Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it appears that you're not really interested in my opinion on this subject. I suspect that you're merely looking for me to post something that you can attack. You seem to find that fun, as if this is a game to you. I can assure you that this is no game, and I have only contempt for those who treat it as a game. Politics is a real praxis, and it has real effects on real people.
Not at all....the question was a sincere one.......sincere, because we hear the "voting against ones interests" mantra from leftists of various stripes ad nauseum, and I'm seriously interested in why you would think that voting for candidates that would reduce the size of government, to the extent of lessening its impact on citizens, and allowing them to keep more of what they earn is "voting against our interests".
To a thinking person, allowing them to keep more of their resources, however "rich" one may perceive them to be is certainly "in their interests"
Now......if you define "voting against ones interests" as voting against handouts for the poor, then you have again demonstrated that you fail to understand conservatism......it is a statistically proven fact that conservatives donate more of their resources to charities, and efforts to benefit the "poor" than liberals do, by several orders of magnitude......however, conservatives in doing so reserve the right to donate to those causes that WE determine individually are worthy........and that is......essentially, the crux of the liberals complaint......that we get to actually choose what we benefit, and not some grand centralized entity.
As a lawyer, I'm certain that you make a good living, and I'm not saying this to be "snarky", but at the bottom of everyone's 1040, there is a line that allows you to contribute additional funds to the government that you seem to adore........I'd be curious to see the amount that you (as a liberal, in favor of taxing the rich) enter voluntarily on that line every year.
I think it's against the interests of poor and working people to vote for the party of the rich. Sadly, the Democrats are also the party of the rich, now, so it really doesn't matter how people vote. But on the specific issue of the tea partiers, who are calling for less government spending, it makes no sense in a recession (or depression) to call for less government spending. We need more government spending, not less. Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression. Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession. It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.
We've already "plowed this ground". and you have stated your position (and it IS only your unsupported opinion).......we disagree vehemently, so lets not rehash the same old stuff........It has been proven economically that growing government in recessionary conditions is
never productive........until you produce your economics degree, and can cite specific examples where this theory has actually WORKED, then it is fruitless for you to continue to proffer it........repeating the same untruth over and over, will not ultimately make it so......
Further, please also spare me another dissertation on FDR, I can cite peer-reviewed economic papers demonstrating that his policies were a complete failure, and further, as a lawyer, remind yourself that he was the cretin that actually tried to "pack" the Supreme Court, when they continually struck down his more aggressive agenda items, until his own party rebeled. Yeah, he's a real great example of Constitutional government at work........
As far as the "working people" are concerned.......most of us here either are, or have in the past been "working people"........therefore your position makes no sense from our point of view......and we can only interpret it to mean
"the "working people" that you as a liberal deem worthy of support......which is generally defined by us as "nonworking people" And to be painfully frank, I for one, don't really give a damn about them.......this country is replete with opportunity, even in times like these......so to your "working people", I say, get off the government teat, and do something for yourselves, because the rest of us are growing weary of supporting you. Is that harsh? Yes it is, but sometimes reality needs to slap some folks in the face..........
I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget deficits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.
And we were far from silent while that was being done.......again, the difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans"....which you again (respectfully) seem reluctant to grasp......
As for the final arbiter of their best interests, it's clear that I am applying my own, subjective assessment of their best interests on them, and perhaps I am wrong to do so.
To that I will respond.......yes of course you are, as most liberals, you have a fundamental belief that your value systems are "superior" to everyone else's........and yes you are quite wrong......
I am the final arbiter of what is in my best interest, as is every other individual on this board........this is (still) essentially a free country, and unless ultimate violence is your goal, liberals would be wise to leave it that way (if they know what's good for them)......
and I am willing to make a judgment call about their best interests on that basis
Precisely my point......"the prosecution rests, your honor......"
doc
