Only property owners should vote

sawyerloggingon said:

Losing your vote if on welfare would be a good inducement to get off welfare don't you think?

Click to expand...

I think that for many people it isn't a CHOICE.

sawyerloggingon said:

I don't respond to post that call me amputated dick skin either!:lol:

Click to expand...

Is that what a schmuck is? I meant that in a general sense of course. :mrgreen:

sawyerloggingon said:

Actually that is precisely the topic. If you don't pay fed taxes maybe you shouldn't vote in fed elections. That is in keeping with the founders original intent.

Click to expand...

Are you positive that was their intent? Did they intend property owners because they were property owners, or did they intend property owners because property owners were the primary taxpayers supporting the government?

If the latter, which I suspect is the case... in part because "no taxation without representation" was a popular mantra of the day... then the concept expanded every time the federal government instituted a new tax.

sawyerloggingon said:

Paying fed tax should be part of deciding who can vote in fed elections. In my "perfect vote" world if you are in the military you get the vote even if under 21. Serving your country is the ultimate rite of passage that should guarantee the ultimate right to vote.

Click to expand...

If you buy a gallon of gasoline, you've paid federal tax. There you go.

The Baron said:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - unknown

If you are receiving welfare, unemployment, food-stamps, an Obama phone, etc. then you don’t get to vote.

People receiving social security, Medicare and veteran benefits are exempt from this.

Click to expand...

Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.

Why (automatically) food stamps? For many it's merely a supplement for people who have low-paying jobs and still otherwise pay taxes.

sawyerloggingon said:

Losing your vote if on welfare would be a good inducement to get off welfare don't you think?

Click to expand...

No. To be honest, I'd bet the percentage of people on welfare who vote is fairly small.

Kobie said:

The average American citizen, even if they don't pay a net loss to income tax, still pays social security tax, sales tax, excise taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on telecommunications, and all sorts of other ones. Unwieldly? Yeah. Of course. But the notion that anyone who isn't paying income tax, or doesn't own property, is getting a "free ride" is moronic to the Nth degree.

Click to expand...

really, what do you call a kid that mooches off his parents and the government until he/she is 30? responsible?:roll:

ChrisL said:

Now that I think of it, a lot of you would probably fit the bill of belonging to a fringe group since you want to remove rights from citizens.

Click to expand...

We already do suspend or terminate rights of adult citizens when they prove (legally) to be incapable of managing their own adult affairs. They're assigned public guardians who take over their adult decision-making authority.

Neomalthusian said:

We already do suspend or terminate rights of adult citizens when they prove (legally) to be incapable of managing their own adult affairs. They're assigned public guardians who take over their adult decision-making authority.

Click to expand...

That is done on a case by case basis.

haymarket said:

That is an astounding thing to claim. How can anyone live in our society without paying some tax when most simple purchases are subject to sales taxes?

Click to expand...

Income taxes?:roll:

ChrisL said:

That is done on a case by case basis.

Click to expand...

So is the examination of eligibility for welfare and related public assistance programs.

ChrisL said:

I think that for many people it isn't a CHOICE.

Click to expand...

For most people staying on welfare long term is indeed a choice and if they lost the right to vote it may be a good nudge to seek gainful employment.

Rocketman said:

Income taxes?:roll:

Click to expand...

Well there are entire states where there is no state income tax. Should those people have their rights stripped from them too?

sawyerloggingon said:

There are libs pushing for HS students under 18 getting the vote, it just gets worse and worse.
High-schoolers deserve the right to vote | The Forest Lake Times

Click to expand...

You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.

"Most 16- and 17-year-olds (80 percent, according to one survey) work at some point before they graduate. This means they pay income taxes. Paying taxes without a say in how the money is spent is a gross injustice. The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that people should not be taxed if they are not fairly represented in government."

I have no idea why you tag them as "liberals," as their agenda is very specific and seems non-partisan to me -- lower the drinking age, lower the voting age and eliminate curfews.

