Savage: "Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise"
On his radio show, Michael Savage asked: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't." He later added: "Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."
During the October 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asked: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote?" He added: "I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."
Savage continued: "So if you get a demagogue like [Sen. Barack] Obama coming along, and he says to the welfare recipient, elect me, and I'll make sure that we have trickle-up poverty, and the rich -- so-called, that is anyone who works for a living -- will give you more money, more welfare, of course you're gonna vote for the demagogue Obama. See, if I was in charge, I'd pass a law which says, OK, you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you're on welfare, you lose the right to vote."
Later in the broadcast, Savage again asked: "Do you think that people on welfare should lose the right to vote, as I do? Do you believe that that would be a fundament of democracy that if you lose the right -- if you lose the ability to support yourself, for whatever reason, and you seek public assistance, you should, during that period of receiving public assistance, lose the right to vote?" He later stated: "You get back on the self-sufficiency, you get the right to vote. Then we'll have a fair election in America. Otherwise, it's all over. We have a communist nation either now or in the very near future."
As Media Matters for America has documented, on the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, host Jim Quinn, while discussing the history of property rights in the United States, said: "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Additionally, on the October 2 broadcast of his Minneapolis radio show, Chris Baker said, "I don't think homeless people should vote. Frankly, in fact, I have to be very honest. I'm not that excited about women voting, to be honest." Baker later added: "But that's just me. I'm a pig, and that's fine. All right? And we'll see that, I'm sure, on a lame-ass website very soon. But I don't think hobos ought to vote at all. They're nuts. And I think that there needs to be a little more care in who votes."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the October 22 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote? I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise.
So if you get a demagogue like Obama coming along, and he says to the welfare recipient, elect me, and I'll make sure that we have trickle-up poverty, and the rich -- so-called, that is anyone who works for a living -- will give you more money, more welfare, of course you're gonna vote for the demagogue Obama. See, if I was in charge, I'd pass a law which says, OK, you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you're on welfare, you lose the right to vote. That's all there is to it. You've disenfranchised yourself, either through bad luck or bad behavior, whatever, and you get the right to vote again when you're self-sufficient and you're paying taxes. No taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote; no taxes, no vote. I have a lot of commonsensical ideas, but you don't hear any -- any of this coming out of the mouths of John McCain, do you? The mouths of John McCain -- I said that pointedly. The mouths of John McCain.
[...]
SAVAGE: Do you think that people on welfare should lose the right to vote, as I do? Do you believe that that would be a fundament of democracy that if you lose the right -- if you lose the ability to support yourself, for whatever reason, and you seek public assistance, you should, during that period of receiving public assistance, lose the right to vote? I think that that's perfectly rational, and the reason is, of course you're gonna go with any demagogue who says he's gonna give you more money.
Of course you're gonna vote to take away things from people who work for a living. And by definition, that's not fair. Fair should be those who work for a living and pay taxes get to vote. I'm not arguing that the more money you have, the more votes you should have. I didn't say that, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm arguing the opposite -- that you lose the right -- the ability to support yourself, you lose the right to vote temporarily. You get back on the self-sufficiency, you get the right to vote. Then we'll have a fair election in America. Otherwise, it's all over. We have a communist nation either now or in the very near future.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Not sure here, but I think it has something to do with that "equality" inconvenience thingy that's in our constitution? Sadly, it even allows Mr. Savage the right to vote, but hell, there's a blemish in every silver lining.
The "compassionate" "conservative" (read: jack-booted neo-Nazi Ku Klux Klan lover) shows his true colors again.
The more people who vote the better for everyone. Savage is un-American.
'Bad luck= no vote!' Ooohhhh- kay! Why don't we just turn election time into some sort of game show, then? You win, you vote- you lose, you are the same as an insane person and an infant.
he's allowed on airwaves because someone has the money to put him on and pay his salary etc...plus that thing called Free Speech.....and I take it by your handle that McCain should be punished because he has 8 homes....interesting....what if you were successful enough to have 8 homes....because you worked hard and made it in life...isn't that what America is all about...no?
