• 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.
ChrisL said:
Most people aren't choosing to live on welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, literally. What you're saying would be like me saying "I'm not choosing to come to work," which is technically not accurate because I could quit my job at any moment. My expression that "I have to go to work" is based on the opinion or belief that "I must go to work in order to ________." People feel like they have no choice but to accept welfare (so to speak) not because they literally don't have that choice, but because for them it seems like the easiest or most predictable way available to them to get a particular need met. That does not mean they are literally forced (without choice) to sign up for the benefit(s).

I can't have my cake and eat it too. Going to work does not strip me of my right to liberty. I chose to trade my liberty (between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday) for money. Similarly, people choosing a status of dependence on government-administered assistance should knowingly be trading in corresponding weight of their vote, as a basic, rational protection against the main drawback of democracy.

There are ALWAYS going to be poor people. There always have been and always will be. It is wrong to punish people for being poor.
Click to expand...

My idea to weigh votes according to financial independence has nothing to do with how much money a person has. It has to do with how much they opt to lean on government-administered assistance to meet their basic needs.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
I admit I am very ignorant about human eugenic efforts. However the only real eugenic programs that I am aware of were small short term programs that I personally would only consider token efforts. I would appreciate any further information that would support your statement.
Click to expand...

I'm no more of an expert than you, but the ideas of eugenics that focused on arbitrary characteristics (e.g. skin color or race) I consider "failed" because of the rise of multiculturalism, civil rights, and globalization.

Wikipedia has a pretty good page about the history of eugenics.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Yes they are, literally. What you're saying would be like me saying "I'm not choosing to come to work," which is technically not accurate because I could quit my job at any moment. My expression that "I have to go to work" is based on the opinion or belief that "I must go to work in order to ________." People feel like they have no choice but to accept welfare (so to speak) not because they literally don't have that choice, but because for them it seems like the easiest or most predictable way available to them to get a particular need met. That does not mean they are literally forced (without choice) to sign up for the benefit(s).

I can't have my cake and eat it too. Going to work does not strip me of my right to liberty. I chose to trade my liberty (between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday) for money. Similarly, people choosing a status of dependence on government-administered assistance should knowingly be trading in corresponding weight of their vote, as a basic, rational protection against the main drawback of democracy.



My idea to weigh votes according to financial independence has nothing to do with how much money a person has. It has to do with how much they opt to lean on government-administered assistance to meet their basic needs.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand the fact that only 4.1% of people are collecting welfare? Or the fact that the economy absolutely blows, and a lot of people's positions have been terminated, and a lot of people cannot find jobs? What should they do? Starve?
 
Rocketman said:
really, what do you call a kid that mooches off his parents and the government until he/she is 30? responsible?:roll:
Click to expand...

So anyone who doesn't have a net income tax burden is a "kid that mooches off his parents and the government until he/she is 30"?
 
haymarket said:
The people who spout this crap are NEVER able to define such a difference with any actual formula that can be applied to each person to make that determination. It is simply right wing rhetoric based on a desire to disenfranchise the people who do not vote the way they want them to.
Click to expand...

just because drawing the line is difficult does not prove that there is no difference

the fact is, people that your party want to tax more are clearly net tax payers.

and the people who tend to lap up welfare socialist nonsense are net tax consumers.

where is the line? I don't know but someone paying 100K in Federal income taxes or who is hit by the death tax is clearly on the NET TAX PAYER side of the ledger


and those in the bottom 25% are almost guaranteed to be net tax consumers

because we don't know the actual line (and of course its not going to be the same for everyone) does not mean there aren't NTPs and NTCs

the Democratic propaganda plays to net tax consumers-GOP claims are targeted at net tax payers
 
Why is that all the important polls are anonymous but the stupid ones about what color eyes do you like aren't? :lol: I'm much more interested in who is voting here.
 
ChrisL said:
Why is that all the important polls are anonymous but the stupid ones about what color eyes do you like aren't? :lol: I'm much more interested in who is voting here.
Click to expand...

