Wouldn’t that go against them? Like, if they need support with food, healthcare, and meds, why vote for a party that wants to cut that stuff?
Wouldn’t that go against them? Like, if they need support with food, healthcare, and meds, why vote for a party that wants to cut that stuff?
Comments
FLAIR IS REQUIRED TO COMMENT!
Only OP and new "Conservativism" flairs may comment
A high standard of discussion and proper decorum are required.
Read our RULES before participating.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Many conservatives vote out of principles and long-term national interest, not short-term personal benefit. Likewise most those statistics are incredibly misleading because they don’t break down what the funding is for. Turns out the government does love throwing money at its military bases.
Simply being conservative means you have a completely different view on the purpose and purview of government then progressives. Most reject the idea that the government should care and provide for people.
Also note that the whole red states take more from the federal government narrative only works with contemporary political maps. In 1990, or 1970 you would have roughly the same distribution to states, but completely different voting.
Why do so many people of the left complain that "people vote against their own interest?"
Maybe – just maybe – people have decided that "their own interests" are not the same as the leftists. Is it a condition of the left that they think they know what’s best for *everyone*?
Give me an example of where Republicans want to cut food, healthcare and meds aid to states. Most of those issues are SS, Medicare and Medicaid and there are no proposals to cut any of that. Those program would be the same no matter where someone lives.
[deleted]
First, few people actually look at the balance sheets of where money flows. It’s also why we won’t get rid of a federal income tax system– it’s way easier to manipulate than other forms of taxation.
In my opinion, there’s a large difference in supporting local charities that do these things with less overhead rather than going through federal agencies that are incentivized through a "use or lose" budgeting model that discourages fiscal responsibility. Blue areas also tend to be more urban where issues with neighbors are more visible than in rural areas.
It’s also a huge cart and horse issue with local governments being just as addicted to federal grant and funding programs as welfare recipients.
Cutting or modifying the Big 3 entitlements is only popular with a very specific upper-class, libertarian, or DC-brained Republican. It is not very popular with other wings of the party. And there’s a collective Sunk Cost effect where no one wants to reform the program because they’ve already paid so much into the old system.
Almost all Republicans agree with cutting most other social services programs because they are offensive to our country’s history and culture of industriousness.
I disagree with many tax breaks and federal benefits. But if the money is going to be spent anyway, I’d be foolish to decline to accept it.
There’s no inconsistency.
As an example, federal tax law allows taxpayers to deduct taxes paid to their state (up to $10K). This means that taxpayers in states with no (or low) state income taxes are subsidizing taxpayers in states with high income tax.
I oppose this deduction, but are you suggesting that I’m somehow unprincipled in taking advantage of it?
Is it really so baffling to a democrat to imagine that people exist who might not always vote for more handouts?
Remove military bases, Medicare, and social security from the equation, and take another look there. Almost no Republican politicians want to cut Suicidal Security or Medicare.
[removed]
For a long time I shared your opinion.
But as I was traveling for work I saw a different point of view of remote country.
The thing is that they are not against the idea of government support but that this support is often grossly inneficient.
While it is greatly advertised as helping the community, in many cases the help is not worth the tax dollar paid for it.
Small communities would often be very self sufficient but have to jump through hoops to be allowed to do anything.
The accumulation of frustrations on this topic became too big and kinda said screw it.
My question is focused on the fact that me and my blue state neighbors vote democratic in an effort to have their tax dollars support red states. Took me until this lat election to realize that blue states vote for their desire to do the right thing ethically (help others), which is a vote against their financial interest, while red states just keep voting against their owns financial and ethical interests.
[removed]
It’s not that the party wants to "cut it", they want to make it unnecessary.