6 ms·

I am a TN resident. While my purple state district resembles a hairy amoeba reaching out into deep red areas, there will be no accountability. They won't expan

by saboot 10y ago

I am a TN resident. While my purple state district resembles a hairy amoeba reaching out into deep red areas, there will be no accountability. They won't expand Medicaid, are in the process of out sourcing many state jobs (parks, university) and will continue to stick it to working families. Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
This is how violent revolutions start. Its as if no one knows history.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mschip 10y ago
> Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves. This sums up the majority of rural republicans in my area. It's a sad realization that people so often put not being at the bottom above their own best interests.
- subpixel 10y ago
  It's not essentially rural, it's ingrained into the American psyche (along with the belief that what's good for the rich is good for me, because I'm gonna be rich!).
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Story from 2003: 39% of Americans believe they either are or will one day be among the top 1% of earners [1]. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-self-interest.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...
    - wayn3 10y ago
      That is called ambition. Its why we are at the top of the food chain. Nobody ever ended up on top of the world by not believing in themselves.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        There is hustle, and then there are statistics. I don't fault you for trying hard, but let's not make policy based on your feeling about hustling.
      - mikestew 10y ago
        19% in the linked article already think they're in the top 1%. That's not "ambition", that's just ignorance. The article also had an interesting point as to why so many think they're in the top tiers: they're not surrounded by things they can't afford. Contrast my home state of Indiana, where I would have been hard pressed to tell you where to buy a Ferrari in the entire state, with the Seattle, WA area where I can list two Ferrari dealers within 30 minutes of my house. If the prancing horse isn't your style, there's a Lambo dealer in Bellevue. (Next door to the Rolls/Bentley dealer, IIRC.) I see multiple Teslas on the way to work, and I no longer think anything of seeing a Ferrari or Lambo on the way to work once or twice a week. I've regularly bicycled through Medina, WA (where BillG lives). I know what ridiculous wealth looks like, and I know that I'm not currently that wealthy and realize it's extremely unlikely that I ever will be. But if I lived in Zionsville, IN (which has, last I checked, the only Rolls-Royce dealer in the entire state) where a half million buys 5400 square feet and an acre in a super ritzy neighborhood, I might think I've "made it" and am amongst those in the top tier. Anyway, I digress. There's ambition, then there's delusion.
    - throwaway9475 10y ago
      And for that, the top 1% of earners are truly thankful.
    - scentoni 10y ago
      And to find what percentile your individual income is at: http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
  - mschip 10y ago
    I don't disagree that its a feeling not limited to rural republicans but they are the ones I see voting in direct conflicts with their best interest. I don't buy that its because they're voting for their "future rich self" but rather that they're voting to keep other people beneath them.
ryandrake 10y ago
> Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves. This is true and explains a lot of situations where people seemingly vote against their own self-interest. The fact that responders choose to reject in the Ultimatum Game[1] shows this in action. But an even more fascinating example than the ultimatum game (sorry can't find the link) is research that shows subjects are willing to pay money to burn the money of others, just so the other test subject ends up with less. For example, offer to give test subject A $10, tell him that you're giving subject B $20, and then give subject A the option of giving up $2 of those $10 just to reduce the subject B's gift from $20 to $5. It was found that a percentage of people will be willing to accept that choice even though it's not the action of someone with rational economic self-interest. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
- krapht 10y ago
  I dislike people who claim it's not in a respondent's self-interest to do this; that it's somehow irrational. Status is relative - as the old saying goes, it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
  - chc 10y ago
    That's literally Satan explaining his MO in a poem.
    - kirubakaran 10y ago
      I have to say I'm happy to call out your ad hominem there, which makes me the devil's advocate. Do you disagree with Mr Satan's point or do you reject it simply because it comes from him?
      - thomastjeffery 10y ago
        To elaborate, it's Satan's MO as described by a person. Since ipso facto, Satan, conceptually described by a person, acts solely against each individual's well-being, the poem is meant to describe this reasoning as detrimental to the individual. So to respond to your question, I do disagree with "Satan's" point. It is clearly in the interest of an individual to keep all of what they are given, rather than to spend a portion simply to lower the portion given to another. Along the same train of thought, I would say, "The least of us can achieve greater heights when lifting each other up, than the greatest of us can by pushing each other down."
Arizhel 10y ago
Exactly: the people this hurts the most are usually the ones voting for these politicians. So I don't even have any sympathy for them any more. If they want to vote to screw themselves over, who am I to tell them they're wrong?
rayiner 10y ago
> They won't expand Medicaid, are in the process of out sourcing many state jobs (parks, university) and will continue to stick it to working families. Tennessee also has the lowest state debt per capita of any state, $6,400 versus $20,500 for California. It's got only $415 in unfunded pension liabilities per person, versus $3,250 in California. It's among the top-10 states for lowest tax burden, lower unemployment than average, and higher than average growth in GDP per capita. Tennessee has made a conscious decision not to pay for public services now by pushing the burden onto future generations. After the governments of places like California and Illinois collapse under the weight of their debts, places like Tennessee will at least be able to plod along offering limited government services in a sustainable way.
- aljones 10y ago
  When will California collapse?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Counterarguments: (a) The "collapse" you refer to presumes that neither state will be able to tax their way out of its problems, when in fact either could do so without coming close to the tax burdens of European countries that provide similar benefits --- the implied idea here is that the states are so competitive that people would simply move to Nevada or Indiana to escape those taxes. Will they? People who live in Evanston are unlikely to enjoy Munster. (b) In both states, the "benefit" that's been financed on the backs of future generations is generous, poorly-regulated defined-benefit pension plans for state employees. I agree that's a huge problem, but it's not the same kind of problem as financing for Medicaid, or, really, for social services of any sort.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I'm being glib in talking about the collapse of California as inevitable: I certainly don't know that those states won't be able to tax their way out of the problem. States are somewhat limited in their taxation abilities compared to European countries though, in that they have no ability to control the flow of labor/capital across their borders. That being said, I'd point out that Tennessee doesn't have a San Francisco/LA or a Chicago or a New York. A lot of its economic competitiveness is built on being a low-tax environment.

