Who thinks that they may be, in some way, voting against their interests

by supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket?

I don't mean completely against your interests, that would make no sense. I mean in at least one respect, whether it's financial (tax cut issues), or some other single issue in which you disagree with or do not benefit from the K/E positions.

I would count myself an example. At least in the short run, a Kerry win and Dem win in Congress might cost me some tax cut money. I'm no super rich guy, but depending upon the year, I've fallen into the group benefiting the most from shrubco tax cuts. Also shrubco and Republicans tend to support the physician's lobby versus say the trial lawyer lobby (typically aligned with Dems) position on malpractice issues (although shrubco's REAL daddy is the giant pharmaceutical concerns).

Of course, it doesn't benefit physicians either if they have favorable malpractice laws but half their patients are uninsured/have no jobs and can't pay their bills.

None of this deters me in the least from supporting K/E as there are many much more important reasons why the shrubco gang must go.

I'm not interested in debating the very complicated issues re: health policy or taxes on this thread, just interested if there are any other DUers who may feel that they are in some way, small or large, short term or long term, voting against some interest or interests of theirs, as I often ridicule poor working class Southerners for doing in voting Republican.

find yourself a better accountant.do you make more than $200,000.00 a year? cry me a river pal :nopity:

question I was curious about.

You must have fucked someone over to be successful. :grr:



Just kidding. :-) I am lower-middle-class because I went into a field that doesn't pay much. Some things are worth more than money. If you chose a field that makes you wealthy, I'm genuinely happy for you.

but demonize rich liberal Democrats, particularly those from showbiz.

Undoubtedly the Ben Afflecks and Barbara Streisands will pay a lot more in taxes if Kerry rolls back tax cuts on those over 200K in income as promised. At their level of wealth it will have I would imagine little effect on what their life is like. But nonetheless they are in that sense, "voting against their self interest". Of course it affects a poor white southern Repub voter much more if their auto plant job is outsourced to China by their heartless CEO maintaining their profit margin and their own executive bonus at the expense of the worker bee's job, than it would affect Ben Affleck to make, say, 20 mil rather than 30 mil a year.

Nonetheless, it makes me a little uncomfortable to ride those poor southern Repubs voting against their (economic) self interest and say that's the only thing that matters, even though in truth economic self interest IS the most important driving engine in politics. Because if my own economic self interest, narrowly defined and in the short term, was all that mattered, then I should be all over shrubco and the Repubs, as I've told my wife.

But bullying the country into immoral wars of conquest, involving our country and military in torture and creating our own lawless gulags, and so many other things, supercede the importance of what my bank account looks like. Plus, the ulcer I get every day from the thought that shrubya occupies the WH is a major negative quality of life indicator for me.

the globalization agenda. They both support that though. Everything else I'm pretty much in line with on Kerry.

One thing I don't like about Kerry is his stance on the war, but if he were to do it the way I want and say so before the elections, he'd probably lose in a landslide. I guess it's not really an "interest" but it's something I'm interested in.

When my last grandparent dies, I am due to inherit a significant sum of money. It will be smaller if he dies during Kerry's term, if Kerry brings the estate tax back in full. It's not huge -- the money is being split in a complicated formula between his five children, thirteen grandchildren, and thirty-odd great-grandchildren -- but the estate is, I'm pretty sure, big enough to get hit by the estate tax.

So what? A windfall will be a smaller windfall. Whoopty-doo.

And while I'll probably vote for Kerry because of the Supreme Court, I will not pretend that despicable foreign policy is anything other than what it is.

At least he doesn't have a list of more countries he'd like to invade.

NAFTA et al. I think those policies are the bain of America's Jobs. I guess Kerry was supporting those policies to some degree but talked about tweeking it a bit..that's good.

I'm also NOT into the enviromentalist "movement". I don't know many Dems that support my position, so this is a moot point. It's just my opinion, but I've just been irate with all the ranting about the environment to the exclusion of any common sense solutions. I don't believe half of that alarmist rhetoric. I'm not opposed to logging either. I believe there's some serious fraud going on inside some of the local/statewide EPAs. I also think that the radical econut wing of the party is ruining it for the rest of the Dem party.

Other than that, I'm fine with K/E

I am white, I am heterosexual, I am male. Bushco want a kind of hegemony where white people have all the money, power, and influence over people of color, where heterosexuals have special privileges not afforded to gays, and men control the money and the bodies of women.

But perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps my best interest is to live in a nation where people are treated as equals under the law. In that case, I'm voting my own best interest when I go in and vote for Kerry and Edwards.

