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

[Brain357]

How about just millionaires? Haha. What a stupid concept.

why is it you bumpkins only think rich people own property?

Because that's what would happen. Costs would skyrocket and look at that only the rich can vote. Maybe more votes the more you own? Sorry, it is an amazingly stupid concept.

I clearly stated i dont want to change it. My argument was NEVER changing it in the first place.
Your entire argument is based off shit i didnt even say lol..

I am telling you why it is a horrible concept. I did not say you want to change to it. You said that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Interesting question. But that would still cut out the vast majority of "homeowners".

About 65% of "Homeowners" don't own their home. The mortgage company actually holds title to the home and the land until the mortgage is complete. (U.S. Mortgage Market Statistics: 2017 - MagnifyMoney)


*************

Secondly, can I buy a 1 acre plot of land in the country and sub-divide it into 1 inch plots that I can sell so people become landowners? :mrgreen:



>>>>

Im not for sure of amount(it also varied) but there was a certain requirement for that to work. Pretty sure 1" plots wouldnt cut it lol.
And IDK why having a mortgage wouldnt cut it.

And IDK why having a mortgage wouldnt cut it.

Stop paying and see how quickly you're not a land owner.

How is paying a mortgage any more responsible than paying rent?

Now the leftists are against home ownership

That's not what I said, dope.
Answer the question.

 

[regent]

When America was still in the process of becoming America, it had welfare for the poor.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm not on a high horse. You are.
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?

I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.

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.

indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

 

[Brain357]

Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?

I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.

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.

indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

You are either very poor or frugal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?

I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.

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.

indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

Yeah, that $5 A day is far too much.

 

[TNHarley]

How about just millionaires? Haha. What a stupid concept.

why is it you bumpkins only think rich people own property?

Because that's what would happen. Costs would skyrocket and look at that only the rich can vote. Maybe more votes the more you own? Sorry, it is an amazingly stupid concept.

I clearly stated i dont want to change it. My argument was NEVER changing it in the first place.
Your entire argument is based off shit i didnt even say lol..

I am telling you why it is a horrible concept. I did not say you want to change to it. You said that.

You are basing it off if we changed it. Start a different thread.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.

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.

indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

Yeah, that $5 A day is far too much.

They spend more than that a day on food.

I go to the Wally World, I'm in line behind a black dude, $260 worth of stuff, pays with EBT. Next aisle over, young illegal Mexican couple, $360, pays with EBT. I got a ham, some beans and necessities, pay $106 with cash.

This is reality in America today.

The woman behind me even said something. I didn't feel it would be appropriate for me to, but she was right.

 

[g5000]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Back in the days when some states required land ownership to vote, everyone owned land. Even the poorest people owned land. Because it was freely available.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

Yeah, that $5 A day is far too much.

They spend more than that a day on food.

I go to the Wally World, I'm in line behind a black dude, $260 worth of stuff, pays with EBT. Next aisle over, young illegal Mexican couple, $360, pays with EBT. I got a ham, some beans and necessities, pay $106 with cash.

This is reality in America today.

The woman behind me even said something. I didn't feel it would be appropriate for me to, but she was right.

$5 day per dependant.
Try to feed yourself with only $35 aweek.

 

[Marion Morrison]

As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.
So

Sounds like today.
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.

Surely you jest. Clinton tried to fix welfare somewhat. It's ramped up a lot since then.

People on welfare eat higher on the hog than I do.

Yeah, that $5 A day is far too much.

They spend more than that a day on food.

I go to the Wally World, I'm in line behind a black dude, $260 worth of stuff, pays with EBT. Next aisle over, young illegal Mexican couple, $360, pays with EBT. I got a ham, some beans and necessities, pay $106 with cash.

This is reality in America today.

The woman behind me even said something. I didn't feel it would be appropriate for me to, but she was right.

$5 day per dependant.
Try to feed yourself with only $35 aweek.

I can, and nutritionally too. They're spending way more than that. I call bullshit!

 

[Slyhunter]

You know................there is a part of the population that would not be allowed to vote if only people who owned land voted.

That portion of the population would be 90 percent of the active duty military.

Why? Because most people in the military know that they are going to be stationed at their command for only 3 to 4 years, and many of them opt to rent instead of buy, because they don't know where their next duty station is.

Yeah, there are those who do buy houses, but most of those are in the upper ranks and are already planning for retirement.

Why would you deny someone fighting for this country the right to vote, yet would give it to someone like Trump who holds lots of real estate?

Is someone like Trump more "worthy" or "smarter" than someone who is serving this country in the military?

Citizenship should only go to land owners and those who serve in the military or who have served at least 6 years in the Military.

 

[Flash]

It was good back in the days of our Founding fathers where only people that paid taxes could vote.

Democracy sucks when 51% of the people find out they can use the filthy government to steal from the 49%.

 

[SeaGal]

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.

 

[whitehall]

Simplistic alternatives to the U.S. Constitution offered by the simple minded. Ho hum.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Back in the days when some states required land ownership to vote, everyone owned land. Even the poorest people owned land. Because it was freely available.

It also had to be settled

 

[TNHarley]

Simplistic alternatives to the U.S. Constitution offered by the simple minded. Ho hum.

What are you referring to

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers spend so much time trying to concoct an undemocratic system of government that will serve THEM.

It's very funny.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Back in the days when some states required land ownership to vote, everyone owned land. Even the poorest people owned land. Because it was freely available.

It also had to be settled

Settlement isn't always required to own land. If you stake a claim for gold in some places in Montana, and put improvements on the land (not necessarily a house), after 7 years, it's yours. My foster father was a geologist.

 

[TNHarley]

Rightwingers spend so much time trying to concoct an undemocratic system of government that will serve THEM.

It's very funny.

I'm not concocting anything. It's history.
None of you bedwetters can read. I swear