Five Reasons Why Poor People Don't Vote & Why They Might Vote in the Upcoming Election
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/982486/five_reasons_why_poor_peopl e_dont_vote.html?cat=9>. I would never suggest that no poor people vote. That would be idiotic, but I can tell you that the whole time growing up, I almost never remember anyone telling my mom or mentioning to me anything about hopping on down to vote. My mom didn't vote her entire life until Ross Perot. Voting was NEVER a priority, and I had no idea how to do it myself until I met my current husband. I felt much the same way as most of my friends, family, and neighbors growing up. What I usually heard was that "they" (the government) didn't give a shit what happened to them no matter who was in office, and no particular candidate was likely to change that. It was a feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that stole any motivation to vote. It was sort of a self fulfilling prophesy I suppose. Those poor folk who do vote (at least the poor white voters) vote republican, and by doing so, in my opinion, are shooting themselves in the feet. But then I'm a bit biased when it comes to republican social policies. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ornamentalmind Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 5:21 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR "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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
