Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

No and your understanding of the "The Republic" is so flawed it makes me sick. First answer me this, do you, as a citizen of the United States of America, have a "right" to vote? We will go from there based on your answer....

I am not an American.

Many Americans do not have the right to vote.

As to your republic. Call it what you will. It is still an oligarchy whose politicians are owned and controlled by their rich handlers.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?,

That's a really good question. At first I was going to say 'no' .. but then I thought about it and I might be tempted to say 'yes'. Why should someone who isn't contributing to the country get a say in how it's run?? Taking a look at the 'waste of air' people who go on Springer and who just suck off the rest of us, I'm thinking I'd rather NOT have them have any say in how this country is run.

I'll have to give it more thought and listen to the discussions back and forth.
Anyways .. good question.

Thanks.

Thought does make a difference.

Equal under the law is quite different from all being equal.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by tkwasny
I would revise that to only is you are receiving govt welfare. Social security and retirement income , military retirement pay (retainer fee as all are subject to recall into active duty with the stroke of a pen, for life), unemployment compensation does not serve as govt welfare.

No more food stamps for anyone. Return to the days of federal food distribution. Pay the farmers to produce, not pay the farmers to not produce. I remember the days of govt distributed cheese, dry milk, flour, rice, sugar, butter, canned meats, etc. to the poor. You were inspired to get off it and get an income to buy your own food.

You actually had to cook from a cook book.

edit on 27-1-2013 by tkwasny because: trypo fix

There would be a fairly long list ef exemption from losing your vote.
This policy should only be used to penalize the continued abusers of the taxpayers by those who do not want to or cannot contribute taxes to the system.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
How about legal Gun Owners; ie The Militia?
Just trying to be controversial...sorry mates.

Irrelevant. All people can kill with or without a gun.
It is their taxpaying or taxtaking at issue. Not whether or not they own a gun, knife or hands to hold them with.


Regards
DL

Originally posted by Wolf321

They make regulations and dictate rights.

The government doesn't dictate or grant rights its purpose is to protect the rights that are inherent.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Should a man not have a say if his government decides to create a conscript army because he is poor?

Being poor is one thing, there is a huge difference between the working poor and the non-working poor. The working poor are earning their own way and therefore contribute something...

Even those who like some here have worked and have fallen on unfortunate circumstances have contributed; however, we all know there are those in America who are and have never been anything other than wards of the State. Living off of handouts and welfare for their entire lives - those are not citizens of the State they are wards of the State. Much like children in a family.

Once they start contributing they might have some say but until then they are wards with little or no input into the decisions that affect the family.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Everyone adult who is a citizen of the nation should have say in its governance. No other factor should contribute to restricting representation for any natural born or naturalized citizen.

Here is the problem - citizenship should be earned not granted by birth. Citizenship at birth is what makes people take it for granted and abuse that status.

A country should have some expectations from it's citizens.
Ask not what your fellow citizens can do for you but what you can do for those who support you on the dole.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Golf66


What about the Down Syndrome individuals who attend university?

www.cdadc.com...

And you think people should hop around on a musical chair, working one day, citizen, laid off, ward, working again, citizen, injured and on disability ward, and in some cases, creates a business to work around their disability, citizen, but lives at the poverty level and can't invest to old age and retires on old age pension, ward?

Grow up and get real.

This entire argument is childish and extremely selfish. Every single person counts and the world needs to be flexible, supportive (because we're not beasts or demons) and good for every single person. Now in the current system, one side gets in and the poor survive marginally, and the successfully employed complain, and most of them survive marginally as well, most better off than the poor for they can often own their own homes, but I've heard cases of nurses for example in NYC with 3 children, unable to find affordable rent with their kids sent to relatives living in cars.

What a sweet system eh.

And instead of solving the real problems of what abundance for all means even, including the handicapped, the elderly, the mother with young children who need to be at home with her and not a stranger, really win/wins for all, everyone just fights amongst themselves, angry at the others, and some would love to live like kings and walk over everyone else's bodies and blame them because they're really immature.

I think knowing all the leaders are dark hats and striving to create as much pain as possible is a good idea, then questioning our system and money system specifically, and monopolies and all that, and working to overturn this and create a system like the Venus Project for example, and really caring about others and giving everyone a voice, and learning to not shut your ears to another, but work to understand everyone, is a very important duty even in this world if you want to go beyond this kind of world, and go to better ones.

Sitting and pointing your finger in blame and saying, and blaming handicapped and those in need, and wishing any harm to befall anyone is really selfish and low grade.

Change the system and do it with everyone included, those in need as well, meeting the needs of everyone and ensuring they all live well.

reply to post by Greatest I am


No, every citizen should have the right to vote. What if they had no job? How could they pay taxes?

What if "the majority" come to realize that they are funding their own downfall when paying taxes?

Should they not have say in the countries leadership should an honorable and like minded American appear on stage to unf*** this unnecessary IRS nonsense?

reply to post by Golf66


Major: I understand your thoughts and personally agree. But that is not what me and you have fought for.

All men are created equal... The poor man/woman is equal in the eyes of the law.

