It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The right wing, the core of the right wing, believes that only the ultra rich are the "real Americans" You hear Sarah Palin make mention of the "real Americans" on several occasions. They really do believe in two classes; the monied class, who are free, and the rabble, namely most of us, who are here as laborers at best. There was an incident where singer Cheryl Crow confronted Carl Rove at a Washington event, taking him to task on the misgivings of the Bush administration. He blew her off, saying, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people". Because to them, the only "real Americans" are the ultra rich who own most of the country. They are the ONLY ones represented in government now. IE the democrats and republicans have been bought and paid for for a long time and represent only their interests, aside from a few token issues they throw us to let us think we are still setting at the table. We aren't, and haven't been for a long time. I don't have a solution, other than to look at history and see how this always ends up. (Hint, it doesn't end well for the elites historically).




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
kinda funny...I'm poor, hell i am below the poverty level (I live on $1,300 a month provided by the VA) and I vote conservatively, so that person's argument is rong


But Don't you see..........

Under Mr. Vadum's plan; you couldn't vote at all, being poverty level and living off taxpayers; And many of your conservative brethren agree with Vadum.

I, a flaming liberal on the other hand would fight to the death for you to express yourself in the voting booth even though I might not agree with you on the issues.


edit on 5-9-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
What did he say that wasn't true?
The poor will vote for more entitlements, it's in their own best interests. What needs to be done is to get them NOT to be poor anymore.

But what progressive would want to lose their base?


Just wanted to say that I fully agree and support your stanced on "Poor people voting"

I thinkt the other posters are in denial that what you state is actually true. Poor people are always going to vote for more entitlements and you are correct, the non-poor are going to vote for programs that force the poor into productivity.

Example: Woman on welfare with5 kids will vote to be able to stay on welfare for a llifetime rather than a limited time.

Non-welfare woman will most likely vote that welfare should be limited and you should be forced into work or edcucatin, to break the poverty cycle. Also she may vote to implement foced sterilization so as to not continue the reproduction of children you can't provide for.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
www.rawstory.com...

"Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?" Vadum asks. "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. "

Conundrum.

BIG time conundrum.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrion
 


I think "productive", in this case, could be defined as 'actively seeking gainful employment' as opposed to plays X box all day and drinks a 12 pack/or smokes crack. People who TRY to better themselves do fail a lot less than those who don't try at all because 'woe is me, no one will pay me 100$K a year' doesn't stop them from caring. Those that care to be productive find a way to do so.

I agree with letting all people vote, provided they are self sufficient. If they pay net income taxes they should be deemed self sufficient even if it is not Rockefeller rich, so let net income tax payment be the voting rights bar. We should be able to see that is a good standard. If you are required to pay real taxes on your income not pay in and get it all back, plus some. People of all walks WILL always vote for their best interest first but voting for money to come your way has to be stopped on both sides. The lobbyist are helping the elite and the Liberals in both parties are using the poor to promote a two class system.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Things just become too complicated when humans are involved.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
From the lack of comprehension to the knee-jerk, missed-the-point & reactionary responses; this is classic ATS.

1). OP, you either didn't understand the quoted text, or your own hard biases prevent you from realizing what was being said. This is another classic, classic case of improper framing through post titles, followed by *your* take on what was said.

2). Almost all (but, not every one) of the responders didn't seem to take the time to even read the supplied, quoted text, much less the original story!

3). What, exactly, did the author say that is/wasn't true? I make no defense of what is, or is not, "American". What about his point, without the hyperbole, is untrue?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by whaaa
 


I've said this many times: We now live in a Corporatocracy. This d-bag is just one of it's many propaganda shills. We are not moving towards a fascist state, we are already there. We are just given the illusion that we, and our votes, still matter. The haves bought out our elected officials long ago, now it's up to the shills like this guy to keep us in line...
Are listeners really swayed by these broadcasts? This seems like sensationalism to stir up interest like is being done now.

