Poor people shouldn't vote, it's Un-American

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html

    I reeeeaaallly love the comment section "I've said all along we need LESS people voting. The conservatives should push for poll taxes (if you're not willing or able to pay, then you probably are not willing or able to be informed enough to vote), increase the voting age to 21, no voting for anyone who has received government assistance in the past year, and no sufferage for anyone who cannot read. One person one vote is a recipe for political suicide and the Communist's dream"


    "I agree completely with this article and have a simple solution to fix it. Every person's vote is weighted according to how much they paid in taxes. Everyone gets a default value of one. So of that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing. No skin in the game, no say is how the real world works, but we would give them a small say. (Non-shareholders get NO votes in the dealings of a business). This would be "fair" and serve "justice" as those footing the bill would have the biggest say in what is done with THEIR money."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    "Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. "

    So very true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said"Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. "

    So very true.


    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    mocktwinkie said"Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. "

    So very true.


    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.


    All I'm saying is that the statement is true. You can spin it any way you like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:39 PM GMT
    Uninformed people shouldn't vote. All else should.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 6:42 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.



    What a ridiculous and yet typically bitter posting by you. "The rich get that way off the backs of the poor"? Seriously? How about the many self-made rich who got that way through innovation, perseverance and hard work, not to mention good old fashioned blood, sweat & tears? Forget about the rich who actually donate millions to charities and the less fortunate. I'm not saying that there are not rich people who may have, as you say, gotten that way off of the backs of the poor, but there are also many poor people who stayed that way because they didn't have the drive, ambition, or desire to forge a better way of life for themselves. Mock was agreeing with a statement you made, and in no way did he suggest that poor people should not be allowed to vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:45 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.



    What a ridiculous and yet typically bitter posting by you. "The rich get that way off the backs of the poor"? Seriously? How about the many self-made rich who got that way through innovation, perseverance and hard work, not to mention good old fashioned blood, sweat & tears? Forget about the rich who actually donate millions to charities and the less fortunate. I'm not saying that there are not rich people who may have, as you say, gotten that way off of the backs of the poor, but there are also many poor people who stayed that way because they didn't have the drive, ambition, or desire to forge a better way of life for themselves.


    You do realize that upward mobility in this country is almost entirely a game of chance? And when people like you do things like vote to cut educational funding, disability benefits, medicare, or even unemployment, you are essentially stacking the deck even more against these people.

    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:46 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    mocktwinkie said"Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. "

    So very true.


    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.


    All I'm saying is that the statement is true. You can spin it any way you like.


    No one has to spin anything. We all know how you feel about those less fortunate or in less than favorable situations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:48 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Are you shitting me with this? The rich get that way off the backs of the poor and often times through a government subsidized workforce (see walmart). What's it like to be able to place a dollar amount on a human life?


    Good to know where you stand on basic American rights too.



    What a ridiculous and yet typically bitter posting by you. "The rich get that way off the backs of the poor"? Seriously? How about the many self-made rich who got that way through innovation, perseverance and hard work, not to mention good old fashioned blood, sweat & tears? Forget about the rich who actually donate millions to charities and the less fortunate. I'm not saying that there are not rich people who may have, as you say, gotten that way off of the backs of the poor, but there are also many poor people who stayed that way because they didn't have the drive, ambition, or desire to forge a better way of life for themselves. Mock was agreeing with a statement you made, and in no way did he suggest that poor people should not be allowed to vote.


    He doesn't think anyone works hard for their money. He believes that an old generous white lady decided to give Herman Cain his restaurant food chain.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 6:52 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.



    I suppose if you want to use that analogy then one could say for every homeless person there are 1000 who managed to make some success of their lives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:55 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.



    I suppose if you want to use that analogy then one could say for every homeless person there are 1000 who managed to make some success of their lives.


    And did those people get any help from any person or any agency or any charity, receive a leg up from any other entity of any kind? Socialism!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 6:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.



    I suppose if you want to use that analogy then one could say for every homeless person there are 1000 who managed to make some success of their lives.


    Wow, did you know that many homeless people are people with a mental illness that if left untreated or unmediated leaves them pretty much unfit to care for themselves? Or that the growing trend among homeless are entire families where the primary bread winner was laid off (so that some CEO could get a bonus mind you) and their house foreclosed on?

    Why is it conservatives seem to have no understanding of social issues in this country?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Why is it conservatives seem to have no understanding of social issues in this country?



    Why is it that people like you carry around such a colossal chip on your shoulder that you cannot accept that not every person who made a success of their lives had it handed to them on a silver platter? It's a pretty lame argument if all you can muster up is the false assumption that "conservatives seem to have no understanding of social issues in this country".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:11 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Why is it conservatives seem to have no understanding of social issues in this country?



    Why is it that people like you carry around such a colossal chip on your shoulder that you cannot accept that not every person who made a success of their lives had it handed to them on a silver platter? It's a pretty lame argument if all you can muster up is the false assumption that "conservatives seem to have no understanding of social issues in this country".


    How exactly do I have a chip on my shoulder? And you don't have any understanding of social issues, your assumption seems to be "the poor are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they are good hard working REAL amurkans."
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Sep 07, 2011 7:13 PM GMT
    "Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. "

    The rich, on the other hand, never vote themselves more benefits, and are impervious to demagoguery.

    A friend of mine, who is working two jobs to support his family, clearly shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    You either believe in the value of the individual, or you don't. You either believe we're all in this together, or you don't. Clearly people who subscribe to this sort of thing don't.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Sep 07, 2011 7:16 PM GMT
    Uninformed people shouldn't vote. All else should.

