"Registering the poor to vote is Un-American"

[didymus]

%between%
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?

Yes, exactly.
America (at least the north, less so in the south) was founded on a protestant tradition that equated earthly success with salvation.
Add to this the myth of America as “the land of opportunity” then the corollary is if you don’t make it, then it must be your own damn fault.

The very existence of poor people except for the narrowly defined “truly needy” defies the idea of America of a place where anyone can succeed if they will only try.

 

[Nate13]

I think to say poor people can’t vote because the profit from social security programs is stupid. You could then argue that rich people shouldn’t be able to vote because they benefit from some of the tax breaks that are put in place. Everyone should be allowed to vote regardless of how much money or power they have. What needs to happen is we need to stop making being poor a good looking option. We are not cruel when we do so either, but rather trying to help people pull themselves out of a rut. I mean you don’t help an obese person lose weight by handing him candy bars while you tell him he needs to eat healthier do you? We should provide the fundamentals i.e food, clothing, shelter and then do everything in our power to make sure there are opportunities for people who are responsible enough to pursue them. We can see in the Bible God himself using tactics like this to better his people. He allowed them to be put under slavery multiple times so they would remember their weakness and turn to him, their God. These were not the actions of an angry God, but rather of a loving Father who knew exactly what his children needed. We should approach the less fortunate with this same attitude.

 

[mark_a]

Althoug I’m a conservative and a Catholic who agrees with ALL of the Churhc’s teachings, I don’t worship at the foot of Rush.

So I don’t quite agree with what he is saying.

So there.

Me neither.

 

[mark_a]

Lets avoid quoting entertainers on social/political issues.

Sometimes I can’t help taking a swipe at Rush.

So what is the reason for the electoral college?

 

[Phaedra777]

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 !

David

The right wing is cancerous? It is the left wing that is pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, pro virtually everything that is anti-God. And sooooo pro-violence to get their way.

I am actually a flat income tax proponent. EVERYBODY pays and there are no deductions. What could be fairer than that? So, your parents of 6 get to vote. The veteran who was willing to work and now can’t gets to vote. The elderly who worked all their lives and are now retired, get to vote. Your next group–folks who are so mentally ill they cannot work? No, don’t get to vote.

 

[Phaedra777]

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

Let’s take a moment to remember that the South wanted slaves to count 100%, and the North wanted them to count zero %. The 3/5 of a person was a compromise proposed by a Northern abolitionist.

Just to make sure Y’ALL got that…the SOUTH wanted 100 % of a person, the NORTH wanted zero % of a person.

 

[pnewton]

No representation without taxation.

I have no problem with poor voting, as long as there was no such thing as a 0% tax bracket. Even the widow in the NT gave two pennies to the synagogue. I trust the poor as much as anyone to make an informed decision. What I do not trust one bit is someone who does not pay into the federal government being able to make a decision based on the common good. People are too selfish to be able to vote if they are not paying taxes. I believe that this will soon prove to be the downfall of democracy.

 

[exnihilo]

So what is the reason for the electoral college?

To understand this you have to keep in mind that America was created as a federal republic. The states were sovereign nations banding together. It was like what the EU is doing today.

Under this system the states held the vast majority of power and ceded to the federal government only what powers were necessary. The Electoral College allowed the state, not the people to elect who was president. The states then choose what method they wanted to use to determine who the state would vote for. If you look into your state’s laws you’ll find some that detail how their electors are chosen and what duties they have. I assume the state legislature could have and would have chosen who would be president in some states rather than the voters. This being something unpopular today it would be ignored by history books and government schools.

The senate was also elected by the state. That is why the US Constitution has an amendment forcing the election of the senators to be by the popular vote. I do know that in the past state legislatures would choose who their senators would be. This was like the how the US governments selects who would represent them in the UN. The people dont vote for this representative.

When you understand that the US was designed to not be a unitary government these systems make sense. In today’s government the Electoral College makes no sense and neither does the US Senate as it is redundant. The original system contained within it a way to limit the power of the federal government. The state would not want to nominate a person who wanted to take power away from the state government. They would nominate someone who was beholden to the state politicians, not the people.

 

[manualman]

. WAKE UP CATHOLICS! Because the next haulocost is going to be the poor at the hands of right wing conservatism!

Speaking of “wake up”, the “next Holocaust” isn’t in the future, it is right now. 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered just in this country since Roe v Wade, a disproportionate number of them poor and minority. Guess which side of the political spectrum is drenched in their blood?

 

[MillTownCath]

Speaking of “wake up”, the “next Holocaust” isn’t in the future, it is right now. 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered just in this country since Roe v Wade, a disproportionate number of them poor and minority. Guess which side of the political spectrum is drenched in their blood?

Indeed, but we can’t keep empower anti-poor and pro-rich politicians simply because they state they are “pro-life”. Just because a politician ran on being “pro-life” does not let them off the hook for starting two unjust wars or legalizing tortue.

I think both sides should work to raise the socioeconomic status of women.

 

[exnihilo]

Indeed, but we can’t keep empower anti-poor and pro-rich politicians simply because they state they are “pro-life”. Just because a politician ran on being “pro-life” does not let them off the hook for starting two unjust wars or legalizing tortue.

