Vote For Your Self Interest

Dog Gone and I got a bit off the original topic here.  However I thought it would make a good post.  For all the comments, see this post. MPP How to Register Voters  Below are the snippets I want to focus on.  (side note: I am having a terrible time getting longer comments to publish over there so I'll also give my follow up thoughts here.)

"The term Low Information Voter is used by liberals to refer to those conservatives who foolishly vote against their self-interest. But it is NOT by any stretch a term unique to liberals in describing conservative voters. " Dog Gone

  

"I didn’t mean to tweak you. I thought I was in essence repeating what Eric said…“Registering new voters is probably the best way to make the elephant unhappy, given that non-voters who turn into voters tend to vote for the donkey.” The reality is that if they do not make the time to register, politics and voting isn’t very high on their priority list. I do like Dog’s addition though… “The term Low Information Voter is used by liberals to refer to those conservatives who foolishly vote against their self-interest.” So it seems that in Dog’s view a “high information voter” is one who votes for their “self interest”. No wonder our National Debt is so huge and the DFL likes to give things away to encourage voters. Dog apparently thinks it is a good thing that people are voting for low taxes and lots of pork/welfare. Personally I would think a “high information voter” would make responsible decisions that would be good for the country that has been so good to all of us…" G2A

 

"No, you weren’t just repeating what I said, and even after I explained it explicitly, you still don’t get it. You still seem unable to see the assumptions you’re making. The GOP seems unable to understand why they just can’t make any progress among certain groups. I’d rather Republicans treated them better rather than just handing their votes to us, but if Republicans want to go on assuming derogatory things, rather than learning about other people’s lives, Democrats will accept their votes." Eric Ferguson

 

So, why do you believe non-voters later vote for the donkey? These are people who were non-voters. Meaning they had not prioritized this civil responsibility high enough to get registered and vote. Now the DFL contacts them and cajoles them into getting registered… Does this bode well? “Registering new voters is probably the best way to make the elephant unhappy, given that non-voters who turn into voters tend to vote for the donkey.” By the way, do you agree with Dog that people should vote for what benefits themselves most? Be it pork, welfare, programs or low taxes…" G2A

 

"I believe that because that’s what the political scientists have told us. Yes, it bodes well, and the contempt you have for people you know nothing about is just dripping, yet you can’t see the puddle you’re making. Like I explained before, there are all sorts of circumstances people come from, but I guess if Republicans won’t challenge their own assumptions, good for Democrats." EF

 

"Now Eric, this statement is a cop out. “I believe that because that’s what the political scientists have told us.” Even Andrew did a better job of answering the question. “And yes, these people tend to be younger, older, less affluent, and with a higher percentage of communities of color and new immigrants i.e. Democrats.” By the way, there is no contempt here. I am a very pragmatic individual. Per Dog’s statement, you want to get these people out to vote for their self interest. (ie govt programs, welfare, education benefits, social security, medicaid, medicare, etc) You know the “free stuff”.  Just as the Conservatives want to get the people out who have to pay for this “free stuff”. Thereby voting in their own self interest. Seems pretty simple to me. How do you see it as more complicated?" G2A

  

"In response to ” Conservatives want to get the people out who have to pay for this free stuff. Thereby voting in their own self interest. ” Actually, conservatives have been conned into this story. Basically government creates wealth and better society for all. Because of this free stuff con game, the wealth has shifted to the richest few. This shift is very well documented. So conservatives are voting for the wealthy to get even more. Furthermore we used to have free stuff like clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Now conservatives are ensuring that toxins fill both. Conservatives basically are setting us all up for cancer and health problems. Oh, and conservatives want to ensure that we don’t know what is in our water, our food or other products. Because then we customers could make informed choices . Instead the rich get richer with shortcuts that we customers would not knowingly endorse or purchase. Conservative is just another name for conned." Grace Kelly

 

"I am not even sure where to go with this one… I mean it seems to me that Liberals want people to vote their self interest like Dog said. And they want people to have food, clothing, medical care, housing, education, clean air, clean water, etc whether the choose to work productively for it, or sit on their butts and wait for it to be handed to them. I just can’t see rewarding dead beats at the expense of the productive people as being good for America and the majority of her citizens." G2A

 

"As usual G2, you are factually deficient. Voting against one’s self-interest is when people vote for destructive politicians and policies, like those which increase the wealth and income gap, to their own and the nation’s detriment. And FYI – those rewards go to people who are not productive and who do not get paid on merit. (Let me know if you need me to supply those studies, data, etc.)

 

There is no problem with people refusing to work productively, having benefits handed to them. That’s garbage on your part – aka more willful ignorance. Do you need to have the Ronnie Ray-gun era myth about welfare queens debunked AGAIN? Or can you manage that for yourself without my doing it for you? Do you demand that children, the elderly, and those who are too impaired to work do so – or starve, etc.? Do you REALLY fail to understand the reality – with which conservative belief is disconnected, completely – that poor people DO work? Or do you figure swigging the kool aid of willful ignorance is all you need to do? You’re wrong, on all counts. Again.

