What is the marginal utility of which you speak? You can use yourself as an example if you want.
If it’s not economic then you have to account for the fact that the people you are voting for may have very different values than you but wouldn’t say so. (Hard to believe I know) If they have economic utilities in mind and you vote for them for emotional, or social values reasons then you may be disappointed. That is being bamboozled basically. Or your children or grandchildren may be disappointed when (smaller government; or family values or etc.) turns out to really be (Income disparity or etc.)
Thoughtful post, as usual, wolfpup. But… Income inequality is a global phenomenon. The US may be in the lead, but we often are. So, it’s unclear to me that this is something you can blame on poor Americans voting agains their interests. Also, did any of these trends reverse themselves when the Democrats held the presidency and BOTH houses of Congress?
As for voters and Congresscritters, it’s well established that Americans are of two minds-- they think all the Congresscritters are bad, except for theirs. They keep voting the same people back in with an extremely high percentage. It’s one thing for people to answer a telephone pollster but quite another thing when you look at what people actually do in a voting booth. They, seemingly, hate Congress in toto, but like their particular guy or gal.
I’ve just never heard of large groups of not-rich Americans clamoring for tax cuts on the wealthy only. Poor conservatives might have more admiration for rich folks than poor liberals, and be less likely to feel the rich should be “punished”, but that doesn’t mean they want to give them tax cuts at the expense of themselves. Also, keep in mind that most discussion of “tax cuts” in the US mean federal income tax and most poor people don’t pay any in the first place.
Further… I think you simply made a mistake, wolfpup, in stating that large numbers of “ordinary people” vote for tax cuts for the wealthy thinking those tax cuts will help them. It’s a minor point, anyway. The tax code is the way it is, I believe, mainly because wealthy people and corporations paid lobbyists to influence Congress and twist the tax code to their benefit. It’s not “ordinary people” who spent time crafting a tax code with more loopholes in it than a block of Swiss Cheese. This stuff goes on behind the scenes, and “ordinary people” don’t see it.
I didn’t know that - that’s why I asked. I take you at your word that this was your intention, but I think if you read back how you phrased it my (and John’s) interpretation is a fair reading. But no matter, you’ve clarified.
My criticism still stands though - you assume that the reason for their vote was based on economic reasons. Their vote could have been in spite of economic reasons, and to group those large masses of folks together and assuming they were all gullible or believed they would get something they would not, instead of actually valuing some other aspect of the candidate greater than their economic interests, is precisely what I mentioned earlier:
In any case, your original assertion, that "in the vast majority of cases both sides agree on basic values and even on specific objectives, but disagree on policies of how to achieve them. " I don’t think is true. To get to the point where this may be true would be at such a high level as to be meaningless.
As to some of the “facts” you mention, it would be more persuasive if you didn’t litter your facts with editorial commentary. The worse, in the sewer, staggering…etc. Not that those items you present are in any relevant to the point I’m making.
You see this billion dollar industry spinning PR as a bad thing, is that accurate? Here’s another area where we probably don’t agree on basic values. I think the PR industry in this case is at rather neutral, and in a celebration of free speech, it’s great.
Like I said, it seems like you think people who don’t share your beliefs and who would vote differently than you would, are doing it wrong. If only they shared your beliefs, values, and knowledge, they would all vote in lock step with you! It can’t be that they simply don’t share your values or value different aspects of governmental intrusion differently.
Flat tax proposals are generally revenue neutral. Given that, can you point us to one which does not shift the tax burden from the rich? (Not just to the poor - to the 99% is what is really happening.)
Some of the rich who are paying Romney tax rates might actually see tax increases, assuming the law is written without loopholes. (Hah!) But unless you are claiming that the average tax rate for the rich is below that of the middle class, it will shift the burden from the rich.
Inequality can be reinforced by different things obviously. (We don’t have kings or dictators here but we have inequality) By definition if US voters vote for politicians that increase inequality then they are voting against their economic interests, for whatever reason you may ascribe.
To say the US is in the lead for “inequality” because we are in the lead on other things doesn’t make sense. You could also say the US should be in the lead in having equality; it would be more sensible. You lose on that point.
Even people in congress know it is dysfunctional. One or both parties may be responsible at any time. Everyone who votes votes for someone they agree with more. Pols may be more or less the pawn of large interests. None of this proves anything.
There certainly ARE a lot of liberals who ask questions like “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” They act as if it’s self-evident that only an idiot would base his vote on the social issues and pick the Republican when the Democrats are offering so much more pork barrel.
But no one ever asks "What’s wrong with “Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand?” But they’re multimillionaires who vote liberal because of the social issues, even though the Republicans offer them more tax breaks.
“What’s wrong with Kansas” was a book I think, not somebody trying to troll poor people and condescend to them. What is the compulsion to ascribe to social scientists the “condescension” meme? Unless you only vote in any particular way to counter what you see as Coast inhabiting elitist intellectuals? It’s basically just the social science version of the confederate flag.
What’s your issue with the fact set you gave above?
We need to investigate why rich Hollywood filmmakers vote the way they do, when they know they will not go hungry if they pay more taxes and they believe in a more equitable society? This is a study you want to devote time to?
This is the big dichotomy that you want to point out?
NOBODY in the USA is starving. We Americans have a luxury people don’t have in many other lands: we won’t starve and we won’t be imprisoned/killed by our government no matter who wins.
So, whether we’re rich or middle class, we can afford to choose the issues that matter most to us. If those are pocketbook issues, swell. If they’re social issues, that’s fine and dandy, too. A small business owner in Kansas who votes for the anti-abortion Republican candidate isn’t stupid, and neither is Steven Spielberg. They’re both making principled decision about their priorities.
