"Registering the poor to vote is Un-American"

[ringil]

Originally Posted by Hastrman

You could make the case that people who the actuarial tables say aren't likely to live to see the results of their votes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Hey, the Church does it with cardinals.

But the original article was actually not referring to "registering the poor to vote". It was referring to groups, such as ACORN, that do things like promise homeless people food (and sometimes other things, like alcohol and even drugs) to vote for their candidate.

Since homelessness in the US is almost entirely a mental health issue, most of them probably shouldn't be voting anyway. And they definitely shouldn't be voting according to how they're bribed by shady groups.

Mentally ill people are, and should be, entirely free to vote. Talk about stigma towards the mentally ill!!

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by davidmlamb

The Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLIC was a Republic. The Peoples REPUBLIC of China is a Republic, The Peoples REPUBLIC of North Korea is a Republic. America has always been a Representative Democracy. All a Republic is, is a nation not ruled by a dynasty or a monarchy. A Republic could be the Soviet Union where it has a system of checks and balances but not an election process, or it could be a nation that has elections only by the elitist. All these are forms of tyranny. Funny how the only ones in America who seem to be under tyranny are the upper middle class, the wealthy and business owners. All of them who live better then the average working class. There has never been an example in history where a representative Democracy ends in Tyranny.

I think a republic has some element of control by the people in addition to not having hereditary control.

The communists republics you mentioned all had voting.

Weimar Germany was a republic. It elected Hitler. He became a dictator. Mussolini was elected prime minister. Many people felt Abraham Lincoln was a dictator hence 'sic semper tyrannis'. The Roman Republic ended with the Emperor. I would say the representative democracy of North Korea is most certainly a tyranny. Examples of democracies becoming tyrannies abound.

When the US makes war on countries to impose 'democracy' on them the assumption is that we are democracy. And I think that is true. We are as you say a representative democracy. This difference in the modern government and the early American republic is that in earlier times not everyone could vote. This seems like a wise idea as the people getting what they want is not always or even ever the best thing.

Democracy is a strange concept anyway, especially concerning positive laws or rights. If democracy is just legalizing the will of the people why is it even necessary? If a majority of people want something to happen why must that be made law? One would assume that if the majority of people wanted something they would be able to achieve it without coercion.

[davidmlamb]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

I think a republic has some element of control by the people in addition to not having hereditary control.

The communists republics you mentioned all had voting.

Weimar Germany was a republic. It elected Hitler. He became a dictator. Mussolini was elected prime minister. Many people felt Abraham Lincoln was a dictator hence 'sic semper tyrannis'. The Roman Republic ended with the Emperor. I would say the representative democracy of North Korea is most certainly a tyranny. Examples of democracies becoming tyrannies abound.

When the US makes war on countries to impose 'democracy' on them the assumption is that we are democracy. And I think that is true. We are as you say a representative democracy. This difference in the modern government and the early American republic is that in earlier times not everyone could vote. This seems like a wise idea as the people getting what they want is not always or even ever the best thing.

Democracy is a strange concept anyway, especially concerning positive laws or rights. If democracy is just legalizing the will of the people why is it even necessary? If a majority of people want something to happen why must that be made law? One would assume that if the majority of people wanted something they would be able to achieve it without coercion.

Comparing our Representative Democracy to that of North Korea or what lead to Nazi Germany is disengenuous. The only ones in this country claiming we are a tyranny are those who think paying a mximum tax bracket of 36% is oppressing them. Those in this country who are under tyranny are the weak and vulnerable, the poor. Nearly 50 million Americans not having access to proper medical care is tyranny. People who become bankrupt and lose their life savings because of Medical bills they accumulated even with health care is tyranny. People who are paid unjust wages and work all their lives for such wages and retire in poverty while the rich collect a Social Security check on the backs of the Walmart Workers is tyranny. Wanting to take away the votes of a certain class of people is tyranny.

All these suggestions comes from right wing conservatism which is an evil demonic force seducing people into putting them in power in the exact same way the Nazi's were able to seduced the German people into putting them in power. But we have a Constitution which makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for right wing conservatives to overthrow our Democracy. Which is exactly what Right Wing Conservatism is attempting to do, overthrow the US government and replace it with a type of monarchy where only certain class of citizens, the business class, the wealthy and powerful, get to make or change all the laws to suit their needs while oppressing the poor, the weak and the vulnerable by taking away their vote and their means to live with dignity.