by saboot 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

This is how violent revolutions start. Its as if no one knows history.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mschip 10y ago

> Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves. This sums up the majority of rural republicans in my area. It's a sad realization that people so often put not being at the bottom above their own best interests.

subpixel 10y ago
It's not essentially rural, it's ingrained into the American psyche (along with the belief that what's good for the rich is good for me, because I'm gonna be rich!).
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Story from 2003: 39% of Americans believe they either are or will one day be among the top 1% of earners [1]. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-self-interest.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...
  - wayn3 10y ago
    That is called ambition. Its why we are at the top of the food chain. Nobody ever ended up on top of the world by not believing in themselves.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      There is hustle, and then there are statistics. I don't fault you for trying hard, but let's not make policy based on your feeling about hustling.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      19% in the linked article already think they're in the top 1%. That's not "ambition", that's just ignorance. The article also had an interesting point as to why so many think they're in the top tiers: they're not surrounded by things they can't afford. Contrast my home state of Indiana, where I would have been hard pressed to tell you where to buy a Ferrari in the entire state, with the Seattle, WA area where I can list two Ferrari dealers within 30 minutes of my house. If the prancing horse isn't your style, there's a Lambo dealer in Bellevue. (Next door to the Rolls/Bentley dealer, IIRC.) I see multiple Teslas on the way to work, and I no longer think anything of seeing a Ferrari or Lambo on the way to work once or twice a week. I've regularly bicycled through Medina, WA (where BillG lives). I know what ridiculous wealth looks like, and I know that I'm not currently that wealthy and realize it's extremely unlikely that I ever will be. But if I lived in Zionsville, IN (which has, last I checked, the only Rolls-Royce dealer in the entire state) where a half million buys 5400 square feet and an acre in a super ritzy neighborhood, I might think I've "made it" and am amongst those in the top tier. Anyway, I digress. There's ambition, then there's delusion.
  - throwaway9475 10y ago
    And for that, the top 1% of earners are truly thankful.
  - scentoni 10y ago
    And to find what percentile your individual income is at: http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
- mschip 10y ago
  I don't disagree that its a feeling not limited to rural republicans but they are the ones I see voting in direct conflicts with their best interest. I don't buy that its because they're voting for their "future rich self" but rather that they're voting to keep other people beneath them.