They don’t have to be. They can be set to raise more, less or the same.
Well, the key is to close loopholes. Technically, their called “deductions”, since a loophole has the connotation of being not quite legal.
A flat tax that treats all income equally, and that has a fairly high standard deduction (Forbes wanted to set it at $33K back in 1996 when he was touting it) will do the trick. Now, it’s not really a flat tax since it has a deduction, but once you get past that deduction, it’s flat. No mortgage deduction, no deferred interest tax rate of 15% (take that, hedge fund managers!), no nuthin’. You’d probably need to index long term gains for inflation, but that would be it. Set the tax rate at whatever suits your purpose (less revenue, same revenue, more revenue). Set the deduction at whatever you want to make it more fair (for whatever definition of “fair” you are using).
Except if your candidate doesn’t really care about you or your issue. Later your issue isn’t important anymore, you look to them and they just blame it on the liberals. Then there is something distinctly idiotic about the way you are politically used.
I think it was Deep Throat who said “Follow the money”
We’re relatively rich but any of us could go down very easily even in America, and do every day.
It’s very simple. Give us a cite that supports this statement (emphasis added):
How many ordinary people who cheerfully vote for tax cuts for the super-rich do you think do so because of deeply held “values” even if they know it will hurt them personally, as compared to the number who do so because they believe they will personally benefit?
So, show us where “ordinary people” are clamoring for tax cuts for the rich so that they, themselves, will benefit. Don’t tell me about some folks who voted for some Congresscritter who, once in office, voted for tax cuts for the rich. Show us polling data that indicates that’s what people want.
If you are going to rely on voting records of Senators, then should we assume that everyone who voted Kerry into office wanted him to vote for the Iraq AUMF?
Alternatively, just let it go. I don’t think it’s a significant point anyway.
How is supporting tax cuts for everyone when I don’t get one an example of voting against my interests? It may be against my specific individual economic interests, but not against my overall interests taken together. For example, what if I prioritized others more than myself. If everyone else gets a tax cut and not myself, then based on those priorities, such support would be in my interests.
Put another way, let’s say there are two goals, A and B. I assign some value of utility in attaining both A and B, let’s say, 70 and 30, respectively. There are exactly two politicians running for office, Albert and Bernie and each supports a different policy goal, A and B. If I value as I say, goal A more than goal B, shouldn’t I support the one that is supporting A?
In the scenario you posit, A is economic interests. I’m saying, it doesn’t have to be. Other interests can trump economic interests, and a person pursuing those ends to the detriment of their economic interests is not necessarily acting against their interests.
You actually make this same observation here:
Though, in the above, I wouldn’t say that liberals vote against their actual interests - I would simply say that their valuation of the good of the country surpasses their valuation of their specific individual economic interests.
Disclaimer: this is a VERY touchy topic to discuss without sounding like I’m doing exactly what the left is frequently (and sometimes fairly) accused of, which is treating voters who disagree with us incredibly condescendingly. I will do my best to not fall into that trap.
Here’s my hypothetical: there’s a town. The town owns some land that is currently a park. A valuable amount of oil was just found on that land. An oil company wants to pay the town a fairly large amount of money to buy the park and drill for oil.
Should the town accept the deal? Well, there are clearly legitimate arguments on both sides.
This seems like an absolutely perfect situation for some good old fashioned democracy. So the town has a town meeting. At the town meeting they have a vote, majority rules, on whether to accept the deal.
So, what is the “right” outcome of that vote? Well, I’m not a resident of that town (and of course, it’s an imaginary town), so it’s not up to me to say that the right outcome is either to accept or turn down the offer. What I do believe, however, is that the “right” outcome is one in which as many of the town residents vote as possible, and they are as objectively informed as possible. If every single voter is at the meeting, and the meeting begins with a 6 hour absolutely objective presentation created by the Really Objective Institute of Fairness, followed by a lively but respectful two hour debate with people standing up and arguing for both sides, and then they vote, well, hey, that’s democracy for you, and hopefully they made a wise decision.
And in fact, I think that the vote in that fairly contrived hypothetical is better than one in which, for instance, the situation is the same except that the date and time of the town meeting is poorly publicized so most people don’t hear about it, or there’s a town meeting with no presentation or debate, just a vote, etc.
So, the question is… what about political advertising? Is the election result “better” if one side has outside supporters that pour millions into advertising? What if the local NBC affiliate is owned by a competing oil company who wants to hurt the first oil company and thus strongly opposes the deal, but this ownership is not made public?
Is it your opinion that all of those things are not only legal but capital-G-Good?
You’re right. Real life variables are much more complicated then the example offered, but as a summary to point out differences to rebut the claim that we share basic values and specific policy objectives it works well enough.
In principle the outcome for society is better if there exist mechanisms which allow the advertising, and allow opposition to voice their objections. Whether or not that the specific actions are good or not is not possible to determine based on the fact pattern.
I’m not sure that “advertising” needs to be involved. I think that democracy definitely works better if the voters are exposed to passionate arguments in favor of all sides of an issue. It’s not axiomatic that advertising must be involved in order for that to happen.
By the way, apropos of nothing, I just wanted to compliment you as a poster… you’re a vastly outnumbered conservative on a liberal message board, but I’ve always found your posts to be interesting, relevant and polite. Kudos.
I think the line between advertising and politicking is thin enough that they are equivalent. I generally consider advertising to be a form of speech just as I do money as a form of speech so while I agree with you that advertising isn’t necessary for democracy to work, advertising must be allowed generally for democracy to work. YMMV.