Right Wing Conservatism is the spirit of the anti Christ and people need to be aware that they are neither pro life or for the common good. They are in fact a serious threat to human life and human dignity and completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church. The Lord rebuke you for promoting such wickedness.


Isaiah 10
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?

He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth
and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty. Proverbs 22:16

In the service of Christ and His Church,

David

[Trader]

Originally Posted by stinkcat_14

I was definitely saying that tongue in cheek, but the point does remain that seniors do vote to protect their entitlements. If wanted to disenfranchise those with entitlements, that would be the biggest group to start with, but if you are a politician and you vote for such a bill it definitely better pass, or else your political career would be history.

I knew you were being ironic, and as a new SS recipient (2 checks) I may have a bias. I would like to remind you that there is a difference between a program that I paid for over 40 years and a program that pays people who have yet to contribute anything to the common good. I would have a far better retirement if I had not paid so much into the SS system and invested that money on my own.

I have heard some people say it is unfair to give college aid to veterans who risked their lives in service of their country, but not for young people who have given no service at all except for serving some time in a juvenile facility for drug crimes.

If you want to criticize senior advocacy groups like AARP, go ahead. You will have to go way over the line before I will step in to defend them.

Personally, I would like to make most public assistance programs loans that need to get paid back and are limited to a reasonable time to change the behavior that caused the problem in the first place.

No, I am not talking about a 7 year old paralized from a drunk driving accident. What I would place serious limit on is things like the person who dropped out of high school ten years ago, and still has not earned even a GED, and the person who has not been able to get a truck driving job for three years because he has not had a clean drug test in three years. Handing out money without requiring progress toward self-reliance is not helping, it is hateful and destructive.

[davidmlamb]

Originally Posted by Trader

I have heard some people say it is unfair to give college aid to veterans who risked their lives in service of their country, but not for young people who have given no service at all except for serving some time in a juvenile facility for drug crimes.

If you want to criticize senior advocacy groups like AARP, go ahead. You will have to go way over the line before I will step in to defend them.

Personally, I would like to make most public assistance programs loans that need to get paid back and are limited to a reasonable time to change the behavior that caused the problem in the first place.

No, I am not talking about a 7 year old paralized from a drunk driving accident. What I would place serious limit on is things like the person who dropped out of high school ten years ago, and still has not earned even a GED, and the person who has not been able to get a truck driving job for three years because he has not had a clean drug test in three years. Handing out money without requiring progress toward self-reliance is not helping, it is hateful and destructive.

I don't see how this can happen. The government does not give cash aide out like it use to prior to 1996. President Clinton signed into Law the Welfare to Work Bill drafted by a majority GOP Congress with Newt Gengrich at the helm. The new law mandated a two year life time limit for cash aid and drastically cut the benefit and made strict guidelines to receive it. An alcoholic or drug addict would not qualify. A needy family who had little children and exhausted their unemployment insurance would qualify. Food stamps are a little easier to obtain but the law require you to register for work and report weekly for a job search or enter a retraining program. If you work at Wal-Mart for instance and receive a low wage you may receive food stamps to supplement your income but not cash aid.

In order to collect Social Security when you retire you have had to work 40 quarters so I don't see how people who never paid into social security can get it. HOWEVER, a person can receive a social security disability benefit without paying into the system but this is very very difficult to obtain. But, drug addicts and dysfunctional alcoholics do receive it because they are incapacitated. This might be what you are seeing. Be that as it may most people enter these retraining programs and come out of it successfully and become self sufficient. I am one of them.

