Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Democracy No Longer Exists When...

Politicians realize they can hold on to their power by buying votes using the peoples' treasury. What are we talking about? See Obama's Facebook page below:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it was supposed to be like this. Without using so many words, Obama is spreading this message: "Hey, if you vote for me and my party, we will pay you $1,500 next year."

What do you think? Pure democracy, or a pure mockery of it?

Related Posts: 

Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest

Attn: Washington. I Can Take Care of Myself, Thank You


  1. Actually saw something like this on BO's FB page. Wonder if it was the same person.

    Not democracy.

  2. Our politicians pay for votes with legislative favors every single day. What's so special about this offer. At least the regular Joe would get something for a change.

  3. Thanks to all for your posts so far.

    To Anonymous #3: Yes, this does happen. The president is doing it on a national scale. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're acknowledging that it happens and are okay with it? It goes back to the original question of "is this democracy?" Should we stand by while politicians buy our votes? What do you think?

    Thank you again for your post. I hope to hear back from you!

  4. This is never right. We should be against this. Good post!

  5. Typical politics.

    Don't fool yourselves BO is a carrier politician and plays it just below accountability.

    Vote for the smartest man. The one who has a clear plan and doesn't back down.

    Vote for Newt.

    -Snake Plissken

  6. Some people say that this is normal and OK. Some say "well, yah, when you are trying to become an elected official you promise to fix things."

    This is NOT ok. Flatly promisign $$ for votes is NOT what the constitution established. This is an outrage. Thank you for bringing this forward.

    Ron Paul, 2012

  7. Right on. "Here is $1,500 now vote for me" should be a crime. To use social media to spread it to ignorant, younger voters is just wrong.

  8. Rape happens in many ways:
    -Buying votes
    -Reducing our strong standing in the world so that we will be easily attacked by terrorists
    -On and On and On

  9. HAHA "what would an extra $1,500 mean to you?" HAHAHAHA Keep the change Obama. Can we reject it if you leave office?

  10. The end of currency is near. I give it 15 months

  11. Thank you all for the comments. I do have a question for the anonymous poster that says "the end of currency is near. I give it 15 months."

    What are you referring to? Why do you think this will happen and what evidence is there that it will? How would we transfer goods and services? I'm really just curious to hear your take on this. Thank you.

  12. So, NO conservatives here remember the promised Bush tax cuts of 2000 which actually did take effect and predominantly benefited the wealthy? No one remembers that? But now, oh now, it's bribery of the most heinous type no matter that the money's desperately needed by working families. This isn't a serious question.

  13. Ubermin, thanks for the post. I'm kind of confused...

    First, the Bush tax cuts benefited ALL taxpayers, and, most importantly, helped the LARGER middle and lower-classes more than they helped the rich (with 104,000,000 middle-class taxpayers and 378,000 millionaires, the middle class outnumbers millionaires 275 to 1). Please cite your source that said they only help the rich. I will cite one of mine that says they didn't (this isn't me being snide, but if you read our blog, we are big on proof here):

    Also, you dodged the question. Is it democratic for a politician do directly offer money to the electorate? Would it be okay if Obama stood on the Mall in DC and handed out $100 bills on election day if people pledged to vote for him? How is this different? Is democracy preserved when you offer money to ONE specific group of voters? Shouldn't it be offered to all voters (like the Bush-era) tax cuts?

    Thanks for your post. Hopefully we hear back from you.

  14. I'm surprised in a time of job loss and recession you can turn $1,500 tax cut into a bad thing...

  15. Anonymous - thank you for your post.

    Perhaps we need to get a few things straight. We do not think that a $1,500 tax cut is a bad thing. What we think is a bad thing is:

    1. Offering it to only 1 part of the population (this is discriminatory, and our blog believes in promoting a government that does NOT discriminate or favor anyone in any way).
    2. Putting this on social media. From the post above, we believe Obama is basically saying "if you vote for me and my party, we will give you $1,500. What is the difference in this and standing outside a polling place handing out cash? To us, the only difference is this is delayed.

    We merely want to see the gov't treat everyone equally, and not use favorable tax treatment as a way to get people to vote. To us, that's not the intent of democracy.

