Friday, September 25, 2015

Poor People are Irresponsible Citizens

I mean I am paraphrasing what Laurie implied in this statement. :-)

"Here is another link that you will likely disagree with, John, I found it interesting. It explains the reason the USA has a lower rate of redistribution compared to other advanced countiries is our low voter turnout. It pretty much contradicts your view that we have a high rate of redistribution due to the votes of poor people." Laurie

One big reason Congress ignores the poor: they don't vote

Thoughts? Are poor people just lazy and irresponsible citizens?  Or are there real hurdles to them voting?

My belief is that for many, the reason they are poor, under educated and do not vote are the same.  The just are not too smart, ambitious, disciplined, hard working, etc.  And most importantly, they just don't know any better.  They have been raised by Parents that were poor role models and they did not fall far from the tree.

Laurie,
By the way, I say that Democrats try to buy votes by villifying the successful folks, and trying to convince the poor to vote by offering them more welfare, healthcare, education, phones, housing, etc that will be paid for by the successful people.  And thankfully apparently the poor still do not have the interest or ambition to go vote. 

On the downside, we have been drifting Left for 100 years...  Hopefully the responsible citizens who worked hard in school, work hard at their careers, work hard at their marriages, work hard at being great parents, pay a lot in taxes, work hard at being informed / voting, etc stop that leftward slide.

18 comments:

Sean said...

"Or are there real hurdles to them voting?"

Yes, and we've discussed them many times before. And Republicans are working to make it even harder for poor people to vote.

John said...

Oh no... They may have to have a current legal photo ID and be on the grid...

I always find it amusing that Liberals see that as an excessive burden.

John said...

Back to the post title... What kind of citizens live off the grid with no valid photo ID? Are these people actually going to vote?

The only group that I think this may apply to are folks in the nursing home who want to vote. Though I find it odd that they don't need to show ID to get into the home, especially if they are on medicare.

Anonymous said...

I just note the contrast in terms of the diligence of the rich who spend vast sums of money to ensure that their interests are served. The logic apparently is that the objectives of of the Koch brother and to be fair, the Alida Messinger's of the world should prevail because they are willing to spend so much to bring them about.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"What kind of citizens live off the grid with no valid photo ID? Are these people actually going to vote?"

Well, actually we know there are millions of Americans who do such a thing. If we're going to require ID for voting, there are several things we can do make the process easier. For instance, not only should the ID be free, but the supporting documents required to get the ID (birth certificates, marriage licenses, name change forms, etc.) should also be free. We can automatically register people to vote based on the database that holds the ID information.

But there are plenty of other reasons that poor people don't vote. 20 states don't allow for employees to miss any work time to vote. Of the remaining 32 (including D.C. and Puerto Rico), 11 require that any time off be unpaid. And even among the the remaining 21, employees are often fearful that exercising that legal right will disadvantage them with their employer. We should make Election Day a national holiday or require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.

Sean said...

Your screeds against Democrats trying to "buy" votes would be a lot more effective if the other party weren't involved in the same sort of behavior, only trying to buy off different people.

John said...

According to the Liberal comments I read, "the GOP is working to buy the votes of the 1% with tax decreases".

Now does that really make any sense? Buying the vote of 1% of the citizens sure is not going to win any elections even if 100% of them vote.

The reality is that the Democrats offer free gifts to be paid for through the efforts of others. You can get these for just being in the USA, little to no responsibilty or effort required. The GOP offers that the people get to keep more of the rewards gained through learning, working, saving, investing, etc.

I think the GOP's offering is much better for America in this very competitive global economy. American citizens who freeload and an ineffective / inefficient / costly government are anchors that hamper America's efforts to stay the global leader.

I finally head home today, however as I think about my last 2 weeks in India and China. I think the USA has some challenges ahead, China for sure is highly motivated and capable to give us a run for our money. Maybe someday we will be relegated to being a low cost production country... On the upside there will be more jobs for the unskilled / low academic folks, on the downside our standards of livings and wages will be much lower.

Laurie said...

One percent of 300 million people is 3 million, that is roughly equivalent to the number of people served by welfare programs today.

"In 1994, the old welfare program served 14.2 million people, two thirds of them children. Today's program serves 4.4 million..."

I think the GOP has much more to gain by giving tax breaks to the rich (i.e huge campaign contributions) than the democrats have to gain with promises to slightly expand the safety net. As we have already established poor people don't vote, probably because they (rightly) believe ther vote makes no difference.

Anonymous said...

According to the Liberal comments I read, "the GOP is working to buy the votes of the 1% with tax decreases".

I am not sure whom you are quoting here. What I believe is that the one percent is trying to buy the GOP and what they expect to gain in return is lower tax rates.

--HIram

John said...

Laurie,
Source for your 3 million?

Politifact Rules this claim false, but the numbers are huge compared to yours.

John said...

Or this one by KFF.

Or this one Economy

John said...

Hiram,
Many Conservative 1 percenters are happy to try to get GOP politicians elected since they both believe a capitalism leaning mixed economy is better for America than a socialism leaning mixed economy. They can only attain this goal if they get the majority of voters to agree with them.

They don't need to "buy the GOP"... Their views are already aligned.

Laurie said...

My number was tanf only.

Anonymous said...

They don't need to "buy the GOP"... Their views are already aligned.

I don't think that's true actually. GOP voters are very much focused on social issues. Yesterday, we just saw the speaker of the house, John Boehner resign largely because he was unwilling to bring the government to a halt over Planned Parenthood, which in all likelihood, meant that he was going to be removed from his position. The fact is, the one percent, who mostly don't care about social issues, but do care very much about the continuation of government is losing the grip it thought it purchased from the GOP. At the moment, the GOP's one percent doesn't know quite where to turn. The leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is too rich to be bought, and is very comfortable with income redistribution, and the way socialistic governments have in the past found ways to enrich him. And Ben Carson knows nothing at all about business or economics, his appeal is purely based on social issues. The one percent candidates Bush and Walker are floundering and gone.

One percent money, it seems, isn't any good anymore, at least where the GOP is concerned. And it remains to be seen whether it will be more effective on the Democratic sign, as Hillary's campaign seems to running on mostly cash and fumes.

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
I think TANF, SNAP, Medicaid / ACA subsidies, working tax credit, child tax credit, higher minimum wages, mandatory benefits, etc are all freebies that the DFL dangles out there to encourage their voters. By this I mean, using the government law to forcefully remove money from one persons pocket and put it into another's.

Hiram,
These folks disagree.
GOP / DFL Top Issues

Anonymous said...

Is it wrong for government to forcefully remove money from one person's pocket and put it into another's? Why? What moral imperative does such a policy violate?

--Hiram

John said...

I am not even sure how / what to respond...

My simplistic answer is:

What policies will encourage every American to act responsibly and work hard for the good of themselves and the country?

What policies will discourage every American from acting irresponsibly and taking advantage of the efforts and charity of others?

Government forcefully and arbitrarily taking money from one citizen and giving it to another seems to discourage responsible behavior and encourage irresponsible behavior.

Anonymous said...

Government forcefully and arbitrarily taking money from one citizen and giving it to another seems to discourage responsible behavior and encourage irresponsible behavior.

I don't know that I am in favor of arbitrary policies. In any event, I don't know that it should be the primary goal of government policy to encourage or discourage certain behavior. For one thing, we don't know what that policy would be. There are those who would argue that concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer individuals harms overall economic activity and growth. And we seem to have created for ourselves a system of taxation that rewards paper shuffling in place of productivity.

--Hiram