Maybe you should change it from the GOP to the GOMLP -- the "Get Off My Lawn Party."

cpwill said:

Poor people in America are MORE likely to be obese. err... no. Here in the U.S. we have a wide gap, sure; but that is not because our poor are so poor, it is because our wealthy are so wealthy. The size of the gap itself is irrelevant. I'll talk about healthcare in Europe, sure. We can talk about the fact that the creation of a single-payer healthcare system causes that single entitlement to dominate and explode government spending until dramatic cuts are forced due to fiscal crises. We can talk about how the American system (thus far, as deeply flawed as it is) produces better survival rates for people with serious illness such as cancer, probably due to the fact that Americans have more consistent access to better treatment for chronic diseases. For a single example, of Americans with Schizophrenia, 60% receive the latest generation of medication - compared to 10% of Germans and 20% of Spaniards. And Europeans still end up paying significant out-of-pocket costs, because the movement on that continent is towards introducing market reforms, not towards increasing government expenditure. Go ahead and bring up the WHO report, which gives us low grades for "fairness" and "equitability" :roll: I'll just point out that the same report lists America #1 at "responsiveness to patients’ needs". :roll: the trust fund rich. 85% of America's millionaires didn't inherit their money - they are first generation rich, mostly successful small business owners. And democrats do make it explicit that they view their support for wealth-transfer programs as an electoral advantage. Yeah... when I look at "who has class" in this society, I see that 85% of America's millionaires are self-made, mostly small business owners, and that the vast majority of our poor have become not just dependent, but developed a sense of entitlement towards that dependency. You can get classless wealthy people, sure; money just makes us better able to express what we already are. But when people point out that the left in this country benefits electorally from having the government encourage destructive behavior, they are absolutely correct.

Click to expand...

More CON games, the very sources you cite contradict most of what you say... you have to cherry pick the hell out of them to get close to your conclusions. the FRAC report you cite says right off the bat noor nutrition, poor economic status and obesity is a very complicated subject calling it 'one of the most common myths'

Your CATO report on page for ranks the USA 37th behind EVERY major country in Europe. :shock:

You can cherry pick a disease or two like cancer, where the USA has made it a huge money maker- ask the 'Cancer Treatment Centers of America' but that by no means all Americans have access to that sort of intense medical care. You need to mention the small portion of cancer patients measured was survive for 5 years after initial diagnosis. Not long term survival.

Mental illness is a puzzle, so many who commit so horrid mass murders have grave unaddressed mental issues it makes you wonder just who all these people are who are getting the new drugs- certainly not the poor. The big pharma monopoly in this country does attract most award winning researchers but for profit not for benefit. (we also should note the drugs they develop sell for far less overseas than here- the FDA has several times threatened folks who obtain the same drug from a far cheaper overseas source.) it isn't the other governments subsidize the drugs, they make deals that the Big Pharma companies can charge only so much for the drug in those other countries, yet our government is forbidden to do just that!

Your very own CATO report has many advantages going to overseas systems, even if the world view of that institute isn't progressive.

You cherry picked a few bits of the big picture.... just another CON game.... :roll:

Given the USA spends twice as much as measured by GNP and our's is HUGE compared to the other nations we sure don't seem to to gain much.

Neomalthusian said:

So is the examination of eligibility for welfare and related public assistance programs.

Click to expand...

People who are collecting services are not usually mentally challenged. We have social security disability for such things. Welfare is for people who have children and can't work for whatever reason. Maybe they were collecting unemployment benefits and ran out and still can't find a job because the economy is still terrible as far as getting a job goes?

So who determines who is a capable voter and who is not? There will be a test I assume? :roll: God, that even sounds stupid. If this was ever allowed to happen, the government would stripping rights from citizens left and right. Once you allow them that, you are opening a Pandora's box. It is retarded.

radcen said:

Are you positive that was their intent? Did they intend property owners because they were property owners, or did they intend property owners because property owners were the primary taxpayers supporting the government?

If the latter, which I suspect is the case... in part because "no taxation without representation" was a popular mantra of the day... then the concept expanded every time the federal government instituted a new tax.




If you buy a gallon of gasoline, you've paid federal tax. There you go.




Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.

Why (automatically) food stamps? For many it's merely a supplement for people who have low-paying jobs and still otherwise pay taxes.




No. To be honest, I'd bet the percentage of people on welfare who vote is fairly small.

Click to expand...

Paying a gas tax is for roads. IMO paying an income tax that funds things like a standing army would be a better indication as to if you are contributing to America or leeching from America.

Visbek said:

You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.

