Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Staunch conservatives requesting public funded benefits (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=868430)

birdiesbuddy 01-05-2019 03:42 PM

Staunch conservatives requesting public funded benefits
 
It amazes me how many people who are fans of conservative "agenda" request assistance of community funds, public funds due to a change in their circumstances. I find that interesting and wonder why they don't see the conflict there!

elbows 01-05-2019 03:52 PM

I think their issue is with funding going to those they deem unworthy. They’ve just come upon some bad luck, you see. Whereas ‘they’ are lazy and undeserving.

Close as I can tell, that’s how it goes.

dstarfire 01-05-2019 05:51 PM

Actually, most people I've talk to are just as, if not more upset about being forced to pay (i.e. by taxes) for other peoples' mistakes/misfortune.
Survival beats ideology every time. Also, there's the attitude that since you've already had to pay for this program, it'd be foolish not to take advantage of it when you need it.

snoe 01-05-2019 06:28 PM

Jeet Heer quoting Frank Wilhoit:
Quote:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Beckdawrek 01-05-2019 06:39 PM

Hypocrites.

Colibri 01-05-2019 06:59 PM

Moved to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Bone 01-05-2019 07:04 PM

It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

Wesley Clark 01-05-2019 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elbows (Post 21413842)
I think their issue is with funding going to those they deem unworthy. They’ve just come upon some bad luck, you see. Whereas ‘they’ are lazy and undeserving.

Close as I can tell, that’s how it goes.

Pretty much. And who counts as undeserving generally comes down to ego and race.

Generally they feel whites are more deserving, native born more deserving.

But also they've built a narrative that they are extremely independent, intelligent, hard working, talented, etc. while 'those people' are lazy and dependent.

Basically, ego and race.

This study found Trump supporters were more hostile to a housing assistance program when they though it would benefit black people, they were more supportive when they felt it would benefit white people.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...porters-racist

Manlob 01-05-2019 08:06 PM

So anyone opposed to a government assistance program should be required to pay the taxes for it, but be forbidden from receiving any of that assistance if needed?

XT 01-05-2019 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdiesbuddy (Post 21413825)
It amazes me how many people who are fans of conservative "agenda" request assistance of community funds, public funds due to a change in their circumstances. I find that interesting and wonder why they don't see the conflict there!

I guess I'm not seeing the conflict. Whether they take the money or now, they are still, by and large, paying taxes. If I'm paying for it anyway, why wouldn't I take advantage of it if I can?? :confused:

Snowboarder Bo 01-05-2019 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

It's possible, but how is it possible to do without being a hypocrite?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

WEll, IMO that would be hypocritical.

Tempe Jeff 01-05-2019 08:29 PM

Question: Are you implying 'Staunch Conservatives' are abusing the Welfare system with generational welfare? Cite? ROFLMAO

mhendo 01-05-2019 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21414217)
It's possible, but how is it possible to do without being a hypocrite?
WEll, IMO that would be hypocritical.

It's not at all hypocritical, especially if you vote for candidates who would eliminate the policies that you disagree with.

We accept that, in a representative democracy, there are policies that we like and policies that we don't like. We each do what we can (voting, debating, spending money, whatever) to keep the policies we like and eliminate the ones we don't.

But if there's a policy that we think is bad, that also might benefit us personally, it's not hypocritical to take advantage of it. Warren Buffet constantly argues for higher taxes on capital gains, arguing that the low rate of taxing capital gains means that he often pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. But I'll bet that Buffet takes advantage of that low rate to maximize his wealth, which he can then use in ways that he finds morally uplifting.

There are also myriad possible reasons for opposing a policy, some of which might be more likely than others to attract a charge of hypocrisy. If you argue against food stamps on the grounds that the people who use them are lazy and irresponsible, and don't deserve any help, then it might be somewhat hypocritical to accept food stamps, although I wouldn't blame a person who needed them for using them. But if you argue against food stamps because you believe that the poor should be helped, but there are better or more efficient ways to help them, then there is nothing at all hypocritical about using them if you qualify.

XT 01-05-2019 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhendo (Post 21414261)
It's not at all hypocritical, especially if you vote for candidates who would eliminate the policies that you disagree with.