I agree with that. That is why I dont vote. Both sides have blood on their hands besides the vast array of immorality they otherwise condone and promote.

I think both sides should work to raise the socioeconomic status of women.

Why on Earth would we need to do that? There are now more women in college than men. There are far more men in prison than women. How about we set as a goal equalizing the number of women in prison. That seems fair to me.

 

[MillTownCath]

Though the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, they did lower rates for almost all taxpayers, providing a veneer of egalitarianism. Then the recession pushed down incomes severely, many below the minimum income tax level…The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half, and, suddenly, Republicans have a new tool to stoke class resentment.

nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

 

[manualman]

Indeed, but we can’t keep empower anti-poor and pro-rich politicians simply because they state they are “pro-life”. Just because a politician ran on being “pro-life” does not let them off the hook for starting two unjust wars or legalizing tortue.

Yes, lip service isn’t enough. This is precisely why I distrust pols like Romney, for example, who had a pro-choice track record until it became politically inconvenient. We DO need to arrange a list of issue by their “proportionate impact” on our culture. Abortion is inarguably the greatest proportionate impact of any social issue in my lifetime. I won’t again vote for guys like Romney or the elder Bush (who put pro-choice Souter on the bench and you can’t convince me he didn’t know). But I also won’t be convinced that the immoral torture of a few terrorists or even the shaky (at best) justification for the Iraq war outweigh 50 million dead babies for proportionate impact. Especially so with this last election and the coming one where THE swing Supreme Court justice seat hangs in the balance. I’m not sure what the Obama voters (for example) can point to to balance against the CERTAINTY that he would (and now did) appoint vociferously pro-abortion judges to the bench.

Wouldn’t it be nice if catholics sorted out proportionate impact and voted collectively so that we could first end abortion and THEN reform the DC corruption that so enriches insiders on the backs of everybody else, and then reform immigration, and then… But instead we cancel each other out and have little to no effect on elections.

 

[pnewton]

The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half, and, suddenly,

Which is why I am totally against a zero tax bracket. Everyone should pay something.

About lip service to abortion, that is always something to consider in a politician. They do lie. Also, many anti-abortion politicians are not pro-life. While abortion is the greatest evil, it is not the only one, nor is it the only issue the Catholic Church has moral teaching on.

 

[davidmlamb]

Though the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, they did lower rates for almost all taxpayers, providing a veneer of egalitarianism. Then the recession pushed down incomes severely, many below the minimum income tax level…The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half, and, suddenly, Republicans have a new tool to stoke class resentment.

nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

It is tax cuts that are bankrupting our government. The tax code needs to be reformed. taxes raixed across the board by 5% in every tax bracket plus an additional 4% in the highest tax bracket, tax deductions and loopholes reduced and closed and a federal sales tax on all goods and services of 2% to help pay down the federal deficit.

David

 

[MillTownCath]

It is tax cuts that are bankrupting our government. The tax code needs to be reformed. taxes raixed across the board by 5% in every tax bracket plus an additional 4% in the highest tax bracket, tax deductions and loopholes reduced and closed and a federal sales tax on all goods and services of 2% to help pay down the federal deficit.

David

Lowest taxes since 1950, thousands of loophoes, and we’re in two wars.

Hmmm, I wonder why we have so much debt.

MUST BE THE POOR PEOPLE, LET’S CUT ALL THEIR BIG GO’ERMENT SERVICES!

 

[davidmlamb]

Lowest taxes since 1950, thousands of loophoes, and we’re in two wars.

Hmmm, I wonder why we have so much debt.

MUST BE THE POOR PEOPLE, LET’S CUT ALL THEIR BIG GO’ERMENT SERVICES!

EXACTLY!!! Its repugnant the way these reprobates think and reason. No wonder abortion has not ended! These people are only pro life if it doesn’t cost them anything! Hey Milltown, I have a suggestion,; how about its un-American to let the rich vote? Anyone with a million dollars or more in resources can neither vote or lobby Congress. If they get caught doing either we can treat them like drug dealers and confiscate all their businesses and assets and let the government auction it off for revenue to pay down the deficit. Then we can replace those lost jobs with public service jobs improving our infrastructures, highways and a mass transportation rail service.

David

 

[Rock_Happy]

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.

As incredible as it may seem, there are educated and wealthy people who think that Fox News is an unbiased news source. Does this mean that they should not be allowed to vote?

Personally, I would like to see a more parliamentarian system in which more interests are represented. Let the Tea Party have its share of representation, and let the Green’s have theirs. Then instead of a deadlocked two party system, compromise and negotiation would be required.

 

[antonivs]

…Personally, I would like to see a more parliamentarian system in which more interests are represented. Let the Tea Party have its share of representation, and let the Green’s have theirs. Then instead of a deadlocked two party system, compromise and negotiation would be required.

Me too. Under the current two-party system, you end up voting for the lesser evil, but you are still voting for evil.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Me too. Under the current two-party system, you end up voting for the lesser evil, but you are still voting for evil.

I agree, and I think it is no accident that every democracy which we wrote the constitution for after WW2 improved on our system in this way. The technology of 235 years ago dictated the design of our electoral process. It needs updating.