 

Try this on for size:    http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-20379773/the-working-poor-and-welfare-recipiency-participation     http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/09/03/food-stamps-public-policy-and-the-working-poor/

 

I particularly like the concluding paragraph of that second article: This kind of data inspires me to ask if this is what a functional economy looks like. We have policies — e.g., the federal minimum wage and somewhat laissez faire free market policies — that create a situation in which working full time doesn’t allow a single parent to support even one child. When we hear criticisms of people who receive benefits, then, we should be careful to remember that their economic crisis is not a straightforwardly personal characteristic, one that can be explained by a poor work ethic or disorderly personality. There are structural reasons that people end up in need. We have three choices: let them suffer and perhaps die, help them, or change our society.

 

Then there was this comment on poverty facts, from the working poor project. Facts about poverty

http://www.ehow.com/about_5311384_public-welfare-benefits.html#ixzz2bhxIz0Uu

 

The Working Poor Families Project (WPFP) reported that close to 42 million working families (one in four families) were poor, with 5.5 million families spending more than a third of their income on housing. The same project reported that approximately 29.4 million low-income working families held jobs paying below the poverty threshold. About 72 percent of low-income families held a job, and married couples headed 52 percent of these families(WPFP 2008).

 

You would do well to check out the research compiled from next door in WI on poverty; they do an excellent job:

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research.htm

 

If you are worried about rewaring deadbeats, then you should be concerned about the executive compensation paid without regard to merit or performance:

 

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2012

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-11-04/why-we-need-to-limit-executive-compensationbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67800609/Effects-of-Excessive-CEO-Pay-on-U-S-Society-by-Russell-S-Whelton

 

Happy to sort you out with a refresher in facts; the data on excessive compensation without merit or justification by performance is HUGE. Sort of like the massive documentation on the effects of poverty on performance, it is so huge it is hard to understand how you could miss it, short of willful ignorance G2. It is not the poor who are receiving too many benefits, it is the wealthy. Time for us to end the redistribution of wealth to the 1% and to redistribute it back to those who deserve it through their work and high productivity levels. By all means, let us stop rewarding the deadbeats – at the top.  Read more:" DG

 

"Do I need to run the Pelosi video for you again? Yes welfare kings and queens are still very real and with us. With a large group or team, there are always some deadbeats / free loaders. To deny this is to deny human behavior. Or do you also believe there are no thieves, identity thieves, etc. Are you okay with raising the minimum wage to $12/hr and gutting welfare then. Since you say all those folks want to work, maybe that would be a good trade off." G2A

 

"No, welfare kings and queens were never real and are not real now. Welfare fraud is rare, far more rare than righties believe. I’d love to see the minimum wage go closer to $15, with a rise in the next five years or so to $21 an hour. It wouldn’t gut welfare, it would put more people into the tax base to pay for it; it would remain means tested." DG

 

"Please acquaint yourself with the actual large mountain of carefully accumulated data, well analyzed, peer reviewed, that says you’re wrong. Then be so kind as to demonstrate for me with similarly researched fact, not your usual ‘I know a guy who used to know someone that lived next to someone who…’ stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen  We don’t end a government program that assists people who need it because of the existence of identity theft, which in any case is not what people usually mean by welfare fraud anyway.

 

Are you in favor, G2, of child labor of the kind we outlawed after the Dickensian era of abuse? Or do you want to see the elderly work until they drop dead in their tracks? How about the disabled, should they just be allowed to starve, to die without medical care? And you seem to be singularly silent about the payment of excessive compensation to the executive class aka the ‘C’ class (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) without any justification of merit or performance, yet you begrudge those who have high productivity earning a living wage? How utterly devoid of logic or moral and ethical value, not to mention utility, is that kind of failed right wing thinking? Crickets are getting mighty loud while we wait for your moral outrage on that front. Try again G2; you’ve failed to provide either a rational or well-informed answer again." DG

 

"I am quiet because MPP is malfunctioning often for me…" G2A

With all that said, what do you think:

1. Should people vote their own personal self interest or for something greater?
2. Why do you think Andrew's statement is true? “And yes, these people tend to be younger, older, less affluent, and with a higher percentage of communities of color and new immigrants i.e. Democrats.”  Is it because they are all social Liberals, or is it because they are voting in their best self interest? (ie programs, cash, reverse discrimination, illegal alien pardons, etc ...)
3. We know about blatant welfare fraud where people apply for more benefits than one person deserves, or when they sell their TANFF to get cash. But how would one quantify the number of people committing welfare fraud via lack of effort?  Meaning they could be getting an education, but don't.  They could be working, but don't. They could get or stay married, but don't?  In other words they find the subsistence life style acceptable enough, that it is not worth the struggle for them to attain more.  I had a friend who once delayed marrying his girl friend because the wic, housing assistance, etc was too good a gift to pass up.  Probably a good thing since they did not make it to the alter.
4. If we jacked up the minimum wage, would the Liberals let us slash Welfare, Medicaid, etc? Though I wonder what a burger would cost if DG got his way...

 Finally, just because I copied DG's comments verbatim...  Please do not let his questionable style taint the very polite way you usually address each other.  Thoughts?