We accept that, in a representative democracy, there are policies that we like and policies that we don't like. We each do what we can (voting, debating, spending money, whatever) to keep the policies we like and eliminate the ones we don't.

But if there's a policy that we think is bad, that also might benefit us personally, it's not hypocritical to take advantage of it. Warren Buffet constantly argues for higher taxes on capital gains, arguing that the low rate of taxing capital gains means that he often pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. But I'll bet that Buffet takes advantage of that low rate to maximize his wealth, which he can then use in ways that he finds morally uplifting.

There are also myriad possible reasons for opposing a policy, some of which might be more likely than others to attract a charge of hypocrisy. If you argue against food stamps on the grounds that the people who use them are lazy and irresponsible, and don't deserve any help, then it might be somewhat hypocritical to accept food stamps, although I wouldn't blame a person who needed them for using them. But if you argue against food stamps because you believe that the poor should be helped, but there are better or more efficient ways to help them, then there is nothing at all hypocritical about using them if you qualify.

Exactly. It would be hypocritical if someone in a position of power made a decisive vote to remove public funded benefits but put in an exception for themselves. THAT would be hypocritical. But as with your Buffet example, it's not hypocritical to use the system as it is, because, frankly, there isn't much that most conservatives (or liberals or even moderates) can do about it at the macro level. It would be like someone refusing to use energy because it's not nuclear (or solar, or wind, or whatever)...or hypocritical for someone who opposed the use of coal (as I do) to use what's available while trying to get it changed.

mhendo 01-05-2019 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21414217)
WEll, IMO that would be hypocritical.

Just out of interest, did you agree with the Republican tax cut passed in 2017? Will your taxes be lower as a result of that tax cut?

If the answer to those questions is "no" and "yes," respectively, will you voluntarily donate the extra money to the government at tax time?

PoppaSan 01-06-2019 09:15 PM

I'm still trying to figure out what the drive-by poster was referencing or if it was just a random squat.

Snowboarder Bo 01-06-2019 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhendo (Post 21414261)
It's not at all hypocritical, especially if you vote for candidates who would eliminate the policies that you disagree with.

Perhaps you should offer a definition of hypocrisy and/or hypocrite; I'm not at all sure we agree on what they mean now that I've read your post.

Velocity 01-06-2019 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoppaSan (Post 21415703)
I'm still trying to figure out what the drive-by poster was referencing or if it was just a random squat.

It's his 1 and only post..

Snowboarder Bo 01-06-2019 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhendo (Post 21414267)
Just out of interest, did you agree with the Republican tax cut passed in 2017? Will your taxes be lower as a result of that tax cut?

If the answer to those questions is "no" and "yes," respectively, will you voluntarily donate the extra money to the government at tax time?

No and no. But if I had said "no and yes", would you have believed me when I said I'd donate the difference to the government at tax time, would you have accepted that as true? :dubious:

Because your post was nothing but a ridiculous leading question. :rolleyes:

HurricaneDitka 01-07-2019 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdiesbuddy (Post 21413825)
It amazes me how many people who are fans of conservative "agenda" request assistance of community funds, public funds due to a change in their circumstances. I find that interesting and wonder why they don't see the conflict there!

How many people are you talking about? Is this post just based on some personal anecdote(s)?

kambuckta 01-07-2019 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21415961)
How many people are you talking about? Is this post just based on some personal anecdote(s)?

How many farmers get subsidies?
How many politicians get allowances up and beyond what they personally spend?
How many tax breaks are available for the 'ruling class' that are not available for a regular worker?

:cool:

Budget Player Cadet 01-07-2019 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

I'm with you. Accusations of "conservatives use the welfare system" remind me a bit of accusations like "I love how you're tweeting about socialism from your iPhone".

(Other variants are, of course, open to such accusations. Like when conservatives claim that liberals are just welfare sponges.)

WillFarnaby 01-07-2019 06:18 AM

Wait, so giving someone govt funds should, in effect, buy their loyalty to the programs? This sounds familiar.

Cheesesteak 01-07-2019 07:06 AM

It's not hypocritical to accept money from programs you want to see abolished.