I wouldn't have eight homes. That's disgusting materialism gone amuck. I personally consider conspicuous consumption like that immoral. Not illegal, just immoral.
McCain will die someday with a lot of toys. However, he'll still be the bitter, angry, and misogynist cretin that's been revealed in this campaign.
You're right!.....calling out B.O. on his associations is an aweful aweful thing to do
So let me get this straight - you're extremely concerned about making sure Savage keeps his right to free speech but don't seem to have a problem with him wanting to deny legal americans their right to vote. OK then...
what if you were successful enough to have 8 homes....because you worked hard and made it in life...(ca)
There are only so many beer heiresses in the world.
you missed the point...obviously McCain struck the "lucky" tree....but don't tell me people in this counrty can't work hard and in turn become successful...and then guys like you all lash out with jealousy and want to condemn their success....Nice Americanos you all are:)
McCain dumped his wife and married an heiress 20 years his junior.
I guess that's hard work.
Do you think he got into Annapolis because he is smart? Do you think Dubya got into Yale because he is smart? They are both legacies. This is the unequal opportunity of rich spoiled brats.
As for Weiner, he's just a bigot.
Why should we give CEOs the right to vote? They will just give themselves another tax shelter.
#1...some people in this world have it easier than others....I'd say At least McCain is a true war hero who never cracked under harsh treatment....anywho...you all miss the point...this isn't about McCain...its about the fact that in AMerica people can work hard and become Super successful...but you guys all want hammer that and call foul
what if you were successful enough to have 8 homes....because you worked hard and made it in life...isn't that what America is all about...no?
Get your facts, straight, CA - the only reason Gramps McCain has 8 houses is because he dumped his disabled wife to marry a woman 25 years younger than himself who inherited millions from her beer distributor daddy. As the son of an admiral, then a Naval officer, Congressman, and Senator, Gramps McCain has been living off taxpayers practically every day since he was born.
McCain has eight homes because he married a rich beer heiress who has had everything handed to her. No work was involved you GOP troll.
"Once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.” - Robert Heinlein
"Whatsoever you do for these the least of my brethern, that you do unto me."
------- some Community Organizer that probably looked more like binLaden than Jeffery Hunter.
That's like saying, "why should Jews vote, they are only going to support Israel". Or, "why should homosexuals vote, they are only going to advance their cause". Or, "why should Christians vote, they are only going to support Churches". Or, ...well, you get the picture. Before we no it, nobody would be voting.
Absolutely. Comments like this from Savage can't be logically refuted because they are so illogically absurd that they really merit nothing more than a dismissive chuckle, or a sarcastic nod in agreement.
Why it's even highlighted here is amazing. It isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.
Comments like this from Savage can't be logically refuted..---Tommy
I think the comments here have done a pretty good job.
Why it's even highlighted here is amazing. It isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.
His comment shines a light on the Right's soul like no other in my memory.
Or "Why should rich people vote? They're only going to vote themselves another tax break."
As a matter of fact, there was a time when "paupers, idiots and morons" were precluded outright from voting under State constitutions.
Just earlier this year, in fact, New Jersey voted to remove language from its state Constitution proscribing "morons and idiots" from voting.
So what exactly is Mr. Savage's contention about preventing welfare "basket cases" from voting--fear they might "make unwise decisions"? (Which, as a matter of fact, was used to explain banning electoral franchise to "paupers, idiots and morons.")
"Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote?"
United States Constitution, Amendments 14, 19 and 26
Yes, and the 24th which Savage violates the spirit of.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"Where does it say they have the right vote?"
Where does it say they can't? Also, I don't wanna "support" President Bush with my tax dollars to his salary? He should lose his veto power.
The country votes to HIRE a president...and the President WORKS for that salary...regardless which president
Brilliant! But I think I have an even better idea: why don't we impose a fee or a tax when people vote? That way a welfare recipient would have to return a percentage of his or her government support.
