jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So who is going to turn out their voters? It seems like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate. So I'm predicting a good day(s) for Radical Rick.

Why does it seem like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate? He hasn't won a contested primary yet.

Because by all logic and reason, he shouldn't get more than 1% of the vote?

For anyone who holds Rick Santorum in contempt, or who generally enjoys anti-Republican red-meat prose (I fall into both camps), I give my highest recommendation to the back-to-back columns by Richard Cohen and Eugene Robinson in today's Washington Post.

(The Post web address is exactly what you think it is, but I find their online edition very difficult to use. Unfortunately.)

Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"?

To venture a guess... maybe because there's more of a "sheeple" vibe to the latter, thanks to the likes of talk radio and such (like trickle down supply side "job creators" BS, opposing ideas are "socialist", et al)?

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

It's pretty established that these people vote against their economic interest because of the Alger myth. They think they are going to be in the upper brackets soon so they dont want them taxed. They wildly overestimate upward class movement. Wealthy people voting against their best interests are presumably making informed decisions.

VA senate passes a watered down ultrasound bill. Just a "belly" ultrasound. A fine question came up with who shall pay for the unnecessary medical procedure.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

It's pretty established that these people vote against their economic interest because of the Alger myth. They think they are going to be in the upper brackets soon so they dont want them taxed. They wildly overestimate upward class movement. Wealthy people voting against their best interests are presumably making informed decisions.

That they'll soon be poor?

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

1) give me an example of your clause #1 that's actually conforms with your assertion beyond a math example - because you know that economics consists of more than "more is better".
2) it IS stupidity to vote against your economic interests when the ratio of what you've got vs what you've earned, relative to the Romneys, is inequitable

Since much of the difference in our viewpoints on this matter quite likely turns on it, I'm looking forward to your carefully considered definition of "earned"

To put Doc into English and to make my own point, werthless,

I vote sometimes for people who are intent on raising my taxes* on myself knowing full well that it isn't the optimal economic decision on my part but knowing I can afford it and that I'll be fine in the grand scheme of things.

The issue is how many people at the lower end of the income spectrum think their voting in their own interest when they're not? I have no data on that by the way, so if you're able to show me some, that'd be great.

I've not made that assertion before, but I've probably thought it.

thephan wrote:VA senate passes a watered down ultrasound bill. Just a "belly" ultrasound. A fine question came up with who shall pay for the unnecessary medical procedure.

what will they even see?

a bill is being proposed in PA to have the transvag and also point a screen towards the woman's face. so pathetic. 30+ bills about abortion since republicans got in charge

jerseyhoya wrote:In what is perhaps the least surprising news of 2012 so far, the 1% tip story was made up.

cute how the bevy of thin-skinned banker's bag-carriers who posted comments there pretended like they knew it all along

jeff2sf wrote:To put Doc into English and to make my own point, werthless,

I vote sometimes for people who are intent on raising my taxes* on myself knowing full well that it isn't the optimal economic decision on my part but knowing I can afford it and that I'll be fine in the grand scheme of things.

The issue is how many people at the lower end of the income spectrum think their voting in their own interest when they're not? I have no data on that by the way, so if you're able to show me some, that'd be great.

I've not made that assertion before, but I've probably thought it.

My main point is that people make decisions on the candidates and causes they support beyond just how they affect their own pocketbook; social issues play a role, how "Presidential" a candidate looks is a factor, and yes, biases undoubtedly affect one's decisionmaking. It's just annoying when I hear or read, for the upteenth time, that poor people are stupid for voting Republican, yet the wealthy are "enlightened" when they decide to vote on social issues.

I have no data on what low income people "believe" they are voting for; I'd also like to see some data. I get irritated seeing poor=dumb with respect to voting decisions, and this is is somehow acceptable discourse.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In what is perhaps the least surprising news of 2012 so far, the 1% tip story was made up.

cute how the bevy of thin-skinned banker's bag-carriers who posted comments there pretended like they knew it all along

I thought you were smart enough not to read comments.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

1) give me an example of your clause #1 that's actually conforms with your assertion beyond a math example - because you know that economics consists of more than "more is better".
2) it IS stupidity to vote against your economic interests when the ratio of what you've got vs what you've earned, relative to the Romneys, is inequitable

Since much of the difference in our viewpoints on this matter quite likely turns on it, I'm looking forward to your carefully considered definition of "earned"

1. Stupid request, when the whole point of my mini-rant was that voting "MORE MONEY FOR ME = RATIONAL" is a criterion only applied to low income groups. Wealthy Democrats push for higher taxes because they think it results in a healthier society. Poor Republicans make the same choice/tradeoff when they support politicians who are pro-life.
2. Wealthy business owners, depending on how their corporation is structured, probably pay more than you realize. Incidence of tax <> tax burden. Link that you'll disagree with but that explains.

Olympia Snowe isn't running for reelection. Oh dear.

jerseyhoya wrote:Olympia Snowe isn't running for reelection. Oh dear.

Was she in danger of losing the primary to someone on her right? There was no way she was not going to beat a Democrat in Maine in the general election.

(Gallup/USA Today 2/27)

WSJ just can't keep their story-line straight. One day all business taxes are paid by the customers, another day all business taxes are paid by the owners. I wouldn't mind seeing the corporate income tax reduced to something on the order of 15%. We could actually eliminate all the loopholes, so that business decisions aren't driven by tax considerations, and reduce the corporate income tax to 12.5%, and we would be revenue neutral, based upon last tax year. It would be a lot fairer, because corporations that just go about their business, without trying to game the system, would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage against the GE's of this world who staff a huge tax department as a profit center. Really, there is no tax cut that would increase our global competitiveness as much as the reduction of the corporate income tax. Then tax all income at the same rate for individuals.

lethal wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Olympia Snowe isn't running for reelection. Oh dear.

Was she in danger of losing the primary to someone on her right? There was no way she was not going to beat a Democrat in Maine in the general election.

I think she had a challenger, but it wasn't high profile as far as I knew. Lugar and Hatch are the two old folks in real trouble in primaries according to public polling/conventional wisdom. Maybe she had bad internal polling, but her statement - "I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term." - seems like a reasonable enough explanation.

allentown wrote: Then tax all income at the same rate for individuals.

are you saying eliminate progressive tax scales; i.e. a flat tax??