"Most 16- and 17-year-olds (80 percent, according to one survey) work at some point before they graduate. This means they pay income taxes. Paying taxes without a say in how the money is spent is a gross injustice. The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that people should not be taxed if they are not fairly represented in government."

I have no idea why you tag them as "liberals," as their agenda is very specific and seems non-partisan to me -- lower the drinking age, lower the voting age and eliminate curfews.

Maybe you should change it from the GOP to the GOMLP -- the "Get Off My Lawn Party."

Click to expand...

Awesome, love it! :rofl

sawyerloggingon said:

What I would propose if I had the power would be to go back to the original voting law cited in the OP and start from there. First off I would reinstate the vote for blacks and women, that's a no brainer. After that I would consider age, education and contribution to society factors. Where exactly it would end up I'm not sure but I am sure welfare recipients would not get to vote.

Click to expand...

Statements like these are precisely why suffrage should be universal.

You don't get to pick and choose who gets to vote, based on your own assumptions of how those people are going to vote. First you'll disenfranchise TANF recipients, then SNAP recipients, then anyone below the poverty level, then anyone whose income is 50% greater than the poverty level, then anyone who live in cities who tend to vote for Democrats....

And again: The sad thing is that what motivates you is that conservatives and Republicans have no interest in representing the poor, let alone helping them deal with poverty. You might make a good case that an improperly designed safety net results in welfare traps. However, those goals clash with the obviously punitive desire to curtail their rights.

I.e. if you want disadvantaged people to start voting for you, why not stop bashing them like they're subhuman, and figure out policies that can help them deal with or climb out of poverty?

Visbek said:

You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.

"Most 16- and 17-year-olds (80 percent, according to one survey) work at some point before they graduate. This means they pay income taxes. Paying taxes without a say in how the money is spent is a gross injustice. The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that people should not be taxed if they are not fairly represented in government."

I have no idea why you tag them as "liberals," as their agenda is very specific and seems non-partisan to me -- lower the drinking age, lower the voting age and eliminate curfews.

Maybe you should change it from the GOP to the GOMLP -- the "Get Off My Lawn Party."

Click to expand...

You don't pay fed taxes until you reach a certain income level. Working after school flipping burgers does not reach that threshold, you get virtually all your taxes back. To be a tax payer worthy of voting you should be a net contributor which a very large portion of this society is not. 47% of America pays no income tax and they should not vote until they do.

Visbek said:

Statements like these are precisely why suffrage should be universal.

You don't get to pick and choose who gets to vote, based on your own assumptions of how those people are going to vote. First you'll disenfranchise TANF recipients, then SNAP recipients, then anyone below the poverty level, then anyone whose income is 50% greater than the poverty level, then anyone who live in cities who tend to vote for Democrats....

And again: The sad thing is that what motivates you is that conservatives and Republicans have no interest in representing the poor, let alone helping them deal with poverty. You might make a good case that an improperly designed safety net results in welfare traps. However, those goals clash with the obviously punitive desire to curtail their rights.

I.e. if you want disadvantaged people to start voting for you, why not stop bashing them like they're subhuman, and figure out policies that can help them deal with or climb out of poverty?

Click to expand...

The best way to help the poor is to have a thriving economy which intelligent informed voters would be much better at creating than some welfare queen with a house full of illegitimate children. She has proven poor decision making skills and should not be allowed to vote based on that alone.

sawyerloggingon said:

Paying a gas tax is for roads. IMO paying an income tax that funds things like a standing army would be a better indication as to if you are contributing to America or leeching from America.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether to :roll: or :lol:.

The gasoline tax is still a federal tax, regardless it's stated intent. There are a myriad of other federal taxes that everybody pays... some out in the open, some hidden in the cost of the product or service... some with specific intent, many with none. This was just one example.

Let's see, so far you've been willing to carve out exceptions for...

- Military members under 21, they would qualify
- People are aren't paying the 'right' federal tax, they wouldn't qualify,
- and something else that escapes me at the moment.

Really, the longer this thread goes, the more you thwart your own intentions. Why don't you just admit that what you really want is a voting block of people like you so that things will be done how you'd like them done?