I've read through all your statements, and I'm not getting how you're voting "against your interests". If that's true, then so are the rich Dem celebrities.

From what I'm reading, if I'm understanding you, "in your interests" seem to be only concerned with economics. That's one thing that people in other countries just don't understand about us -- to them, there are a lot more interests than just their own economics. It may seem to you likely I'm finely splitting some hairs, but I think this is something important to think through. I think we've been brainwashed on this. :)

From what you're saying, economically you're comfortable, and any tax you might lose isn't that important to you. You don't say so in clear terms, but in reading between the lines, it sounds like other interests that are important to you cancel out some of the personal ecomoic interests. That's how people in other countries see it. Yes, they want to be comfortable, but they also want their neighbors to be able to survive unexpected and tough times, and they want environmental and other issues to be taken care of. Those interests are just as important to them, because they have higher ideas of what they want from their lives, and from their society than USians do. I think this is one thing that causes consternation among peoples of other countries.

ON the other hand, poor people who vote for the RW *are* voting against their best interests. They *aren't* comfortable, and they *aren't* doing well, yet they will let the RW sweep that aside in favor of wedge issues. Now, it could be argued that they are also putting those issues in a higher value bracket. I suppose that could be true, but I do believe it's that the thinking about those wedge issues is shallow, and there are other solutions available besides the narrow view the RW have sold them.

What I really appreciate is that you are looking at yourself in terms of what you think of others, that for that I really commend you. That, in itself, is a higher value, and usually leads us to a much better place with ourselves and each other. If we were all able to look at ourselves when we criticise another, and see how we measure up to that same criticism, we'd be a much more mature country! We wouldn't be so vulnerable to being tricked by RW selling points, and we'd have the sense to pick very mature people to represent us.

So, I thank you for your introspection, and for bringing up this question.

Kanary

I wore my fingers out typing all that, and that's all I get back......?

:hi:

Seriously, I'd like to hear some expansion on that.....

Kanary

It's paternalistic for us to decide if it's okay to vote against our (money) self interest, but it's "stupid" for blue collar workers to vote Republican.

I agree that the most important point you bring up is whether you are already basically doing okay or not. If you are then perhaps it makes common sense that you can elevate other issues above money. If you are NOT then it would seem to defy common sense to vote based on gay marriage or whatever.

I think the difference is that most poor Repub voters aren't allowed to see, or don't allow themselves to see, that they are voting against their interests in any way. The "wedge" issue is just a DISTRACTION against paying attention to the fact that overtime benefits are lost, or the new jobs don't provide health insurance. Whereas a wealthy Democratic donor/supporter would presumably understand exactly what they are "giving up" in dollars to vote their conscience in other areas.

But nonetheless it must be recognized that the paternalistic attitude is dangerous, it will drive away the potential convert. Not cool to say, "let me explain to you what's good for you." It has to be put other ways for the message to be palatable.

the average schmuck like most of us?

If Bush destroys the planet, how could that possibly benefit anybody?

Even if I'm rich, if I can't breathe the air, what good is that?

If the world gangs up on us because we're a bunch of evil fascists hell-bent on world domination and our cities are destroyed, well gosh, even if I've got a few more tax dollars in my wallet, what good is that?

But since I don't, no. Voting Kerry is in what are truly my best interests, which have little to do with money as an end.

in the best interests of you, me and everyone and everything in the the entire universe.

I'm sure lots of really stupid, selfish Germans voted for Hitler because he put a little extra cash in their pockets.

A lot of good it did ended up doing them, huh?

Maintaining our current share of world resources is clearly in everyones' short term interest, but it isn't sustainable, and therefore against our long term interests.

Very true....... if it's great for now, but means your kids and/or grandkids will have a very hard time, then whose interest is it?

Kanary

I vote for my country's interests.I am unconcerned with how my votes affect me personally, I try to vote what is best for the larger community, be it city, county, state, or federal.

Otherwise the shortfall is made up with other taxes and lack of services.

So, you think your money is more important than either your civil liberties, the environment, your children's future and all manner of other things * has messed up?

Any candidate who favors keeping marijuana illegal is counter to my interests, but it's not like I'm having trouble getting it.

I'm middle class, possibly lower-middle-class, so I have gotten zero benefit from Shrub's tax policies (and many indirect negative benefits).

I'm confident Kerry is not going to take away my shotgun or restrict ownership of any handguns I may buy in the future.

I disagree with Kerry on gay marriage, but I'm straight so it doesn't affect me personally.