Most people are NOT voting against their economic interests

[NewYorkerfromMass]

If this is true:

VOTE BY INCOME _ BUSH KERRY NADER

Under $15,000 (8%) 36% 63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% 57% 0%

$30-50,000 (22%) 49% 50% 0%

$50-75,000 (23%) 56% 43% 0%

$75-100,000 (14%) 55% 45% 0%

$100-150,000 11%) 57% 42% 1%

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% 42% *

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% 35% 1%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Tweed]

1. Anyone who is making under $50,000 and votes for Bush

votes against their economic interest. 50%-49% Okay, yeah that's not most, but we should be mopping the floor in under 50! Even 57-42 with people who are $15k-$30k is WEAK!


BTW: Anyone who votes for Nader and is making over $100,000 is voting against their economic interest too.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Yes. Somehting happens around $50,000

brain lock of some kind. :shrug:

[ComerPerro]

4. Same with people making over $200k voting Kerry

They are voting against their personal economic interest. Kerry flat out told them that he would raise their taxes on them.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. But perhaps they understand "trickle down" is BS

and the good of the many is better in the end for all.

[ComerPerro]

9. I know, I am not saying they don't

But, the point is, they are voting against their economic interest. And, frankly, more power to them. I respect them for making an informed choice and for recognizing that there are more pressing issues right now than getting yourself a tax cut that you really don't need.

[Djinn]

10. not neccesarily

maybe they see a bigger picture - ie if people have decent health care that's cheaper for society as a whole than what you currently have - just because it's not coming out in taxes doesn't mean you wont pay elsewhere - maybe some people with higher incomes understand this

[ComerPerro]

16. believe me, I agree

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. They are only voting against their IMMEDIATE economic interest.

in the end what is good for all will come back to be good for them.
I think this is known as foresight.

[ComerPerro]

18. beleive me, I understand fully

[Xipe Totec]

20. Only if you define economic interests in the narrowest sense

Paying higher taxes is not necessarily working against your own interests, it depends on how the money is spent. There is more to economics than paying taxes.

Part of the problem is that we have allowed the Republicans to frame the issue purely as "tax = bah-ha-ha-ad"

[ComerPerro]

21. I know, I know, I know....

Thank you, serioulsy, but I understand this. I am just saying that in the very simplest terms, it could be argued that people voting to raise taxes on themselves are voting against their economic interest. But, I repeat, that is an oversimplification of things.

[leftofthedial]

13. That number is more like $150,000

there or below, you are net screwed by repuke economic policies.

[Tweed]

17. That's a good point, I was going for lowest common demoninator

But yeah, even $150,000 should not be voting Republican. we should be getting 75%-25% of the vote.

[ComerPerro]

3. Um....

Lets see, according to data you posted...

42% of people between 15 and 30k voted Bush...

49% of people between 30 and 50k voted Bush...

56% of people between 50 and 75k voted Bush...

and

55% of people between 75 and 100k voted Bush...


That is a helluva lot of people voting against their best economic interest, if you ask me.

The people between 50 and 100k must be the ones that the GOP and Limbaugh have managed to convice that they will be millionares someday. I am always amazed how that argument works.

"We should lower taxes on the richest of the rich, because I am going to be that rich someday soon."

Ha! Bullshit. Republican policies are drafted specifically to make sure that average people never see that kind of money.

[leftofthedial]

15. :-)

good response

[high density]

6. People making $30k-200k certainly are.

[elsiesummers]

7. People earning under 15K or over 200K are smartest voters.

According to the chart, more people earning under 15K or over 200K get it.

I still think that high earning voters are wise to vote Dem if they don't want to drive around in armoured cars, live in gated communities, encounter more poorly maintained roads and fear rapid spread of contagious diseases.

[Robert Oak]

8. this does not add up, sorry!

It's got 44% of the population making 50k or less

NOT SO! the average family of 4 has an income of 40k nationally.

This doesn't jive with median American FAMILY income at all.

[bornskeptic]

12. It's not supposed to jibe.

These aren't percentages of the population. They're percentages of the people who voted. Lower income people are less likely to vote than upper income people, so the median income is higher here.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Well that blows the whole arguement

if you're poor and not voting then that equates to voting against your economic interest.

[sangh0]

19. Economic interests aren't the only thing that counts for many

I don't vote solely on the basis of economic interests> If I did, I'd vote bush*.

I vote because my niece is an immigrant who I suspect will someday be identified as a terrorist as a result of the right-wing.

I vote because I believe in equal rights for all, an idea that is more of a social issue than an economic one, at least for me.

[ComerPerro]

22. But you get a tradeoff

You have other benifits that justify voting against your economic interest.

However, let's assume that you are a in a family making less than 50-75K a year. You vote for Bush and in doing so you vote against your economic interest. What do you get in return? Gay people can't get married?
That's just pathetic.

This is where I have a major problem. Not only are these people voting to make their financial situation worse, they are voting to forfeit their freedoms (Patriot Act) and they are voting for reckless, senseless wars in which their children can be killed.

And they cast their vote proudly.

Its insane.

[sangh0]

23. So do they

What do you get in return? Gay people can't get married?

No, they get to protect the "sanctity of marriage"

That's just pathetic.

Well, yeah, but the way liberals do nothing more than just scorn their position is just as pathetic. We're not going to get any votes like that.

This is where I have a major problem. Not only are these people voting to make their financial situation worse, they are voting to forfeit their freedoms (Patriot Act) and they are voting for reckless, senseless wars in which their children can be killed.

And they cast their vote proudly.

Its insane

In all honesty, I think it's just as insane to watch all that, and then do nothing more than call them names. I don't believe in watching people doing the wrong thing and NOT doing something about it to make it right.

Saying "It's insane" does NOTHING to make the situation better. It might make one feel morally superior, but it does nothing to improve the situation.

And that's what I see liberals doing. They see the problems, but instead of THINKING about what they could do to make it better and ACTING on that info, they just point fingers and criticize.

[TwilightZone]

24. Keep in mind that a lot of rich people write everything off and could be

included in the low income numbers.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. Actually these are voluntary poll answers

so who the hell knows what the actual numbers are? I would bet people tend to bump their numbers up out of pride or whatever....