I guess what I was trying to say...

Post #193,465 by Simon_Jester 2/7/05 4:06:25 PM Reply	I guess what I was trying to say... If they voted for Bush because they think they can trust him, then they are suckers. What I was commenting on is the number of liberals that think people where stupid for voting for Bush because voting for Bush was against their monetary self interest. is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly) Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this.
Post #193,468 by ben_tilly 2/7/05 4:28:34 PM Reply	And you're wrong on that There are also people who vote for someone because they believe that that someone will do the right thing, even though it may be personally inconvenient. Like someone returning a stranger's wallet, it is something that is easy to mock, but happens more than we think. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #193,530 by Simon_Jester 2/7/05 11:12:47 PM Reply	<grin> I'm not sure that that's not doing something for you...indirectly. :-) As such an individual would lead to better government (and less corruption) which would (eventually) benefit you again, no?
Post #193,535 by ben_tilly 2/8/05 12:03:08 AM Reply	That would be a big stretch With enough work you can coerce any theory into your preconceptions. The better way to reach in this case is to note that it is a benefit to me for me to see things that I want to happen, happen. This, of course, pushes the problem down one level, and we're now left to wonder if people only want things of benefit to themselves. (The answer to which may depend on how we define "benefit".) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #193,754 by Simon_Jester 2/8/05 11:45:35 PM Reply	Perhaps... but I guess I don't look at the situation as a us-vs-them approach whereas they are evil (or greedy) and we're wholesome (and perhaps stupid. ;-)). Each group works toward their own self-interest to some degree and to their vision for the country. I'm not about to claim their vision is evil as I believe that is intellectually dishonest. I do have lots of problems with their vision for the country, for a variety of reasons, and am more than willing to point those out. But I won't be dishonest with myself to claim that I'm not working toward my own vision and my own self-interests. Back to the original post (to tie it all back together again), I don't agree with Bush's tactics for cutting subsidies to the farmers will bring lower food prices to Americans (or that it's beneficial to our farmers). I do agree with Jay that tariffs are a better solution than subsides. And yes, I think (as a liberal) that if you voted for Bush and are now getting nailed by his polities, you're getting what you deserve and have no right to complain.
Post #193,547 by mmoffitt 2/8/05 8:58:17 AM Reply	B.S. Simon pontificates: is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly) Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this. A "liberal" (whatever that means) like me supports/votes for politicians whose policies are never targetted for my personal benefit. I have never voted for a politician on the basis of self-interest. Recent example: in a move uncommonly progressive for a Repo-man, our new governor - W's former Budget Chief - Mitch Daniels recently called for a one-time-only additional 1% state income tax on all those Hoosiers (all 6% of them) who have an adjusted gross income above $100,000. That alone would balance the books (i.e. the school budgets, state aid for the poor, etc.) Most of the people in that group are - rightly - Republicans. I am fortunate to find myself in that group. I wrote the governor congratulating him on this move and asked him (in kinder words) why in hell if it balanced the budget to do that would he not make that additional 1% permanent as opposed to slashing programs to help 94% of the state's population. (Aside: this is a typical Repo policy, sacrifice ~95% of the population for the benefit of the ~5%. It's also consistent with the way capitalists think.) Note: If he had made this proposal during the campaign, moreover, if he had made the case for a permanent 1% tax for those in the top 6%, he would have gotten my vote. So there is an example of a "liberal" voting intentionally against his self-interest. The difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that so-called conservatives vote exclusively in their own self-interest, liberals vote in the interest of everyone. There is a HUGE difference between them. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #193,585 by inthane-chan 2/8/05 11:12:34 AM Reply	You've just got a different definition of self-interest. :) Having the plebes cared for so they don't put you up against the wall and shoot you when the revolution comes is, while more long-term, definitely in your own self-interest. "Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
Post #193,598 by mmoffitt 2/8/05 12:11:20 PM 2/8/05 12:11:41 PM Reply	Naw, if that's what I was worried about. I'd support Dub in his efforts to eliminate liberty for "the great unwashed." ;0) Besides, the revolution will, of course, need "professional revolutionaries" and that's what I plan to be. :-) bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America) Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 8, 2005, 12:11:41 PM EST Expand All History
Post #193,759 by Simon_Jester 2/9/05 12:20:05 AM Reply	Perhaps... but I think, if you look, you'll find issues where conservates voted and the politicans didn't receive a dime. Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone. Most conservates would point out that we're rescuing our government, by allowing them to go to the well without learning fiscal discipline. The goal isn't to allow kids to suffer at school but rather to force government to eliminate waste. (And our government specialises in creating waste) Likewise, most liberal would point out that our government is very good at creating waste and politicans salaries simply don't go down when there's a revenue shortfall. The only people to suffer are those who can't defend themselves politicially (usually kids). Furthermore the long term costs of failing to provide for the kids now grow over the years. (Pay me now or pay me later.) There's different views. Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly. -- Robert A. Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus
Post #193,805 by mmoffitt 2/9/05 2:21:05 PM Reply	But the politicians salaries are NEVER on the block. Even if I grant the outrageous supposition that "conservative politicians" are motivated by fiscal responsibility - cough, cough, GAG! - how do 'splain that a personal pay-cut is never a part of their efforts? Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone. You make a good point. That was a judgement on my part. See, I think that hiring enough teachers so that a 35:1 student/teacher ratio is reduced, fixing crumbling public schools, providing Medicaid to the poor, mental health services to those who need them, not charging public school children "book rental fees" for non-existent books, etc., in short all the things that the additional estimated $260 million dollars could buy, but the governor says must be cut, is in everyone's interest. Others disagree. They're called Republicans. And Indiana is lousy with them. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #193,577 by jake123 2/8/05 10:38:10 AM Reply	Nah, not for you... TO you. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to IWETHEY!