Derbyshire has a great idea that doesn’t go far enough. Media Blog on National Review Online
Take away their vote. If you let public employees vote, what do you think they are going to vote for? For more public spending, more government jobs, higher government wages. Can you vote yourself a pay raise? No, and neither can I. Bill Bureaucrat and Pam Paperpusher can, though, and they do. Bill and Pam have no problem at all with ever-swelling public budgets, with ever-expanding public services, with the creeping socialism that is slowly throttling our liberties out of existence.
He should include public school teachers, who are essentially government employees, and, as a group, always vote for more government.
November 1st, 2008 2:32 pm
While we are at it, lets just ban poor people, people of color, college students, and anyone else who might vote against conservative ideologies.
November 1st, 2008 3:05 pm
Don’t worry Dave, we’ll let you vote. Well… only one of you, that is.
Once each election, no matter how many times and places you’ve registered. ;=)
DAve, a little blog info: when you see a post from “sardonicwhiner”, that’s generally from my evil alter ego. I know, you can’t tell the difference… but there is one.
Well, a small one.
I would not actually suggest taking away the vote for most folks, other than felons, etc. But what I wish would happen is for the press to pay a huge amount of attention to who votes how, and to give it center stage in press coverage of the election.
Maybe if all the people who mean well but ignorantly vote Left (because it “feels good to be such a caring person”) knew exactly who they were voting WITH, it would change things.
I’ll put it this way:
Vote Right, and you’re voting with the majority of people who have or recently had jobs in the private sector, as opposed to being chronically unemployed or working for the govenment in any capacity (i.e., if your paycheck doesn’t have the government’s name on it, local, state or fed, you’re not a government employee). You’re voting with people who produce our nation’s wealth.
Vote Left, and you’re voting with the majority of people who have no job, receive a direct government benefit, or work for the government.
If that fact was out front and center, repeated constantly, in news coverage, it might make people think again. But, of course, the news coverage is 96% designed to support the candidate of the Left, but I can dream, can’t I?
November 2nd, 2008 11:06 am
“Vote Right, and you’re voting with the majority of people who have or recently had jobs in the private sector, as opposed to being chronically unemployed or working for the govenment in any capacity (i.e., if your paycheck doesn’t have the government’s name on it, local, state or fed, you’re not a government employee). You’re voting with people who produce our nation’s wealth.”
-Are we supposed to want to vote with people who have jobs, who are comfortable and well taken care of? Shouldn’t we vote with people who are not doing well in life and who are not able to take care of themselves? Aren’t we supposed to not vote with teh rich but for the poor? Keep in mind, I am not voting for Obama myself, but I find it interesting that you imply that we should vote for and with the wealthy when I would submit it is clearly not Biblical.
November 2nd, 2008 11:07 am
By the way, I am not excited about people with government jobs voting anyway, but that’s another issue.
November 2nd, 2008 2:39 pm
Hello, there is a difference between employed and rich. I am college educated and employed full-time (albeit by a government agency), but I am by no means rich. I struggle a great deal to provide for myself, my wife, and our children.
Also, don’t buy into the myth that those who receive government aid are “not able to take care of themselves.” A large portion of those receiving aid might better be categorized as “those who have chosen not to take care of themselves.” There is a big difference. We’re not talking just about poor widows and orphans, whom the Bible commands us to care for. But, rather, we are talking about a growing population of people who have refused, and continue to refuse, to take steps to improve their own condition then sit back and wail about how the government isn’t taking care of them. I shouldn’t be burdened with that just because I care about myself enough to work to support myself and my family. There is no Biblical support for the relatively unchecked government aid programs in place today.
November 2nd, 2008 3:10 pm
I should point out that there are a good many teachers who agree with me in a way, in that they’d prefer the electoral outcome if only people actually employed in the private sector got to vote…. But they are in the minority of teachers, sadly. And that really is my point: not that all members of the “non-government” group vote one way, or that the “government” group all votes one way, but rather that the single biggest dividing line in American politics IS that distinction, and that more than any other single thing, that may be the determinative factor, though of course there are others.
November 2nd, 2008 5:40 pm
How big is this portion? 5%? 10%? 25%?
And who defines your terms? And how do you come about your “large portion” number?
Or do you just assume it is true because you want it to be true?
Of course… it is the same people who disagree with the way that the rest of the teachers vote. In turn, they would rather have the people who vote differently not vote.
I would rather have anyone who listens to James Dobson not vote. Also, those who belong to the NRA. And those in the military. And those who make over a million dollars a year. And anyone else who may vote against what I want them to.
November 2nd, 2008 6:36 pm
Dave, if you want to suggest it’s a small number, go do the research and quote your sources. The rest of us are pretty sure it’s a pretty big number. We have eyes, and ears. I used to work for the Social Security Administration… I have a good deal of specific, personal experience in the matter.
Dave, you’re lucky you don’t get your wish on who votes, because if you did, you’d live in a third world country, economically speaking, within a generation. That’s if you still had a country.
On the other hand, if I got MY wish, everyone would be richer than they are now, INCLUDING the “currently poor”. And we would definitely have a country.
November 2nd, 2008 6:53 pm
Umm… shouldn’t you be the one doing that? You all are the ones claiming that it is a “large portion.”
And you support it by with nothing other than “We have eyes, and ears” and allusions to personal anecdotes.
November 2nd, 2008 8:35 pm
Heh… nice try Dave, but I don’t take homework assignments from you. Most people accept that enormous numbers of people feed at the public trough unnecessarily. If you don’t already, based on past experience, you would not accept any evidence I gave, even if it was signed by Abraham Lincoln and FDR both. Not talking to the extreme Left here, who are not persuaded by any evidence that people are more responsible for their own welfare than the government is.
November 3rd, 2008 4:51 am
You haven’t given any evidence to be persuaded by.