Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Uninformed voters are to blame’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Another letter writer, who isn't paying attention to the stock market, the "plunging" unemployment numbers, and the "vastly" improving deficit. This country is in the hands of financial geniuses! Sarcasm off now. We won't know what hit us, once the full affect of obmacare and it lovely new taxes fully kick in. Sequester ends, and all the new taxes and regulations dictator obama desires for the country. Throw in immigration reform and the unemployment boost that will be, along with additional welfare requirements and increased handouts needed for the already deprived 47 percent and immigrants. Once the stock market is no longer propped up with phony dollars, it could be a whole new level of "fun" in our economy!

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I blame it on the Day of the Dead. When more voters than people.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

It started 30 years ago with Reaganomics.
Get back to a middle class with buying power and the problem would be solved.
Instead we have a middle class getting poorer by the day, corporations & CEOs getting wealthier by the day and nobody can figure out why the economy is failing.
Trickle-down doesn't work.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

“Our country is headed toward economic disaster”.

So, what’s new?

“Uninformed voters are to blame”.

Maybe; got any suggestions on how to be “informed”?
Even if you could actually be truly informed, voting is a waste of time because of the political hoops and rules for voting that prevents the purported evil democracy.

The reason we are in such a mess regarding government is that people as ordinary people have no effective representation in our government(s). And it’s not the peoples fault, it’s the way the business politicians want it. And they are not going to change it.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Actually, economic conditions are improving, though of course not as quickly as we would like. But that's because continued stimulative efforts can't find support in the House of Representatives.

SEY
Sandy, UT

Yep, looks like we're getting together, all right. Yeah for us!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

To eliminate uniformed voters then we must get rid of foxnews. Studies show that those who watch fox are the most uninformed of all. Better pull this weed out from the root!

Folks who claim that the President was born in Kenya or who claim to know the Constitution (but cannot even recite the first line of it) should be excluded from voting. If repubs want to exclude those without drivers licenses then I will exclude the birthers and tea party.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Exactly right Ernest, even the guy who invented it, and handed it to Reagan, has repeatedly said that it was a failure, and while some money did trickle down, there was a torrent up to 1%. Yet the republicans still act as though it works, with the evidence right before them. Before some clever dult says that it works better than trickle up, it not true. When trickle up mean millions of common folks spending money on millions of products the economy runs smoother than when 1% buy a few expensive toys stock piles money like hoarders without the restriction of their mobile homes walls.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ernest T. Bass
It started more than 30 years ago. Ask ANY economist.

Eric Samuelsen
Economic conditions may be improving (that's debateable) but this letter is not about the economy. It's about the national debt. The economy and the debt don't go together. The debt has been increasing every year regardless of how well (or how badly) the economy performs. It goes up in years when the economy is down. It goes up in years when the economy is good. The economy isn't the problem.

The economy and the national debt are two totally different things.

Granted... it's easier to make progress on cutting the debt when the economy is good and the people are prospering. But we don't do it! And it's almost imposible to ask the people to pay more (to decrease the deficit) or to be more austeer (to decrease the deficit) when the economy is down. But don't pretend that IF the economy were better the Deficit would not be a problem. Even if the stock market were at 20,000 the the deficit would STILL be a huge problem! And the deficit would still go up!

Dave D
Spring Creek, NV

Does the letter writer realize that we really don't pick our elected officials? We only vote for them after party leaders give their stamp of approval after a terribly long and expensive vetting process. I voted for people I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied with because I had no other option. The presidential candidate I wanted to vote for was not on the ballet in Nevada, so I did the best I could. I had no other choice.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

I agree with the ton in many ways with this post, with the exception of the perhaps the usage of the term "uninformed".... what does that mean. Does it mean people who don't agree with the authors agenda? Is it people who perhaps have other priorities in their lives.... don't have the same issues. What is an uninformed voter.

I am pretty sure most voters are aware of those issues that are impacting them most... I would agree that many are unaware of legislation that may impact them in ways they are unaware of... but these usually secondary issues.

To be uninformed depends on what your agenda is. If you are a gay rights activities... they would certainly say a conservative christian is uninformed of issues in the gay community. Likewise, the opposite could be said for a "family values" agenda person.... see the gay community as being uninformed.

In reality, "uninformed" is a rather pompous term, where one views their own view as the correct informed view, and everyone else being lessor informed - because they don't agree.

Pride... its a lovely thing.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The letter is correct. The best in case in point of low-information voting is John Swallow.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@2bits
"It started more than 30 years ago. Ask ANY economist."

The increasing trend in wealth inequality really did start in 1980 (which I suppose is more than 30 years ago but still coincides with Reagan).

Steve Cottrell
Centerville, UT

Apparently the US debt situation could be improved if the economy improved.

I wondered as I counted cars in a parking lot the other day if the economy would improve if more people bought cars that were US brands rather than cars that are foreign brands. The majority of the cars I counted in that parking lot, more than 60%, were from foreign based companies.

Just wondering.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

atl134
The media and political hype of income inequality started more recently, but fact is... it has been there all along.

Income inequality took a jump in the industrial revolution, when fewer people were needed to do more work (because there were new machines to do the work of several men).

Income inequality also took a jump in the 1950's when big corporations started taking over the landscape and smaller local compaines went under.

It's also happening now... because so many jobs we used to do can now be done by robots, computers, cheeper foreign workers, etc.

It didn't start in the 80's. It's been around as long as man. There was income inequality even in the dark ages (remember the kings/lords and serfs)? HUGE income inequality, huh?

Know your history. It didn't "Start" in the 80's. And it isn't over today (even though we had a Democrat President, Senate, House or Representatives, and Supreme Court for several years).

I know this Reagan hatred is a polular rhetorical story in your circles... but if you know History and reality... you really can't in all honesty just blame this on Reagan. Sorry.

Eliot
Santaquin, UT

Reagan did not take office until 1981. So maybe wealth inequality is Carters fault.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@2bits
A 2011 CBO study found that the top 1% of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.

Based on the Gini coefficient, after tax income inequality in 2009 was largest in Texas and smallest in Maine.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The ten best educated states all voted for Obama. Nine of the ten worst educated states voted for Romney. That gives us a clue about the voting patterns of informed vs uninformed voters.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Since the late 1970s, the U.S. has experienced a sharp divergence in the distribution and growth of market-based income, with gains overwhelmingly skewed toward the very top of the income distribution and away from the bottom. This era of widening income inequality represents a sharp break from the first three decades following World War II, when the gains from growth were shared fairly equally across the income distribution, even tilted somewhat favorably towards lower-income over upper-income workers. The increasingly lopsided concentration of income growth at the top of the distribution comes at the expense of stagnant or falling living standards for working families.

The bottom line for policymakers: Raising top tax rates could yield large results in slowing income inequality growth without unduly hampering economic growth. This is just one more piece of evidence suggesting that Washington’s dominant framework for tax reform is divorced from economic research and needs serious reevaluation."
(Economic Policy Institute)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments