Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest

[bedowin62]

Rank

State

Rate



1

NORTH DAKOTA

2.6



2

NEBRASKA

3.5



3

SOUTH DAKOTA

3.6



4

UTAH

3.9



5

VERMONT

4.0



6

IOWA

4.3



6

WYOMING

4.3



8

HAWAII

4.6



9

MINNESOTA

4.7



10

KANSAS

4.8



11

LOUISIANA

4.9



11

NEW HAMPSHIRE

4.9



13

VIRGINIA

5.0



14

OKLAHOMA

5.2



15

MONTANA

5.3



16

IDAHO

5.4



17

TEXAS

5.7



18

MARYLAND

5.8



19

WEST VIRGINIA

5.9



20

MISSOURI

6.0



21

ALABAMA

6.1



21

COLORADO

6.1



21

DELAWARE

6.1



21

FLORIDA

6.1



21

WISCONSIN

6.1



26

MAINE

6.2



27

ALASKA

6.4



27

INDIANA

6.4



27

PENNSYLVANIA

6.4



27

SOUTH CAROLINA

6.4



27

WASHINGTON

6.4



32

NEW MEXICO

6.6



33

NORTH CAROLINA

6.7



34

MASSACHUSETTS

6.8



34

NEW YORK

6.8



36

OHIO

6.9



37

OREGON

7.0



38

NEW JERSEY

7.1



39

CONNECTICUT

7.2



39

TENNESSEE

7.2



41

ARKANSAS

7.3



41

GEORGIA

7.3



43

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

7.4



44

ARIZONA

7.5



44

MISSISSIPPI

7.5



46

KENTUCKY

7.7



47

MICHIGAN

7.8



48

CALIFORNIA

8.1



49

ILLINOIS

8.7



49

NEVADA

8.7



51

RHODE ISLAND

9.2


gee dullard; i hope you dont find obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics too "right-wing" for you. here is the breakdown.

 

[dblack]

Maybe it's because economic security isn't their only 'interest'.

Even if its not their only interest why vote against ANY of your interests?

Well, I was implying that sometimes interests conflict. In this case, perhaps their desire to remain independent and self-reliant is greater than their desire for economic security. Or maybe they feel the personal economic gain isn't worth sacrificing more important principles like freedom and justice. It's ironic that liberals so often preach about communal obligation yet don't understand how someone might have values outside their own self-interest.

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

we went through this already dullard; and the lowest cost of living; and lower taxes

And the lowest wages.

 

[bedowin62]

Along with the lowest wages.

Only in the bizzarro world of Conservatopia is making less seen as better than making more.

we went through this already dullard; and the lowest cost of living; and lower taxes

And the lowest wages.

people with brains do dullard.

 

[NoNukes]

.

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.

Huh? Then why so many on welfare voting for Obama twice?

Why do so many things go over your head?

 

[NoNukes]

.

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.

My family's best interest lies in improving our own lives.

I can't imagine thinking another way, waiting there, expecting to be handed stuff.

I don't think that waiting for someone else to give you something is what America is about.

I said nothing about handouts, I was talking about voting fir who will be best
for your interests.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do they vote against their own economic interests?

Guns, God and Gays

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Detroit didn't go bankrupt because Democrats were in charge...went bankrupt because incompetent negro's were in charge. Hell look at California. Run by the craziest Democrats in the country and they have a surplus!

So socialism only works if white people do it? How drunk does a person have to be to post shit like this?

Nope. But it takes a race of people with a combined IQ higher than their shoe sizes. I mean shall we take a look at the continent of Africa!? The ONLY thing worth a shit there was built by the white man. Asians,Whites,Jews could all make Socialism work.

Hell, look at yet another lefty racist POS. Nothing new there.

Smell that? I farted in your face...figure since you are stalking me like the homosexual you are you wanna be as close to my ass as possible. Don't let them facts hurt your small brain there numb nuts...we should all take tips on how to run a successful nation from nations in Africa eh? LOL...

You're going full retard here aren't you?

Never do anything half assed. Don't you agree?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

you're a joke; and you know it

Another lie

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Well sure. Why wouldn't they? We all do our best we can under the circumstances. That doesn't prevent us from recognizing that the 'circumstances' need to be changed does it? This is why I've never seen any point in resenting 'welfare moms' and the like. They're doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt, playing by rules they didn't create.

Your confusion here is similar to the confusion over Ron Paul's policy on earmarks. He was consistently against them, and never failed to vote 'no' on any bill that included them. But he still played the game, wrangling for earmarks to benefit his constituents, so that, if the bill passed despite his voting against it, his people weren't getting screwed. Some people wanted to pretend that was hypocrisy, but it wasn't. Just like it's not hypocrisy for people to vote against welfare, but still tap it when they're eligible. Do you really not get that?

Yeah, you should've just summed it up by saying Republicans are against it in principal but not in practice

 

[dblack]

Yet keep their hands out at alarming rates.

Well sure. Why wouldn't they? We all do our best we can under the circumstances. That doesn't prevent us from recognizing that the 'circumstances' need to be changed does it? This is why I've never seen any point in resenting 'welfare moms' and the like. They're doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt, playing by rules they didn't create.