Why should the family that has had their home taken and life ruined by the very government/IRS that we fought to defend, not have a say in who gets to control that rogue, unconstituional organization?

The very constituion we both swore to uphold and defend has been swisted into this corupt system that causes "the poor" in the first place. I am not saying there are not just flat out lazy people out there. But I think the percentage would be smaller if the government stayed in it's constitutional bounds and told them "you know? It ain't our job to help you." But did their job to protect the people in their money, jobs,....etc.

Freemen should never go to prison because they owe money to the government, they (freemen) are suppose to be government in our Republic.

But I see the problem with allowing lazy people the vote.... We get what we have now.

reply to post by Greatest I am

Should Felons who have paid their debt to society be allowed to vote?

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by tkwasny
I would revise that to only is you are receiving govt welfare. Social security and retirement income , military retirement pay (retainer fee as all are subject to recall into active duty with the stroke of a pen, for life), unemployment compensation does not serve as govt welfare.

No more food stamps for anyone. Return to the days of federal food distribution. Pay the farmers to produce, not pay the farmers to not produce. I remember the days of govt distributed cheese, dry milk, flour, rice, sugar, butter, canned meats, etc. to the poor. You were inspired to get off it and get an income to buy your own food.

You actually had to cook from a cook book.

edit on 27-1-2013 by tkwasny because: trypo fix

There would be a fairly long list ef exemption from losing your vote.
This policy should only be used to penalize the continued abusers of the taxpayers by those who do not want to or cannot contribute taxes to the system.

Regards
DL

How about you must pass a proficiency test in civics, economics, and US history every 4 years? Problem is questions can be structured to guide TPTB desired social engineered state. How can we ensure unbiased TRUTH and neutrality in the tests? Who is pure and uncorruptable in these days?

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Golf66

 

What about the Down Syndrome individuals who attend university?

www.cdadc.com...

Obviously, my post about Dan touched some nerve...

I doubt very much that very many people with Down syndrome graduate from college. I suppose it can be done as cited on the link you provide; I have no real reason to dispute their facts. I can assure you that the "success stories" there are not the norm - for every one of them there are 1000 who never leave home and never achieve any level of independence.

I see the commercials all the time in which people claim to have lost 100lbs too but there is always the disclaimer; "these results are not typical and should not be expected".

I saw a documentary once about a young man with Downs who was "graduating from high school" that is all they kept saying the entire time that he was going to "graduate" and how great an achievement it was.... Then they start showing his classes - he was enrolled in a personalized special education program that taught mostly life skills. (How to not leave the stove on and burn down the house, that a $20 looks different than a $10 and stuff like that). He was not meeting the state requirements for a Diploma - he was not "graduating" he was finishing 4 years of special Ed.

I have no problem believing that if there is a person with Downs who can legitimately meet the same requirements for a Bachelors degree they could also pass any citizenship test required for the vote... Problem solved. It’s not the disease I have an issue with it’s the lack of ability to understand the basic functions of government and at least a basic knowledge of the facts and issues that face the nation. That and critical thinking.

Originally posted by Unity_99
And you think people should hop around on a musical chair, working one day, citizen, laid off, ward, working again, citizen, injured and on disability ward, and in some cases, creates a business to work around their disability, citizen, but lives at the poverty level and can't invest to old age and retires on old age pension, ward?

I don't think I said any of that... I opined that citizenship should be earned and that there is a difference between being a permanent ward (demonstrated inability to care for yourself in any way due to lack of life skills/ability to reason at the adult level - not physical disability BTW) and being a contributing citizen. Someone who had a temporary situation would not be a ward.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Grow up and get real.

Personal attack aside, I know I don't have all the answers but something has to be done. We have reached the tipping point at which our democracy is going to fail as they all eventually do. That point when the people realize that they can vote themselves gold from the treasury... The results of the last election pretty much cemented that fact. More people take from the system than pay in, which is simply not sustainable.

If we limit the vote to those with skin in the game maybe the choices the politicians make will favor the payers rather than the payees for a while - to balance out the books.

I also opined that citizenship would mean more to people if it had to be earned rather than a circumstance of birth...

What the perfect solution is, I have no real idea...

However, I do know that allowing the least educated and most lazy among us (who are not able to support themselves) to continue to reproduce in large numbers and eventually vote themselves money from the rest of us (who support ourselves and the lazy and uneducated) seems a doomed proposition.


ETA: To be clear I have no problem with people who paid into the system and are in genuine need of assistance even if that situation becomes permanent.

I have a problem with whole families who live in a perpetual cycle of laziness and uneducated squalor birthing new generations of future parasites who will suck the public teat from cradle to grave without ever paying anything in.

Let's cut down people's jobs so much they get under the required threshold and do not need to pay tax!
And then forbid them to vote as a result! BRILLIANT!!

Originally posted by Golf66
The government doesn't dictate or grant rights its purpose is to protect the rights that are inherent.

I wasn't saying that the government dictates rights by their duty/job/obligation. I was saying that they use their positions to dictate rights, despite the authority. Case-in-point, regulation of arms on the people. They have overstepped their authority by regulating the rights of those who have not violated the rights of others.