I have noticed that the rich have a disdain or, at best, and avoidance of the poor. It's difficult for a lesser being to get eye contact with an affluent being. When an elite does engage in conversation, I have noticed bragging and trivia. I wonder if this is how they communicate with each other. They seem as shallow as the commercial propaganda they design to snare our wallets.

I talk to a lot of poor people. We'll talk to anyone. We are candid and frank. We see through the propaganda. We speak of a socialist revolution. We discus our puppet regime. How can the rich expect to keep up its game if its key component, the little people, aren't playing.
edit on 5-9-2011 by gentledissident because: comma



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
When the United States is 'controlled by those who are physically capable workers that chose not to work' (lazy), those who do work and pay taxes will ultimately become wage slaves.
edit on 9/5/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Poor folks will almost always vote for an increase in entitlement programs. it benefits them


And rich folks of the corporative flavor will always vote to maintain their elite status in our society, along with all their little perks. It benefits them.

PLEEZE. Isn't that why we vote?

Let me think.

Yes! I believe it is.


This is shameful, and the stuff dictatorships are made of. I cringe at the wickedness of anyone who supports this thirld world notion.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I, a flaming liberal on the other hand would fight to the death for you to express yourself in the voting booth even though I might not agree with you on the issues.


Funny, thats what we simply call democrats over here in Europe.
Democrats as in "People who believe in the principle of democracy" in general (NOT your "Democrat Party").

Im not sure what "real americans" are or what "un-american" means today.
Im not even sure what terms like patriotism, freedom or liberty mean to you (US Citizens) in the past 9/11 era...

I guess some terms in the USA have a completely different meaning today

edit on 5-9-2011 by ColCurious because: translation issues lol



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
kinda funny...I'm poor, hell i am below the poverty level (I live on $1,300 a month provided by the VA) and I vote conservatively, so that person's argument is rong


There is a book titled "whats the matter with Kansas"

The New York Times bestseller, praised as "hilariously funny . . . the only way to understand why so many Americans have decided to vote against their own economic and political interests" (Molly Ivins)


This is a good book as it spotlights why the good people of Kansas were influenced into voting for the GOP based on cultural issues like abortion, and religious related matters like creation vs evolution being taught in public schools. Once the GOP gained control of Kansas unemployment skyrocket, home fore closers went up and the general economic situation took a nose dive. BTW abortion is still legal.

The GOP doesn't serve the interests of poor people, however the GOP doesn't want to interfere with the rights of stupid voters, as they would lose there base. The GOP blames all the ills of this country on progressives when the GOP had been in control the majority of time for the last 30 years.

If a politician is running on values, it means they have no experience, and this is why we are where were at now. All the GOP needs to do is be anti abortion, anti gay, and anti immigrant, and conservatives come out in droves to vote for these people.

What has the GOP done to create jobs? The GOP told us that tax breaks for the rich would create jobs, it has not. The GOP didn't fully fund no child left behind. The GOP hasn't done anything about the export of American Jobs. Do tell what has the GOP done that is good for all Americans??

Has voting GOP in the last 40 years made America a better place? If so please show me some evidence.


edit on 5-9-2011 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
President Woodrow Wilson (Democratic Party) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic Party) had altered how the government functioned.

You can thank both Democratic presidents for our current dilemmas.

Link: Woodrow Wilson


In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms including the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.


Link: Franklin D. Roosevelt


Beginning with his inauguration address, Roosevelt began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism:

“Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

*cough*

If it wasn't for these two morons, the United States would not be in this social security and socialist hell.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by beezzer
 



Poor folks will almost always vote for an increase in entitlement programs. it benefits them


And rich folks of the corporative flavor will always vote to maintain their elite status in our society, along with all their little perks. It benefits them.

PLEEZE. Isn't that why we vote?

Let me think.

Yes! I believe it is.


This is shameful, and the stuff dictatorships are made of. I cringe at the wickedness of anyone who supports this thirld world notion.