If I, a Dirty Hippie, think "Rich Guy Tax Cut" shouldn't have been passed, but it was passed anyway, I'm taking every penny of that cut that applies to me. If some Conservative Jerk thinks that SNAP shouldn't be funded, but it is anyway, it's fine for him to take every penny he is entitled to through the program.

Now, if that SNAP using CJ decides to speak out against the program by saying the people taking SNAP monies are dirty, lazy scumbags suckling at the teat of actual productive members of society, such as himself, THEN he's a hypocrite.

WreckingCrew 01-07-2019 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21415961)
How many people are you talking about? Is this post just based on some personal anecdote(s)?

Start here. A lot of of working class whites get SNAP benefits, use ACA and other such things.

Dinsdale 01-07-2019 08:44 AM

My job has me regularly interacting with claimants for Social Security disability benefits. My impression is that a good percentage of such claimants vote Republican. I felt that way even more strongly when I worked in a more conservative portion of a red state. Yet they give the impression that they believe THEY are deserving, but it is all the other guys who are not.

And make no mistake - there is A GREAT DEAL of generational entitlement in the reddest of regions. Plenty of extended households all living off of whatever benefit check someone receives, while braying their love of guns and hatred of immigrants.

Ashtura 01-07-2019 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dinsdale (Post 21416300)
My job has me regularly interacting with claimants for Social Security disability benefits. My impression is that a good percentage of such claimants vote Republican. I felt that way even more strongly when I worked in a more conservative portion of a red state. Yet they give the impression that they believe THEY are deserving, but it is all the other guys who are not.

And make no mistake - there is A GREAT DEAL of generational entitlement in the reddest of regions. Plenty of extended households all living off of whatever benefit check someone receives, while braying their love of guns and hatred of immigrants.

You keep using the word "impression". Do you have facts to back up these "impressions"?

Dewey Finn 01-07-2019 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dinsdale (Post 21416300)
My job has me regularly interacting with claimants for Social Security disability benefits. My impression is that a good percentage of such claimants vote Republican. I felt that way even more strongly when I worked in a more conservative portion of a red state. Yet they give the impression that they believe THEY are deserving, but it is all the other guys who are not.

And make no mistake - there is A GREAT DEAL of generational entitlement in the reddest of regions. Plenty of extended households all living off of whatever benefit check someone receives, while braying their love of guns and hatred of immigrants.

FYI, this article talks about that, focusing on Harlan County, Kentucky, which is safely Republican and voted for Trump. And yet, "54 percent of the income of the county’s roughly 26,000 residents came from programs like Social Security and Medicaid, food stamps — formally known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — and the earned-income tax credit."

Velocity 01-07-2019 09:43 AM

Didn't Ayn Rand criticize Social Security but still draw it anyway?


Anyway, as Bone says, someone can criticize something and still benefit it anyway. An anarchist might say there should be no TSA, yet still benefit from the safety of flying aboard airplanes that are gun-free/knife-free/bomb-free.

Dinsdale 01-07-2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashtura (Post 21416341)
You keep using the word "impression". Do you have facts to back up these "impressions"?

Keep using it? Where? In this thread?

But yeah, there is plenty of statistical evidence establishing that folk identifying as Republican make up a huge percentage of entitlement recipients.

And yeah - my political radar is certainly not infallible. But I'd be surprised if most of us were not able to make guesses with SOME degree of accuracy based on a person's attire, education, economic status, their attire, and how they present/express themselves during a 30-60 minute conversation. And yeah - during those conversations and in their records, folk express what they watch on TV, what they think of as recent events or famous people, who they associate with...

Phrased another way, inner city persons of color and well educated professionals are by no means the majority of disability claimants.

Maybe you disagree, but I'm very comfortable with the assumption that if you take a sample out of rural Iowa, and a sample from inner city Detroit, the political leanings of the members will differ in some predictable ways. Of course, that assures no accuracy WRT any individual.

Chronos 01-07-2019 10:56 AM

There are also a lot of people who advocate for the ending of all governmental aid programs except for the ones that they, personally, happen to benefit from. Now, it's possible that a person drawing, say, unemployment checks sincerely believes that unemployment checks are a reasonable, proper, and efficient use of tax dollars, but that all of the other programs are unreasonable, improper, and inefficient, and that he would continue to feel this same way even if he, personally, weren't on unemployment, but it seems a lot more likely that there's a causative relationship there.

