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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your Welcome! Its good to work for the Navy again.
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!
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.
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.
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.
[FONT=“Times New Roman”]And the cancer of right wing conservatism grows! Take away the constitutional rights of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable! A married family with 6 kids where only dad works and makes 31K a year but is able to write off all their income and therefore pay no taxes they don’t have the right to vote? The disabled Veteran who lives on disability should not have the right to vote? The elderly poor who live on social security alone should not have the right to vote? The person who worked 20 years and then developed a mental illness and is unable to work should not have the right to vote? This is your idea of a free society? But people having to pay taxes are the ones under tyranny? How is it that Catholics have abandoned the Holy Catholic and Apoostolic faith for doctrines of demons? Woe to you wicked people who have abandoned God for materialism and individualism !
You do realize that long before universal suffrage people who could not vote still had rights. In fact children and felons who cant vote still have rights. Not being able to vote does not mean you lose all rights. Under the American constitution, which I’ll readily admit is pretty worthless as far as a contract goes, a person still has rights even when they cant vote.
A free society is generally not defined by people being allowed to vote. For most of history the ability to vote was considered a means to an end. That end was freedom. You can just as easily have voting without freedom as in the communists states and I would argue modern America. And if that doesn’t convince you then just consider that God doesn’t allow you to vote.
Be careful there. i’ve known people in the past who were homeless—and it was NOT because of mental illness.
I agree that there is a good portion of the homeless population that is homeless partly or solely because of mental issues, but not ALL of them.
Some of the ones I’ve known run the gamut from homeless due to abuse within a marriage (and children are involved in this, too, to boot) to immigrants having their money stolen by dishonest, law-twisitng landlords.
Also, the husband losing the only job in the family because of layoffs. So yes, SOME of them, but not ALL of them. And I would not even say the majority are because of mental illness. MY opinion, of course.
Yes you’re right, blacks were considered 3/5 a person and had a right to take a test to see if they were compitent enough to vote but only 3/5 of their vote counted since they were only 3/5 a person. Women had no right to vote but they had the right to due process of law but no say so on who they would elect to represent their voice for laws being made. Yea that sounds like a great system to return too! We can make people who work hard but are able to write off all their income 3/5 a person and require them to pass a calculus test in order to vote. But if you are a well off upper class business man no test needed just go vote for the candidate of your choice! That sounds like liberty and justice for all to me!!!:eek:
OH REALLY? Can you give me an example of a free society today that does not have free elections?
The comunist states did not have free elections. The Soviet Union only had one party, the Communist Party and the Supreme Soviet elected the candidates who were of course all communist. The KBG the official state police terrorized its dissdent citizens who dare speak out against the communist and coeraced the soviet people into voting for who the Supreme Soviet and the Politbuero wanted in the congress and the congress elected the Soviet President.
What you have suggested by taking away just the “few” amount of rights from just the right people who could elect a Democrat in Congress and the Presidency have effectively been eliminated turning our system of government into a one party system in which only the rich and the business owners can elect. Gee I wonder what party that would be?
This would give us a one party system (Republican) and would effectively turn the Congress into a Supreme Soviet (Council) and the Senate into a Politburo which would only elect conservative judges to gaurantee laws that favored corporate America making Corporate America the defacto BIG GOVERNMENT. And since they were able to take away the rights of certain citizens to vote lets just see what other rights they can take away since they no longer have a voice in their government. They could eliminate federal minimum wage and pay Walmart and factory workers 50 cents an hour eliminating even more people from being able to vote and then set up tent cities since they could no longer afford housing. Of course thay will have to pay for their own tent. This is most definately liberty and justice forr all! Yeah your right this is what real America should be and not the un-America we have now where the poor keep electing the Democrats who impede their Leissez Faire Totalitarian system of Capitalism.:rolleyes::eek:
3/5ths was what a slave would count as for apportionment of congressional seats. Slaves did not get to vote at all. When freed Blacks voted their vote counted fully.
You seem to think the past was a most terrible place. You write as if there was nothing good about it. It would seem you think that a person born in such barbaric times would curse God for having so afflicted them. Liberalism makes the past sound like Hell. I think there is wisdom in the past and that joy surely existed.
That is easy. The Vatican. It is ruled by a monarch. In my visit to Rome when I left Italy and entered Vatican City I was no less free.
So if you have elections but only have one party the elections dont count. But so long as you have two parties they do. That seems a bit arbitrary to say you must have political parties. What if you dont have any parties. Can that be a free system? As far as I’m concerned there is not any difference in our two parties. And political theory would say as much.
The US and other Western powers rely less on overt and brutal methods to control the population. They rely more on the people’s unwillingness to be deprive of luxury items to keep them in line. But the US has the CIA. It has spied on citizens. It has conducted medical experiments on them, including mind control. It currently is engaged in acts of war against countries across the world and tortures people. The only difference might be the extent of their activities. Of course it being a secret organization who can say.
I have suggested nothing other than that voting does not make one free. I have also I think quite convincingly shown that.
What your logic demands is that America was not a free country until everyone could vote. That understanding of freedom would be unique. And then having so defined freedom you have problems condemning clearly not free countries like the USSR.
Your assumptions are wrong. I do not support the Republican party. I do not support any party. I also do not vote. I would gladly sell my vote to anyone if I could for as little as a dollar. That is how worthless it is to me. Of course that is illegal to do in this free country where everyone can vote. The reason that is so is because they’ve tricked us into thinking voting is something sacred and so long as we vote the government is legitimate. Tyrannical governments demand legitimacy.
Do you know that the socialist Germans did not have a minimum wage at least up until the mid 90s and may still not.
It might be that some jobs are worth only 50 cents an hour. Who are you to tell anyone what the price of anything must be? Do you not understand that one reason for unemployment can be a minimum wage? And do you really think that jobs at Wal Mart would only bay 50 cents? I dont doubt that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage but I do seriously doubt many jobs are worth that little.
Oh and what undermines wages more than anything is the importation of vast amounts of labor. The law of supply and demand, which can not be destroyed by fiat, say that when you have more of something the price goes down. In this case the price is the price of labor or wages. The illegal immigration that Democrats support destroy wages. The Democrat party keeps itself in business by creating problems for it to solve. The Republicans do the same. That is the nature of government. Government grows by failure. When they fail to do something they demand more money and power. What is strange is that the people grant them that. Normally when an organization fails you abandon it.
I’m a moderate, and have an advanced degree, and while it would be wonderful if we ALL studied candidates and issues, we have what we have, a democracy, and like it or not, adults have a basic right to political representation. Even idiots. And even, shudder (don’t touch me), the poor.