quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
????????
ROFL
No, dude, there really are only two types of REAL Republicans. The first type is the already-rich type. That's the first group in my quote of your post. The second group is the hoping-to-get-rich Republicans. Those are the second group in the quote.
Everybody else who calls themselves a Republican just THINKS the party is on their side. In reality, the GOP is about getting rich and staying rich. That's all, as far as I can tell, anyway.
posted
Note to forestall "why are you saying leftists have no princples?"... I'm not. I'm of the opinion that a great many on both sides hold their views because of their principles.
My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
By the way, the inverse is true for the other side, of course. High-income Democrats vote that way because they think it's immoral not to redistribute wealth, even if they will end up losing more in that scenario. Of course, they commonly get lauded for selflessness, while low-income Republicans get mocked for being so stupid that they vote against their own "interests."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would love to see what fantastic legislation was drafted because we're holding the administrations feet to the fire on Operation Fast and Furious as well as Benghazi. I mean, I'm sure we got something good because that's where Rep. Kelly's attention turned to.
posted
It's almost as though House Republicans have made a career and a political platform out of shouting at Obama and derailing anything which might be politically good for him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Note to forestall "why are you saying leftists have no princples?"... I'm not. I'm of the opinion that a great many on both sides hold their views because of their principles.
My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
By the way, the inverse is true for the other side, of course. High-income Democrats vote that way because they think it's immoral not to redistribute wealth, even if they will end up losing more in that scenario. Of course, they commonly get lauded for selflessness, while low-income Republicans get mocked for being so stupid that they vote against their own "interests."
The voting against their interest line is for when low income earners are taught by the right wing media to vote against programs like the Affordable Care Act, or vote to dismantle Social Security because of lies and misinformation. Such as "Social Security is bankrupt" and "death panels" and so on.
For example SS reform and privatization that "protects seniors" means insuring that the next generation won't benefit for it, misinformation campaign by the GOP has made it endemic to the discourse that sometime soon the current 20-30 somethings will not see any SS payments, so they vote against SS and thus against their interests because of Republican misinformation.
IP: Logged |
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
Just to be clear, are you saying that low-income Republicans vote against such programs out of ideological/moral opposition more, less, or about as much as enlightened self interest informed by the belief that such programs are actually bad for the country and wouldn't help them anyway?
Because if so, there's an odd short circuit somewhere. The conservative/Republican ideal goes something like this: government programs (such as those we're alluding to) are inefficient and wasteful from the outset, being managed by faraway state and federal government; they take your wealth and redistribute it, when if left in your hands and those of your neighbors would be better spent to the benefit of all; finally, many of these programs are disguises for other less desirable government efforts such as socialism, communism, death panels, and the government making health care decisions for you.
I think with some potential shifting of emphasis, you and I would agree that's what the party line is, right Dan? Given that, how much of a moral position is it, exactly, to oppose such government efforts? It's not as though they believe 'our lives would be better if we took these programs', or is it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution.
That's just the thing, though. If they vote for republicans because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, they fail both their interests and their principles.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Some people enjoy being the tied up and beaten person in S and M.
Some low income people enjoy being Republicans.
It takes all sorts, my nan used to say.
Yeah, principles, how ridiculous and incomprehensible.
Enlightened pragmatism beats principles every time. Principles are for people testing a theory. Enlightened pragmatism is for people who realize that the fate of the largest economy in the world is too important to be risked by people testing principles.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
Just to be clear, are you saying that low-income Republicans vote against such programs out of ideological/moral opposition more, less, or about as much as enlightened self interest informed by the belief that such programs are actually bad for the country and wouldn't help them anyway?
Because if so, there's an odd short circuit somewhere. The conservative/Republican ideal goes something like this: government programs (such as those we're alluding to) are inefficient and wasteful from the outset, being managed by faraway state and federal government; they take your wealth and redistribute it, when if left in your hands and those of your neighbors would be better spent to the benefit of all; finally, many of these programs are disguises for other less desirable government efforts such as socialism, communism, death panels, and the government making health care decisions for you.