Andy L 01-07-2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21416563)
There are also a lot of people who advocate for the ending of all governmental aid programs except for the ones that they, personally, happen to benefit from. Now, it's possible that a person drawing, say, unemployment checks sincerely believes that unemployment checks are a reasonable, proper, and efficient use of tax dollars, but that all of the other programs are unreasonable, improper, and inefficient, and that he would continue to feel this same way even if he, personally, weren't on unemployment, but it seems a lot more likely that there's a causative relationship there.

There was the amusing case of Craig T. Nelson who was upset about paying taxes. Nobody helped him when he was on foodstamps and welfare, so why should he help anyone else.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/craig-...-on-glenn-beck

D'Anconia 01-07-2019 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21416563)
There are also a lot of people who advocate for the ending of all governmental aid programs except for the ones that they, personally, happen to benefit from.

Since this is Great Debates, do you have a cite for that?

WreckingCrew 01-07-2019 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21415961)
How many people are you talking about? Is this post just based on some personal anecdote(s)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WreckingCrew (Post 21416149)
Start here. A lot of of working class whites get SNAP benefits, use ACA and other such things.

Oops, my bad that link showed up on my phone this morning.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...curity/516861/

DinoR 01-07-2019 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdiesbuddy (Post 21413825)
I find that interesting and wonder why they don't see the conflict there!

You're thinking of conservatives as a monolithic block. You might be interested in checking out "The Three Kinds of Conservatism" published by Karen Stenner based on her research. She asserts that some, she calls them status quo, conservatives are mostly motivated by relative stability over time. They don't like change. There's a group she call authoritarians. They prefer oneness and sameness. Then there's the lassez-faire economics conservatives. That's mostly the group that doesn't like lots of government intervention like benefits.

Conservatism is more a coalition than a group with broad agreement about goals.

madmonk28 01-07-2019 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy L (Post 21416606)
There was the amusing case of Craig T. Nelson who was upset about paying taxes. Nobody helped him when he was on foodstamps and welfare, so why should he help anyone else.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/craig-...-on-glenn-beck

This is the one I came in to post, some of them are just too stupid to realize that they are getting assistance.

SmartAlecCat 01-07-2019 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

Exactly. I call this the "Designated Hitter Logical Fallacy".

BigT 01-07-2019 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

It's possible, yes. But it requires putting forth a claim. The null hypothesis is that, if you advocate against something, you don't do it yourself. That is why we as a society label anything else to be "hypocrisy."

To survive a claim of hypocrisy, you have to make a special argument for why you need to use it now, but you wouldn't need to use it if nobody else needed to use it.

I see no such argument with welfare*. If you will be able to go without that welfare once it is eliminated, then you should be able to go without it now. If you find you need it now, then you'll be in trouble once it is eliminated.

As such, if you use welfare, it makes no sense to advocate against its use for everyone. And that is why we encounter exactly what Chronos describes above: people only supporting the benefits they use.

I find such to be selfish, but it at least it makes sense to support what you use. Such is rational--though their reasons for why those programs need to exist but not the others may not be.

*shorthand for whatever public benefits are under discussion.

BigT 01-07-2019 10:14 PM

I seem to remember this idea going back to a single case, when someone asked Warren Buffet why he doesn't voluntarily pay more tax. There you have an argument. He can argue that, to remain competitive as a business, he can't pay more than other people. He can argue that the increased taxes must apply to everyone, or to no one, with no in between.

But that's a special argument. It is not the default. It was entirely a valid question asking him why he doesn't voluntarily pay more taxes, given that he advocates for higher taxes.

As I stated above, I can see no such argument when it comes to accepting welfare. Can any of you think of one?