Once they start contributing they might have some say but until then they are wards with little or no input
into the decisions that affect the family.

I certainly don't think it is the governments role to support the able. However, it does not matter if a man chooses to be lazy and live on the charity of others, or work to a respectable position in the community. As long as the government makes decisions that directly affect an adult citizen, that citizen has an natural right to representation in his government. To say otherwise goes against the very foundation freedom. The right to representation was seen by the founders as a natural right. To start down that road or earning your place or right is a direct line to tyranny. It would soon have people restricted in their natural right to reproduce, and every other form of natural liberty and choice.

Here is the problem - citizenship should be earned not granted by birth. Citizenship at birth is what makes people take it for granted and abuse that status.

I disagree with part of your statement. There has been a problem with abuse based on the citizenship by birth as it stands now and THAT is a problem. Citizenship of a nation should be by birth or naturalization. However, in an established nation, such as the US, it should be by birth to US citizens. I have proposed the following definition of citizenship in threads before :

persons born to two US citizens regardless of location, born to and claimed by one US citizen regardless of location before the age of 18, or someone naturalized through the immigration process. A US citizen can not hold dual citizenship with any other nation. Citizenship cannot be gained or surrendered more than once. Citizenship of a natural born citizen cannot be removed.

That would eliminated the anchor baby issue, as well as birth tourism.

Originally posted by murphy22
But I see the problem with allowing lazy people the vote.... We get what we have now.

There are two points to make about this.

Yes, lazy (or whatever negative characteristic) people can make bad decisions especially with regards to choosing leadership. With lazy people specifically, keeping people in office who grow and bloat the government into a fat welfare state has lead to all sorts of problems for the US.

Unfortunately, you cannot legislate morality and ethics. No amount of laws or policies will get people to do the right things. That is an issue the social collective has to address, and one that doesn't look to be recognized and tackled anytime soon. To try to take action on such matters from a legislative angle ends up only restricting freedom and the inherit rights of man.

Originally posted by Unity_99
This entire argument is childish and extremely selfish. Every single person counts and the world needs to be flexible, supportive (because we're not beasts or demons) and good for every single person. Now in the current system, one side gets in and the poor survive marginally, and the successfully employed complain, and most of them survive marginally as well, most better off than the poor for they can often own their own homes, but I've heard cases of nurses for example in NYC with 3 children, unable to find affordable rent with their kids sent to relatives living in cars.

What a sweet system eh.

And instead of solving the real problems of what abundance for all means even, including the handicapped, the elderly, the mother with young children who need to be at home with her and not a stranger, really win/wins for all, everyone just fights amongst themselves, angry at the others, and some would love to live like kings and walk over everyone else's bodies and blame them because they're really immature.

I think knowing all the leaders are dark hats and striving to create as much pain as possible is a good idea, then questioning our system and money system specifically, and monopolies and all that, and working to overturn this and create a system like the Venus Project for example, and really caring about others and giving everyone a voice, and learning to not shut your ears to another, but work to understand everyone, is a very important duty even in this world if you want to go beyond this kind of world, and go to better ones.

Sitting and pointing your finger in blame and saying, and blaming handicapped and those in need, and wishing any harm to befall anyone is really selfish and low grade.

Change the system and do it with everyone included, those in need as well, meeting the needs of everyone and ensuring they all live well.

You complain about the system but refuse to look at what is and make the hard choices for change.

My basic view is what was the law of the land in many countries in the past. No taxation without representation. In effect that says that if you do not pay taxes or are a taxtaker you have not earned representation. IOW, of you do not pay for representation, you do not get it.
The logic is clear. Government is a service and services are never free. The logic is thus sound.

Payment can be made in various ways so do not think I am going after the poor. In the case of Vets, representation can be earned by serving to protect the country. Those who sometimes pay taxes and at other times take taxes would have to be looked at once a standard is set. If a person pays 15 years out of 20 for instance, he would vote. Someone who only paid 5 years out of 20 and was on the dole or public purse for 15 may not get a vote.

The point is that when more and more fall into the poor categories, their vote can and is bought by the unscrupulous politicians who are elected by promises of a raise in welfare checks.

The rich are getting richer and the poor better off and the middle is squeezed by both side and any election basically becomes a war against the middle thanks to the fact that politicians are owned by the rich.

This is unjust and unsustainable and must end.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

No, every citizen should have the right to vote. What if they had no job? How could they pay taxes?

What if "the majority" come to realize that they are funding their own downfall when paying taxes?

Should they not have say in the countries leadership should an honorable and like minded American appear on stage to unf*** this unnecessary IRS nonsense?

What right to vote? What are the requirements to access this right? How about reading and writing and being brighter than a brick?

Compare that right to the right of the middle to not have their hard earned dollars taken by a corrupted system of bought and paid for politicians who get ellected by picking the middles pocket.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Golf66

 

All men are created equal... The poor man/woman is equal in the eyes of the law.

If that is the case, why is it that the poor who pick the pockets of the middle class taxpayers can do so with impunity but the middle class cannot pick the pockets of the rich?

Regards
DL

Yes only taxpayers!