I do that when I make polls. Because... those who know deep down that their opinion is repugnant and selfish won't vote if they have to stand behind it. I take the trade-off of (hopefully) getting a poll result closer to reality.

(Some will, most won't)
 
radcen said:
I do that when I make polls. Because... those who know deep down that their opinion is repugnant and selfish won't vote if they have to stand behind it. I take the trade-off of (hopefully) getting a poll result closer to reality.

(Some will, most won't)
Click to expand...

I guess so. Although people here on this thread seem to not be shy about expressing their opinions.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean because of the Earned Income Tax Credit? The tax break originally formulated by arch-libertarian Milton Friedman? Passed into law by Ronald Reagan? Passed and revised for decades with bipartisan support?

When those laws were written and passed, did anyone say "by the way, anyone who collects EITC should be disenfranchised?" Reagan certainly didn't:

"Several months ago in a speech, I said that voting was the most sacred right of free men and women. I pledged that as long as I am in a position to uphold the Constitution, no barrier would ever come between a secret ballot and the citizen's right to cast one. Today I am reaffirming that commitment.

For this Nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote to be denied, diluted, or defiled. The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished....

Every American must know he or she can count on an equal chance and an equal vote. The decision we are announcing today benefits all of our citizens by making our democracy stronger and more available to everyone." (Ronald Reagan: Statement About Extension of the Voting Rights Act)​


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...
Seriously? You want to disenfranchise half the country, because elected officials of both parties gave them a tax break?!?


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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that whole "disenfranchise people to help them" policy worked out really great for blacks after the Civil War.
 
ChrisL said:
Well that's true polgara, but I still don't think that children should be voting. I could only imagine the things they'd vote for. :rofl
Click to expand...

Good point-that is how many of us feel about low information voters who are more likely to know who won American Idol than who the chief justice of the USC is. Democrat policies have created massive numbers of dependent children who rely on government as surrogate parents.
 
radcen said:
I do that when I make polls. Because... those who know deep down that their opinion is repugnant and selfish won't vote if they have to stand behind it. I take the trade-off of (hopefully) getting a poll result closer to reality.

(Some will, most won't)
Click to expand...

anonymous polls suck, I won't vote in them
 
TurtleDude said:
Good point-that is how many of us feel about low information voters who are more likely to know who won American Idol than who the chief justice of the USC is. Democrat policies have created massive numbers of dependent children who rely on government as surrogate parents.
Click to expand...

Low information voters aren't restricted to one party or another, or to one socioeconomic class or another either.
 
ChrisL said:
Low information voters aren't restricted to one party or another, or to one socioeconomic class or another either.
Click to expand...

true, but there are two themes that pander to them

1) we will give you stuff

2) pandering by bible thumpers.
 
TurtleDude said:
true, but there are two themes that pander to them

1) we will give you stuff

2) pandering by bible thumpers.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting all of Hollywood I think.
 
TurtleDude said:
explain, i don't see your point
Click to expand...

A lot of celebrities could be considered low information voters too, and they don't fall into either of your categories. A lot of rich people could be considered low information voters who only vote for their own wallets.
 
ChrisL said:
Don't you understand the fact that only 4.1% of people are collecting welfare?
Click to expand...

I understand that statistic to be misleading. Welfare is statutory procedure designed to promote the material and physical well-being of people in need. That means including most social programs in the calculation of how weighted your vote should be.

Or the fact that the economy absolutely blows, and a lot of people's positions have been terminated, and a lot of people cannot find jobs? What should they do? Starve?
Click to expand...

What is it with the repeated references to starvation? Throughout this thread my position has been consistent, and this has nothing to do with what choice I think people should make for themselves. Their life's choices and strategies are their business, not mine. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the willful acceptance of state aid is an acceptance of a status of dependence, and with dependence comes a more restricted range of rights.
 
