- Aug 4, 2009
- 283,228
- 150,533
- 2,615
Both apples and oranges voteAmerica has one of the lowest voter turnout in the world
Republicans like it that way.
EVERY person has a right to vote on who represents their interests.
That means the guy living under a highway overpass has as much a right as a CEO of a major corporation
That is true and it's very unfortunate. Our country would select much better representatives if only people who knew about what they were voting on could vote. The guy under a bridge doesn't know a thing about politics or his representative. It's the Obama Money people that are screwing up our country.
The guy living under a highway overpass wants to vote for the guy who will get him out from under the overpass
The CEO wants to vote for the guy who will make him richer and more powerful.
Each votes in his own interest. That is how democracy works
View attachment 311183
The major difference is that the CEO is voting for somebody that will let him or her keep more of their very own money that they worked for. The guy under the bridge is voting for politicians that will take money from the CEO to give to him.
That is what Democrats recognize
Getting that guy out from under the bridge benefits society
Giving that CEO more wealth and power?
Not always so
That is why allowing EVERYONE to vote is so important. Our founders recognized that
Not really, the founders only wanted property owners to vote (those who paid the taxes) so that we didn't have what we have today, which is the poor voting money out of the pockets of those who have it.
Giving money to the guy under the bridge never worked before. Money doesn't solve mental issues, nor does it make anybody more self-reliant. If anything, it makes them less.
This conversation brings to mind something that happened to me with I was about 8 years old. I was in the car with my father going to a junk yard in a very poor area. As I gazed on, I told my father I wished I had a million dollars (which was a ton of money in the 60's). My father asked me why? I told him I'd give it to all these people so they wouldn't have to live like this! My father smiled at my innocent, and said "Son, you could give these people a million dollars each, and in enough time, they would be right back here again."
Pop was right. Books have been written about lottery winners who confessed that hitting the big one totally ruined their lives. I've personally seen companies close down after the owner passed away and gave it to their sliver spoon children. They ran it into the ground.
The war on poverty has produced very little results, while costing taxpayers a ton of money.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.
The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't.
The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure
The War on Poverty worked
If you look at the living standards of people in 1965, many lived without running water, electricity, access to healthcare. Programs were created to assist people to escape poverty, millions have benefitted.
Regardless, people have a right to vote for those who will best represent them. Elected officials do more to assist rich people than poor people.