Iggy 01-07-2019 10:34 PM

So people who complied with the requirement to purchase health insurance under the PPACA despite thinking the law was flawed and should not have been implemented are hypocrites for filing an insurance claim or going for their annual physical? They paid for it because they had to. They should get the benefit of it, IMHO. Same basic logic applies to government provided benefits.

septimus 01-08-2019 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

Yes. Doing so is NOT hypocritical; failure to do so would be stupid. This is so obvious that I wonder if some Dopers are mesmerized by the "conservative/liberal" schism in OP's example, and would get it right were the left/right roles reversed. (The contradiction can lead to hypocrisy or stupidity — "Keep the government hands off my Medicare!" — but by itself it isn't.)

If I'm an American League baseball manager who opposes the Designated Hitter rule, am I morally obligated to send the pitcher up to bat for himself?

If I favor a complete gun ban but happen on one when the bad guy is raping and murdering my family, is it hypocrisy to use the gun?

It was Stranger on a Train and/or Chronos, IIRC, who referenced a rule variant in Monopoly and calls these mistaken claims of hypocrisy the "Free Parking" fallacy.

In other news, 2+2 is still 4.

Cheesesteak 01-08-2019 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21417820)
As I stated above, I can see no such argument when it comes to accepting welfare. Can any of you think of one?

For the sake of argument:
1) I think welfare is a drain on the finances of the nation, and increases the national debt, therefore the program should be ended.
2) My family is in a financial position to receive welfare benefits.
3) I choose to accept those benefits.

Why do I choose to accept the benefits of a program that increases the national debt in a way I find improper?

It's because when the chickens come home to roost, and we have to pay that debt, it's my child who is going to be paying the bill. If my child is going to be saddled with paying down a debt from a program we should never have run, I'm damn well not going to deprive him of whatever financial benefits he was entitled to under the program. To do that would mean he's going to pay for the benefits of everyone besides himself, and that doesn't make much sense.

It's similar, in my mind, to the ridiculous decision of Republican led states to refuse Medicaid expansion. Their citizens were still paying for the expansion in other states than where they lived. They paid, but didn't get any benefits from it.

mhendo 01-08-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21415717)
Perhaps you should offer a definition of hypocrisy and/or hypocrite; I'm not at all sure we agree on what they mean now that I've read your post.

Why me? You used the word first. If you think there's a terminological problem here, why not just say what you think it is? Why not simply outline where you disagree with me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21415720)
No and no. But if I had said "no and yes", would you have believed me when I said I'd donate the difference to the government at tax time, would you have accepted that as true? :dubious:

Because your post was nothing but a ridiculous leading question. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I probably wouldn't have believed you.

If you had said you were going to donate the difference to charity, I would have been more willing to believe that answer, but the idea that you sending a few hundred or even a few thousand extra dollars to the United States government, all by yourself, is going to make any difference, is so bizarre that I would actually question the intelligence of anyone who made such an assertion. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

mhendo 01-08-2019 12:36 PM

By the way, in the name of transparency, let me note something about the tax cut.

I was opposed to it, and I still think it's terrible policy. My wife and I will also benefit directly from the tax cut, to the tune of around $1,500 to $2,000 per year, based on a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation I did just after it was passed.

We're not going to donate that money to the government, and I admit that one reason is self-interest. Quite frankly, that money will be quite useful to us. But if and when any opportunity arises, we will reiterate our opposition to the tax cut, and if and when the opportunity arises, we'll do everything we can to ensure that people are elected who will not only repeal the cut, but will institute a more progressive taxation system.

We all make choices, and we all draw our lines of principle in slightly different places. There are some things that each of us finds morally beyond the pale, and other things that are more ambiguous or flexible. It's a product of the human condition. I'm a vegetarian, for a variety of reasons related to animal welfare and environmental concerns. If I were to take my principles on this issue to their natural conclusion, however, I should probably also be a vegan, because many of the same issues that I'm concerned about apply just as much to the egg and dairy industries as they do to the meat industry. But I like eggs and milk and cheese too much to give them up. I should probably also decline to wear leather belts in my jeans, but I still have leather belts.

Is that inconsistent? Sure. But I think we all live with a certain amount of inconsistency in our lives, and I'm not willing to use the label of "hypocrisy" to label every instance of inconsistency I find, in myself or in other people.