I went through vocational rehabilitation which sent me to college to receive my Bachelors degree. I never received any kind of cash benefit other then paid tuition and books. After my first academic year in college I was able to work an internship position with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I graduated in 2006 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics and received a scholarship and an assistantship to go to graduate school. I took one year off of school to work and was able to return with the academic award fully intact. I graduated in 2009 with my Master's degree in Material Science and work for the Department of the Navy today as an Engineer. While in graduate school I worked as a junior scientist and developed an optical semiconductor that has switching capabilities in the femto second range. I published my research in a 70 page thesis. I was 49 when I graduated and it took me 1.5 years to find work. During that time I was able to collect unemployment for 6 months and then it ran out and I was not eligable for an extension because I only worked full time during the summer months. My ex wife felt sorry for me and allowed me to move in so I could have food and shelter. There was no welfare available to me even though I am a Gulf War Veteran of the US Navy. I received free health care however from the VA and was on the waiting list for homeless veterans housing.

In January of this year I landed an interview with the Department of the Navy. I was offered the job in Norfolk, Virginia and I was required to pay all my travel and moving arrangements. I borrowed the money from my mother and moved here. I am now 51 years old as of Aug 22, 2011 and I plan on working the rest of my life if my health permits, which I believe it will at least until I am 70. By the way, I paid back my loan to my mother and everyone, even my ex wife are very proud of me.

What I went through was exceedingly difficult. Not only did I face academic challenges that were unbelievable, but I faced enormous hardship including my wife leaving me. I was often poor and destituted. slept in the library and took showers in the gym. I worked on the side repairing washers and dryers and other household appliances and this usually netted me around 300 dollars a month for living expensis. I was able to collect 200 dollars a month in food stamps but no cash aid. So I had to save as much money as I could in the summer months to sustain myself. Sometimes I was able to live with friends for a few months at a time and then it was back sleeping in my car or the library. I tried to get social security disability (which I paid into for 20 years) but was repeatedly denied. The only thing I had that kept me from losing hope and contimplating suicide was my faith. But right before I was offered this job I was on the virge of losing all hope and faith as I faced age discrimination and was turned down for many jobs I was even overqualified for.

So I don't see how any mass amount of people are getting a free ride out there. I am gainfully employed now but still very much traumatized for what I had gone through. But I made it with battle scars.

Peace,
David

[MillTownCath]

One has to admit there is an inarguable point being made. those with less are likely to vote for more. However, the converse is as often true, those with more are likely to vote to keep it. Can't really make one argument without the other.

For example, right now in my home city, a billionaire is trying to get the public to help pay for his new stadium. That same city had to lay off 10 fire fighters not to long ago because of drastic budget cuts. Is it wrong that one of the fire fighters might prefer revenues being raise so that he could continue his job serving the city?

News flash: in a democracy, people will tend to vote for policies from which they believe they will benefit - be that continuing social security benefits or preventing gays from getting married because of your religious beliefs or privileging income derived from capital investment over income derived from actually working.

[MillTownCath]

Every person has equal value by virtue of them being created in the image and likeness of God.

[Trader]

Originally Posted by davidmlamb

I don't see how this can happen. The government does not give cash aide out like it use to prior to 1996. President Clinton signed into Law the Welfare to Work Bill drafted by a majority GOP Congress with Newt Gengrich at the helm. The new law mandated a two year life time limit for cash aid and drastically cut the benefit and made strict guidelines to receive it. An alcoholic or drug addict would not qualify. A needy family who had little children and exhausted their unemployment insurance would qualify. Food stamps are a little easier to obtain but the law require you to register for work and report weekly for a job search or enter a retraining program. If you work at Wal-Mart for instance and receive a low wage you may receive food stamps to supplement your income but not cash aid.

So I don't see how any mass amount of people are getting a free ride out there. I am gainfully employed now but still very much traumatized for what I had gone through. But I made it with battle scars.

Peace,
David

First of all, thank you for your service.

I really don't think we disagree about that much. You did your service first and got your education benefits afterwards. You did work hard to improve your earning potential and you stayed with it. You did repay your private benefactors. You are to be congratulated. Why don't we expect that of everyone?

Part of what I said concerned a TV judge who publicly complains about a law that restricts Pell Grants to people convicted of drug crimes.

•If you were convicted of possession of illegal drugs for the first time, you won’t be eligible for federal aid until at least one year since your conviction.
•If you were convicted for selling for the first time, you won’t be eligible for federal aid for at least two years from the date of your conviction.
•If you have more than one offense for selling or more than two offenses for possession, you can only regain eligibility after you complete an approved rehabilitation program.

