Poor people shouldn't vote

[Babs]

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

[DU Ute]

The comments almost make the article sound reasonable. I'm glad someone recognizes that the problem with politics is too little influence from the wealthy.

[Eddie]

Don't take this wrong - I don't think that the poor should not vote.

I do think it is a little crazy/scary to consider what we might end up with if the focus of certain groups are consistent with the Obama quotes:

"All our people must know that politics and voting affects their lives directly," the future president said. "If we're registering people in public housing, for an example, we talk about aid cuts and who's responsible."

If we are getting a large group of voters to show up who are voting based on this one issue - who will let me keep living in free housing - I think that leads to trouble.

I also chuckled at the comment of the US now having representation without taxation. I thought that was a pretty good tagline. Has someone been using that and I'm just slow to see it?

[Katy Lied]

If we are getting a large group of voters to show up who are voting based on this one issue - who will let me keep living in free housing - I think that leads to trouble.

When the US was first formed, this was the fear of the current political scientists of the day: that a democracy was doomed because the masses with no money would vote to take it away from the few with money. (I can't remember if this is in the Federalist Papers or some other writings of the day). When the few with money lost their means of production, no one would create any wealth.

The objectivists seized on this fear, but nothing substantial has really come of it

[Jeff Lebowski]

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

[RobinFinderson]

I think that many on the right have a fundamental misunderstanding about human nature. They assume that, if given the chance, people will be as lazy as their environment allows. It is as if without the fear of starvation, no one is going to do anything. While this may describe some people, I think that most people are just the opposite. Evolution will select for productivity, not laziness. Our species finds joy in work, creative expression, physical activity, and thriving in our environment.

[Eddie]

I think that many on the right have a fundamental misunderstanding about human nature. They assume that, if given the chance, people will be as lazy as their environment allows. It is as if without the fear of starvation, no one is going to do anything. While this may describe some people, I think that most people are just the opposite. Evolution will select for productivity, not laziness. Our species finds joy in work, creative expression, physical activity, and thriving in our environment.

I don't have the same optimism about evolution helping us out here.

I think the same people who enjoy being as lazy as their environment allows don't consider having sex to be difficult. On the other hand - running out to the store to pick up some condoms or pill - that takes work.

Don't get me wrong - I think there are a great number of folks who find joy in work and creation. But their number isn't going to grow faster than the others.

I also think this whole subject could enter into the nature/nurture debate. What carries the day - the innate desire to be productive and create? Or the lesson's learned growing up which revolve around how to get taken care of?

[Borg]

When the US was first formed, this was the fear of the current political scientists of the day: that a democracy was doomed because the masses with no money would vote to take it away from the few with money. (I can't remember if this is in the Federalist Papers or some other writings of the day). When the few with money lost their means of production, no one would create any wealth.

The objectivists seized on this fear, but nothing substantial has really come of it

Yup Katy, this is the first thing that popped into my mind as well when I saw the thread title. I think your thinking is correct.

[Babs]

Isn't he a hoot? He calls himself an "investigative journalist," but I think he's just a heavy-handed troll.

[il Padrino Ute]

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

Wow. The writer of that article is an ass. Not allowing a citizen to vote simply because of economic status? It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't have their heads as far up their backsides as this guy does.

[FMCoug]

The comments are even worse than the article.

From when the Constitution was written until about 1850, only white male property owners could vote. After 1870, former slaves could vote. Then in 1920 we had woman suffrage. In the 1960s, it became illegal to require voters to be literate. The motor voter law was passed in 1995. In 2008 it became de facto legal for Black Panthers to intimidate voters at the polls. Is anyone noticing a trend here?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wow. The writer of that article is an ass. Not allowing a citizen to vote simply because of economic status? It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't have their heads as far up their backsides as this guy does.

Signed, all male property owners.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maybe we need to make it a goal. You get one (1) vote for each thousand dollars you pay in federal taxes.

<insert emoticon of your choice here>

[il Padrino Ute]

Signed, all male property owners.

A fair point, though I was thinking more along the lines of "We the People."

[SeattleUte]

Wow. The writer of that article is an ass. Not allowing a citizen to vote simply because of economic status? It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't have their heads as far up their backsides as this guy does.

Is this supposed to be funny?