Your confusion here is similar to the confusion over Ron Paul's policy on earmarks. He was consistently against them, and never failed to vote 'no' on any bill that included them. But he still played the game, wrangling for earmarks to benefit his constituents, so that, if the bill passed despite his voting against it, his people weren't getting screwed. Some people wanted to pretend that was hypocrisy, but it wasn't. Just like it's not hypocrisy for people to vote against welfare, but still tap it when they're eligible. Do you really not get that?

Yeah, you should've just summed it up by saying Republicans are against it in principal but not in practice

So, you really don't get it? Because that's not, at all, what I was saying. I can't really speak for Republicans, but my opposition to welfare programs is with their implementation, not with people using them. We're all taxed for them. It would be pointlessly self-sacrificing to avoid using them when you're eligible - especially after spending a lifetime paying for it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well sure. Why wouldn't they? We all do our best we can under the circumstances. That doesn't prevent us from recognizing that the 'circumstances' need to be changed does it? This is why I've never seen any point in resenting 'welfare moms' and the like. They're doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt, playing by rules they didn't create.

Your confusion here is similar to the confusion over Ron Paul's policy on earmarks. He was consistently against them, and never failed to vote 'no' on any bill that included them. But he still played the game, wrangling for earmarks to benefit his constituents, so that, if the bill passed despite his voting against it, his people weren't getting screwed. Some people wanted to pretend that was hypocrisy, but it wasn't. Just like it's not hypocrisy for people to vote against welfare, but still tap it when they're eligible. Do you really not get that?

Yeah, you should've just summed it up by saying Republicans are against it in principal but not in practice

So, you really don't get it? Because that's not, at all, what I was saying. I can't really speak for Republicans, but my opposition to welfare programs is with their implementation, not with people using them. We're all taxed for them. It would be pointlessly self-sacrificing to avoid using them when you're eligible - especially after spending a lifetime paying for it.

Maybe you missed all the republicans who say that by having those programs makes someone lazy and those are the "takers". I agree with the bolded statement but thats not how repubs see it. If you are welfare you are lazy and need to get a job.

Why would a republican believe that WHILE asking for it? It makes no sense

 

[dblack]

Yeah, you should've just summed it up by saying Republicans are against it in principal but not in practice

So, you really don't get it? Because that's not, at all, what I was saying. I can't really speak for Republicans, but my opposition to welfare programs is with their implementation, not with people using them. We're all taxed for them. It would be pointlessly self-sacrificing to avoid using them when you're eligible - especially after spending a lifetime paying for it.

Maybe you missed all the republicans who say that by having those programs makes someone lazy and those are the "takers". I agree with the bolded statement but thats not how repubs see it. If you are welfare you are lazy and need to get a job.

Why would a republican believe that WHILE asking for it? It makes no sense

I didn't miss that, and it's a worthwhile point to make. But it's not the point the OP was making. I see nothing hypocritical in voters receiving welfare, or living in states that receive welfare benefits, voting against the policy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think they think they are voting against someone ELSES welfare not their own

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So socialism only works if white people do it? How drunk does a person have to be to post shit like this?
Nope. But it takes a race of people with a combined IQ higher than their shoe sizes. I mean shall we take a look at the continent of Africa!? The ONLY thing worth a shit there was built by the white man. Asians,Whites,Jews could all make Socialism work.

And this pretty well sums up why socialism leads to millions of people being killed. Have to kill off the undesirables first huh? Then paradise will be here for those that are left.

I do find it interesting you have decided to include Jews in your little circle of people that are ok since they once were the very target of your preferred socialist state model. You suppose Hitler just chose the wrong group of people to kill off?

 

[bedowin62]

I think they think they are voting against someone ELSES welfare not their own

record welfare on obama's watch leftard. the only idiots surprised we have more of what libs believe in are morons like you

 

[bedowin62]

making poor people POORER and dependent IS a left-winger's idea of "forward progress"

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Barb]

Maybe it's because economic security isn't their only 'interest'.

Even if its not their only interest why vote against ANY of your interests?

Well, I was implying that sometimes interests conflict. In this case, perhaps their desire to remain independent and self-reliant is greater than their desire for economic security. Or maybe they feel the personal economic gain isn't worth sacrificing more important principles like freedom and justice. It's ironic that liberals so often preach about communal obligation yet don't understand how someone might have values outside their own self-interest.

You just got done pointing out that those same people who have values "outside of their own self interest" nevertheless see TO that self interest. That is not "sacrifice," and yes, it IS hypocrisy to argue against others access to what you access yourself.

 

[dblack]

Even if its not their only interest why vote against ANY of your interests?

Well, I was implying that sometimes interests conflict. In this case, perhaps their desire to remain independent and self-reliant is greater than their desire for economic security. Or maybe they feel the personal economic gain isn't worth sacrificing more important principles like freedom and justice. It's ironic that liberals so often preach about communal obligation yet don't understand how someone might have values outside their own self-interest.

You just got done pointing out that those same people who have values "outside of their own self interest" nevertheless see TO that self interest. That is not "sacrifice," and yes, it IS hypocrisy to argue against others access to what you access yourself.

Is someone doing that? Is anything like that on the ballot? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

As far as I know, they're arguing against welfare in general, not just for others.

 

[hangover]

Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest

Ignorance, bigotry, mindless commitment to a failed ideology, revenge for getting their asses stomped. And the stupidest thing is, they're following the party that kicked their asses.