I don't think he said that.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Do the Poor Vote Republican?
- Thread starter pgtl_10
- Start date
- Status
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Dave said the poor spend 100% of what they make. This isn't by choice. No one says "I want to earn exactly how much I spend!" It has nothing to do with self-control. You're throwing that in here.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
There's nothing controversial in saying people with low incomes tend to spend all or nearly all of it, leaving less for savings. As far as foresight for retirement, it is more difficult to plan long term when short term necessities are more pressing. I don't have to worry about meeting my basic needs, so I can afford the time and money to consider my future, if I were forced to focus on collecting enough money to meet basic needs on a month to month basis I would have more difficulty planning and saving for retirement.
I'm not saying that these people are stupid or careless, but that the burden of meeting basic needs is greater, thus allowing them less intellectual capital to consider future needs.
Or you can just assume that I think poor people are helpless babies and ascribe a whole ideology to me based on that assumption.
Mass Effect
Member
lol this painting...
If Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower were to come back somehow, they'd have none of the current Republicans' fucking shit. They'd all be ashamed what their party has become.
What oppression? Calling those who wear confederate flags cousin fuckers is playing with their own words of being pure bred and longing for the good old days. And again, the confederate flag lovers have nothing to lose but hate, blacks and gays are fighting for their lives. Huge difference. I get we can't just attack at will, but there doesn't have to be any nicety about how we plainly tell them they are wrong. We don't have time to debate objective facts as opinions.
fuzzylogic
Member
Why is it always either or with this debate? It is possible to want people to take care of themselves AND want to catch them when they fall, don't you know? I think the government providing the means for a more positive living environment increases the probability of someone returning to being a productive cog of society. Depressed and desperate people don't do as much as happy people. I'm just playing the probabilities game. Welfare is a system I think has a positive ROI in human capital. Not sure if my view holds out in reality, but I'm optimistic about human potential. I'd rather base policy on giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than writing them off, because I'm a sappy person.
prag16 said:
He seems to think welfare is bad because it perpetuates a "ghetto attitude." It encourages one to remain in welfare and not to try ever again. Is that worse than letting them starve or be homeless? I'd say there's a better chance of "rehabilitation" so to speak through welfare, than through neglect. I think the reality of that situation was that poverty, stress, feelings of failure, lack of education and desperation were more powerful effects on those peoples lives than the welfare was a positive. This is usually where some people might say, "oh, so the individual is powerless, it's all the 'environment's' fault!" I say no, I say be aware of the hazards on the road, adjust accordingly, and do your best to defy a bad environment (or take advantage of a good one). I don't know why acknowledging trends based on examination of environmental factors equates to surrendering in some people's eyes.
Recapitulating for clarity: "It encourages one to remain in welfare and not to try ever again." I think that's actually an argument for better welfare programs. Empathetic ones that nourish people back to "health." I guess the core of me refuses to believe most people will not improve when given a fair chance. If I'm too optimistic, and someone can somehow prove people that fall into poverty are entirely unredeemable, then I would change my mind. I'd still feel cruel for doing so though.
Personal responsibility is not an alternative to welfare. Personal responsibility is a good notion, but it is errant to think of it as an alternative policy to welfare; it is just wishful thinking. It is the equivalent to yelling, "try harder lazy asses!" out of your window. Saying be responsible for yourself doesn't do anything. You need to forge a specific public policy that results in outcomes of increased personal responsibility, if that is what you value and you refuse to let welfare stand. I think improving our education system is one of the "easiest" ways we could reduce the need for welfare (although increasing automatization is going to throw a monkey wrench in to these ideas). But until we live in a more utopic and fair world, welfare seems like a good path to pursue. It does need to be improved though. People need a positive environment and mentorship. It seems like the current system only works on the positive environment part, and does poorly at it.
He also assumes everyone he left behind (not a good choice of words but you know what I mean) stayed there and never tried ever again in their life. We assume our own perception/anecdotes to be more reliable than it/they is/are. Unless he actively kept up with them and kept a scientific journal/record of some kind, and entered their homes regularly to check up on them, he could not possibly know for sure that they didn't try to better themselves, or that no one else escaped that situation.
Notes: I have never been on welfare. I have had a full time job since I left college.
Check valve
Neo Member
Honestly people on GAF like to simplify down that answer to things like racism, bigotry, and Muslims, because they like an easy answer and more importantly a 'bad guy' on the other side of the polls. The truth is there is no easy answer in politics and many problems have many solutions which the two parties handle differently and people are ultimately going to vote towards their interests, which may be different than yours.
prag16
Banned
So the people in question made $X, with $Y subtracted for FICA leaving them $X-$Y. They're poor so they spend all of their money, leaving them with zero. If there was no FICA, they can't just spend $X-Y anyway, leaving Y aside for retirement? They're poor, so they MUST spend all their money?
