The poor: enemy of long-term thinking
02 09 11 - 20:28
Someone finally said it:
Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?
Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.
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. - American Thinker
If I'm born in brutal poverty, what can I do?
I can not get pregnant, finish high school, keep myself out of job and go register to work at any of a dozen retailers.
By applying myself moderately -- not "working hard," which is a misnomer; you either work effectively or you work long hours, but almost no one outside of steelworkers "works hard" -- I can hand myself a salary of $28,000 a year.
That's enough for food, a car, and an apartment. In fact, there's some leftover.
If I keep working at that retailer, and being effective, I'll be earning much more within the decade. This is true of most industries in America.
I'm very far from poor at that point.
So who stays poor?
- People who cannot control their appetites: food, drugs, sex, etc.
- Idiots
- Criminals
- People cannot hold down a job of any kind
These people, if allowed to vote, will vote for free stuff. They don't care if it screws up the country. They have no idea how the economy works and secretly, they want the rest of you dead because you're not miserable like they are.
Now, the Democrats... a party of liars for embracing this strategy?
seven comments
I think Dave's comments are a great example of why succession is so necessary. We think he breeds social sickness - he thinks we breed social sickness.
The two ideas cannot coexist effectively. Attempting to do so is a failure of the left, not one of it's virtues, as they are STILL not able to accomplish their goals.
Why don't people who want more social welfare programs move to one half and implement them and the people who don't want to, don't have to, and they move to the other half.
I wonder what the populations of the two sides end up looking like? AnHero - 03-09-’11 16:18
The two ideas cannot coexist effectively. Attempting to do so is a failure of the left, not one of it's virtues, as they are STILL not able to accomplish their goals.
Why don't people who want more social welfare programs move to one half and implement them and the people who don't want to, don't have to, and they move to the other half.
I wonder what the populations of the two sides end up looking like? AnHero - 03-09-’11 16:18
1. blaming the victim
2. disenfranchising the vulnerable
3. unfair elitist demands on society
4. sociological revision
5. turning back the clock
6. reactionary outbursts
7. desired inequality enforcement
Yet it is the left that still allows the expression of such right wing elitist beliefs isn't it? It is the left that has labored tirelessly to see that everyone - even those whos views are absolutely sickening, elitist and revolting - to speak their minds equally in our society. Dave - 03-09-’11 03:46