"Registering the poor to vote is Un-American"

[MillTownCath]

americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What he may be trying to say that the poor may be not as imformed, politically, as as those with higher income. I am a conservative and don’t agree. As long as you are a legal citizen you should be able to vote.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

What the article is descrying are the fraudulent activities by ACORN before and during the last presidential election in this country. Quite frankly, Obama would not have been elected, but for these actions. It really casts a pall over his whole administration…more so than the sheenanigans during the Kennedy election.
To make matters worse, the Dems falsely accuse anyone in opposition to Obamas’ policies a racist.
It is well known, that in cities such as Chicago and St. Louis, and certain parts of Florida, the ballot boxes were stuffed by ACORN operatives and their fraudulently registered “poor people”. Why no one went to jail for this can only be answered by the current political control of the Department of Justice.
What I am genuinely fearful of is that prior to the 2012 elections, the radical side of the Dem. party will contrive an incident, a war or other calamity, so as to re-elect the incumbent under iffy circumstances. This will have as big a catastrophic effect on the Country as did the fireing on Fort Sumpter, and if you think the Army will bail us out this time, look back in history.

 

[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.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The article is making the valid point that poor people vote for entitlement programs.

I think those who receive social security should be prevented from voting. That would solve that welfare program’s problems in a real hurry.

 

[MillTownCath]

I think those who receive social security should be prevented from voting. That would solve that welfare program’s problems in a real hurry.

In-sane. I can’t believe I’m reading this.
You are talking about taking away people’s basic right to vote.

 

[Elizabeth502]

MillTownCatholic, I read stinkcat’s post #5 as ironic. I thought he/she was referring to the fact that Social Security is also an entitlement program.

 

[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.

 

[didymus]

I think those who receive social security should be prevented from voting. That would solve that welfare program’s problems in a real hurry.

Wellll . . . . I wouldn’t say Social Security recipients per se.
But there is a lower limit on the franchise, so shouldn’t there be an upper limit? Sixty-five, say? The elder lobby is already bigger than any other lobby in Washington.

As for how the poor vote, so what? Everybody votes for their own interests. Or you don’t think the rich use their political clout to suck the government teat? Check out how the great free-marketer G W Bush made his fortune with the Texas Rangers deal.

 

[stinkcat_14]

MillTownCatholic, I read stinkcat’s post #5 as ironic. I thought he/she was referring to the fact that Social Security is also an entitlement program.

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.

 

[exnihilo]

There is a great disconnect when talking about the poor and democracy. One minute folks will admit the poor often are uneducated, prone to a certain criminality (I dont dismiss the criminality of rich banksters), and lacking in morals. They will say by lifting them out of poverty we will make them better people. Then in the next breath they will say how important it is they vote. Obviously if the poor are so afflicted it is a terrible idea to let them vote.

Personally I think democracy is a terrible form of government. Practically speaking I dont see how the middle class has not realized that. In democracy you simply need a 50% plus 1 majority to rob the rest of the people. And so majorities form along various issues to do just that. Often two disparate groups will align to use their votes to support each other in their pet causes against the rest of the population.

America was a republic with limited voting. It became a democracy and like all democracies is ending in a terrible tyranny.

 

[davidmlamb]

There is a great disconnect when talking about the poor and democracy. One minute folks will admit the poor often are uneducated, prone to a certain criminality (I dont dismiss the criminality of rich banksters), and lacking in morals. They will say by lifting them out of poverty we will make them better people. Then in the next breath they will say how important it is they vote. Obviously if the poor are so afflicted it is a terrible idea to let them vote.

Personally I think democracy is a terrible form of government. Practically speaking I dont see how the middle class has not realized that. In democracy you simply need a 50% plus 1 majority to rob the rest of the people. And so majorities form along various issues to do just that. Often two disparate groups will align to use their votes to support each other in their pet causes against the rest of the population.

America was a republic with limited voting. It became a democracy and like all democracies is ending in a terrible tyranny.

 

[babylonsfalling]

americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html

"Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals."****<—That’s over the top hyperbole

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? <—There isn’t, that’s hyperbole too. 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.

I suspect the authors statement about registering people to vote being like helping burglars was an attention getting statement, intended to get people talking about the article. It was really dumb.

The other side of the coin…people don’t have a “strong growing hatred against poor people”. This nation has tons of govt social programs for poor people, tons of church programs, plus a homeless guy can make about $10.00 an hour by just asking people for money.

The idea that poor people would naturally vote for more social programs is very sensible, and the idea that people who lobby for MORE social programs would use this fact as a reason for registering poor people is logical. It’s still okay for them to register poor people though, just as it would be okay for corporate America to go out trying to get more high income types registered.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

America was a republic with limited voting. It became a democracy and like all democracies is ending in a terrible tyranny.

Ah, there’s nothing like the tyranny of the majority. Decisions should not based on a flat numerical majority but what is in the best interest of society, with the provision that such decisions do not infringe on basic rights.

 

[davidmlamb]

America was a republic with limited voting. It became a democracy and like all democracies is ending in a terrible tyranny.

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. We have a US Constitution which protects minority rights. That means that 100% of white America can vote to return to slavery and it wouldn’t happen.

But this is just another example of why right wing conservatism is the real tyranny and an evil movement that is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church. WAKE UP CATHOLICS! Because the next haulocost is going to be the poor at the hands of right wing conservatism!

*He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker Proverbs 14:31

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

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? Isaiah 10:1-3

This is the Word of the Lord, THANKS BE TO GOD!

In the Service of Christ and His Church,
David

 

[ringil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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