100's of millions of poor verses how many rich? I am not going to defend the theft of power and money by these clowns who have it now, but I will point out the middle class is the one that needs preserving. The rich vote strictly with their money in our Congressmen's pockets and that is just as much as a problem as the welfare reciepients or undocumented aliens getting to vote for more handouts at the exspense largely of the middle class' hard to come by money. Either way too few rich voters for them to matter at the polls. And I think their rich existance should be at the whim of the society that spawned them and allowed it to happen.

If we see corruption and out of control greed from the elite class, it must be stopped just as corruption from other parts of society must be stopped. The fairness factor is demonstrated so well in "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand. When those that do nothing expect those that do things to support first a small amount and then an ever growing population of slouches who expect something for nothing, it hits a tipping point where the producers cant take the pressure anymore and tell the rest to go to hell. Those of us that work hard for our money do give to charities and to our families but we can't justify some of the excessive taking that is being perpetuated against us by Wall St. Bankers, thieves and loafers while watching all this corruption. Like in Rand/s book, we need reform.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




What values do you think those below the poverty line hold?


and there it is - not sure how I missed it

beezzer - I realize you're not going to reply to this post, but I'm going to ask you anyway - would you please explain what you mean by this?

Are people poor because they have the wrong values? Are they poor because they have no values?

Is this a moral issue? Poor people are just not very good people?

I've been following your posts - along with the posts of the few people in this thread that agree with you...here's the thing - rich people have substance abuse problems

Rich people beat their wives - their children - their help. Rich people cheat on their taxes, rich people drive drunk, rich people neglect their children, rich people are cruel to their animals, rich people cheat on their significant others, rich people lie to their loved ones, their friends - and themselves

Rich people vote for their party just for what it can get them - not because it's the 'best' thing for the country

Rich people have lied before congress, lied to their constituents - they've lied - as president of These United States

Rich people are also the salt of the earth. Most rich people are none of the things I've listed above - same as with the poor folk. They are wise, generous and kind - some of the people I've loved most in this life - have money

You're old enough to know better beezzer - look around. Quit trying to organize this world into good and bad people so you know which direction to shoot


edit on 9/5/2011 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Fascists will always seek to purge people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration. Wealth is not a measure of a man though. If we did not have such high living standards we would not need to keep people out of the dirt, but so long as we seek to maintain the American way of life we all hold so dear we must keep those who either are unable or unwilling to pull themselves out of the gutter from bringing us all down. It is not just the humane thing to so, it is a requisite for our high standards of living.

Imagine America without the Social Services or Welfare. I think it would closely mirror Lagos or similar, and instead of being known as we are today we may be known as the tent city capital of the world where the less fortunate starve on the streets etc… You must be very careful what you wish for here.

edit on 5-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jrocbaby

Originally posted by beezzer
No, i'm not for silencing you. Your voice needs to be heard so people can see the extremeness in your beliefs.


Originally posted by David9176

I'M ALL FOR SILENCING YOUR VOTE BEEZER.



No, you are all for screwing those who are already in the dog house.

Just admit it.

Tell me how your ideology is going to help those who are struggling.

By allowing them to live off the teat of government.


And btw, just because some one isn't as extreme as you doesn't make them a progressive. Most of the time, IT MAKES THEM NORMAL....something you are not.

You are nothing but an extremist.
No. I'm just for giving everyone a chance. Not seting them up to live a sad life dependent on the government.


I guess I have a sad dependent life on the government because my father left when I was 10 and my mom had to raise me with a 40 hr/week job at a grocery store at like $9.50/hr and zero child support, If it was not for basic foodstamps [not the ones where you get actual cash] I really don't know how I could have afforded to EAT EVERYDAY...

I suspect you are one of those people who never got in a fight before or visited a poor neighborhood, but the world is not some fancy place where you can just get any job or go to college, now a days its difficult to even finish high school in a mostly african american school [i know firsthand] when your family has low income.

