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.
I think welfare is a drain on the finances of the nation, and increases the national debt, therefore the program should be ended.
My family is in a financial position to receive welfare benefits.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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?
or this guy who supported the wall, but now is upset it’s going across his butterfly preserve:
or this one from today’s NY Times:
In all three cases they were fine as long as other people suffered.
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.
Seems to me he may have been saying nobody helped him out of the situation of being on welfare, given the rest of the the sentence was “that came from my education”
As opposed to saying " nobody helped me out " as a coloquialism for getting help in general.
I could be wrong but he doesn’t seem quite that stupid.
I could readily believe that some people would be that stupid though, quite a few I know of that it wouldn’t really surprise me if they were to say that.
We will need emergency legislation declaring the republican party a treasonous, terroristic political wing that is the enemy of the American people. This will only be possibly when the Republican policies bankrupt the average American, which is why we need a great depression. But even then, you’re average Jerry Springer-watching, Joe Rogan-listening Ameritard still might not get it. The military (centrist) can take over and demand behavior.
I think the point is… food stamps and welfare helped him out of the situation he was in. “Being on welfare” isn’t the core problem, being impoverished is.
Without these programs, without enough food or money to pay for rent, would his education have actually gotten him out of his bind?
Yeah I know, it’s kind of semantics but just saying, I’m not even sure who this guy is but taking the quote out of context definitely made it seem far more ridiculous.
Out of context? The post by Andy L upthread included a link to a transcript of the entire conversation with Craig T Nelson. Does reading the whole thing make it seem less ridiculous? I don’t think so, but perhaps you do.