    Thank you for your post. Obviously, we respectfully disagree, but our blog prides itself on respectful, civil debate. We hope you come back to give your rebuttal.

  16. Let me get this straight...

    1. So helping people who need help is discriminatory to those that don't need help?
    2. How is putting this on social media selling a vote? It does not say you will get $1,500 only if you vote for me in Nov.

  17. Anonymous:

    1. The point of this (and it's not just a payroll tax holiday issue) is: why should the government give money to some people (you call it helping, but at the end of they day they are giving money to people) and not to others? If some people can receive favorable tax treatment, gov't sponsored housing, etc... I ask "where's mine?" I would have no problem with the gov't helping people if it did so indiscriminately. If the gov't gives $500 to some people for housing (yes, these people should have made the choices that would have put them in situations where they did not need $500 for housing, I have done it, many have done it) it should give $500 to all people. If it doesn't, it is completely violation its policy to be blindly equal. To me, the motivation comes down to being elected. We have stated this here, and we have stated this in our article titled "Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest." Why should the gov't discriminate? Again, to me, this is not democracy.

    2. You're absolutely right. It does not say that. It can't. But it is saying (and it doesn't take a high level of intelligence to get the message)... "hey, a vote is coming up... if you vote for me and my party, we will push legislation that ensures you will get $1,500 later." To us, that's sleazy.

    Thank you. Hope you come back with rebuttal.

  18. 1. It is so easy to say people should make choices that do not put them in bad situations. Unfortunatly, sometimes it is not choices that put us in bad situations... it's genetics, someone else's carelessness, or accidents. The government is giving for a purpose, not just to be giving. So,my question to you is why should the government help a person who does not need help?

    2. Regardless of the level of one's intelligence you can read into things that aren't there or not. As you say they are just going to "push it through" (because it is so easy)... well guess what still hasn't been passed yet???

  19. Anonymous:

    1. Yes. I (I speak for the blog here, too) believe that people should be in charge of their own lives. I do not believe in mixing up things like genetic faults and poor choices. When it comes to genetic issues (handicapped persons and those of the like) that is a completely different issue. We as a society should help them. I prefer charities handling this, but if it is the government, then I'm okay with this as long as we are all charged an equal rate when paying into a government program that assists those that cannot help themselves. Now, with that out of the way, I absolutely do not believe the government should take from people who make good decisions to give to those who don't. Removing risk (subsidizing reward) does only one thing: it causes people to behave in risky ways. With every decision comes consequences. Every choice that is made (yes, only referring to those who can physically make their own choices) should bear with it the risk of negative consequence or the reward of a positive one. If we create a system (which we have done) of continually removing risk and rewarding people who have made poor decisions (giving them food, housing, a lower tax burden, etc.) why would that group of people every need to try harder to ensure their basic needs are met? If the government continually gives them sustenance, why would they ever be industrious by themselves? Each person should be responsible for his or her life, and if they make bad decisions, they should face the consequences. Continually rewarding bad behavior only creates more bad behavior. So, in short, if people need help, and they cannot physically help themselves, that's fine... but charge us all the same, indiscriminate rate. If people need help, the government should not pay them, yet it should do what its intent originally was; to allow people the equal opportunity to pursue their own happiness, or seal their own fate. That's freedom, and that's what I believe is the roll of government.

    2. It hasn't happened yet, but yes, I do believe that by Obama saying "what would an extra $1,500 mean to you," during an election year has a BIG implication to it.

    Thank you again. I/we really appreciate the civil, respectful debate. Hope you come back.

  20. Yah. so I pretty much agreed with the post on the blog. Then I got to the previous comment by LME starting "Anonymous: 1. Yes. I (I speak for the blog here, too) believe that people should be in charge" and he/she (I don't know, no offense) stole my thunder. Its exactly what I was going to say. Got goosebumps reading it. You know what though, it's the sad truth but no one will say it like this. If you do, you're a hater, or a racist, or a bigot. What you are preaching is the 100% absolute truth. I stand with you. Thank you

  21. sounds like republicans are mad he is using their line......... *yawn*