But what to call this innovative voting solution? It's a tax that you would pay at the polling place. Like a "vote tax", or maybe a "tax-poll" initiative... no, that name doesn't sound right... Huh... poll... tax... poll... tax... there must be some catchy name for this sort of system.
</END SARCASM>
Those who ignore history...
I think all fat cats shouldn't be able to vote. They only vote in order to get more tax cuts.
I propose we stand outside the polls and turn away anyone driving cars of the following brand:
Who's with me?
Rich people don't go to the ballot box and vote for Federal Tax plans....neither does anyone else....of course we do vote in Presidents who have their plans...whether or not those plans get put based on what they actually said is another thing
Exactly. Do welfare recipients vote directly for increases in welfare payments, or do they just vote for candidates that have plans that seem to be in their best interest... like everybody else?
FYI to the obvious less aware in this thread....All rich people pay waaaaaaaayyyyyy higher personal taxes than the rest of us.....try sales tax...the higher ticket items have a much larger tax by sheer Price of the item.....so your 30K car has less tax than their 200K car....on top of the fact that they have a higher personal tax bracket the more $$$ they make.....you all keep mentioning this corporate tax break....well unless you all didn't know the less people/companies are taxed the more money they have and in turn they can invest, create jobs, etc....
The welfare patient does none of those things.....Now someone on welfare is the same as the rich....they should be held in same regard, etc...but IMO they shouldn't have the right to vote for in elections and for initiatives that would simply continue to give them more and more money.....Now I mainly direct this towards the HABITUAL offenders who abuse systems etc....but sometimes the behavior of a few effects them all
The notion that taxing rich people less produces more jobs has been debunked thoroughly. Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has hemorrhaged jobs.
There is hard evidence that tax cuts have a dismal return on investment in contributing to economic growth, but funding for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure have a much higher rate of return, a POSITIVE one.
Poor people spend a higher % of their income on sales taxes because they spend a higher % of their income in general. And payroll taxes are regressive because income above $94,500 is not subject to FICA tax.
How do you know that if rich people have more money they will automatically create jobs? Are they even in a position to create jobs? Do they invest their personal income tax cuts into their businesses, if they even own one?
Tax cuts for the middle class inject much needed money into people's pockets who will then SPEND it and invigorate the economy.
Our economy, like our democracy, always does better when empowered from the bottom up.
Like you are in tune to what all rich people vote for. Do you attend their social gatherings or something?
Rich people don't go to the ballot box and vote for Federal Tax plans.---ca
Right, they go to their checkbooks.
Well that I would agree with
Does your list exclude black people and drug dealers who own those vehicles?
Why bring Pfizer into this?
thank you!!! i was going to post an angry response to manpig, but your response is too, too, too perfect. and you gave me one of the best laughs i've had today. thank you.
Thanks, Betty. I appreciate the kind words.
But you don't ever need to hold back on these right-wing clowns. Conservative ideology has cast our country dangerously close to financial ruin and political totalitarianism, they can't put the left on the defensive anymore. They need to beg forgiveness for ever allowing themselves to believe the Republican hucksters.
Interesting point my ass.
With all of the bull coming from the right about un-patriotic people and anti-American Americans, this is one the most un-American things I've heard so far.
Do you know how many people who fought for this country are on welfare? Do you know how many are homeless?
Screw Savage and anyone who would excuse this statement of his or say he makes "an interesting point".
Ok. He make a great point!
Flippant but not unexpected. Worrier is a Vietnam vet, and is talking about all the homeless vets out there, many with mental and physical disabilities. And promises made by the military to take care of them broken.
But HomoUrsoPorco make a good grammar!
No es porco - es puerco!
Ohhhhh,,,,,so by your awesome insight...lets definitely send those on welfare who CAN work...but chose to cheat, lie, buck the system just to be lazy and leech of you....lets definitely send these chaps and chappetts straight to the military...I love that idea:)
As opposed to the ripping off of trillions of dollars by the rich, lets get worked up over your one story. Open your eyes to the real thieves in this country, Wall Street, hedge funds managers, the chimp, Halliburton......the list is endless and mostly repug.