Apparently the contention is no matter exactly how much they make, they will save NOTHING because they're "poor"?
EDIT: Just read Dave's response; somehow missed it when I read the other two who quoted me. Of course it's difficult when you're struggling to scrape by. I've never personally had to worry about this, but I've had friends and family who have. I can imagine it'd be very tough to see the big picture. I'm probably not articulating this well, but the implication seems to be that there's no way these people can save enough to support themselves through retirement, so the government has to help. This implies they'd have to be collecting way more than they could ever have put in. That wasn't the original intent of SS at all.
Are you looking at it as a forced retirement savings type program? Or as a wealth transfer program. The idea for the program was as insurance against impoverished elderly years (back then the expected post-retirement lifespan was much shorter than it is today, but that's a separate problem/discussion). Not as Dave implied, as a way for poor people who apparently couldn't afford to save anything while they worked, to get a constant "unearned" cash flow in retirement.
"Insurance" was the original intent.
Decades of guaranteed payouts doesn't sound like "insurance" to me.
To my mind the argument is that below a certain level of income people lack the fiscal capacity to deal with expensive and necessary services like health care and retirement savings on their own. Pooling these resources to provide services like Social Security and Medicaid is better for people than 40+ years of the extra meager income they'd have if FICA never existed.
That 40+ years of 6% more income on a low income at an individual level isn't enough for the sort of medical planning or retirement savings that is needed in old age. But pooled together into a government provided social service it is.
Now I'm not a fan of FICA. It's regressive. The US should have higher income and corporate and capital gains taxes to pay for social services and should phase payroll taxes out. But even FICA is better than no Social Security or Medicare.
prag16
Banned
Wealth transfer program then. That's fine, but the distinction is needed because Dave had mentioned the "original intent" of SS multiple times. (Unless the argument is that the fact that the government manages the funds will somehow allow the total value of the money to be more than the sum of its parts... based on how governments operate, that'd be an... odd assumption; usually the opposite applies)
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
^^^ I think you're confusing me with someone else--I never appealed to the original intent of social security. But actually a large pool of money gathering interest will absolutely do better than individuals investing on their own with very small sums, but that's aside from what eventually happened with the funds in the SS accounts when they merged them into the budget at large.
Original intent really doesn't matter at this stage (and I'm not familiar with the way the law was originally written), it is what it is, which is really a very shitty cross-breed of wealth transfer and forced retirement. A large amount of people will never have the sort of job that will allow them to save a sufficient amount for retirement or sickness in later years, so a certain amount of wealth transfer is occurring. At the same time, SS benefits are tied to the amount of your income at the end of your working years, so if you're making oodles of money before retirement you get the most money possible from SS which makes it some sort of forced retirement (and what makes it so confused as a social welfare plan).
You can make the argument that people now look at SS as their retirement "plan" instead of planning for themselves, but ultimately that ignores that, prior to its existence, poverty among the elderly was a serious issue. So if the option is between the elderly burdening the tax system and the elderly burdening homeless shelters, I'll take the former.
That's a bingo!
Original intent really doesn't matter at this stage (and I'm not familiar with the way the law was originally written), it is what it is, which is really a very shitty cross-breed of wealth transfer and forced retirement. A large amount of people will never have the sort of job that will allow them to save a sufficient amount for retirement or sickness in later years, so a certain amount of wealth transfer is occurring. At the same time, SS benefits are tied to the amount of your income at the end of your working years, so if you're making oodles of money before retirement you get the most money possible from SS which makes it some sort of forced retirement (and what makes it so confused as a social welfare plan).
You can make the argument that people now look at SS as their retirement "plan" instead of planning for themselves, but ultimately that ignores that, prior to its existence, poverty among the elderly was a serious issue. So if the option is between the elderly burdening the tax system and the elderly burdening homeless shelters, I'll take the former.
That's a bingo!
prag16
Banned
Fortunately, I don't know many young people who actually believe SS will still be there (in its current state) when they retire. I'm sure as hell not factoring SS into any of my planning. For it to survive major changes need to be made, and soon. Neither party is interested in getting serious about it. It's often characterized as something that's hard to reform because it's so "popular". No shit it's popular; people are being mailed checks. $$$
Problem with politicians is that their time horizon often is only as long as the next reelection bid, and what will get them votes. Hence both parties usually want to do the popular thing, and assure voters that they won't "take away their SS".
