Poor conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain.

[Link]

People don't get that they are the welfare queens. All our schools and roads and police etc don't come cheap. We all are beneficiaries. There is a huge state of denial.

It's even worse with corporations and the 1%.  They all assume they made their billions in a vacuum.  The deny using tax payer funded roads to move their cargo.  They deny using tax payer funded ports to import and export their cargo.  They deny using tax payer funded airports.  They deny using tax payer funded courts to defend their business interests.  Nope the taxpayer didn't provide any of these facilities for their businesses.  They did it all by themselves.  It's disgusting.

[Link]

I also think the more liberals complain about "poor people voting against their best interests", the more some poor people will vote Republican.

And the same goes for assuming nefarious motives instead of considering the issue from another's point of view (not that I've never done the same thing).

The whole 'what's the matter with Kansas' arguement is fallacious, anyway; if social issues were so unimportant, then the Democrats would have no reason not to adopt the social issues of those voting against them in order to try and advance their fiscal agenda.  The truth is, the Democratic and Republican coalitions simply appeal to different 'social issues' voters.

That's a pretty good point, actually.

I find it amusing that so many people take for granted that people "should" vote their self-interest. Maybe some people simply have values playing a part in their voting?

I think it's amusing what some people call "values."  Here are some values... I'll force a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term, and I will slash her welfare payment so she can be destitute for 18 years while she raises the kid.  When I hear "values" voters... I stop listening.

[Link]

Since when are tax deductions 'programs'? Is that more 'spending in the tax code' I wasn't aware of?

Yes the mortgage interest deduction is a government program to increase home ownership.  It discriminates against people like me who rent.

[Link]

There's a huge difference between policies aimed at redistributing other people's money and simply not taking as much from people if they meet certain criteria.

I agree.  If you meet the criteria of being in the 99% we should not take 50% of your income over $5 million/yr.  Good plan.  I totally agree.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh look, it's this lame talking point again.

It's not a talking point.  It's reality.  None of the major things Republicans are discussing are theoretical.  It's all been tried before with varying degress of success (by which I mean failure).  There are numerous countries with weak central governments and low taxes on the rich that would love for US millionares to relocate.  Ever wonder why you don't see an exodus?  Think about it.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh look, it's this lame talking point again.

It's not a talking point.  It's reality.  None of the major things Republicans are discussing are theoretical.  It's all been tried before with varying degress of success (by which I mean failure).  There are numerous countries with weak central governments and low taxes on the rich that would love for US millionares to relocate.  Ever wonder why you don't see an exodus?  Think about it.

It is a talking point. It insinuates that the call for less gov't is a complete absolute desire for none at all. Hyperbolistic exaggeration of one's opponents is one of the most common of talking points.

Some people call it "hyperbolistic exaggeration."  I call it "reading the newspaper."

[Link]

-Many of the poor who vote Republican are from rural, small-town areas. They are thus, less (or less obviously) dependent on government than a high-density urban area.

-Republicans do a far better job than Democrats at appealing to rural areas and small towns. It's not merely cultural conservatism or hot-button "wedge issues": a lot of rural people genuinely resent the wealthier urban areas' influence and power, and urban usually means Democratic in voting habits. Reagan was from small-town rural America, and was himself a former Democrat; he understood and could communicate with small-town "middle America."

The last time I was in the South during election season I went to rural Texas and there were several Democrats running for local office unopposed.  There is a very strong rural Democratic tradition.  In the south it has to do with the Republican Lincoln freeing the slaves.  The growing Republican influence was due to LBJ (a Democrat) signing into law civil rights legislation.  It's as simply as that.  You take racism out of the equation and you have a very differnt picture.

[Link]

-Many of the poor who vote Republican are from rural, small-town areas. They are thus, less (or less obviously) dependent on government than a high-density urban area.

-Republicans do a far better job than Democrats at appealing to rural areas and small towns. It's not merely cultural conservatism or hot-button "wedge issues": a lot of rural people genuinely resent the wealthier urban areas' influence and power, and urban usually means Democratic in voting habits. Reagan was from small-town rural America, and was himself a former Democrat; he understood and could communicate with small-town "middle America."

The last time I was in the South during election season I went to rural Texas and there were several Democrats running for local office unopposed.  There is a very strong rural Democratic tradition.  In the south it has to do with the Republican Lincoln freeing the slaves.  The growing Republican influence was due to LBJ (a Democrat) signing into law civil rights legislation.  It's as simply as that.  You take racism out of the equation and you have a very differnt picture.

So rural white people are just a bunch of stupid racists who don't know what's good for them?  Because that's what you imply.

