When it comes to politics, should you care about what's

>>18546153
You should care about the best way to govern, and that includes considering the position of your fellow man.

I dont care what you will get as an answer but my guess is that 90% think only for themselfes. Why shouldn't I? All in all voting is meh and in a perfect world everyone should act towards a healthy society. But as long as some crackhead might stab you over 100 bucks I'm not sure whether the society is ready to be involved in an open consideration.

Also political topics are scarcelly adviseable...

This is something I ask myself every day. I'm pretty sure most people must vote what's best for themselves though. But you should think about the future and what's best for everyone, or I guess what's best for the poor AND the middle class. The middle class should be the most important part of a democratic society in my opinion. They should be protected and the poor should be helped to get jobs and education so they can too become middle class.

I personally think everything should benefit everyone or at least as many people as possible weather its the popular or not because people can't be trusted to do whats right for them

File: 1477089008548.gif (3MB, 309x313px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 309x313px

>>18546153

Whats good for your fellow man is often whats good for you but the inherent issue in politics is that people don't think that deeply.

Funding public health programs decreases teen pregnancy, communicable disease and dependence on government programs, thus improving neighborhoods, raising smarter, healthier children and benefiting you in the long run.

Funding foreign aid provides vital resources to impoverished areas which would have otherwise turned to violence and war, which, in the long run saves you the money of having to deploy troops their later to stabilize the region.

Funding after school programs, free lunch programs, and the creative arts in the class room makes better, smarter, happier kids, which in turn creates a better, smarter work force, which in turn benefits you in the long run.

Funding drug rehab treatment programs reduces drug addiction, violent crime, gang crime and promotes healthier nuclear families, this in turn decreases crime in your neighborhood, creates less people dependent on welfare and decreases the need for expensive prisons. When violent crime goes down, property values go up. Businesses perform better and more easily attract customers. All of these things benefit you.

These are all statistical facts. It seems the only thing most people care about is that their money doesn't help anyone else but them but my point is investing in community infrastructure and support is, statistically, a long term investment in yourself. I think that is a generally lost message in today's climate of disinformation campaigns and the heavily politicization of even the most basic of entitlement programs like food for hungry kids or medicine for sick people. Politicians would rather pander to their idiotic, uneducated constituents and win elections than work and risk their bottom line to show people a better way. Its a sad time we live in.

>>18546567
Except none of this is true. When you subsidize poverty you get more of it, and more votes for those who subsidize said poverty because people would rather be content than successful, which is why the public schools of which you highly speak drill such lies into you. Ask yourself: if what's good for your fellow man is good for you, wouldn't what's good for you be good for your fellow man? Are you not both men?

>>18546567
On the other hand, you have to draw the line somewhere. What if the USA said let's pay for health care, housing, food, school through college, private tutoring, vehicle, entertainment, etc. for all citizens? The government would pay for the services by printing money. But now that all citizens have everything they need handed to them for free, no one would need imaginary dollars, so no one would do the work. No one would farm or inspect food. No one would build houses or deliver goods. The system would collapse because motivation would be gone. And that's just if we restrict it to citizens, which lots of people seem to think is too restrictive of a policy.

>>18546153
I think they are often one-and-the-same, but you should vote for yourself as much as your conscience will allow. This is because some people already vote selfishly no matter what you do. Voting doesn't work as a system that expects altruism but it works as a system where everyone advocates for their interests.

>>18546586

>Except none of this is true.

Well, it is. The data is everywhere. If you do your own research you'll see for yourself.

>Ask yourself: if what's good for your fellow man is good for you, wouldn't what's good for you be good for your fellow man?

Statistically, no. Trickle down economics has been, overall, a resounding failure. If we've learned anything from, for example, the housing bubble of 2008 its that whats good for a handful of CEOs was almost the complete destruction of the American economy.

>>18546599

>On the other hand, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Absolutely, but as I stated previously its no longer about common sense politics, its about mindlessly fighting things on the basis of ideals, not pragmatism. The republican party will continue to wage war against entitlement programs regardless of which ones make sense and actually help communities because their constituents demand a strict adherence to an "entitlement free society" ideology, regardless of what hard data and objective facts show.

>What if the USA said let's pay for health care, housing, food, school through college, private tutoring, vehicle, entertainment, etc. for all citizens?

What you're suggesting is nowhere near what I was talking about. Creating safety nets for poor communities and promoting smart, healthy children by providing the basics of emergency health care and education is nowhere near comparable to using tax dollars to pay for people's cars and luxury items. You took the basis of what I was saying and created the most extreme strawman example you possibly could.

I, for example, am completely for drug testing for food stamp and welfare programs. I think entitlements without checks and balances are, as you said, devoid of motivation for coming off of government assistance. At the same time, the war on drugs has been a trillion dollar failure. Every study available on the subject has proven that prison is not a deterrent. There is a give and take, anon.

>>18546153
We rise and fall together. Vote for what's best for the individual and it all falls apart around your ankles and you get less than before.

This may be a little too black and white, but I think you should care about what's good for you, unless an issue doesn't affect you. If an issue doesn't affect you, you should care about what's best for your fellow man.

For example, as a heterosexual person, gay marriage isn't an issue that affects me, but I don't care what other people do as long as it doesn't hurt others. Because of this, I support gay marriage and I'd vote for someone who supports gay marriage.

>>18546626
Fuck off you textbook Democratic demagogue

>>18546693
You just won the argument.
Congratulations.

Why didnt you start with that? It wins every time? You didnt have to bait out "statistics, citations and facts" before using your ringer.

You sly dog. Schools for losers anyway, amirite?

>>18546586
>Ask yourself: if what's good for your fellow man is good for you, wouldn't what's good for you be good for your fellow man? Are you not both men?

OP here. No, I can easily say that it isn't.

Quick example. I'm a healthy, 30 year old man, who has a stable job that provides me health insurance. However, for 7 months of this year, I was uninsured due to some contracting work. I'm currently going to be paying a penalty to my taxes if the ACA is not repealed. It would benefit me to get to keep my money.

However, there are 30,000 people in my state who would go completely uninsured. That is not good for them, my fellow man.

How would I choose, if this were up to me to decide alone?

Care about what's best for you first. Then when possible for your fellow man.

>>18546676
Sounds good to me, anon.

Who do you consider to be your fellow man?

>>18546153
Neither. Because you get caught in a logical trap. I vote and support what's best for the largest number of people or what hurts the least number.

Gay marriage. Not good for the majority (hang with me) and not good for me. But it also doesn't hurt the majority or me. It helps a small number of people and hurts nobody. Just some feelings I suppose. So I support it.

If something is good for me but not for most I do vote against it. But that is pretty rare. I don't need to be selfish. I live in a prosperous nation with plenty to spare.

Where people get hung up is believing something hurts them when it only hurt their feelings or personal views.

>>18546153
That depends how much you care about your fellow man.