I think with some potential shifting of emphasis, you and I would agree that's what the party line is, right Dan? Given that, how much of a moral position is it, exactly, to oppose such government efforts? It's not as though they believe 'our lives would be better if we took these programs', or is it?
Well, no, because they wouldn't be better!
But that's essentially an aside to what I'm saying. Let me back up. I'll start with an assertion: Many people who vote Republican do so because they think that taking money from one person against their will and spending it on someone else is immoral.
Do you think my assertion is true or false? Note: I'm not asking if you think what they believe is true or false. I don't care for the purposes of this discussion.
Also note: It's irrelevant if they have different definitions of what counts as "spending money on someone else," too. One guy can think that only explicit transfer payments count, and other government services are fine. Another guy can think that any government service which isn't specifically set up to benefit everyone equally (i.e. anything but emergency services, courts, military) counts.
Doesn't matter for our purposes. There can be nuanced differences of opinion, because "Republican" is a huge tent. All that matters is that they think forced redistribution is immoral. Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Doesn't matter for our purposes. There can be nuanced differences of opinion, because "Republican" is a huge tent. All that matters is that they think forced redistribution is immoral. Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
It looks to me like you're conflating Libertarian and Republican to such a degree that you're missing the point as to why Romney lost, and why Republicans are having a harder and harder time getting elected, or even being listened to (by anyone who won't be dead of old age in 10 years).
Without social liberals, rich, old, racist white men are going to have a harder and harder time getting elected, and a harder time getting legislation favorable to their desires. You can throw Libertarians and Republicans under the same tent all you want...but they're never going to coexist well. It's a generation gap, as much as anything else.
The GOP has been famous for managing to get its many constituencies to all vote together on election day. However, the Libertarian/social-conservative split, along with larger and larger numbers of minorities that are actually voting, look like they may just destroy the GOP in its current form.
I'm not arguing, I'm just observing. You can't win elections without votes, and you're not going to get young people and minorities to vote for the Mitt Romneys of the world. Dude, when the GOP is running a Mormon former-Massachusett-governor as their POTUS candidate, they're already getting pretty damn desperate.
The political landscape is changing. A brother from Chicago, middle name Hussein, is sitting in the White House. Do you think things aren't changing? Please.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
I think you mean "cynical sound-bite-ready justification, applied for the purpose of rallying fools and silencing opponents."
Yeah, I said it. It is what it is.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
I think they typically have arguments for why the inconsistencies make sense. I think those arguments are wrong, but not wrong prima facie. I'd have to go through it with an individual to see why his arguments are wrong. Ultimately, whether or not they're fully consistent is not what's at issue here.
They aren't rationalizations instead of principles. They're rationalizations for principles. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think my assertion is true or false? Note: I'm not asking if you think what they believe is true or false. I don't care for the purposes of this discussion.
I actually do think this is false, or at least incomplete. It isn't the case that Republicans and/or conservatives feel it's immoral, full-stop. It seems to me that what is at least a competitive strong motive as well is the conviction 'it does't work, and the value gained by the exercise will be short of the value lost to it'.
quote:Also note: It's irrelevant if they have different definitions of what counts as "spending money on someone else," too. One guy can think that only explicit transfer payments count, and other government services are fine. Another guy can think that any government service which isn't specifically set up to benefit everyone equally (i.e. anything but emergency services, courts, military) counts.
Eh, I'm not so sure they're irrelevant at all-because generally the reason Republicans and/or conservatives support the 'taking from one to spend on another' when they do support it is because they believe 'this actually works in society and we're all better for it'. The thing which justifies that support, from that outlook, is the belief that it will or will potentially be used.