The average person in general is pretty ignorant.  This thread was asking a specific question about poor conservative voters.  And yes I think the average person doesn't know what's good for them.  That's why they majority of them are overweight or obese.

And yes I believe poor southern rural whites tend to be more racist than educated northeastern people of all races.  Am I wrong?  Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Link]

And yes I believe poor southern rural whites tend to be more racist than educated northeastern people of all races.  Am I wrong?  Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are plenty of educated people in my area-a 70% Obama area of well-educated liberals- who are racist. I've heard it. I've seen it.  But it's more of a subtle, dismissive, condescending racism than a "goddamn n-ggers" racism.

tend to be≠100%

[Link]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

The article you posted from the Weekly Standard?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't thinks so.

I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.  I never use them as a basis for any of my arguments for left leaning or Democratic ideas.  There is a difference between entertainment and news.  A lot of Faux Noise and Rush Limbaugh addicts don't get the distinction.  Everyone is allowed their guilty pleasures.  But eventually you have to come back to planet earth.

[Link]

I'm sure that Social Security and Medicare, two landmark Dem accomplishments, that the GOP fights to weaken every day, has done nothing to fight poverty

What are you talking about? No, they don't.

Just thought I would throw that out there since you guys like posting links to The Weekly Standard so much.

[Link]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

[Link]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

my mother understood government assistance could end up as a way of life...so we got by.

Your mother sounds like a great gal.  Too bad she didn't have any self control or teach it to her offspring.

Are you familiar with the term alcoholics?  They are people that can't handle alcohol.  For them it becomes "a way of life."  Most people can consume alcohol responsibly.  Do you think we should ban all alcohol because a minority of people can't handle it?

Obviously you've heard of McDonalds.  The vast majority of people can't handle it.  For them "it becomes a way of life."  That's why the majority of American's are over weight or obese lard @$$es (seriously how many people have hypothyroidism).  Do you think we should have a government ban on McDonalds?

A lot of people at various points in their lives (even before they are 65) receive some type of government assistance.  The majority of them do not end up as strung out crack addicts blowing guys behind a dumpster for PEZ.

No one in my immediate family was ever on welfare or food stamps.  But once I grew up and left my suburban bubble I started encountering people in my professional life who had.  I was surprised at first.  These people were engineers, doctors, teachers, etc.  They were on public assistance for a finite amount of time (sometimes years) and were now making money and paying back into the stem.  They represent the extreme success stories.  But there is a lot of territory between them and your Reaganite myth of every welfare recipient being a "welfare queen" from the south side of Chicago.

[Link]

We ate at home probably 99% of the time (McDonald's was a huge treat), and our vacations amounted to driving to OK and KS to visit relatives.  We didn't throw birthday parties, we simply had cake and a couple of presents.

Good for you.  Both my parents at various points in their lives had six figure jobs.  My home life was the exactly as you just described, besides the trips.  Every few years my parents would take me overseas so I wouldn't grow up to be a completely ignorant American.  But besides that it was road trips around our home state.  It's called living within your means.  You don't have a monopoly on the concept and again that does not disprove the fact that a social welfare system can be beneficial to society as a whole.

[Link]

And now we are all out of the ghetto and my mother is retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings.

I saved the best for last.  This is truly one of the most hilarious statements I have read in a long time... and yes I do read Michelle Bachmann's comedy material.

Would you mind telling me how many people in this country retire with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings."  So you want to come up with a national plan that will assume no one will need government assistance and that everyone retires with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings."  Why not just plug the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus into your equation?

I have more education than probably 95+% of Americans.  I would not build an economic model that assumed everyone else would be capable of my academic achievements.  Achievements mind you that I think are very modest compared to those of my coworkers and supervisors.  You have to be realistic.  Your mother's achievements particularly with what she was given are commendable but unfortunately not easily reproducable.

If you can find for me a country where people refuse to accept government welfare and the majority of the people "retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings" then I will be willing to look at your economic plan and start trying to figure out how to implement it here in America.

[Link]

Just look at the dumb comments in thread equating living within your means as self punishment. 

Naw.  I just think the idea of not taking government assistance when you are temporarily down on your luck because you are afraid of turning into a degenerate addict is pretty dumb.  Self control... look into it.

[Link]

most Americans do not appreciate the power of savings (spending less than you earn)

Yes and that's why when someone suggests we ought to change our system of taxation and welfare and base it on the premise that most single moms are going to be retiring with the equivalent of $300,000 US (2011 value) in their retirement accounts I look at them like they are crazy.