• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
TurtleDude said:
so you are saying that those of us who are rich and vote for less government are voting for our own interests vs Rich socialists who vote for more government?

by George you are right

and the biggest divide among us in the top one percent are those of us who are rich DESPITE the government vs those who are RICH because of it
Click to expand...

As an American who has been blessed with many riches I must say that looking at things simply from your own selfish interests before those of the entire country is terribly unpatriotic as well as myopically short sighted in the extreme. My riches have come from everything good that America is and only a fool would exclude the government from that consideration. Without the government I would be typing this in German .... so thank God for the American government.
 
How do we determine the difference between a "tax consumer" and a "net taxpayer"?

Is it solely money-in vs money-out?

How about services used? Even unseen services. A person engaging in international business may benefit from government programs and services that make their international endeavors possible, and without which would be virtually impossible.
 
radcen said:
How do we determine the difference between a "tax consumer" and a "net taxpayer"?

Is it solely money-in vs money-out?

How about services used? Even unseen services. A person engaging in international business may benefit from government programs and services that make their international endeavors possible, and without which would be virtually impossible.
Click to expand...
Agree that is a ineffective idea. Also, this idea probably coming from people that want the IRS out of their lives. Who do they think would be making the determination? What about a high school diploma or GED requirement in lieu of property ownership or military service?
 
It always amuses me when self describe patriots clearly dispose everything that America actually stands for. This country is about freedom and equality for everyone, not just for a privileged few.
 
Paschendale said:
It always amuses me when self describe patriots clearly dispose everything that America actually stands for. This country is about freedom and equality for everyone, not just for a privileged few.
Click to expand...

Are you not one of those UHC people? Exactly how do you have room to speak?
 
Paschendale said:
It always amuses me when self describe patriots clearly dispose everything that America actually stands for. This country is about freedom and equality for everyone, not just for a privileged few.
Click to expand...

you seem to think America stands for cradle to crave social welfare and making winners pay for the stupid mistakes of losers when in reality its all about your rich dem pimps getting rich by pandering to your sense of envious egalitarianism (aka economic vandalism-if you cannot be rich, well damn it, no one else should be either)
 
given the poll has less than 4% like restricting voting to 'net givers' I'd say epic fail.

Wadda Country.

Perhaps in national elections we could use the net return on money sent to the feds. Any state which receives more back from DC then they sent in should be barred from national elections.

It's WE the people, not ME the people.... every state that takes more of other people's money in and simultaneously thumbs their collective nose should have a voter timeout. For that matter any federal projects should be awarded to out of state contractors, employing out of state workers. At least the negative return states can have the temp housing and food crumbs from the projects... perhaps we can go so far as increasing the onpost facilities of major military bases so the personnel have little need to spend federal money in the local economy.

Wadda Country... :peace
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem to think America stands for cradle to crave social welfare and making winners pay for the stupid mistakes of losers when in reality its all about your rich dem pimps getting rich by pandering to your sense of envious egalitarianism (aka economic vandalism-if you cannot be rich, well damn it, no one else should be either)
Click to expand...

Winners or the third generation of the original winners? Seems some are born on third base and think they hit a stand up triple. What has always brought me a smile is the old saying that under every pile of 'old money' is an 'old thief'.

All for someone being rich, not so warm and fuzzy for those who's great grand somethings were buddies with politicians and made the pile and then 'lobbied' to keep that pile no matter what sitting around acting like they built the family fortune...
 
notquiteright said:
Winners or the third generation of the original winners? Seems some are born on third base and think they hit a stand up triple. What has always brought me a smile is the old saying that under every pile of 'old money' is an 'old thief'.

All for someone being rich, not so warm and fuzzy for those who's great grand somethings were buddies with politicians and made the pile and then 'lobbied' to keep that pile no matter what sitting around acting like they built the family fortune...
Click to expand...

You seem upset with the efforts of your ancestors.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, congress demanding banks make loans to unqualified borrowers was the cause of the recession.
Click to expand...

Explain why the majority of NPLs came from non-CRA banks then.

Oh wait. You can't.

Fyi, not that I expect you to answer this (I predict you're going to run), explain to me how a period of growth based on excessive borrowing at the Federal, Corporate and Individual level where individual savings rates went negative, corporations took on billions in leverage and Federal debts exploded wasn't going to end in a recession when the money stopped?

