a lot of money or invest well, your fixed income is more important than a bunch of Mexicans rolling into California to do yard work ... in my view. You and my father-in-law can think about it however you want. My experience with the comment is hat people making it are targeting people well below middle class or otherwise dependent on the government.
Correct, I do not think poorly of a wealthy guy voting for a party who will take more of his money to hand out to other people. Those are different things. He will still have money, just less of it.
This is a lot of long winded bullshit to contradict yourself
How does it help struggling workers?
People really don't need you to tell them what's good for them
If it makes you feel better, I'll say it explicitly, lest you accuse me of not being straight forward: the union labor man today should be aligned with this administration. The establishment Republican, not so much. That's where the neo in neo-populism comes in. And, PS, I didn't say "who cares?" Again, it just is what it is.
My father-in-law was a union carpenter. He's now a retired union carpenter. His pension doesn't quite cut it in Olympia, so SS matters to him. Medicare, I think, matters to almost all old and retired people. No. Mexicans competing for work in a free market economy are not his #1 concern, though he thinks it is.
If you think the odds for SS, Medicare and entitlement programs are better served with today's right than today's left, I'm all ears. I expected my taxes to go up if Hillary won, and to go down if Trump won. I knew where my interests were best served.
You seem a little jumpy.
The biggest threat to Medicare would be expanding it to everyone, which would necessitate rationing and longer waiting periods.
So maybe they are actually voting their interests and not the bullshit boogie man the Rats have been flogging for 40 years
And windy