I suppose one of my fundamental points here is to say that support for capitalism is one of the pillars of conservatives and Republicans, in which 'enlightened self-interest' is supposed to be key. Which is fine, by the way, I'm not criticizing that as immoral-I'm just pointing out that your praise or at least description of this as a stance taken for moral reasons is probably too...rosy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Taxation aka "forced redistribution" is not theft. This is one of those things... Oh yes, "misinformation" and "lies" that Republicans use to shift the conversation on emotional appeal.
The constitution grants Congress those powers, it is not theft.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'll start with an assertion: Many people who vote Republican do so because they think that taking money from one person against their will and spending it on someone else is immoral.
Do you think my assertion is true or false?
This is completely false.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe not false in the sense of "many people." Like out of all republicans you might find a handful that actually believe this. But is it going to be a quantity significant to republicans? No. It will be a scant fraction.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if you read his statement very literally outside of the context of this discussion, I agree. I don't think that's quite what he meant, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I disagree. I interpreted Dan to be saying 'Republicans tend to oppose 'redistribution' taxation because they feel it is immoral to take from one to give to another'-he can clarify, and perhaps should to avoid confusion.
I don't disagree that many Republicans do actually believe that this is immoral-I just think the opposition has another major element to it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* I disagree. I interpreted Dan to be saying 'Republicans tend to oppose 'redistribution' taxation because they feel it is immoral to take from one to give to another'-he can clarify, and perhaps should to avoid confusion.
I don't disagree that many Republicans do actually believe that this is immoral-I just think the opposition has another major element to it.
Yeah, you understood me correctly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just pointing out that your praise or at least description of this as a stance taken for moral reasons is probably too...rosy.
I'm curious where you got praise from what I was saying.
Insofar as most Republicans and Democrats think that they have good principles and try to live consistently with those principles, I suppose I have a little bit of praise for both of them. But... only a little. Because many of their principles are bad and they fail to apply them consistently.
Mostly, though, I just have contempt for people who think that not having principles is somehow a sign of superiority (Hi, Tittles).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Democrats also have economic facts in that their policies have led to lower unemployment, higher standard of living, greater education and higher economic growth.
IP: Logged |
posted
Even openly liberal/Democratic leaning economics (which is somewhat an imprecise way to describe economists as openly allied with a party, rather than allied to ideas that party might like) would hesitate to use the word 'fact' as recklessly as you are, Blayne.
Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't any capitalist, at the very least, believe in an abstract line where re-distribution of wealth crosses from being a good thing to being exessive--and then doesn't that mean, than any low income capitalist, has a principle that conflicts with his or her (immediate) self-interests?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Not really. I mean, an extreme example would be... lots of Nazis thought they were doing the good, moral thing, and they were standing by their principles.
Noticing that someone is taking a position due to principles is, first and foremost, just an observation.
Now, neither Republicans nor Democrats are anything close to Nazis, of course. It was just an easy illustration of what I wanted to say. I hope you get what I mean.
Anyway, the whole start of this was just that Tittles (and more broadly the "voting against their interests" line) basically expressed disdain at the entire idea of someone voting based on their principles instead of their immediate situation or whim or whatever. I think that's stupid.
And I think that is typically only reserved for Republicans. Maybe that's just what I'm looking for, but it seems less common to see someone criticize Democrats for voting against their interests.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even openly liberal/Democratic leaning economics (which is somewhat an imprecise way to describe economists as openly allied with a party, rather than allied to ideas that party might like) would hesitate to use the word 'fact' as recklessly as you are, Blayne.
Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Democrats have traditionally been state capitalistic, using government intervention through the medium of capitalism, markets, and corporations, to fulfil policy of acquiring a more egalitarian society. They are not socialist by any means but the point is pragmatism as to what achieved the goals of "growth" and also "equality".
Republicans as of the last 30ish years, since Reagan anyways, have been about deregulation, pillaging the wealth of the nation, "trickle down", low taxes, favouring the rich and other "job creators" and increasingly desiring to 'starve the beast' and drown the government.
Point is, what country have the republicans built?
IP: Logged |