- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Good point, a soldier exemption would be called for.
Wow. Your goal is more transparent with every post. "Independent," my ass.
Good point, a soldier exemption would be called for.
People are property of themselves.
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
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?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.
By 1776 standards, some people weren't.
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.
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.
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)
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...
Wrong, congress demanding banks make loans to unqualified borrowers was the cause of the recession.
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.
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...
No, even then all men had sovereignty over their own body and lives.
so you are saying that those of us who are rich and vote for less government
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.
That's what we have now.
do you know of any adult who does not pay tax?
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.
You seem upset with the efforts of your ancestors.
do you have any point to makeNot 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:
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.
many illegals do not pay any taxes, welfare- no taxes