JB99 01-08-2019 02:25 PM

So if someone depends on social security and Medicare and SNAP, etc etc, then votes for a politician who promises to destroy or heavily restrict those programs, what do they think the end result will be? If they do get their wish, and the welfare / wealth redistribution programs are eliminated, what do they expect will happen to them?

running coach 01-08-2019 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB99 (Post 21419035)
So if someone depends on social security and Medicare and SNAP, etc etc, then votes for a politician who promises to destroy or heavily restrict those programs, what do they think the end result will be? If they do get their wish, and the welfare / wealth redistribution programs are eliminated, what do they expect will happen to them?

A leopard will eat their face.

XT 01-08-2019 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB99 (Post 21419035)
So if someone depends on social security and Medicare and SNAP, etc etc, then votes for a politician who promises to destroy or heavily restrict those programs, what do they think the end result will be? If they do get their wish, and the welfare / wealth redistribution programs are eliminated, what do they expect will happen to them?

They are probably voting for the politician for other reasons. Example...they think (believe, whatever) that said politician will bring back those good old fashion low skill high wage and high benefit jobs to the good old USA (sound familiar?) from those less worthy countries. Or...they are worried that the politician on the other side will take their guns...or allow trans-sexual men to use the same bathrooms as their daughters...or allow that gay marriage stuff to happen...or myriad other vertical issues that are important to them and they are willing to sacrifice their own benefits for because they think are more important. Or, they rightfully think that even if the guy they are voting for DOES get in, he's not actually going to be able to cut social security, Medicare or SNAP or really anything else (especially those first two), regardless, so voting for them in the hope they might bring those great coal jobs back doesn't have a real downside for them (of course, it has, but the reasons are too complex for most folks who are suckered in by the MAGA and bring those Apple jobs back to the US schtick).

madmonk28 01-08-2019 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB99 (Post 21419035)
So if someone depends on social security and Medicare and SNAP, etc etc, then votes for a politician who promises to destroy or heavily restrict those programs, what do they think the end result will be? If they do get their wish, and the welfare / wealth redistribution programs are eliminated, what do they expect will happen to them?

I think a lot of people don't care as long as other people suffer. They don't think it's going to get them. Remember the Trump voter who was upset her husband got deported?
Quote:

When Helen Beristain told her husband that she was voting for Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election, he warned her that the Republican nominee planned to “get rid of the Mexicans.”

Defending her vote, Helen Beristain quoted Trump directly, noting that the tough-talking Republican said he would kick only the “bad hombres” out of the country, according to the South Bend Tribune.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6e42decc072b

or this guy who supported the wall, but now is upset it's going across his butterfly preserve:
Quote:

On Monday, the Washington Post published an op-ed headlined, "I voted for Trump. Now his wall may destroy my butterfly paradise" by Luciano Guerra—an educator at the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, near the border—who said he voted for Trump because he's a small government–loving "lifelong Republican" who doesn't "want open borders." Guerra maintained that he never took Trump's threats to build a wall literally.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4...nge-their-mind

or this one from today's NY Times:
Quote:

I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/u...-marianna.html

In all three cases they were fine as long as other people suffered.

JB99 01-08-2019 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmonk28 (Post 21419185)
In all three cases they were fine as long as other people suffered.

That last one is the best. Confirming people voted for Trump because they expect him to “hurt” their imaginary enemies.

Measure for Measure 01-08-2019 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21414122)
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.

It's totally possible. You can advocate campaign finance reform, while taking advantage of the rules such as they exist. You can argue vociferously against the Free Parking houserule in the board game Monopoly (where penalties drawn by cards are place in the middle of the board and scooped up by those landing on Free Parking), but take advantage of this rule once you are outvoted. (Bricker likes to use this example.)

What you can't do without hypocrisy is denigrate the users of such programs as Leeches, "Welfare Queens", or Takers, then turn around and avail yourself of those same programs. Like Ayn Rand did.

Separately and generally speaking, you also can't advocate corporate welfare for me, but not social welfare for thee without referencing principles both general and specific. Extra scrutiny should be applied to cases where you may be using motivated reasoning.

But a cool-headed and empirically grounded discussion of public policy is acceptable among participants and non-participants of public programs. Considered judgment is encouraged, along with demonstrable introspection.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.