Conservatives tell Latin Americans: Your welcome here, but don't bring your 3rd world socialist values with you.
Taxes-1024x520.png (1024×520) (vividmaps.com) states that Latin America has lower taxes on their rich than America does generally. Even Venezuela has lower taxes on the rich than America does. If the Latin Americans didn't bring their "shithole values" with them, they would be advocating for higher taxes on the rich. They also would be opposed to UHC, because most Latin American countries have UHC and America doesn't(Universal Healthcare by Country 20191229 - List of countries with universal health care - Wikipedia).
How can a region that has UHC have lower taxes than America? Yeah, America spends a lot on the military, but only around 3.5% of the US's GDP goes to military. If the US spent a comparable amount on the military to Latin American countries, our taxes on the 1% would be about the same.
I also don't understand how any poor person votes republican. Yeah, they promise lower taxes (in reality, it's lower taxes for the wealthy), but lower taxes means less government services, and I'm sure the poor use government services more than what they pay in taxes (as do most people). If you have 1 kid in school, you are using $12,000 of government services per year. The average parent has about 2 kids in school, leading to them costing the government $24,000 a year, yet they pay less than this in taxes.
When people say, "We want lower taxes", they might as well say, "We want lower taxes for the top 1% and we will cut the education budget to pay for it". If they said the ladder statement, I'd at least respect the right. Instead, they gloss up their policies as, "Lower taxes". The democrats are being idiots, because they never tell the GOP and their base, "Lower taxes means less government services that your base disproportionally relies on" and as a result, the democrats end up not dominating elections.
If everyone voted solely on their best interests, you would see democrats winning elections by margins of 99% to 1% (the bottom 99% vs the top 1%), because the typical person gets more from the government over the course of their lifetime than what they pay in taxes. This applies to everyone but the top 1%. Even if they are in the top 1%, if they aren't too religious or prochoice, they would be willing to pay higher taxes to keep abortion legal.
This means most conservative voters vote for reasons OTHER than their best interests. They may be pro life, so they support the Unborn's life over their own, and as a result they are willing to sacrifice their own livelihood to save a stranger fetus. I don't understand how they can care about stranger fetuses but not care about their own kids that they know by advocating for higher taxes on the rich to give their kids a better education and to give them free healthcare. They may support the right to own an AK 47 (a right most of these conservatives don't use as there are only about 20 million assault weapons in the US (U.S. Has At Least 20 Million Assault Rifles. A Ban Wouldn’t Reduce That Number. (forbes.com)) and the people that own them tend to own multiple of them, leading to most people advocating for the right to own an AK 47 not owning one themselves).
Granted, I'm not saying liberals don't do similar stuff. Most liberals who advocate the right to smoke weed don't smoke weed, and many that are pro choice will never get an abortion, but there are reasons that benefit themselves (more funding for healthcare to save them some money) and others for the typical person to vote democrat. There are only reasons that benefit others as a reason to vote republican.
This brings me to the question: Should people vote on their own best interests, or the interests of others? If the former applies, democrats win every election by about 99% to 1%, but I could argue voting on your best interests is selfish (granted, there are times where being selfish is morally justified). If the ladder applies, then people care more about others than themselves (even if done irrationally by preferring to spare a stranger fetus over educating their own children and giving them free healthcare), but it also means democrats have to compete for votes, instead of painting the GOP as the party of the 1% (which the GOP kind of is and I would prefer it if they just admitted that they want to cut taxes for the 1% and cut spending on government programs because it's socialist).
I'm just rambling. What are your thoughts on this?
