Elizabeth Warren and crew fight to get more people on welfare to the polls

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Max E. Pad, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. You wont find many examples more obvious than this, of how dems desperately fight to keep people on the government tit, in order to gain votes, and keep themselves in office. The funny thing about this one is not only are they making sure that the least productive people in society show up to the polls, to vote for more free government money, they are costing tax payers another 250k in order to bring them out.

    Welfare voter push has GOP crying foul

    Critics blast state’s Dems for ‘inside job’

    The state has mailed out voter registration letters to nearly 500,000 welfare recipients, in a push sparked by a group led by former ACORN bigwigs that critics say is a naked bid to boost Democrats at the polls in November.

    The letters, mailed last month by the state’s Department of Transitional Assistance, went out as Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren have been locked in a neck-and-neck race.

    The welfare system’s get-out-the-vote push came in response to a suit brought by New England United for Justice (NEU4J), which is led by three former leaders of the controversial Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. ACORN was disbanded in 2010 amid a voter fraud scandal.

    The suit was filed after a 35-year-old Lowell woman recertified her benefits at a Lowell welfare office last June and “was not offered the opportunity to register to vote at any time during her visit; nor was she offered a voter registration application,” according to papers filed in U.S. District Court.

    NEU4J, along with the NAACP New England Area Conference, reached an agreement with the state on July 5 — just two months after the suit was filed.

    The deal requires state officials to contact the 477,944 welfare recipients who were on the books between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012. The mailings will cost the state $275,844.

    The state must also run public service announcements on TV and radio stations from mid-July through mid-October publicizing the agency’s registration push. And welfare office waiting rooms, which will soon be equipped with TVs, must make announcements explaining how to register to vote.

    The office of Secretary of State William Galvin, who was also named in the suit and declined to comment yesterday, must take part in three voter outreach activities in communities with a high concentration of welfare recipients.

    “It’s a big election this year, and everyone deserves the opportunity to vote,” said Noemi Ramos of New England United for Justice, a former top ACORN official in the state.

    Ramos said her members started conducting a statewide survey last summer, waiting outside welfare offices in cities such as Boston, Lynn, Worcester and Springfield. Canvassers asked families exiting the offices whether employees offered to register them, said Ramos.

    State officials denied the aggressive voter outreach is a ploy to pad the Democratic voter rolls.

    “I would refute any effort to portray this as a Democratic get-out-the-vote effort,” said Marilyn Chase, an assistant secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. “And I’d reframe it as an intent on the part of a state agency to comply with what’s mandated by federal law.”

    John Feehery, a Washington, D.C.-based GOP consultant, scoffed at the claim.

    “What a crock,” Feehery said. “So the fix is in, huh? This is an inside job. The settlement seems like it’s a case of (Gov. Deval) Patrick finding a way to help his friends, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren.”

    NEU4J worked in concert with Demos, a liberal group leading a national charge to enroll welfare recipients. Demos — which was started in the 1990s and lists Barack Obama on its founding board of directors — has sued nine states, including the battlegrounds of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada, according to Demos lawyer Lisa Danetz.

    Cases are still pending in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Louisiana, which is fighting the suit. Settlements have been reached in Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana and Georgia. Meanwhile, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and Mississippi have all agreed to comply without being sued.
  2. Ricter



    And the voter ID thing is not about blocking the poor, either.
  3. Yeah, one side is trying to keep illegal immigrants, and people who are to incompetent, or to useless to find an ID, on top of fradulent voters off the roles.

    The other side wants wants as many illegal immigrants, and people living off government entitlements, to vote as possible.

    Now answer this one.

    Which of these 2 sides is more likely to create a voting block that promotes a strong, prosperous, country?
  4. Ricter


    The part referring to illegals is almost nonexistent, according to the data. The other part is mere opinion.

    They are citizens, so pound sand, reps.
  5. So basically you are not denying that the dems rely on the least informed, least productive, and least likely people to understand what is going on to vote in order to win.

    In terms of illegals, by the very definition of voter fraud just because we are not catching it doesnt mean it isnt happening, by definition if they are doing it properly we never know.

    Here is a video of a 25 year old white guy casually walking in and using Eric Holders info to vote, if its this easy, you know goddamn well that it is happening.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P5p70YbRiPw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  6. Ricter


    I'm saying that's your opinion, nothing more. But what is fact is that they were actually born in the United States of America.
  7. I didnt say most of the welfare people werent, my argument about the illegal immigrants voting was tied to what you said about blocking people without an ID.

    So you are unwilling to admit that the people who are on welfare overall are infact the least informed, least educated people in the states? Surely you arent going to deny that are you?
  8. California's been doing it for years.

    It works like this:

    1) The politicians promise those on welfare even more welfare.
    2) Those on welfare elect the politicians who promise them even more welfare.
    3) California now has 12% of the country's population and 32% of all the welfare recipients.
    4) California's population increased by 10 million from 1985-2005. Over 70% of those people receive government benefits and only 1.5% of them pay state income taxes.
    5) California has the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country.
    6) California has the second worst bond rating in the country.
    7) California used to be the 5th highest in the nation at creating STEM (science, technology engineering and mathematics) jobs. California no longer produces those jobs, but rather loses a net 100,000 of those jobs per year to other states like Colorado, Utah and Texas.
    8) California used to have the 5th highest GDP per capita of any state in the country. California has now fallen to 12th, and soon will be 14th after being passed by Minnesota and Maryland, both of which are growing their per-capita GDP faster than California.
    9) Three California cities have filed for bankruptcy. Many more will follow.

    ... and down, down, down we go.
  9. Ricter


    The illegals voting is a non-issue, even PA state officials had to admit this. No data to support.
    As for those receiving social safety net benefits, they are citizens; rich or poor, citizens are legally entitled to vote, period. (With some exceptions, felons, etc.)

    Pound sand, reps.
  10. I dont get why Ricter is fighting me so hard on this issue, its not rocket science, when you subsidize certain behavior you get more of it, when you punish certain behavior you get less of it. Period.

    So whether its a person living on welfare voting to get more welfare, a burecrat voting to get a higher salary, or a state punishing productive people who make more money through higher and higher taxes, you are either encouraging a certain lifestyle, or else discouraging it.

    #10     Aug 10, 2012