ryandrake 10y ago

> Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves. This is true and explains a lot of situations where people seemingly vote against their own self-interest. The fact that responders choose to reject in the Ultimatum Game[1] shows this in action. But an even more fascinating example than the ultimatum game (sorry can't find the link) is research that shows subjects are willing to pay money to burn the money of others, just so the other test subject ends up with less. For example, offer to give test subject A $10, tell him that you're giving subject B $20, and then give subject A the option of giving up $2 of those $10 just to reduce the subject B's gift from $20 to $5. It was found that a percentage of people will be willing to accept that choice even though it's not the action of someone with rational economic self-interest. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

krapht 10y ago
I dislike people who claim it's not in a respondent's self-interest to do this; that it's somehow irrational. Status is relative - as the old saying goes, it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
- chc 10y ago
  That's literally Satan explaining his MO in a poem.
  - kirubakaran 10y ago
    I have to say I'm happy to call out your ad hominem there, which makes me the devil's advocate. Do you disagree with Mr Satan's point or do you reject it simply because it comes from him?
    - thomastjeffery 10y ago
      To elaborate, it's Satan's MO as described by a person. Since ipso facto, Satan, conceptually described by a person, acts solely against each individual's well-being, the poem is meant to describe this reasoning as detrimental to the individual. So to respond to your question, I do disagree with "Satan's" point. It is clearly in the interest of an individual to keep all of what they are given, rather than to spend a portion simply to lower the portion given to another. Along the same train of thought, I would say, "The least of us can achieve greater heights when lifting each other up, than the greatest of us can by pushing each other down."

Arizhel 10y ago

Exactly: the people this hurts the most are usually the ones voting for these politicians. So I don't even have any sympathy for them any more. If they want to vote to screw themselves over, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

rayiner 10y ago

> They won't expand Medicaid, are in the process of out sourcing many state jobs (parks, university) and will continue to stick it to working families. Tennessee also has the lowest state debt per capita of any state, $6,400 versus $20,500 for California. It's got only $415 in unfunded pension liabilities per person, versus $3,250 in California. It's among the top-10 states for lowest tax burden, lower unemployment than average, and higher than average growth in GDP per capita. Tennessee has made a conscious decision not to pay for public services now by pushing the burden onto future generations. After the governments of places like California and Illinois collapse under the weight of their debts, places like Tennessee will at least be able to plod along offering limited government services in a sustainable way.

aljones 10y ago
When will California collapse?
tptacek 10y ago
Counterarguments: (a) The "collapse" you refer to presumes that neither state will be able to tax their way out of its problems, when in fact either could do so without coming close to the tax burdens of European countries that provide similar benefits --- the implied idea here is that the states are so competitive that people would simply move to Nevada or Indiana to escape those taxes. Will they? People who live in Evanston are unlikely to enjoy Munster. (b) In both states, the "benefit" that's been financed on the backs of future generations is generous, poorly-regulated defined-benefit pension plans for state employees. I agree that's a huge problem, but it's not the same kind of problem as financing for Medicaid, or, really, for social services of any sort.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I'm being glib in talking about the collapse of California as inevitable: I certainly don't know that those states won't be able to tax their way out of the problem. States are somewhat limited in their taxation abilities compared to European countries though, in that they have no ability to control the flow of labor/capital across their borders. That being said, I'd point out that Tennessee doesn't have a San Francisco/LA or a Chicago or a New York. A lot of its economic competitiveness is built on being a low-tax environment.