I agree...these people are THIEVES...and it makes me just as disgusted as you....and by the way...both REPUBS and DEMS are in that mix my friend....most of these people in power are in my opinion not trustworthy
You've got that ignorant Republican view of poverty that makes me sick. It's that prosperity theology. The logic boils down to the premise that the wealthy are prosperous because they are disciplined, therefore moral. Poor people are impoverished because they are not disciplined, therefore, immoral and deserving of their poverty.
In that way you can blithely go about your life rationalizing the disgusting inequality of wealth, tax policy inequity and disparity of political power that conservative economic ideology has institutionalized on behalf of the very rich. You can allow yourself to ignore the reality of discrimination or the vicious cycle of depression and insecurity that accompanies poverty. And you can tell yourself that intervention on behalf of the have nothings is immoral because they are immoral people. Your faith in your own certainty then allows you to apply, in one easy to consume narrative, the situation of one individual to all people in sub-optimal life situations.
Whatever.
Now tell me how making work pay, by raising wages and freeing people from the shackles the high price of healthcare and education encourages apathy?
did i say your comment to manpig was too, too perfect? how wrong i was. this comment, your reply to ca is as perfect as they come. thank you! seriously, you just put into words the disgust i feel every time i hear someone speak of the poor as ca, and most reichwingers, do.
(full disclosure: i am a poor person.)
"Roundhouse" comments:
As a matter of fact, study after study disproves the notion that people are poor or otherwise dependent upon welfare because of "moral weakness and error."
On the contrary, various socioeconomic factors actually come into the equation, among them:
These studies are widely available, as a matter of fact. Just do a Google.
Roundhouse's post is readily available, too, and you obviously failed to understand it. Read the first sentence. He made the same refutation you did, Phosdex, without being insufferable about it.
You put word in my statement I never made...like you always do:)
People can't be judged immoral based on their bank account or lack thereof...that is in your mind I guess. I think people should be looked at based on their choices in life...their character...their track record....plenty of rich people are immoral...plenty of poor people are moral....
my statement is about those who abuse, lie, cheat the system to stay lazy and on gov't (aka your paycheck) dollars/assistance. Now, not all do this, and I said that...but plenty of people do do that....and you know it.
I think people who work hard and become successful in life shouldn't have a politician tell them how to spend their money...by flat out taking it....does the gov't know how to spend your money for You? Do they know what you want in life and how you want to go about doing it? NO they don't. For people who are poor and want a better life...there are programs to help them...and the more poor they are...the harder it will be....but PEOPLE themselves have to make the choice...otherwise you talking about behavior modification thru handouts...etc...that never works...just check the rates of those who win the lotteries...and then in less than no time are flat out broke again...why? why does that happen ROUNDHOUSE? maybe because they make poor choices or they just don't know any better...either way it is not my fault or your fault that it happens to them...it is their faults!
wheeeew
People aren't going to build roads, rail lines, alternative energy sources, schools, etc. Only GOVERNMENT can do that? Are conservatives really this stupid?
Like I always do? As far as I know, unless you're posting under a new user name, this is the first time I have responded to you.
So, by cleverly avoiding the term, you concede that you believe a lack of discipline is the cause of poverty? I think it's apparent that you think this is about discipline, thus a character flaw; a moral failing.
Do you think the Wall Street profligates, who lacked the discipline to control their greed are moral actors?
You don't believe the race to the bottom of wages and benefits, the view that laborers are expendable has anything to do with poverty? You don't think that, in the face of stagnant wages and soaring costs, despite the fact the American labor force are the most productive laborers in the world, that they have increased their productivity every year for a decade, that this contributes naught to poverty and the need for a hand up?
Do you not believe that it requires risk takers to help sustain a capitalist society? Wouldn't removing the risk of failure with a strong safety net encourage participation?
