"Now if we could only convince poor people that their vote counts so they will actually do it." Liz
Of course, not all poor people vote although I do know those who do. And, we know the same can be said for those with money. Personally, for those who are homeless, I cut them a little slack. Most state laws no longer do. In fact, there has been a concerted effort to remove anyone without an address from the rolls. Also, those who move are often not allowed to vote. A current term for even more draconian activity in this vein is ‘caging’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging Overall, regardless of the obvious bias of the intelligentsia and those with adequate resources, it seems that the state of the economy is a factor as to whether those with more to lose (the poor) turn out to vote or not. http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/8/995 It is widely known that education is the main indicator of voter turnout. Over the last few decades, there has been a concerted effort to eliminate access to education in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout Sadly, this is where we could at least increase the voter turnout of the have-nots. Of course, when issues such as a more proportional tax structure being reinstated arise, ideologues and those poisoned by avarice yell…and are mostly heard on corporate owned media. On Dec 14, 8:53 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]> wrote: > Now if we could only convince poor people that their vote counts so they > will actually do it. > > liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:13 AM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR > > Hi y'all - I think we've been down this road before about what the > "poor" do with their money. I don't for one moment believe we have a > fair system - life is not fair. Nevertheless, a poor person's vote > counts just as much as a wealthy one in the polling booth. Of course a > wealthy person voting with a wallet has more effect on companies that > go bust or surivie and this was the root of the debate. In the present > economic environment Nieman Marcus is feeling the pinch. Wal Mart are > doing very nicely thank you. > > On Dec 14, 9:54 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. It's not as small as you think, and even if it is small, how is it a > > fair system when those most likely to benefit from enforcing a change in > the > > system are the least able to effect such a change? The neighborhood I grew > > up in is typical of thousands of others across this country, and I don't > > like the idea that it is somehow not significant that because their > wallets > > are empty, they are powerless to "vote" with them. > > > liz > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Clogtowner > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:40 AM > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR > > > Hi y'all - I'd like to see an accurate figure for the percentage of > > the population who have no money and are therefore unable to vote with > > their wallets. I suspect it would be rather small and entirely > > inaccurate. > > > On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "... For me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. ..." - clog > > > > Typical...equating economics with governance! I know the media keep > > > pummeling us with this notion, but, of course, they are two entirely > > > different things. IF one even takes one second to consider the people > > > who have no money, this becomes painfully clear. Of course, it is all > > > too common to ignore or rationalize this truth. > > > > On Dec 12, 10:10 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - yes I do like Wall St. and millions of stock holders. For > > > > me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. If I don't like a > > > > company (or a CEO) I'll sell the stock and if others do likewise the > > > > value of the company will be diminished (unlike the Govt.) If we had > > > > more stock holders, we'd have more democracy, and no, it doesn't cost > > > > a lot - I can buy or sell any amount of stock for $7. There are > > > > brokers who help small investors get started by offering $4 trades and > > > > they will deal in fractions of a share. > > > > > On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “…If Govt. becomes involved in a business it necessarily sets up a > > > > > huge bureaucracy in its own image to > > > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > > > function efficiently in the long term…” – clog > > > > > > Yeh, sorta like Wall Street and millions of stock holders. Talk > about > > > > > a huge bureaucracy! And, the government claims to regulate all of > this > > > > > too!!! Capitalism bureaucracy built in it’s own image for sure. > > > > > Clearly, the ‘economy’, whatever anyone wants to mean by the term, > is > > > > > drained fully by CEO’s with BILLIONS of dollars in stock and having > to > > > > > give additional profits to the stock holders. Anyone who wants to > buy > > > > > stuff has to pay so much more because of this grossly inefficient, > top > > > > > heavy and greedy system. > > > > > > On Dec 11, 7:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi y'all - "First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any > > business > > > > > > ‘we’ want > > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about it. > > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At > least > > > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to > > such > > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, as > > > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us’ > > to > > > > > > turn a profit! Strange! " > > > > > > > Indeed I have only been in this country for 21 years but I have > > > > > > studied the effect of Govt. ovwnership of business in the Eastern > > > > > > Bloc, and I've seen the results. If Govt. becomes involved in a > > > > > > business it necessarily sets up a huge bureaucracy in its own > image > > to > > > > > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It > > > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one > > > > > > function efficiently in the long term. > > > > > > We can't say what strings are attached to the Auto deal yet as it > > has > > > > > > not been completed, but so far it looks more promising, from a > > > > > > taxpayer point of view, than the Bank debacle. > > > > > > During the recent collapse of many banks the FDIC (and I don't > > > > > > normally praise the Govt.) has done a fine job of ensuring > stability > > > > > > and guaranteeing accounts. Note the difference in the UK where no > > FDIC > > > > > > existed and we were treated to videos of Building Society > customers > > > > > > lined up and screaming for their money. Eventually the UK Govt. > were > > > > > > forced to step in and offer their version of the FDIC. > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 11:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > “Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. > nor > > the > > > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. > As > > the > > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in the > > > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up our > > bank > > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the > same > > > > > > > deal.” – clog > > > > > > > > Clog, I know you weren’t born here nor are you old enough to > know > > what > > > > > > > all has transpired when it comes to such issues here in the US. > > So, I > > > > > > > don’t blame you much for being what appears to be quite naïve. > > > > > > > > First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business ‘we’ > > want > > > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ about > it. > > > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending. At > > least > > > > > > > not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to > > such > > > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become obvious. And, > as > > > > > > > contradictory as it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for > ‘us’ > > to > > > > > > > turn a profit! Strange! > > > > > > > Anyway, no, the Govt. (We the people.) do not do a good job of > > backing > > > > > > > up our bank accounts. Think “Savings and Loan Crisis’. The thing > > that > > > > > > > McCain was deeply involved in among others. > > > > > > > And, what is ‘common knowledge’ (about the banks) is in fact not > > the > > > > > > > reality. IF one reads the 108 pages or so of the first bank > > bailout, > > > > > > > what it said was that the banks should just take the money and > buy > > > > > > > other banks! It said nothing about helping people and businesses > > who > > > > > > > couldn’t get loans. Look it up. Most of what is presented on > > corporate > > > > > > > TV is half truths at best. At worst, much of it makes the old > > USSR’s > > > > > > > Pravda look like a comic book! > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 7:25 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the Govt. > nor > > the > > > > > > > > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car business. > > As the > > > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have no objections to loans in > the > > > > > > > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and > > > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up > our > > bank > > > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.) > > > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered the > > same > > > > > > > > deal. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Again, the notion of nationalization isn't being mentioned. > I > > would be > > > > > > > > > for that. At least that way, 'we the people' would get some > > sort of > > > > > > > > > return on our investment. By now, we should own almost every > > US bank. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:30 pm, Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > <<$70/hr. with no reference to benefits. I >> > > > > > > > > > > > That includes benefits to *retirees*. > > > > > > > > > > > According to my limited accounting, the benefits that > > retirees receive > > > > > > > > > > should be expensed as they occurred and not attached to > > future > > > > > > > > > > employees. I'd like to see this topic explored in greater > > detail. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:39 pm, Clogtowner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I've just done some further research on > > payscales and I've > > > > > > > > > > > come up with no solid > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
