What is a zero accountability voter?
Here’s how I define it. A zero accountability voter is a person with the ability to vote and has nothing to lose personally from the results of their vote. This person can vote for a politician who promises to give them anything, and they think they will not have to pay for it.
In general, it’s a person who contributes nothing, but collects benefits from the collective.
For example, a person votes for Obama, thinking he will pay for her gas or pay her mortgage:
Obama isn’t paying anything. He’s taking from someone else, by force of government, in order to give it to you.
“It’s free money!” said Alecia Rumph, 26, who waited in a Morris Park, Bronx, line 300 people deep for the cash to buy uniforms and book bags for her two kids.
“Thank God for Obama. He’s looking out for us.”
Free money? In her mind, it’s free money.
But it isn’t. It’s federal taxpayer money, and a bit of charity. From the New York Daily News:
The no-strings-attached money went to families receiving food stamps or welfare.
Every child between 3 and 17 was eligible for $200, which worked out to 813,845 kids across the state – including 498,866 in the city.
…
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros gave $35 million toward the program, with $140 million in federal stimulus funds routed through state government making up the rest.
So, even though the Daily News says the money “magically appeared on their electronic benefit cards,” there wasn’t anything magical about it. The government took the property of others, and gave it to those they thought needed it more. That’s not magic. It’s just plain force. But in the mind of the zero accountability voter, “it’s free money!”
Well, it’s free in one sense of the word. The recipients are free to do whatever they please with it. There is zero accountability. They simply withdrawal the money, and spend it however they please. While it’s supposed to go to school supplies, there’s nothing stopping it from going to cell phones or flat screen televisions or PS3s.
Who do you think they will vote for next time? The person who promises to give them the most.
For those who say the rich don’t pay enough taxes anyway, consider this:
According to newly released Internal Revenue Service data, the top 1% of American tax filers earned 22.8% of the nation’s income in 2007 and paid 40.4% of the nation’s federal income tax.
This would mean the top 1% of tax filers pays more federal income tax than the bottom 95% of tax filers combined, according to a Tax Foundation analysis.
…
The top 1% of tax returns in the U.S. for that year had an average gross income of more than $410,000.
What do you suppose will happen when you have more people depending on the government? You will have less people paying in. When you have an increase in the demand for money, but less people to draw from, you find yourself needing to soak those people more. And when they see themselves getting soaked, generally they find a better place for their money. You see this on the state level. People are leaving California, Michigan and New York because of the taxes being so oppressive.
On the other hand, the charitable donations of the rich are a different story. First, they don’t get the attention of the media like “free” and “magically” appearing money, but there is a major difference. It isn’t forced from them. They give it, just like Soros did. I’m sure Soros had his reasons, as I don’t trust him any further than I could throw him, but he did willfully part with $35 million bones here.
He said it meant more to him because he received charity as a child also:
Gov. Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg joined Soros to announce the payments at Public School 208 in Harlem, where the billionaire reminisced that as a penniless student in London, he survived because of a handout he got from Quakers.
“This gift has a special personal meaning to me, because I was once also a recipient of charity,” Soros said in a choking voice. “I’m very pleased that I’m able to repay what they gave me.”
And the fact remains, America is the most charitable country in the world. Our corporations are very generous also. But remember, this wasn’t all charity. This came from the stimulus plan.
Maybe if we stopped looting people and businesses so much and let them donate more to charity, people would stop voting in leftists since there is nothing in it for them. Which is what the mind of the zero accountability voter boils down to: what is this person going to give me?
While the money may be magically appearing and be free now, there are long term repercussions of the looting of the rich in favor of the poor. It’s that long term outlook that the zero accountability voter lacks, or refuses to consider. As long as the government encourages them to suckle, they will never be weaned. They will become dependents.
And the rich will either be slaves to a repressive government, or they will leave. What would you do?
