Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.
So the only reason to vote for something is so that someone will give you something?
Maybe not everyone thinks that way.
.
.
So the only reason to vote for something is so that someone will give you something?
Maybe not everyone thinks that way.
.
Voting for your and your familue's best interest is not just voting to get something.
For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called red states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But dont overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.
As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...
Low taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility and strong National defense.
Explain how these are against poor and middle class citizens interest.
Low Taxes benefit the wealthy and corporations. The bills still have to be paid. Smaller government is code for doing away with or kneecapping regulations that kept industry from pissing in the common well and kept them from having to pay for the damage they get caught doing, and financial institutions from doing what they did because they were unregulated and became "too big to fail." Individual responsibility is a method of individualizing social problems that require a group effort, and doubles as a way of limiting the social liability of the entities that caused the problems in the first place. A "strong national defense" also benefits the wealthy and corporations more than average citizens, by keeping the world market stable (or uncooperative nations unstable) for industry and finance to rape, pillage, steal, and plow the fields with salt. The average citizen pays for that with their lives, or the lives of their sons and daughters.
The concept that people of conscience vote for what is best for the country rather than getting the most from government for themselves is so foreign to liberals that it defies their ability to comprehend.
Do you ever really listen to yourselves and then take a good look around at the people who are selling you that line of shit? What are they doing to uphold that principle? Degrading everyone's standard of living is not "what's best for the country."
Wait, you mean people vote their own self interests? Dam thats terrible
If you refer to all the votes that go to politicians who provide "free shit" then yes, that is horrible
Yea, like "food stamps". Terrible people. Greedy taking a little food. How dare they. We have needy billionaires whose taxes we need to cut.
For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called red states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But dont overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.
As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...
Low Taxes benefit the wealthy and corporations. The bills still have to be paid.
And high taxes are passed onto the the consumer anyway.
Smaller government is code for doing away with or kneecapping regulations that kept industry from pissing in the common well and kept them from having to pay for the damage they get caught doing, and financial institutions from doing what they did because they were unregulated and became "too big to fail."
Too-big-to-fail is the result of Marxist/Keynesian centralized banking by the Federal government. If our Government was any larger, we'd be Red China.
Individual responsibility is a method of individualizing social problems that require a group effort, and doubles as a way of limiting the social liability of the entities that caused the problems in the first place.
No entity other than one's self is responsible for their behavior, so long as force or coercion are not being used. If you meant something else, provide an example so that we may discuss it, this part is to general and vague beyond what I responded to.
A "strong national defense" also benefits the wealthy and corporations more than average citizens, by keeping the world market stable (or uncooperative nations unstable) for industry and finance to rape, pillage, steal, and plow the fields with salt. The average citizen pays for that with their lives, or the lives of their sons and daughters.
Would you prefer a weak national defense?
Unless we return to the Militia system (which I would welcome), we cannot disband our standing armies; however, we know that Big-Gov Progressives and Neo-cons would rather drink vials of rat poison than restore the Militia of the Several States. They fear us, the People, far more than they fear any foreign enemy.
.
So the only reason to vote for something is so that someone will give you something?
Maybe not everyone thinks that way.
.
Voting for your and your familue's best interest is not just voting to get something.
Tell me [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] , why did Detroit go bankrupt? Why is Chicago such a terrible place to live?
I'm a very dumb and ignorant tea-bagger, and I need an ivory tower deity to explain it to me.
Maybe it's because economic security isn't their only 'interest'.
Low Taxes benefit the wealthy and corporations. The bills still have to be paid.
And high taxes are passed onto the the consumer anyway.
Smaller government is code for doing away with or kneecapping regulations that kept industry from pissing in the common well and kept them from having to pay for the damage they get caught doing, and financial institutions from doing what they did because they were unregulated and became "too big to fail."
Too-big-to-fail is the result of Marxist/Keynesian centralized banking by the Federal government. If our Government was any larger, we'd be Red China.
