Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
100 acres were yours if you cleared 10 acres and lived on it for five years. Might have been a 5 pound paperwork fee to clear the title, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even pay that. Officially they were termed "squatters" but I know folks still living on land gotten that way.
Why is it so much better for the state we live in to have the power of the purse than the US government? The feds give a bunch of cash to each state to distribute as it sees fit. What is so much worse about that than sending it to our state capital?
Article 1 section 8 provisions for the general welfare of the united states. But more recently its been shown where the welfare is really going.Why is it so much better for the state we live in to have the power of the purse than the US government? The feds give a bunch of cash to each state to distribute as it sees fit. What is so much worse about that than sending it to our state capital?
Uh ... Because the Constitution doesn't actually grant the federal government the power to tax citizens in order to just turn around and give the revenues to another citizen.
.
Article 1 section 8 provisions for the general welfare of the united states. But more recently its been shown where the welfare is really going.
As i understand yours. However, what i am saying is, if only land owners voted the govt wouldnt be so big and we wouldnt need those people. They would be working for the private sector. Also, they still earn their money. It isnt a handout. Thats a big difference.Well you make a few good points, but it it had stayed the same and only land owners voting, we also probably wouldnt have the bloated govt we do. There wouldnt be millions upon millions of public sector employees..Alright, let me write it this way and the Federal, State and Local governments are the largest employer's and buyers in this country that run on our tax dollar, so should Federal, State, and Local government employees be allow to vote seeing it benefit them to keep the large wasteful government they work for?
Also should employees working for Home Health agencies be allow to vote seeing the company they are working for get their money through the Federal Government that come from the taxpayer?
Many of those workers are landowners and yet live off the taxpayer dime like yours, so should their vote be denied?
How about mechanics that fix government cars or the automobile maker and their workers that benefit from government taxpayer money?
Let me ask you one question and do you own your business or do you work for someone?
For the others, even if they get paid with tax money, they still earn it. It isnt given to them.. Huge difference bro.
I work for someone.
I understand your point but how it was then versus reality today tell me landowner only voter only will not make things like they were because many work for the government directly or indirectly.
Also if I had a min six million I would not own land, so I would be deny my right to vote.
I would rent only and let others worry about the headaches, so with what you want I would be deny like the welfare queen...
If you had that much money, you would be smart enough to know owning is cheaper than renting
Renting also isn't hassle-free.
Nothing is hassle-free.
As i understand yours. However, what i am saying is, if only land owners voted the govt wouldnt be so big and we wouldnt need those people. They would be working for the private sector. Also, they still earn their money. It isnt a handout. Thats a big difference.Well you make a few good points, but it it had stayed the same and only land owners voting, we also probably wouldnt have the bloated govt we do. There wouldnt be millions upon millions of public sector employees..The duopoly problem is an effect of the "appalling common voter"
Alright, let me write it this way and the Federal, State and Local governments are the largest employer's and buyers in this country that run on our tax dollar, so should Federal, State, and Local government employees be allow to vote seeing it benefit them to keep the large wasteful government they work for?
Also should employees working for Home Health agencies be allow to vote seeing the company they are working for get their money through the Federal Government that come from the taxpayer?
Many of those workers are landowners and yet live off the taxpayer dime like yours, so should their vote be denied?
How about mechanics that fix government cars or the automobile maker and their workers that benefit from government taxpayer money?
Let me ask you one question and do you own your business or do you work for someone?
For the others, even if they get paid with tax money, they still earn it. It isnt given to them.. Huge difference bro.
I work for someone.
I understand your point but how it was then versus reality today tell me landowner only voter only will not make things like they were because many work for the government directly or indirectly.
Also if I had a min six million I would not own land, so I would be deny my right to vote.
I would rent only and let others worry about the headaches, so with what you want I would be deny like the welfare queen...
If you had that much money, you would be smart enough to know owning is cheaper than renting
Also when you write landowner do you mean the landowner that own their land or do you mean those that own their land and those still paying the lender?
You do not own the land if you are paying the lender, so should those people be allow to vote or should they be denied until they pay off their loan?
I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.I'm not on a high horse. You are.Good lord. What the hell is wrong with you? Thats, what, the third strawman you have concocted in this thread?You're far too young to be talking like this.That was a problem then too. Newly arrived citizens couldnt afford land, for the most part. So they WORKED for it.
People are still WORKING for it, ya jamoke. Not all can achieve it. So they don't deserve the same rights you have because you're RICHER than them?
Ewwww.....that smells really bad, Harley.
Get off your high horse. It makes you look dumb.
That poor man with a shack and a half acre of land has more right to vote for our interests than a trailer trash welfare queen that contributes NOTHING to society except babies.
It doesnt have anything to do with being rich.
I bought my first chunk of property at twenty years old. I spent 22K on it. Saved for like 6 months to afford the down payment.
I made like 20something thousand a year at that time. Yes, i was soooooooooooooooooo rich. My two part time jobs was da shiznit!
You are SOOOO much better than that trailer trash welfare queen you've concocted in your head. Talk about strawmen.
Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?
Having done a deep dive into local records doing genealogy, I discovered that lots of the little towns in frontier Maine before the Revolution were chipping in to pay room and board for an orphan or someone who was otherwise called "indigent," including doctor bills. If it was a town member, they weren't going to let them starve or freeze.
We were doing that as a society BEFORE your frickin Constitution, TNHarley . It is because we are civilized. I know our welfare system needs reform, but what we've created is going to take a lot more than kicking them out the door and telling them to get a job. That's stupid talk, right there.
That is the discretionary budget, isn't it? Look at the actual expenditures, including the "baked in" payments, not just the money the senate has to play with each year.Just a few comments.
