Right-wing commentator: Poor people voting is ‘un-American’

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Having re-read your reply several times, I sense sarcasm with hoping over the dividing rail on the topic.
Since sarcasm does not translate well over the internet, I will respond with this.
I have yet to see where people will not vote to bring themselves money, benefits or entitlements, when those people are relying on said items.
When things are promoted as free, free health care, free retirement, free house insulation, I don't see people shy away from jumping right in. Unless they do their homework and discover that there is no free. Someone, somewhere has to pay to provide these things.

The whole idea that poor people are stupid just is not so. They are prey to the political predator, plain and simple.

reply to post by macman

Since sarcasm does not translate well over the internet, I will respond with this.

:-)

Someone, somewhere has to pay to provide these things.

Yes - that would be all of us - one way or another

The whole idea that poor people are stupid just is not so. They are prey to the political predator, plain and simple.

So, how are the not stupid people prey then?

I would like to redirect your attention back to this:

2. When people find out that they can vote themselves money, we have a problem, thus point 1 is back at the forefront.

Who is 'we'? I assume 'we' are the extra special not-stupid?

I'm afraid sometimes the only tool I am left is sarcasm

This thread is about denying poor people the vote - it is NOT about solving the problem that is poverty. We're not deciding who is over-burdened, or who is dodging their responsibilities - or who really and truly is interested in what's best for everyone...as if

There are people who call themselves economists, then people who call themselves patriots, people who think of themselves as servants of the people...none of them seems to be able to agree on how to fix our current situation - let alone fix the problems of poverty. So, no surprise then that we aren't going to solve this problem here - in this thread

None of this even touches on the more philosophical or just plain emotional discussions about why we do or don't, should or shouldn't care about the poor. We'd be here for days and get exactly nowhere

Again - that is not what this thread is about - it's about registering the poor to vote - but then, more disturbingly - who should be allowed to vote?

Everyone should feel their hair stand on when they hear this sort of thing - left and right and every shade of grey in between - because they are talking about deciding not only who can or can't vote - but who deserves to be called citizen

Who can have a part in this government Of the People, By the People, For the People ...

Gee - maybe I'm just too sentimental - nostalgic - soft? I really miss this idea - you know?

Mr. Vadum - the 'gentleman' quoted in the OP is not alone in his thinking - and I hear this sort of talk more and more - and then even more

If he were just some guy with a big mouth - well - it would still be worth discussing. But - he's not:

by News Corpse (September 03, 2011 5:28 pm ET) 34

Vadum is not alone:
John Stossel (Fox News): "Let's stop saying everyone should vote."
Rush Limbaugh: "If people cannot even feed and clothe themselves, should they be allowed to vote?"
Judson Phillips (Tea Party Nation): "If you're not a property owner, I'm sorry, but property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than not property owners do."

There is a GOP War On Voting currently in progress to roll back voting rights for millions of Americans. It is imperative that we fight back on this. (Shareable InfoGraphic at the link above).

mediamatters.org...

So - what about it patriots? Should it be made official - first class and second class citizens?

Sarcasm - to keep from crying

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I think that most of what is being parroted is taken out of context.
Do the poor have a right to vote?
Yes.
Should there be some huge movement to get them to vote?
No.
It creates a special class, as if I am neither poor or a minority, then I need to register and vote on my own.

Now, the "we" I speak of is anyone voting based on an increase of entitlements or so on for personal gain.
If I vote for a person or bill sole based on increasing say VA benefits, then it is wrong. Points back to that once the people learn they can vote themselves money, it is a downward spiral.

Should the poor vote? That is up to the individual.

Again, there should not be some big tax payer funded push to register the poor or minorities.

Should we question everything revolving around Govt? Yes.
Should those that question Govt be placed under the microscope?
No. If the anti-war crowd can do it, then the anti-big Govt people can as well.

And using Media Matters as your base should be reconsidered as well.

reply to post by macman

Again, there should not be some big tax payer funded push to register the poor or minorities.

www.nrcc.org...

yeah - right...

:-)

How about registering the young to vote? Bad idea? Not enough life experience? How would we go about determining that people are 'qualified' to vote?

And why should we - as a nation - not actively encourage all people to vote? I am dead serious - where would the lines be drawn - and who gets to draw them?

That's not where all this is heading - this is just the preamble to: some people should not be allowed to vote

about Media Matters - it's fair to question the source - but then we'd all have to agree with which sources are legit, unbiased and reasonable - and which aren't :-)

you see the problem don't you?

It was the quotes I was after - all for real

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I am not questioning who should vote. The requirements are pretty simple, US citizen, 18 years or older, not a felon.
There should not be some huge push to get people to vote. If they want to, they will.

Should these things be questioned? Sure, why not?
Should the questions lead to anything? That is the real issue.
Discussion does not hurt.

reply to post by macman

Discussion does not hurt.

:-)

fair enough

but way to suck the fun out of a good fight macman

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I am old enough, and been in enough fights to know how to escalate or de-escalate issue.

reply to post by axslinger


You picture me wrongly. I work hard, I am in the process of starting a small business at the same time. I've never taken a dime from the entitlements programs.

What I speak of is priorities and realistic valuation.

I live in a nation in which massive corporations continue to report all time record earnings and dish out record setting salaries and bonuses to the executive class... All the while laying off employees by the boat load, cutting benefits for 99/100 of their employees, reducing pay and exploiting loopholes to pay little or no taxes.

The greed of the few is literally destroying the financial base of my country. Now most of us can't spend often. We are less happy, less secure and heading for more trouble.

They have chocked off the consumer.. No consumer, no demand, no nothing.

How do you justify record profits against that back drop?

Spreading the wealth is not taking what someone has and giving it to "me".

It is taking a realistic approach to distribution going forward.

100 x 25000 + 5 x 1000000 or 100 x 50000 + 5 x 500000.

Which encourages more demand side activity thus stimulating an economy? Which provides more transactions thus increasing revenue, both for supply siders and for taxation?

You include everyone in the wealth and thus increase liquidity.


Or we can ignore the fact that corporate profits have risen over 300% in the last thirty years, execu ti ve salaries over 400% and the average employees salary only about 21% while we pretend to be baffled by the catastrphic collapse of the single most powerful economic machine that has ever existed.

As a foot note, from 1947 - 1963 average American Incomes rose 100%.

The people that actually make the wheels spin have been disenfranchised.