ChrisL said:
A lot of celebrities could be considered low information voters too, and they don't fall into either of your categories. A lot of rich people could be considered low information voters who only vote for their own wallets.
Click to expand...

ah OK -there aren't that many hollyweird libertines who vote dem in reaction to the bible thumpers.

One of the most influential conservative Legal minds in the USA used to be a SAG member. He said most actors tend to be lefties for two reasons

a) they despise the religious right (and its not just because hollywood was one of the first places where Jews could achieve based on merit and talent)

b) because many of them realize that in person-they aren't near the people they portray and they want to be loved so they adopt a political agenda they think will make them popular with the masses

voting for your wallet can be seen as well informed.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I understand that statistic to be misleading. Welfare is statutory procedure designed to promote the material and physical well-being of people in need. That means including most social programs in the calculation of how weighted your vote should be.
Click to expand...

Well I posted a link, and that data is updated as of 9/10/2013, according to my link.

What is it with the repeated references to starvation? Throughout this thread my position has been consistent, and this has nothing to do with what choice I think people should make for themselves. Their life's choices and strategies are their business, not mine. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the willful acceptance of state aid is an acceptance of a status of dependence, and with dependence comes a more restricted range of rights.
Click to expand...
[

I disagree entirely. Like others have pointed, there are state and federal benefits that rich people also receive.
 
Visbek said:
Oh, you mean because of the Earned Income Tax Credit? The tax break originally formulated by arch-libertarian Milton Friedman? Passed into law by Ronald Reagan? Passed and revised for decades with bipartisan support?
Click to expand...

Milton Friedman made clear after it passed his idea was not followed, but instead twisted into something completely different. He even said he learned a powerful lesson from the experience and if I remember correctly quit shortly after as a result of what happened.

You can blame him for giving politicians a spring board for what eventually became law, but you can't blame Milton Friedman for what passed.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
ah OK -there aren't that many hollyweird libertines who vote dem in reaction to the bible thumpers.

One of the most influential conservative Legal minds in the USA used to be a SAG member. He said most actors tend to be lefties for two reasons

a) they despise the religious right (and its not just because hollywood was one of the first places where Jews could achieve based on merit and talent)

b) because many of them realize that in person-they aren't near the people they portray and they want to be loved so they adopt a political agenda they think will make them popular with the masses

voting for your wallet can be seen as well informed.
Click to expand...

Point is there are many uninformed wealthy voters too. Just because a person is poor doesn't make them stupid.
 
ChrisL said:
Nope, I don't want the government to have the power to strip any of us of any of our rights.
Click to expand...

Too bad because that's the way it is. Any right the gov gives they can take away. That is why the "God given rights" our founders spelled out are so important and voting is never defined as a God given right.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You would need to read my initial post. SS and Medicare are forced insurance programs, not entitlement, neither are military retirement benefits an "entitlement"...
Click to expand...

Well, that may be your definition of entitlement programs. It is not, however, the actual definition of entitlement programs. This is the actual definition:

Entitlement program | Define Entitlement program at Dictionary.com

Under that definition, social security and any military benefits program is an entitlement program. This is the problem with you guys on the Far Right. You use terms that you hear on Sewer Radio without having any actual idea what they mean. Dictionaries are wonderful things. You might try buying one.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Don't forget "free higher education". :)
Click to expand...


cannabis_leaf.gif


I think that may top a list, but in the Ivy League schools they will want to snag aderall as well.:lamo
 
ChrisL said:
Well I posted a link, and that data is updated as of 9/10/2013, according to my link.
Click to expand...

It accomplishes this low number by purposely excluding a lot of social assistance programs that meet the general definition of welfare. When I refer to (social) welfare I don't exclude more than half of them by calling them something else, I include all of them.

I disagree entirely. Like others have pointed, there are state and federal benefits that rich people also receive.
Click to expand...

My proposal applies to them as well. It is about dependence on statutory aid administered by the government we vote for. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or does not have -- their vote should be weighted according to how independently they meet their own needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom