Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 02:36 PM Jun 2012

"In Democracy the poor will simply vote themselves money"

"In Democracy the poor will simply vote themselves money"

I'm waiting...

Been waiting all my life.

The rich, however, are much shrewder about money than the poor and, despite their small numbers, incredibly good at voting themselves money through the proxy of a vast army of the cannon fodder of reaction.

__________


I posted this partly because I cannot resist any opportunity to use the phrase, "the cannon fodder of reaction." In the 1970s, Michael Harrington (Democratic-socialist and author of The Other America that was a very influential book about poverty in the JFK/LBJ era) called local chambers of commerce, "the foot-soldiers of reaction," but those were gentler times. I think my version has become more descriptive over time.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

pampango

(24,692 posts)
2. Tytler would be amazed at how democracy has actually worked out in the US.
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:02 PM
Jun 2012

Tytler's famous "Democracy can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Apparently Tytler never considered the possibility that democracy can only exist until the rich learn how to convince the majority to vote the largess of the public treasury to the rich, themselves.

EC

(12,287 posts)
3. Isn't that just more repub projection? Like that's not what the rich are doing?
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:16 PM
Jun 2012

But of course the rich don't VOTE themselves money...they just BUY THE VOTES to make themselves lots more money.

lefthandedlefty

(281 posts)
4. Most every poor person I know in KY votes Reublican.
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:20 PM
Jun 2012

They almost all live on SSI,welfare and foodstamps but most democrats I know work for a living.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
5. I've heard that line from conservatives as well, and I always just want to ask
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:24 PM
Jun 2012

why they don't get the fuck out of the country if they hate democracy. Or at the very least, stop calling themselves patriots.

After all, voting is in the Constitution-- capitalism is not.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
6. The original line is from Ben Franklin, and it goes like this;
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:32 PM
Jun 2012

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Notice that he doesn't specify poor people.

SoutherDem

(2,307 posts)
7. Isn't that just what the Republicans do?
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:32 PM
Jun 2012

Money is the issue.

Corporations are not people no matter what SCOTUS says!

Money is not free speech, it is paid speech.

I could sell everything I own, donate it all to a politician and not come close to what a corporation can do, plus if I am not mistaken unless I give it to a super-pac I am limited on what I can give to a politician.

Elections should be fair and balanced, and not in the FOX News way, but equal. Once a candidate is considered viable (I will leave that definition to you) they should bet an equal amount of air time, free of charge (remember the FCC grants the ability for the networks to being with) with the claims being verified to be true*, and the rest of the campaign should be picked up by the tax payers. If election fraud is committed bring real charges even to the point of overturning the election (no robocalls to tell the other party that Wednesday is the day to vote in certain districts or if you signed the petition your vote has already been counted). No paperless voting (there should always be a paper back up and something to verify to the voter they voted as they wished). If an election's outcome is within a certain amount or is in question forced recounts. This would actually create as close to a fair election as possible.

* What is true? Well, no taking things out of context (no taking 5 words in a long paragraph), voting records explained as to what was voted on (many votes are placed against something because of a poison pill attached to the bill), certainly no out right lies, no using one standard for yourself but another for the opponent (counting your record half way through a term but your opponents 3 weeks before they took office) and no free advertising in the form of News (I don't mean eliminating FOX but holding the News Networks to truth if it is a real News show and a disclaimer if it is an opinion show).

I could go on but, for now I will stop. Fair elections is not rocket science, it is common sense.

 

DCKit

(18,541 posts)
8. Damn great point.
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 03:57 PM
Jun 2012

But this is not Greece, and where is my money?

We've got the bread and circuses, but I want more.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"In Democracy the po...