    I read a book years ago that suggested that there should be multiple votes: everyone gets a Basic Vote; people with education past a certain level (college?) get another; another vote is awarded for living abroad for a certain amount of time (one year?); a final vote could be awarded on rare occasions for merit, like a Medal of Honor.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:17 PM GMT

    "The rich, on the other hand, never vote themselves more benefits, and are impervious to demagoguery."

    Worth quoting. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    torrentprime said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.



    I suppose if you want to use that analogy then one could say for every homeless person there are 1000 who managed to make some success of their lives.


    And did those people get any help from any person or any agency or any charity, receive a leg up from any other entity of any kind? Socialism!


    Getting help through charity and agencies is precisely how it is SUPPOSED to be to a greater extent, but that's not what you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:31 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Yea some rich people give millions to charities, but for every Oprah there are 100 Madoffs.



    I suppose if you want to use that analogy then one could say for every homeless person there are 1000 who managed to make some success of their lives.


    And did those people get any help from any person or any agency or any charity, receive a leg up from any other entity of any kind? Socialism!


    Getting help through charity and agencies is precisely how it is SUPPOSED to be to a greater extent, but that's not what you want.



    Right..charities..where you are free to be discriminated against for things like being gay.

    I'm so sick of this "you should only get help if someone chooses to help you" mentality.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 7:35 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    How exactly do I have a chip on my shoulder? And you don't have any understanding of social issues, your assumption seems to be "the poor are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they are good hard working REAL amurkans."



    I said nothing of the sort. My first post in this thread was a response to your ridiculous and unfair generalization that "rich people got that way on the backs of the poor". It sounded a whole lot like sour grapes. Obviously, many people are born into poverty and can't seem to catch a break for whatever reason and live their entire lives in poverty. However, many people born into poverty do take advantage of every opportunity offered to them, if not make their own opportunities, and rise up out of poverty into successful and productive lives. By the same token, some millionaires (some, certainly not all) are born into wealth and never actually have to work a day in their lives. Regardless, the rich trust fund baby born into wealth had no more control over that than a crack baby born into poverty, so assigning some sort of blame is fruitless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    How exactly do I have a chip on my shoulder? And you don't have any understanding of social issues, your assumption seems to be "the poor are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they are good hard working REAL amurkans."



    I said nothing of the sort. My first post in this thread was a response to your ridiculous and unfair generalization that "rich people got that way on the backs of the poor". It sounded a whole lot like sour grapes. Obviously, many people are born into poverty and can't seem to catch a break for whatever reason and live their entire lives in poverty. However, many people born into poverty do take advantage of every opportunity offered to them, if not make their own opportunities, and rise up out of poverty into successful and productive lives. By the same token, some millionaires (some, certainly not all) are born into wealth and never actually have to work a day in their lives. Regardless, the rich trust fund baby born into wealth had no more control over that than a crack baby born into poverty, so assigning some sort of blame is fruitless.



    Why oh why are you focused on trust fund babies? I'm talking about CEO's sitting at the top cutting worker pay and sending American jobs overseas while giving themselves bonsues.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Why oh why are you focused on trust fund babies? I'm talking about CEO's sitting at the top cutting worker pay and sending American jobs overseas while giving themselves bonsues.



    I never said that was fair either. However, it's called capitalism and, like it or not, those CEOs have a job to do running corporations of which their own jobs, not to mention the overall success of the company, rests on their bottom line. Maybe you would be happier living in China?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:51 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Why oh why are you focused on trust fund babies? I'm talking about CEO's sitting at the top cutting worker pay and sending American jobs overseas while giving themselves bonsues.



    I never said that was fair either. However, it's called capitalism and, like it or not, those CEOs have a job to do running corporations of which their own jobs, not to mention the overall success of the company, rests on their bottom line. Maybe you would be happier living in China?



    So when a CEO says cuts need to be made, then fires 100 workers making 40k each and then gives himself a 2 million dollar bonus, nothing is wrong?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2011 7:58 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Why oh why are you focused on trust fund babies? I'm talking about CEO's sitting at the top cutting worker pay and sending American jobs overseas while giving themselves bonsues.



    I never said that was fair either. However, it's called capitalism and, like it or not, those CEOs have a job to do running corporations of which their own jobs, not to mention the overall success of the company, rests on their bottom line. Maybe you would be happier living in China?



    So when a CEO says cuts need to be made, then fires 100 workers making 40k each and then gives himself a 2 million dollar bonus, nothing is wrong?


    You seem to think that the alternative to sending jobs overseas is keeping jobs at home. Have you heard of things like... I dunno... automation? People like you who have absolutely no conceptual understanding of the risks it takes to manufacture in the US keep advocating piling on costs and regulations on businesses in the US and then act surprised when people want to move or decide not to expand/hire.

    The reality is that trade actually creates jobs and that same CEO who sends jobs overseas often creates more domestically from the cost savings and ability to invest in such things as research and development. You act as if all jobs are created equal. They aren't.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 07, 2011 7:58 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said

    So when a CEO says cuts need to be made, then fires 100 workers making 40k each and then gives himself a 2 million dollar bonus, nothing is wrong?



    Like I said, I didn't say it was necessarily fair, it's just reality within a free market society in which Capitalism is the driving force. People who worked their way to the top to become CEO of a corporation are naturally going to be making decisions that are best for the company and themselves. I would suspect that, if you were to ever be in such a position, you may make very similar decisions if faced with the same sort of scenario. The mindset, goals, and motivations of a CEO are simply not the same as that of a $40K a year employee.