Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.
BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”
Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.
In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.
Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???
Sources:
– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
when the income tax was first implemented it was around 1.5% and it was only levied on a few in the upper tax brackets. It now is between 20-35% for most everyone. and this does not incude the 15% for social security that hurts the people making 100K or less.
So in the span of about 100 years we have gone from 1.5% on the income of a few people to between 35-50% on the income of most people.
I would say it isnt a very far stretch, we are almost half way there.
Gyges:
“You’re just full of Randian propaganda ain’t ya?”
Randy propaganda? I am not a purveyor of porno, if that is what you mean.
Number one: Ive watched people on this blog have the same conversation about who should and should not be allowed voting rights. Obviously their criteria was different then rush’s. I believe their view was if you vote republican you get your voters registration revoked? So i doubt anyone is arguing his logic of denying a certain portion of the population voting rights, merely his set of “rules”.
Number two: rush limbaugh is a pill popping, loud mouth, fat sack of wasted humanity. How much of your time are you going to spend listening to anything he has to say?
Chan L. & Pete: ‘The poor could elect (but haven’t)’ and ‘trickle down’:
Because a delusion is long standing and widely held doesn’t mean it’s not a delusion. It just means that it’s of long standing and generally held.
The last several big legislative moves have been interesting though in that while public support for a public option was overwhelming it did not occur, while distain for a bailout was likewise overwhelming that bailout did take place. The repeal of DADT likewise has a heavy majority of support but it looks like it will not be accomplished. as examples.
Maybe people do vote for people that say they will behave a certain way (make the tax code more fair or other issues) but those people when elected have in fact lied and that pattern of deception has been going on a long time.
We disagree and we’re not going to get any closer philosophically.
Chan L.
1, December 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm
lottakatz:
The poor could vote in people willing to take all the rich have
shoulda
coulda
woulda
and yet in two hundred and twenty three years it still hasn’t happened.
Chan, the rich don’t trickle down all that wealth, I’ve heard ‘trickle down’ for 40 years and it’s just a fallacy. The 10 year tax break for the wealthy didn’t provide jobs, the 2%ers didn’t spend the money, they saved it, moved it offshore and invested enough of it to make more money. The facts are, as tabulated and reported by watchdog organizations and oversight committees, that the wealthy did not use the 10 year tax cut to spend and stimulate the economy.
And really, what kind of medieval philosophy have the masses bought into, the gentle class is entitled to all the wealth and it is only in that they throw crumbs to the rest that anyone will, or should prosper. The wealth class has shown that that the philosophy of Noblesse oblige as a economic policy is absurd yet the Republican party still champions it.
The Republican party, which has secured another 2 years of low taxes for the wealth class should change their name to the Medieval party. Their far-right Christians and teabaggers would feel right at home there also.
No comment:
Chan,
You’re just full of Randian propaganda ain’t ya?
So, there have been rich people as long as there have been poor people. Can you show me one instance in American history where the rich stopped “producing” because people took to much from them? It should be easy, we’re at a low point as far as marginal tax rates are concerned.
Challenge: “everyone that’s gone into politics” is not an acceptable answer.
lottakatz,
Chan likes to use words like “probably” and “could” in his comments.
As in the following: “The poor COULD vote in people willing to take all the rich have.”
The poor haven’t been successful at doing that yet have they? In fact, the rich have gotten much richer over the past couple of decades as the middle class and poor have gotten poorer. Those with money have access to people in power. Poor people–not so much. So much for the poor sticking it to the rich people in this country.
Lotta,
Ghengis Khan was surprisingly tolerant of other religions. He also promoted literacy.
lottakatz:
The poor could vote in people willing to take all the rich have. We have a bunch in the house and a few in the senate and a president that appears willing.
But the funny thing is, you take too much from the rich and they aren’t going to produce any more. And then where will you be?
You can fish for a day and then it is all gone.
So Tootie is right about his/her point that the masses could vote in representatives who are willing to stick it to the rich.
My premise isn’t built on sand but yours is.
Tootie: “There must be a way (in a free electoral system such as ours–for the moment) to compensate for the power that the many poor have over the few rich in the voting booth. Either the rich should have more weight to their votes or the poor less; otherwise the poor can vote to rob the rich blind.”
**
Chan l.: “Tootie is still right…”
_______
She is right Chan L., right of Marie Antoinette with all the Christian compassion of Genghis Khan. You Chan L. have mistaken an argument you like for one that is correct.
A quick look back shows that the very wealthy (the 2%ers} have done very well and are protected quite well from the desires and needs of the rabble, and with the announcement of the newly minted tax compromise, continue to be protected and insulated from eve the need of the nation. Real time news, as I type this, shows the falsehood of the premise you endorse.
If this article is predictive, then there will be little reason our grandchildren would need to vote for their futures.
How America Will Collapse (by 2025)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025
Rufus Johnson,
Welcome aboard … we whales are a protected species …
bdaman For once we agree.
Re: she’s done
Swathmore Mom did you get my comment on Hillary the other day.
bdaman: After Bush admitted to torturing, his popularity went up. I think his republican base went back to him. He looks better to them than the alternative, Palin.
I just read an article that the cofounder of Wikileaks says prior to his departure Wikileaks was selling info. Maybe they are waiting and will sell those to the highest bidder
Chan how’s Jackie ?