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
It's actually pretty easy to fix, and fix without impacting benefits. I'm not familiar enough with the plans to repeat their initiatives off-hand, but they're out there if you'd like to see them. The big piece of them, though, is removing the cap on taxable income under FICA.
I have to agree with the Republican posters that there's a lot of judgments in here.
prag16
Banned
Right, removing the cap would go a long way by itself. The problem is that totally abandons the, "no really, it's a not a wealth transfer system, honest" charade, officially. Not the easiest bridge to cross.
Raising the retirement age is probably the most obvious first step.
I mean, look at this graph. How is this sustainable. Social security of course had plenty of assets when many/most people were never collecting...
Well first the point in my mind isn't wealth transfer. It's guaranteeing a decent quality of life to everybody by providing retirement and medical benefits to even those in society who can't afford them. If someone came up with a way of doing that without wealth transfer then I'd be interested (The Saudi method is to pump so much cash out of the ground as sweet crude that they can just throw money at every problem for example). It's just that, absent an embarrassing level of incredibly valuable and easy to access natural resources, wealth transfer is an incredibly good way of doing it.
Secondly pooling resources together is actually way more efficient than individual management of money. It's one of the reasons why Canadian Universal Health care is way cheaper than the US health system for example. Economies of scale and increased bargaining power.
gamechanger87
Member
That's essentially what everyone is trying to say without saying it.
timetokill
Banned
Ultimately everyone is pretty much saying, "they vote Republican because they're dumb, they vote Democratic because they're smart."
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Right, removing the cap would go a long way by itself. The problem is that totally abandons the, "no really, it's a not a wealth transfer system, honest" charade, officially. Not the easiest bridge to cross.
Raising the retirement age is probably the most obvious first step.
I mean, look at this graph. How is this sustainable. Social security of course had plenty of assets when many/most people were never collecting...
Well the thing about people dying later is that the middle and upper classes are living longer, the working classes aren't. So the people who need SS the most are dying younger, the people who don't are living longer, and the solution is to raise the retirement age? It seems like a very good at the start, but looking at the demographic breakdown the plan doesn't hold up as a way to help those most in need.
The One and Done
Member
Complete disregard of truth in instances like this make me question people's true reasons for their decision.
Is this the greatest picture of all time?
prag16
Banned
Is that so? I hadn't heard that. If that's true, then yeah, that changes the equation. But I can't believe the middle class on down (the people that 'need' SS) have not seen increases in longevity in the last ~80 years.
EDIT: Looked it up. Life expectancy is up for all. Life expectancy is up MORE when income is higher. EDIT2: Another article claims for the lowest income brackets, it may actually be declining slightly. Damn.
Wait for the next version where they're playing darts with Trump.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Edit: I misread your question. No, life expectancy is higher than it was for people born in the late 1800s, but what I'm saying is that life expectancy is heavy impacted by income, so people who need SS the most would be hurt most by an increase of the retirement age.
Yerp. Check it out, google "life expectancy by income" or something similar for a nice surprise!
Here's one article of many:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-more-to-help-rich-seniors-than-poor-ones/
Graphs:
I wonder what the ratio of pay-out to pay-in is per income bracket. People with higher incomes at retirement get more from SS, but since they were giving more to SS throughout their lives, one would think they'd still be losing, but since they live longer I don't know...
Yerp. Check it out, google "life expectancy by income" or something similar for a nice surprise!
Here's one article of many:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-more-to-help-rich-seniors-than-poor-ones/
Graphs:
I wonder what the ratio of pay-out to pay-in is per income bracket. People with higher incomes at retirement get more from SS, but since they were giving more to SS throughout their lives, one would think they'd still be losing, but since they live longer I don't know...
Well, the first one as you said is in no way a republican policy and helps middle class people way more than the poor.
The second is a benefit that actually helps businesses far more than individuals so I kinda don't understand why you posted that as an example. Most of New York's taxi medallions for example, are owned in large clumps by corporations who collect them and run the drivers again, as a business.
The third though, vouchers? Are you kidding? The end goal of vouchers is the eventual elimination of free public schools. I genuinely can't tell if you're serious or not.
prag16
Banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-is-a-further-indictment-of-our-9061888.html
Interestingly the UK is seeing the same issue. The UK has the NHS, universal health care. So why is the gap still so large? I'd assume high income earners are going outside the system for better care? That's potentially an interesting data point for those who think bringing universal healthcare is a cure all.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
It's everything that having a high income brings to the table. Better food, less stress, less manual labor, etc.