Source: http://www.educationgrant.com/2009/0...t-pell-grants/

I do not see granting education benefits to honorably discharged veterans and limiting benefits for drug criminals to be inconsistent or unjust.

Another case I had in mind was a nice young woman who works at large discount/grocery store where I frequently shop. When I had a minor problem with a credit card that required her to reset the self-service checkout machine, she poured out most of her life story to me. She is upset because banks will not give her an auto loan even though she thought she had average credit. She based this belief on the fact that her credit score was about half of the maximum score of 850. She lived with her boyfriend and baby in subsidized housing, received food stamps and medicaid. She also had a $2000 medical bad debt that was two years old and she had never made even one payment on the debt. Still, she was able to find $30 per week to spend on cigarettes. If the only change she made was to quit smoking, she could have already paid off the medical debt and greatly improved her credit.

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by davidmlamb

Comparing our Representative Democracy to that of North Korea or what lead to Nazi Germany is disengenuous.

Comparing is not saying they are the same. We can compare where they are similar.

The wonder of the US is that it learned to use the carrot, rather than the stick, to run its tyranny. Rather than the crude methods used by North Korea it simply threatens to deprive one of worldly pleasure. The sad thing is that this reveals the American people to be far more corrupt than the government of North Korea.

By the way I'd gladly give up my vote forever in exchange for any number of things. If voting made a difference they'd make it illegal.

Originally Posted by MillTownCath

One has to admit there is an inarguable point being made. those with less are likely to vote for more. However, the converse is as often true, those with more are likely to vote to keep it. Can't really make one argument without the other.

For example, right now in my home city, a billionaire is trying to get the public to help pay for his new stadium. That same city had to lay off 10 fire fighters not to long ago because of drastic budget cuts. Is it wrong that one of the fire fighters might prefer revenues being raise so that he could continue his job serving the city?

I agree with your point and see the same disgusting handouts to rich people in my town. The middle class gets squeezed by the rich and the poor. But if it is the government's job to run the economy it makes sense that they would handout money to billionaires just as much as the poor. If government is the most wise and fair institution then this makes sense. In my opinion government is terrible unfair and unjust. I think the Church has the job of creating economic fairness. But anyone who advocates giving money to the poor has given justification for giving money to the rich and anyone who advocates giving money to the rich has given justification for giving money to the poor. Only the folks who condemn both, who do exist, have the consistent position.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Originally Posted by MillTownCath

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...-american.html

"Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals."

This article's message is sinful and is directly against the Catholic social teaching and the good news of the Gospel. Why is there such a strong growing hatred against poor in this nation? Do people realize that "God helps those who help themselves" can be found nowhere in the Bible? Is being poor unAmerican?

"I was born poor. I lived poor most of my life. I wish to die poor." - Pope Pius X

Granted most people don't want to die poor even if they are currently poor, but the fact is that the amount of worldly wealth one has is meaningly in the eyes of God. Seeing all poor people as failures is simply not Christian. If anything, more money and material goods will act as a wedge between us and God.

Our government should work for the common good, and that includes the poor. Regardless of your political leanings, the sentiment presented in the article must not and cannot stand.

Once again, an incorrect interpretation of the facts results in nothing more than anti-conservative rabble-rousing and finger-pointing.

[MillTownCath]

Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin

Once again, an incorrect interpretation of the facts results in nothing more than anti-conservative rabble-rousing and finger-pointing.

What is your "interpretation of the facts" then? Easy to make general statements lacking any real substance.

[EC66OK]

I agree with the OP that the sentiment of the article is sinful, however Mr. Vadum makes a valid point, which is only clarified by his sin of casting the crux of the blame on the poor. The blame is not on the poor for voting themselves entitlements, especially in a culture that revels in material wealth, because that is as "human" as ambition amongst the greedy; although poor or not, all have sinned and are therefore all responsible.

The true problem lies with politicians who benefit from taxpayer largesse as the "ministers" of the poor and do violence to the virtue of charity by using the poor for office and power, and then perpetuate miseries with social policies that especially harm the vulnerable poor (lack of education; broken families; out-of-wedlock births; abortions; higher incarceration rates, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc., which the social science clearly shows), all in the name of a political ideology that impoverishes perhaps only the spirit more than it does the societies where it lays deep roots. These imposters posing as the "ministers of the poor" have the greater responsibility, and Mr. Vadum should know better.