I don't think government can know what I want in life, but I know that leaving essentials, like healthcare, to the market always results in me paying too much for too little.
I'm guessing you've either been banned or you're waiting to swoop in just before the comment section closes, dump your bilge and proclaim yourself the victor because you got the last word in.
So....I wait.
I think savage makes an interesting point here. Someone who is on welfare would indeed go vote for anyone who would give them more assistance, more money, more more more...without any consequence or any qualifyers for when that assistance would and should end.
yeah, not like those rich people. They'd never vote for their own economic interests. God love em.
Would you apply that same logic to everyone who works on wall street and the banking industry who just got a $700 billion handout from the government? Aren't they just going to vote for the candidate they think will continue to bail out corporations? How is that different. I agree to a certain degree with your argument about perpetual welfare, but I don't see why receiving government assistance should limit your rights as a citizen.
Don't understand the non-sequitor about immigration. People crossing the border illegally are committing trespassing. Isn't that a crime?
this govt bailout is disgusting....I agree.........but the difference is we don't vote ourselves for tax plans...those are drawn up by politicians and voted on by congress/senate....all we can do at that point is call our voted officials and let them know what we think...but that doesn't matter much either since these corrupt politicians just do whatever anyways...simply sickening
THe comment about illegal aliens was meant as jab to the liberals who looooovvvvee their illegal alien friends...and the fact that these illegals are treated even better than those on welfare...You all pay for them as well (notice how California is bankrupt...jeeeezzz I wonder why?)...so the point is they are illegal...Criminals...they should be removed from this country since they committed a crime in even being here
You just keep blaming the exploited for everything that's wrong today, you're making baby Jesus smile.
Hey, my jesus is not your jesus.
Well, He had less to smile about once he grew up...
This is your brain on Savage. Any questions?
Ca, studies have shown that illegal aliens are actually contributing many taxes but won't see their benefits, especially in Social Security.
Also, the policy on welfare is exactly like you described for "tax plans". We vote on people in state legislatures and they draw them up. So, people that received this $700 bailout so they can chill at spas shouldn't have the right to vote, if you agree with Savage's logic?
Can you also prove that illegal immigration is THE cause of California going bankrupt (during this economic crisis)? They've always had plenty of illegal immigrants and their economy was actually doing well a few years ago.
Hey, ca.... illegal immigration wouldn't be such a problem if rich a$$holes weren't giving them jobs. Stop hiring them and most of them will go back home.
Actually, I think Mikey would stand for the even uglier position that ONLY people who receive welfare should be drafted: force them to risk their lives for their country if they can't pull their own weight, right?
Savage is an ass, always has been. Needs to up his prescription. Fact is, all company people on government welfare ALSO vote themself raises, including ships and cargo planes we don't need, bridges and highways to nowhere, earmarks, yada yada, yada.
Time's up michael. Brace yourself for the Fairness Doctrine. You're unworthy of a national audience "DOKTOR" Savage, or whatever your real name is.
Hmm. Letting welfare recipients vote just might have something to do with that old, annoying US Constitution, and that really irritating Bill of Rights. Here in the US, rights aren't contingent on one's income. Did you know that our very own military allows poor people to fight and die for this country? Why, back in the Vietnam War era (several wars ago), poor peoplew were even drafted! In fact, it is evident that the government itself preferred the poor, sinced they were far more likely to be drafted than the rich!
If people should be barred from voting because they receive taxpayer aid, you need to include all those rich people and corporations who enjoy"tax relief", which simply means that their tax debts are passed along to the working class.
But the bottom lin e is that your reasoning is not only stupid, but downright un-American. We the People do not want a caste system here in the US, where all the rights of citizenship are bestowed according to one's economic status.