The simple fact of the matter is we were headed for a correction simply because we were funding the 2000s with gobs of cheap borrowed money through out our entire economy. You can't live on excess indefinitely. It has to end.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has been pointed out dozens of times, I'm not going to bother to look through these posts, but isn't being eligible to fight in a war for your country having skin in the game? Besides, with the Citizens United ruling, we're essentially back to being ruled by property owners. Democracy ideally should expand voting as much as it can.
 
notquiteright said:
Winners or the third generation of the original winners? Seems some are born on third base and think they hit a stand up triple. What has always brought me a smile is the old saying that under every pile of 'old money' is an 'old thief'.

All for someone being rich, not so warm and fuzzy for those who's great grand somethings were buddies with politicians and made the pile and then 'lobbied' to keep that pile no matter what sitting around acting like they built the family fortune...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the point of this rant is other than class warfare. I guess people whose parents send them to good schools and try to set them up for a good life owe society a great debt for their greater chance to success.

Let's cut to the chase. What do you think we should do with such free loaders?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are saying that those of us who are rich and vote for less government
Click to expand...

Whoa there. You know full well that many rich people vote for more government. How many lawyers vote for the government to reduce restrictions on becoming a lawyer? How many rich people vote for less obstacles to entry in the industries they are in? Big corporations owned by rich people have lobbied decades for more legislation to hamstring their competitors and ensure no start ups pose a threat. And many rich people have voted for years for agricultural welfare that promotes big government.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you vote for less government, in many cases being rich means you vote for more government.
 
obvious Child said:
Whoa there. You know full well that many rich people vote for more government. How many lawyers vote for the government to reduce restrictions on becoming a lawyer? How many rich people vote for less obstacles to entry in the industries they are in? Big corporations owned by rich people have lobbied decades for more legislation to hamstring their competitors and ensure no start ups pose a threat. And many rich people have voted for years for agricultural welfare that promotes big government.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you vote for less government, in many cases being rich means you vote for more government.
Click to expand...

uh that's what I said. many rich people are rich because of the government and they want more of it

Plaintiffs attorneys are a classic example. some businesses for sure.
 
a351 said:
As if tax dollars are the only meaningful contribution to society. Stay at home moms, retirees and students, among others, should have their interests represented as any other.
Click to expand...

Until students are self supporting they should not have any say what so ever
 
TurtleDude said:
You seem upset with the efforts of your ancestors.
Click to expand...

Not at all, just admire the CONvoluted mindset that thinks because they were born rich they somehow 'worked' for it. :roll:

With all the goofy whines about the rich being raped by the gubmint for the poor they seem to be in little danger of losing their millionaire status... :mrgreen:
 
notquiteright said:
Not at all, just admire the CONvoluted mindset that thinks because they were born rich they somehow 'worked' for it. :roll:

With all the goofy whines about the rich being raped by the gubmint for the poor they seem to be in little danger of losing their millionaire status... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
do you have any point to make

the fact is most of those who want the rich to pay more either do that because

1) they want to buy the votes of the poor so they themselves can gain power

2) they are upset that others are more prosperous than they are and they are unable to accept the fact that its often due to their own lack of effort or talent.

the leftwing mindset often makes excuses for failure and blames it on others
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21.
Click to expand...

That is actually not correct. States had their own rules governing the franchise - multiple states allowed blacks to vote, for example, and property restrictions varied.

It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
Click to expand...

Well it's certainly another way of ensuring that voters incentives are aligned with the good of the whole. Alternatives could include restricting the franchise to net tax payers (those spending the money get to decide how it gets spent), but in such a case we should allow lower-income earners the option of choosing to pay a net positive tax rate in order to gain the vote. Receipt of public welfare used to disqualify you from voting in America, and I could see the argument for bringing that back as well.

I myself am attracted to the idea of weeding out the lowest-information voters by instituting a nation-wide poll test derived from the citizenship exam (simple things like "How Many Branches of Government are there", or "Who is the Vice Presidential Candidate of the Presidential Candidate you are voting for"). Simply have the five questions at the top of the ballot, and a failure of two or more invalidates the ballot.

But there are a few other ways that we need to mold our electorate. For example, we need smarter, less gameable methods of deciding congressional districts - current rules guarantee most members reelection, rewards them for partisanship, and punishes them for prioritizing effective governance over grandstanding.
 
Rocketman said:
many illegals do not pay any taxes, welfare- no taxes
Click to expand...

many people pay taxes with money that the government gave to them.

lots of people use far far more government resources than they pay in taxes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom