An American absurd

[Shira]

People earning less than $40,000 with no healthcare with no any proper education voting for Bush  because of “Moral Values”

[Rococo4]

GIVE IT UP

[MODU]

Now now, she is entitled to express her opinions.  However, there are more things involved in this election than just "moral values." 

(And I find it interesting that she uses the $40K level in her message since many of my former employees were making half of that with full health care and tuition assistance benefits.  I wonder where she is getting her information.)

[Nation]

People earning less than $40,000 with no healthcare with no any proper education voting for Bush  because of “Moral Values”

This is worse than usual, troll. As Rococo said, give it up.

[Sam Spade]

Shira, that's what America is.  The Democrats still don't understand this.

In the last 40 years, the only Dem candidate I've seen who understood this was Bill Clinton.  He's basically the only candidate to win as well.

[Shira]

It’s all along modern history. Parties on the right with a very bad agenda for low income people were successful in attracting many of them. There is a strong correlation between poverty and ignorance.

[dazzleman]

It’s all along modern history. Parties on the right with a very bad agenda for low income people were successful in attracting many of them. There is a strong correlation between poverty and ignorance.

Shira, I think you're oversimplifying.

First off, there was a strong correlation between income and voting - the lower the income, the more likely a person was to vote Democratic.

That being said, the Republicans have attracted many who are not wealthy.  Just as many people in the group that Kerry targeted for tax increases voted for him.

It should also be noted that in many parts of the country, $40,000 is an excellent income.  In Alabama, a person earning $40,000 per year is probably the envy of his neighbors.

Your point, though crudely expressed, has some truth to it - voting behavior in this era is less a function of economics than it is of values.

People earning dirt wages and living in the Bronx, NY sure aren't voting Republican in large numbers.  They are voting the same way as their rich "neighbors" in Manhattan and parts of Westchester County and Connecticut.  Clearly, there's more than economics at play here.

[Rococo4]

Now now, she is entitled to express her opinions.  However, there are more things involved in this election than just "moral values." 

(And I find it interesting that she uses the $40K level in her message since many of my former employees were making half of that with full health care and tuition assistance benefits.  I wonder where she is getting her information.)

yeah maybe.....what happened to all of her OH>MI>FL> like models?  guarenteeing Bush would get less in FL than the natl vote.....it was posted everyday since March.

[John Dibble]

People earning less than $40,000 with no healthcare with no any proper education voting for Bush  because of “Moral Values”

Your grammar is atrocious. You could use some punctuation too.

I don't think you have any standing to talk about the education level of others.

[Kodratos]

People earning less than $40,000 with no healthcare with no any proper education voting for Bush  because of “Moral Values”

So poor people should trade away thier morals in order to get government handouts?

[J-Mann]

People earning less than $40,000 with no healthcare with no any proper education voting for Bush  because of “Moral Values”

I like how you stereotype my part of the nation.  DO NOT do it again.  You'd jump all over me if I stereotyped a racial minority or a tree-hugging hippie liberal.  Your statement is sour grapes, nothing more.  I'm sure you believe in freedom of speech/belief/expression so long as it all agrees with your opinions, right Shira?

[J-Mann]

You must admit she takes the recriminations well, though. She does make her line in the sand but never engages in personal attacks for which I applaud her.

I take her stereotyping of my monetary situation, my health care, and my education as a personal attack.

[ATFFL]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

[elcorazon]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

[J. J.]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

First, I would not call either of you trolls.

Second, let me pose this hypothetical to both of you.  Suppor that that you could live in a big house, have a lot of money, but to maintain it, you would have to keep a large number of slaves, which the law of your area permits.  Would you rather be rich and own slaves, or poor and not own them?

[elcorazon]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.  I would imagine that had I grown up in the south pre-civil war, it would be the only society I knew and I'd probably (sadly) just go with the program.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't but I'll never know.

By the way, I am actually a southerner - born and bred in Kentucky - and still a huge Wildcat fan - can't wait till basketball season, which is  just around the corner.

[John Dibble]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.

Let me see if I can boil down J.J.'s point for you. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work for their master's benefit. Now, government welfare programs are paid for by mandatory taxes - you pay them or you go to jail. So, you could say that the taxpayer is a slave to the groups that get welfare, because their labor is forced to go to the benefit of those groups. I somewhat believe in this, but the same could be said about any taxes, even those that go to the military, which benefits everyone, if you think about it. It comes down to this - government uses force to coerce people into doing things whether they like it or not, so my view is that since we know forcing people to do things is generally wrong, we should only let government force people to do things that are necessary. It's a simple viewpoint, but the problem is people often have different ideas on what is necessary.

[The Vorlon]

Shira..

Has your opinion of Mr. Zogby changed any..?

[elcorazon]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.

Let me see if I can boil down J.J.'s point for you. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work for their master's benefit. Now, government welfare programs are paid for by mandatory taxes - you pay them or you go to jail. So, you could say that the taxpayer is a slave to the groups that get welfare, because their labor is forced to go to the benefit of those groups. I somewhat believe in this, but the same could be said about any taxes, even those that go to the military, which benefits everyone, if you think about it. It comes down to this - government uses force to coerce people into doing things whether they like it or not, so my view is that since we know forcing people to do things is generally wrong, we should only let government force people to do things that are necessary. It's a simple viewpoint, but the problem is people often have different ideas on what is necessary.

what an awful analogy. 

[J. J.]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.

Let me see if I can boil down J.J.'s point for you. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work for their master's benefit. Now, government welfare programs are paid for by mandatory taxes - you pay them or you go to jail. So, you could say that the taxpayer is a slave to the groups that get welfare, because their labor is forced to go to the benefit of those groups. I somewhat believe in this, but the same could be said about any taxes, even those that go to the military, which benefits everyone, if you think about it. It comes down to this - government uses force to coerce people into doing things whether they like it or not, so my view is that since we know forcing people to do things is generally wrong, we should only let government force people to do things that are necessary. It's a simple viewpoint, but the problem is people often have different ideas on what is necessary.

Dibble, you are not even close to my point. 

[elcorazon]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.

Let me see if I can boil down J.J.'s point for you. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work for their master's benefit. Now, government welfare programs are paid for by mandatory taxes - you pay them or you go to jail. So, you could say that the taxpayer is a slave to the groups that get welfare, because their labor is forced to go to the benefit of those groups. I somewhat believe in this, but the same could be said about any taxes, even those that go to the military, which benefits everyone, if you think about it. It comes down to this - government uses force to coerce people into doing things whether they like it or not, so my view is that since we know forcing people to do things is generally wrong, we should only let government force people to do things that are necessary. It's a simple viewpoint, but the problem is people often have different ideas on what is necessary.

Dibble, you are not even close to my point. 

I'm glad to hear that, because his point was ridiculous.

[WMS]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

First, I would not call either of you trolls.

Second, let me pose this hypothetical to both of you.  Suppor that that you could live in a big house, have a lot of money, but to maintain it, you would have to keep a large number of slaves, which the law of your area permits.  Would you rather be rich and own slaves, or poor and not own them?

Let me take a crack at it.

I think that J.J. is presenting a simple choice. In the first case - owning the slaves - you put economic interests ahead of moral values. In the second case - poor and slaveless - you put moral values ahead of economic interests.

That's the choice J.J. is presenting, and it is a counterpoint to the 'how can you vote Republican if you're poor just based on (insert usual liberal shuddering and condescension here) moral values'.

Am I right, J.J.?

[angus]

No, Dibble's right on this point.  Someone says slave and you automatically think of some poor huari bastard in the forced employ of a rich Inca, or a conscripted mesopotamian building a pyramid in the hot egyptian sun, or a west african chained to the lower deck of a 17th century Dutch ship bound for Jamaica.

But loose that stereotype.  The analogy is the one I read into JJ's question as well.  Shira suggests that we all buy into the notion that if you aren't making enough to pay the rent on a one-bedroom apartment in Greenwich (try to get out of New England, sometime, sweetie!) then we ought to be sold on a social democracy, German style.  My brother, a pot-smoking, coke-snorting, gun-toting, mullet-wearing, anti-government, anti-health care Libertarian (don't want any goddamned health insurance, don't get sick, thankyouverymuch) from Michigan argues the point much better than I, so I'll not try too hard, but you have to understand that some folks really don't want that much government control over their lives.

what gets lost in all this is that universal health care is a moral value.  It's not one which you may share, nor I, but it is, in fact, a moral value.  I'm not sure even Shira realized this.

[angus]

oops, just read JJ's post that its a misinterpretation.  oh, well, seems it went over my head too. 

[J. J.]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.  I would imagine that had I grown up in the south pre-civil war, it would be the only society I knew and I'd probably (sadly) just go with the program.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't but I'll never know.

By the way, I am actually a southerner - born and bred in Kentucky - and still a huge Wildcat fan - can't wait till basketball season, which is  just around the corner.

I wouldn't suggest that you be so hard on yourself.  There were a few pre-civil war southerners, like Robert E. Lee, who didn't think it was moral to own slaves.  You might have very well been one of them.

The Lee analogy is my point.  He probably could have increased his wealth by doing something, completely legal, that he thought was immoral.  Sometimes people put a greater value on doing something they think in morally right, even if it puts them at an economic disadvantage.

WMS is completely right.