ChrisL said:

People who are collecting services are not usually mentally challenged. We have social security disability for such things. Welfare is for people who have children and can't work for whatever reason. Maybe they were collecting unemployment benefits and ran out and still can't find a job because the economy is still terrible as far as getting a job goes?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you have to be employed to be able to vote. I am saying voting should be commensurate with how independently you manage your own life and affairs. You can be independently broke as hell (meaning your in a **** situation but you're not accepting a status a dependence on the collective), and these people should get a full vote. Some people who accept dependence are only accepting, say, maybe 10% dependence (i.e. they still pay for 90% of their own stuff and manage 90% of their own affairs), and these folks should therefore get 9/10ths of of one vote.

So who determines who is a capable voter and who is not? There will be a test I assume? :roll: God, that even sounds stupid. If this was ever allowed to happen, the government would stripping rights from citizens left and right.

Click to expand...

Government administers these welfare programs, and welfare programs are not rights, they're entitlements. Applying for welfare is an act of saying "I can't do it on my own right now, I need to depend on the collective to get by right now," which is akin to a partial reversion to the dependency of being a minor. Minors have rights too, but not the same ones as independent adults, and for good reason. To be consistent, reversion to a status of dependency should be commensurate with reduced rights. That's what being a dependent is all about. That should extend to voting. We don't let minors participate fully in democratic process and for good and obvious reason. Not giving societal dependents full voting power makes total sense too, as a most basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury.

sawyerloggingon said:

You don't pay fed taxes until you reach a certain income level. Working after school flipping burgers does not reach that threshold, you get virtually all your taxes back. To be a tax payer worthy of voting you should be a net contributor which a very large portion of this society is not. 47% of America pays no income tax and they should not vote until they do.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now working and being a productive member of society and having taxes withheld isn't enough. Even for adults. You have to leave some with the government.

Another exception carved out to exclude those who might vote in a way you would dislike.

How about new military E-1s who also probably get back virtually everything withheld?

Ever so slowly the curtain is being lifted and the ugly truth is being exposed.

radcen said:

Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.

Why (automatically) food stamps? For many it's merely a supplement for people who have low-paying jobs and still otherwise pay taxes.

Click to expand...

Fair questions.

1. As we saw prior to--I think it must have been the last mid-term elections--there was some debate about extending unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks. It became a point of debate in the last elections. Benefits did get extended to the 99 weeks and people were able to obtain far more than what they contributed. A better way would be to reduce taxes so people could put away money to support themselves in case they find themselves unemployed.

2. More people are on food-stamps than ever before and stories of it's abuse are plentiful. As such, if you're on food-stamps you don't get to vote.

Neomalthusian said:

I'm not saying you have to be employed to be able to vote. I am saying voting should be commensurate with how independently you manage your own life and affairs. You can be independently broke as hell (meaning your in a **** situation but you're not accepting a status a dependence on the collective), and these people should get a full vote. Some people who accept dependence are only accepting, say, maybe 10% dependence (i.e. they still pay for 90% of their own stuff and manage 90% of their own affairs), and these folks should therefore get 9/10ths of of one vote.



Government administers these welfare programs, and welfare programs are not rights, they're entitlements. Applying for welfare is an act of saying "I can't do it on my own right now, I need to depend on the collective to get by right now," which is akin to a partial reversion to the dependency of being a minor. Minors have rights too, but not the same ones as independent adults, and for good reason. To be consistent, reversion to a status of dependency should be commensurate with reduced rights. That's what being a dependent is all about. That should extend to voting. We don't let minors participate fully in democratic process and for good and obvious reason. Not giving societal dependents full voting power makes total sense too, as a most basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury.

Click to expand...

No kidding, what you're missing is that voting IS a right, not to be removed by government force due to arbitrary reasons.

ChrisL said:

No kidding, what you're missing is that voting IS a right, not to be removed by government force due to arbitrary reasons.

Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary, and every other right we have can also be suspended or even terminated by government for valid reasons (and via due process). This would be right along those same lines. If you commit violent crimes, your liberty is suspended, as well as your lawful right to own firearms, and other property. If you commit very violent or heinous crimes, the state can even terminate your right to life.

And if you're a dependent, your rights are different from non-dependents. This move would improve consistency in a specific area where we are particularly inconsistent.

Neomalthusian said:

It's not arbitrary, and every other right we have can also be suspended or even terminated by government for valid reasons (and via due process). This would be right along those same lines.

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't want the government to have the power to strip any of us of any of our rights.