Joe Ferguson forever Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 1 hour ago, SCBills said: This is literally every voting group. Poor white people vote for politicians that speak to and/or push policy that helps them. Poor black people do the same thing. Wtf do you think they are voting for when they support Democrats at a 90% clip? I love how libs get upset when white people vote for their own interests. Everyone does this. I've voted consistently for higher taxes on my income bracket and more social safety net spending. So have many liberals (again, look at the demographics). Any D in the top 30% or so, is voting against their own financial interest. So no, everyone doesn't do this... Silver lining, trump's social security income tax proposal and renewal of tax breaks pays for several nice vacations a year if they go through (I'll believe it when I see it). Would I EVER vote for him because of that? NO WAY.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 33 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I've voted consistently for higher taxes on my income bracket and more social safety net spending. So have many liberals (again, look at the demographics). Any D in the top 30% or so, is voting against their own financial interest. So no, everyone doesn't do this... Silver lining, trump's social security income tax proposal and renewal of tax breaks pays for several nice vacations a year if they go through (I'll believe it when I see it). Would I EVER vote for him because of that? NO WAY. You're not unusual in that regard, plenty of conservatives, independents and agnostics have done so. My thought is that asking/requiring efficiency in tax and spending is the place the dialogue should start, and tax decreases (or increases if necessary) not at constantly filling a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom. Besides, you can still contribute and really shouldn't need a compulsory tax law to handle the transfer of money.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're not unusual in that regard, plenty of conservatives, independents and agnostics have done so. My thought is that asking/requiring efficiency in tax and spending is the place the dialogue should start, and tax decreases (or increases if necessary) not at constantly filling a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom. Besides, you can still contribute and really shouldn't need a compulsory tax law to handle the transfer of money. not the point. moving the goal posts again. SC stated that everyone votes in their own interest. this was in response to my post that magas do. he's wrong. you agree that he is. end of story.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: not the point. moving the goal posts again. SC stated that everyone votes in their own interest. this was in response to my post that magas do. he's wrong. you agree that he is. end of story. I may well have missed the point here. In this case, you have boiled your vote down to your own financial interest, whereby you (theoretically) pay more, but the fact remains you still gain something in return. Ultimately, people vote their self-interest.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I may well have missed the point here. In this case, you have boiled your vote down to your own financial interest, whereby you (theoretically) pay more, but the fact remains you still gain something in return. Ultimately, people vote their self-interest. Nope. I've consistently voted against my own financial interests.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 29 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Nope. I've consistently voted against my own financial interests. I understand your perspective.
Recommended Posts