Anyone can declare that you believe defense spending is too high, but you don't get to declare that half of federal spending goes to the military - because it's not true.
Defense spending is 16% of the Federal budget (proposed)- and that also covers salaries and health care for uniformed personnel (and some civilian).
To those who claim we all pay taxes. Yes, we do...but not all taxes are created equal. A significant percentage of the populace receive more in government transfers than they pay into federal income tax...the primary source of funding for running the federal government. All who work pay payroll tax, tho' employers pay half, which covers Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Two of which nearly everyone will get a return on if they live long enough. It is true that a large number of federal income tax payers receive more back each April 15th than they paid in federal income tax.
To the OP - we're not going back but we do need to make adjustments or soon Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt will eat up most of the budget...and for sure welfare funding will be drastically reduced.
NO, idiot. As i have said 500 times, I wish it never changed. All of your hypotheticals might not even exist. I CLEARLY stated I dont want to change it back.This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?You'd have to either not tax people who didn't own property, or abandon the principle of taxation without representation.
Why would that matter? You're talking about doing it NOW.
Here OldLadyThe Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.
At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.
Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.
The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]
That's a childs book meant to teach a lesson to children. It's not a blueprint for civilization.
Of course, in your communist utopia mindset, civilization means that you have rights to other people labor.
Of course, you have attribute a position I did not take to me as you have nothing to contribute. Funny that you make such a statement in defense of the idea that Americans should have no say in their destiny.
Im not. I dont understand why you people THINK we would be ruled by the elites..Did you have some sort of nasty interaction with a woman at Walmart yesterday? What gives? Anyone who worked hard for what they have shouldn't be pushing for an elitist world.Just because we contribute to society, and its betterment, doesnt mean we are better than the irresponsible trailer trash whore that makes a living off having kids and then not paying attention to them. Asshole.I'm not on a high horse. You are.Good lord. What the hell is wrong with you? Thats, what, the third strawman you have concocted in this thread?You're far too young to be talking like this.
People are still WORKING for it, ya jamoke. Not all can achieve it. So they don't deserve the same rights you have because you're RICHER than them?
Ewwww.....that smells really bad, Harley.
Get off your high horse. It makes you look dumb.
That poor man with a shack and a half acre of land has more right to vote for our interests than a trailer trash welfare queen that contributes NOTHING to society except babies.
It doesnt have anything to do with being rich.
I bought my first chunk of property at twenty years old. I spent 22K on it. Saved for like 6 months to afford the down payment.
I made like 20something thousand a year at that time. Yes, i was soooooooooooooooooo rich. My two part time jobs was da shiznit!
You are SOOOO much better than that trailer trash welfare queen you've concocted in your head. Talk about strawmen.
Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?
Article 1 section 8 provisions for the general welfare of the united states. But more recently its been shown where the welfare is really going.Why is it so much better for the state we live in to have the power of the purse than the US government? The feds give a bunch of cash to each state to distribute as it sees fit. What is so much worse about that than sending it to our state capital?
Uh ... Because the Constitution doesn't actually grant the federal government the power to tax citizens in order to just turn around and give the revenues to another citizen.
.
That is the discretionary budget, isn't it? Look at the actual expenditures, including the "baked in" payments, not just the money the senate has to play with each year.
Please, dont rape the meaning of "general welfare"Article 1 section 8 provisions for the general welfare of the united states. But more recently its been shown where the welfare is really going.Why is it so much better for the state we live in to have the power of the purse than the US government? The feds give a bunch of cash to each state to distribute as it sees fit. What is so much worse about that than sending it to our state capital?
Uh ... Because the Constitution doesn't actually grant the federal government the power to tax citizens in order to just turn around and give the revenues to another citizen.
.
That's a meaningless distinction.We have a republican form of government.yep, liberty, not democracy. The two are not synonymous.Move to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is the concept that this Nation was founded on.Complying with the dictates of the herd is not freedom.You really don't understand the concept of liberty. I'm not surprised.We were freer under the monarchy than we are now, and we didn't have the right to vote then.
It's not meaningless. Republicanism was chosen over pure democracy for the express purpose of protecting your liberty. Checks and balances.That's a meaningless distinction.We have a republican form of government.yep, liberty, not democracy. The two are not synonymous.Move to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is the concept that this Nation was founded on.Complying with the dictates of the herd is not freedom.You really don't understand the concept of liberty. I'm not surprised.
NO, idiot. As i have said 500 times, I wish it never changed. All of your hypotheticals might not even exist. I CLEARLY stated I dont want to change it back.This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?You'd have to either not tax people who didn't own property, or abandon the principle of taxation without representation.
Why would that matter? You're talking about doing it NOW.
Im not. I dont understand why you people THINK we would be ruled by the elites..Did you have some sort of nasty interaction with a woman at Walmart yesterday? What gives? Anyone who worked hard for what they have shouldn't be pushing for an elitist world.
Not to mention, WE ALREADY ARE
Well, you've got a plan, I'll give you that. Better than living via the Little Red Hen, I think.That is the discretionary budget, isn't it? Look at the actual expenditures, including the "baked in" payments, not just the money the senate has to play with each year.
The Senate shouldn't be "playing" with money at all (it ain't play money) ... The fact is they spend more than they get every time they budget.
I wouldn't mind if we added a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
I wouldn't mind if we did that in conjunction with the elimination of the automatic payroll deduction.
If the Senate had to produce a balanced budget ... Then spending would be accounted for.
If people had to write one check a year to the federal government ... It would certainly help them better understand their true feelings about what they are paying.
When the people get sick and tired of being taxed ... And the government says we have to cut the military, infrastructure or welfare ...
Then we can really let the voters make a choice as to what they want ...
.
