If only landowners voted, would we have a welfare state?

[bripat9643]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

 

[TNHarley]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Probably more than that. We will never find out exactly how many Sherman slaughtered.

 

[IM2]

We don't have a welfare state now. Unless it's the corporate welfare state.

 

[IM2]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

 

[bripat9643]

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the OP seriously, let me ask him,

how much property need one own to qualify as a property owner?

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln put down the insurrection as was his rightful duty and THEN the Constitution was amended to end slavery.

Your endorsement of the institution of slavery is noted.

 

[BlackSand]

That's not my quote.

Thanks for the heads up ... I fixed it.
I was going to say something to you ... But decided I would have a possibly more productive conversation with Old Lady ... My bad ...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

 

[BlackSand]

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

I am positive they volunteered for that ... It isn't like we started throwing the lead ...

.

 

[bripat9643]

I cant remember what it was back then, so i have no idea what it would be in todays monies. I want to say around 40 euro back then. Also, it didnt have to be land, it could be possessions, like mules or something.

Would owning slaves count?

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln put down the insurrection as was his rightful duty and THEN the Constitution was amended to end slavery.

Your endorsement of the institution of slavery is noted.

Secession isn't an insurrection, and Lincoln made war on sovereign states of the Union, which the Constitution clearly does not allow. Since the Southern governments put in place by the union lackeys were not legal according to the Constitution, the 13th and 14th Amendments are not legitimate.

 

[BulletProof]

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Maybe you could sue your school for failing to educate you?

 

[bripat9643]

Back then I bet it would. But im not sure.

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

 

[bripat9643]

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Maybe you could sue your school for failing to educate you?

I know it isn't but I didn't want to drag further complications into the discussion.

 

[BULLDOG]

The 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]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

 

[Lewdog]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

Life is just as complex as someone wants to make it.
Expanding responsibilities beyond simplicity is what makes it complex ... That is the cause as much as an argument for addressing the problem you created.

Moral of the Story:
If you set your pants on fire ... Don't bitch about it being hot.

.

 

[bripat9643]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

 

[SeaGal]

.

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.

That is the total budget, (proposed). As you can see mandatory takes the biggest chunk.

Discretionary is split between defense, which includes salaries and healthcare among other things, and departments of state, justice, etc. Discretionary funding also includes an emergency fund for disaster relief, etc. It would be accurate to say that defense spending takes up nearly half of discretionary - but it wouldn't be an accurate portrayal of federal spending because mandatory is double that of discretionary...and defense has been hovering in the mid teens overall, and <4% of GDP currently.

 

[bripat9643]

The 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]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

And you think Obamacare or single payer aren't bumper sticker solutions?

 

[bendog]

The 1890s were America's high point.

Before the elites shackled the nation with compulsory public education. Before then, if you didn't send your kid to school, you didn't get into trouble, it was only offered, it was a choice. Now, it is the law.

One hundred years later, they are now doing the same thing to health care.

Eventually, they will do the same thing to your housing, and to your employment.

Get a clue

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED119389.pdf