Actually, wouldn't Mike's assertion here really cover, well, all of us? We all benefit from the existence of the government in one form or another, usually in our daily lives. Like flying on that airliner? You can thank the federal government for making it safer, and controlling the air traffic. Like driving on that road? You can also thank the federal government for that. Like having the country under the protection of the US military? Again, thank the fed government for that. And the list can go on and on. It's funny when these guys talk about welfare receipients as bringing down our country, it's not even close as to why our country is going to ruin. Maybe we should have an IQ test to vote? Maybe we should base it one how many kids you have?
Mike, I urge you to read the Constitution, to figure out where it is written that poor people are allowed to vote. What you really meant to say was if people disagree with the way you think, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Here is just a glimpse of what life in America would look like under a Michael Savage administration. Prison camps for all!
We all benefit from the existence of the government in one form or another...
Not Weiner's audience, Mag. Most of them put in a good solid 2 years at Del Taco after dropping out of high school, and before going on disability for their prescription drug habit. They've earned the right to sit home and listen to am radio all day.
THE KEY WORD HERE WAS ( LAND) i hear you loud and clear SAVAGE, that last name fit's him fine, SLAVE'S COULD' NT BY LAND, MICHAEAL SAVAGE IS SPEAKING IN A CODE LANGUAGE, but , he is speaking entirely to the BLACK COMMUNITY, in other word's THE SAVAGE, is telling BLACK AMERICA, THAT AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED, AFRICAN AMERICAN'S ARE STILL SLAVE'S! but what this SAVAGE, THIS ANIMAL, THIS EVIL, HATEFUL, THING, can never ever understand is that, we as AFRICAN AMERICAN'S, DID NOT ASK TO SET FOOT ON THIS LAND, we were forced to occupy this land, THIS LAND THAT WAS STOLEN BY, SAVAGE'S ANCESTER'S, so if the TRUTH, BE TOLD MICHEALSAVAGE OWE'S THE TRUE LAND DRELLER'S, A PORTION OF HIS SALARY, so MR. SAVAGE OWE'S THE INDIAN'S REPERATION'S IN BEHALF OF HIS ANCESTOR'S.
Who says good drugs are no longer available?
I'm still waiting for the day when Savage will drop the schtick and tell us that he was playing a grand practical joke on all his followers. I can't believe that they're actually falling for this absurd national socialist character that Savage is playing. Come on guys, he's JEWISH and he even gave his character a separate name.
Good work, Savage. You had us fooled. Now drop the act. :)
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye: the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts."
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -Sinclair Lewis
Michael Weiner just keeps hitting new lows. This guy is a whack job and I have to believe that his loyal audience is just as whacked as he is.
Hey Weiner, when the hole is deeper than you are, STOP DIGGING!!!!!
1.They'll only vote themselves a raise if they have a majority, and if they are in the majority, it's pretty much over for us as a nation.
2.This would disenfranchise everybody over 65, wouldn't it?
3. This anti-welfare trope always ignores children. They constantly paint the picture of shiftless, lazy adults lolling on welfare, reducing the children to a sound effect, if that.
Faced with the qiuestion of whether they're calling three-year-olds 'shiftless', they kitter over to the parents, saying the shouldn't'a had'em,whereupon they collide with the right-to-lifers, and then settle down on the pronoucement that they shouldn't have sex.
But it still ignores the fact that most welfare in this country really is about helping people who can't help themselves: children and the disabled. You don't get welfare in this country simply if you're poor. If you're a single male, you don't get squat. The same with women without kids. Again they portray the system as 'welfare' and imply (by omission) that the country supports all the poor: that never was true and is less true now than ever.
Voting is a right. Every adult should be able to vote. It provides a picture of the condition of America. In a vibrant, growing economy with a prosperous majority, the poor would have no voting leverage. When they begin to have voting leverage, then maybe something should be done about it, becaue the nation then, not just the poor, is sick.
But the Right is down with the idea of an underclass. They are tainted by that aristocratic vision. They truly believe that there is a natural underclass and a natural aristocracy (and, inevitably, that they are part of the latter, often with no justification.)
And they're ready and willing to consign children to the underclass, when none of their arguments apply to them.
It's about as Un-American as you can get.