[davidmlamb]

Originally Posted by Trader

First of all, thank you for your service..

Your Welcome! Its good to work for the Navy again.

Originally Posted by Trader

I really don't think we disagree about that much. You did your service first and got your education benefits afterwards. You did work hard to improve your earning potential and you stayed with it. You did repay your private benefactors. You are to be congratulated. Why don't we expect that of everyone?.

WE SHOULD!!! But I do believe that a lot of the disadvantages don't really know what to do. They need counceling and tough love. Look at my story, I went through hell and back. Maybe it would have been easier for me if I just went to truck driving school. I could have been making a decent living in a year. But I was fascinated by science, engineering and mathematics and I did not want to waiste those potential talents. The bottom line is I climbed the mountain, there was no elevator to the top!

Originally Posted by Trader

Part of what I said concerned a TV judge who publicly complains about a law that restricts Pell Grants to people convicted of drug crimes.

•If you were convicted of possession of illegal drugs for the first time, you won’t be eligible for federal aid until at least one year since your conviction.
•If you were convicted for selling for the first time, you won’t be eligible for federal aid for at least two years from the date of your conviction.
•If you have more than one offense for selling or more than two offenses for possession, you can only regain eligibility after you complete an approved rehabilitation program.

Source: http://www.educationgrant.com/2009/0...t-pell-grants/

I do not see granting education benefits to honorably discharged veterans and limiting benefits for drug criminals to be inconsistent or unjust..

I agree with you. I think it is a good law. I would have even gone farther and required drug counseling and a social worker to be assigned to their case to determine if the person is ready for college or trade school and is sober.

Originally Posted by Trader

Another case I had in mind was a nice young woman who works at large discount/grocery store where I frequently shop. When I had a minor problem with a credit card that required her to reset the self-service checkout machine, she poured out most of her life story to me. She is upset because banks will not give her an auto loan even though she thought she had average credit. She based this belief on the fact that her credit score was about half of the maximum score of 850. She lived with her boyfriend and baby in subsidized housing, received food stamps and medicaid. She also had a $2000 medical bad debt that was two years old and she had never made even one payment on the debt. Still, she was able to find $30 per week to spend on cigarettes. If the only change she made was to quit smoking, she could have already paid off the medical debt and greatly improved her credit.

She probably does not even realize her potential to do these things. Many times these people or so distraught with their life they are paralyzed to do anything. They need counseling. I think that people who live in subsidized housing should have a social worker assigned to educate and guide them to self sufficeincy. I don't believe we should take away social services for the disadvantages but I do believe they need to be guided to self sufficeincy, taught what to do. Clearly this woman made some poor choices but it is important for people to learn from their mistakes and find the pathway to success. Maybe she has the potential to be a great cosmotologist. The school is about 1 year long and in a short time she can have a cliental and good wages. They just need to be inspired and guided. It is depression and despair that often paralyze these people and they really need someone to take them by the hand and jump start them.

In Christ,
David

[Hboggs]

Originally Posted by Phaedra777

The article is making the valid point that poor people vote for entitlement programs. Over the years, I've heard the argument that since voting is in great part a decision on how to spend tax dollars, only those who pay income tax should vote. That'd be some motivation...

I don't think anyone hates people that are poor through no fault of their own, or the working poor. What folks have a problem with are the folks they consider to be poor because they're lazy, make poor decisions and have an absurd sense of entitlement.

I completely agree. Those who do not pay in should not have the right to vote for others to have to pay something to them. That is just common sense. Oh, that is the problem then. Add to that a government/country run by a (with NO apologies) a non-American, closet-Muslim, anti-traditional family, Socialist President, and we have one hell of a problem.

[MillTownCath]

Originally Posted by Hboggs

I completely agree. Those who do not pay in should not have the right to vote for others to have to pay something to them. That is just common sense. Oh, that is the problem then. Add to that a government/country run by a (with NO apologies) a non-American, closet-Muslim, anti-traditional family, Socialist President, and we have one hell of a problem.

Good greif