Seriously I can't stand people like you, who automatically assume every person who is on any kind of welfare = 100% useless to society. I'm so useless im joining the air force to try and make a life for myself and get an education, but that never would have been possible without the government assistance so my mother could afford basic shelter and to raise me on her own.



Great post. You can tell the posters here that have never had to deal with a day of struggle in their lives by some of their inane commentary.

It's easy to look down upon people when you've been born into a sheltered, protected life.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Stopping poor people voting strikes me as very 'American' in a way.

Although not so much the 'poor' - but stopping those who are a drain or parasitical upon the system from voting themselves a free lunch, is only commonsense.


Truth is that Republican's interests are to create more productive, wealthy, integrated citizens to add to their voter base.

Whist the Democrats interests lie in creating more poor, dissatisfied, illegal, welfare dependent, marginalised people - as can plainly be seen in the many decades of their exclusive control of Americas large inner city areas.


Liberals, progressives, leftisst, communists - or whatever they are currently calling themselves love towrap their hatred up in grandiose moral high ground position - a great many of the more stupid ones actually believe in them for real - conservatives meanwhile have to rely on commonsense!



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


If we did not have such high living standards we would not need to keep people out of the dirt, but so long as we seek to maintain the American way of life we all hold so dear we must keep those who either are unable or unwilling to pull themselves out of the gutter from bringing us all down. It is not just the humane thing to so, it is a requisite for our high standards of living.

Imagine America without the Social Services or Welfare. I think it would closely mirror Lagos or similar, and instead of being known as we are today we may be known as the tent city capital of the world where the less fortunate starve on the streets etc… You must be very careful what you wish for here.

Degrading the American way of life will only hurt your bottom line friend. Just as the devaluation of the dollar has hurt your bottom line.


Does this sound familiar friend?
Competitive devaluation:
When a country is suffering from high unemployment or wishes to pursue a policy of export led growth, a lower exchange rate can be seen as advantageous. From the early 1980s the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has proposed devaluation as a potential solution for developing nations that are consistently spending more on imports than they earn on exports. A lower value for the home currency will raise the price for imports while making exports cheaper.[6] This tends to encourage more domestic production, which raises employment and gross domestic product (GDP) – though the effect may not be immediate due to the Marshall–Lerner condition. Devaluation can be seen as an attractive solution to unemployment when other options, like increased public spending, are ruled out due to high public debt, or when a country has a balance of payments deficit which a devaluation would help correct.

However:
Devaluation can lead to a reduction in citizens' standard of living as their purchasing power is reduced both when they buy imports and when they travel abroad. It also can add to inflationary pressure. Devaluation can make interest payments on international debt more expensive if those debts are denominated in a foreign currency, and it can discourage foreign investors. At least until the 21st century, a strong currency was commonly seen as a mark of prestige while devaluation was associated with weak governments.

According to economist Richard N. Cooper, writing in 1971, a substantial devaluation is one of the most "traumatic" policies a government can adopt – it almost always results in cries of outrage and calls for the government to be replaced.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Stopping poor people voting strikes me as very 'American' in a way.

Although not so much the 'poor' - but stopping those who are a drain or parasitical upon the system from voting themselves a free lunch, is only commonsense.


Truth is that Republican's interests are to create more productive, wealthy, integrated citizens to add to their voter base.

Whist the Democrats interests lie in creating more poor, dissatisfied, illegal, welfare dependent, marginalised people - as can plainly be seen in the many decades of their exclusive control of Americas large inner city areas.


Liberals, progressives, leftisst, communists - or whatever they are currently calling themselves love towrap their hatred up in grandiose moral high ground position - a great many of the more stupid ones actually believe in them for real - conservatives meanwhile have to rely on commonsense!


What % of poor voters vote for the GOP?

Do you REALLY think that everyone who votes Republican is wealthy or well off




top topics



 
50
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join