Individual responsibility is a method of individualizing social problems that require a group effort, and doubles as a way of limiting the social liability of the entities that caused the problems in the first place.
No entity other than one's self is responsible for their behavior, so long as force or coercion are not being used. If you meant something else, provide an example so that we may discuss it, this part is to general and vague beyond what I responded to.
A "strong national defense" also benefits the wealthy and corporations more than average citizens, by keeping the world market stable (or uncooperative nations unstable) for industry and finance to rape, pillage, steal, and plow the fields with salt. The average citizen pays for that with their lives, or the lives of their sons and daughters.
Would you prefer a weak national defense?
Unless we return to the Militia system (which I would welcome), we cannot disband our standing armies; however, we know that Big-Gov Progressives and Neo-cons would rather drink vials of rat poison than restore the Militia of the Several States. They fear us, the People, far more than they fear any foreign enemy.
a
[MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]
One method of limiting liability used in every type, although not in every instance of civic advertising is interpellation, or hailing. Overtly used as an attention getter, through direct eye contact, and use of the word you, to pull the viewer into the scene as if the spokesperson were speaking directly to and about them. Hailing serves a dual use through such personalization, because if the advertisement spoke directly to the individual about a problem, the individual spoken to must be somehow responsible for the solution. The result of this tactic was that individual misperception made people complicit in their own subordination, and thus agreeable participants. As Rutherford explained, hegemony is not just about power, but about power that is routine, institutionalized, organized, and generally accepted in short legitimate power or authority.
One of Rutherfords examples of hailing concerned re-education campaigns designed to boost productivity and efficiency by targeting the whole of the workforce individually through the 1973-1976 Sign Your Work advertisements that scolded labor in general by urging individual workers to keep jobs in America by taking pride in their efforts, and asking them if they would be happy to autograph their daily labors. President Fords [ ] WIN (Whip Inflation Now) campaign was also popular with business interests. Both of these advertisements removed any accountability for unemployment or the state of the economy from government or the business sector by making the individual directly responsible for the condition of both.
Other examples of advertising campaigns that made use of hailing to affix responsibility to individuals rather than larger actors involved in a problem include the Chief Iron Eyes Cody anti litter campaign that was highly successful in its bid to attach pollution on individual litterbugs rather than industrial waste, and the Smokey the Bear campaign that cautioned campers and smokers to be aware of their actions, but without similar cautions to the logging industry.
Hailing works to privatize via a double maneuver: the conversion of the collective crisis into a personal problem and of the social issue into a moral ill. This transformation works to remove culpability from moneyed powers that would object to their identification as agents of the given crisis in expensive ways and to place responsibility on individuals who cannot as ably censor the advertisers or punish the news media for objectionable content. The advocacy ad endeavored to make problems personal and moral, ensuring that any blame stuck to the individual so that any solution depended upon individual action. It follows that those individual solutions requiring collective action should be financed individually, through specific taxes, or, optimally, through legislation that requires the individual purchase of corrective measures.
the highest unemployment is in Blue States
the lowest unemployment is in Red states
libs are losers who lie to themselves
the highest unemployment is in Blue States
the lowest unemployment is in Red states
libs are losers who lie to themselves
the highest unemployment is in Blue States
the lowest unemployment is in Red states
libs are losers who lie to themselves
All false like your other posts.
the highest unemployment is in Blue States
the lowest unemployment is in Red states
libs are losers who lie to themselves
Along with the lowest wages.
Only in the bizzarro world of Conservatopia is making less seen as better than making more.
You'd think that since welfare buys votes (says the GOP) the red states would actually be blue states. They LOVE their welfare...I mean, they hate it and accept it under duress...
What you're pointing out here is interesting, isn't it? The people who end up using welfare the most, the people who face its reality every day, consistently vote against expanding it - even voting for leaders who say they'll cut it. Yet the states with more well-to-do voters seem to like the programs, voting for leaders who want to create even more. Hmmmm....
Yet keep their hands out at alarming rates.