Stress is a big part of it. We know stress prematurely ages people and causes early death.
gamechanger87
Member
That's pretty much the position. There are no other reasons behind it. Republicans go for the dumbest voters and on average their level of education and intelligence is far below democratic voters. The stats back it up. Trust me.
shadowfall
Member
Wow. This thread could not be more condescending towards republicans. What if they believe in fiscal conservatism. Lower taxes? Lesser government regulation?
There's some interesting articles to be found on that subject for sure.
http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/197...hed-sides-on-civil-rights/?PageSpeed=noscript
the very poorest don't vote. the slightly less poor get alienated over 'entitlements' received by the very poor, often based on the view that they are poor and work hard yet they can see in their life examples of taxes going to a lazier person than them (or a drug addict), and can be energized by the particular social wedge issues popular with the right whether abortion/role of religion/guns or the big cultural divide between liberal elite and regular folk or cities vs rural.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I think one of the points of the thread is wondering why any poor Americans are thinking about this and why. They've been told to go against their own self-interest.
...and rich business owners who vote democrat are, with that same view, going against their own apparent self-interest.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
I would ask why they are voting for a party that has demonstrably not cared about any of those things for at least a decade (except for tax cuts for the rich, which is moot since this thread is specifically about the poor)
Princess Carl
Member
And yet that's still a legitimate talking point lmfao.
shadowfall
Member
I forgot to add immigration / foreign policy. I do not see Democrats reducing tax rates for any one. What I am saying is that people have strong belief in certain idealogies. Just because they do not fit in to any persons vision of what "good" means does not mean it makes it any less crazy.
Personally I identify myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If Republicans were not going over board on their love for Bible and Guns, I can see a lot more people voting for republicans (rich or poor).
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
They're not related at all. Poor Republican voters are lining up to line the pockets of the rich by the command of the rich. A rich business owner who votes Democrat has the money the burn for what they may perceive as the greater good. A poor Republican voter is potentially taking away their own last resorts for survival if they're voting for someone who wants to distribute money and resources away from healthcare, welfare, or retirement. The situations would be comparable if the stakes were.
gamechanger87
Member
The general position the left likes to take is that they are morally and intellectually superior to republicans. If you don't agree with them then a bunch of them line up to tell you how wrong you are for disagreeing with them.
It's all rather facinating.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Congress instructs other parts of the government to distribute nominal money at a cost ranging from 5 - 6.2% of GDP from now until 2089. Or they don't. What is there to get serious about?
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Because republicans have convinced the bulk of the middle class that the Republican party stands for economic security and economic advancement.
And the poor desperately wish to join that middle class.
And the poor desperately wish to join that middle class.
prag16
Banned
Expecting social security to still be in that range as a percentage of GDP in 2089 is pretty optimistic to say the least. It jumped around a percentage point already in less than a decade. Even then, Medicare is a whole separate animal all its own. That situation is highly likely to be far worse than SS. I suppose we can just do nothing and hope for the best... -_-
OneFiftyOne
Member
Doesn't it come off as condescending, this idea that the poor are not even capable of determining for themselves what's in their best interest? If they need politicians need to tell them what their best interest is, then what use is there in helping them at all?
(Of course to politicians, it really isn't 'help'; it's buying votes with taxpayer money. But that's another topic.)
You mean voters don't like being talked down to? Who'd of thunk...
(Of course to politicians, it really isn't 'help'; it's buying votes with taxpayer money. But that's another topic.)
You mean voters don't like being talked down to? Who'd of thunk...
TheLaughingStock
Member
In whatever year, society will divide up output as best we can probably still using IOUs and numbers on computer screens. And sure forecasts 70+ years out are nonsense and unreliable positive or negative. But, people get paid to produce that and waste their talents. I'm just pointing out that fear mongers are jumping around, stomping their feet, and rattling their cages because me and someone's grandmother have similar living standards in real terms at a cost estimated at most a little over 6% of GDP.
One needs to specify where the government should have less regulations. Being so vague allows the exploitation of people and resources, which the Republicans do indeed push for.
Given the actual republican record on the economy as opposed to the weird assumptions people make I'd say they're very much voting in their own financial interests as well as moral responsibility.
Shareholder appeasement warps the way corporations think about long term success however.
Nah. Only the shortsighted businessmen would probably argue that.
Presidents and the U.S. Economy:
An Econometric Exploration (65 pages)
Excellent bedtime reading btw. But anyways, economy seems to trend better with Dems. Better economy -> better business.
- Status