Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[rightwinger]

Did you attend public schools? Did you pay for every road or bridge that you use or just benefit from those roads and bridges that others had paid for. You don't benefit from having police in your community? Who checks the safety of the food and drugs you use or the air you breathe?

Yep and I'm paying for my public school education myself since I have no children.
And yes I paid for part of those bridges,and the police who patrol my neighborhood,and all those other gov services.
People on welfare pay for none of it.

You still receive a benefit in excess of what you paid. Public schools cost much more than the taxes you paid into them. Public infrastructure, safety and security also cost much more than you are paying in.

Sorry my parents paid once already,now I'm paying.
Those on welfare who benefit from my taxes PAY NOTHING for the services you mentioned.
And you'd have to be a dumbass to think any one person pays for a bridge,road or a fighter jet. We're all in this together ...well some of us anyway.

You claim you receive nothing for the taxes you pay

Do you own a home?

Yeah..paid cash for it. And I pay property taxes on it.
The point you're trying to make is an utter failure.

You get a tax deduction for owning a home? Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize your home ownership?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yep and I'm paying for my public school education myself since I have no children.
And yes I paid for part of those bridges,and the police who patrol my neighborhood,and all those other gov services.
People on welfare pay for none of it.

You still receive a benefit in excess of what you paid. Public schools cost much more than the taxes you paid into them. Public infrastructure, safety and security also cost much more than you are paying in.

Sorry my parents paid once already,now I'm paying.
Those on welfare who benefit from my taxes PAY NOTHING for the services you mentioned.
And you'd have to be a dumbass to think any one person pays for a bridge,road or a fighter jet. We're all in this together ...well some of us anyway.

You claim you receive nothing for the taxes you pay

Do you own a home?

Yeah..paid cash for it. And I pay property taxes on it.
The point you're trying to make is an utter failure.

You get a tax deduction for owning a home? Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize your home ownership?

Holy crap you're an idiot!!!
I still take a loss every year no matter what tax deductions I may take.
Like I said ....your point is an utter failure.

 

[Eric Cartman]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Who should be allowed to vote, IMO, only those with an IQ above 110.

Does that mean your IQ is 111? Why have any arbitrary limits on voting beyond age? Disinterested citizens tend not to vote anyway, it takes care of itself.

Arbitrary is right. Restricting voting based on arbitrary qualifiers such as IQ is pointless and cruel. My argument is not the least bit arbitrary because it's based on people's investment in the country. Those who subsist off the labors of others should not have the power to vote to sustain and increase what they can plunder from their neighbors. It's a very simple concept.

So if politicians change welfare policy to include your income level and they send you a check then you lose your vote... that doesn't make sense. If I get laid off from my job because a politician changed policy to make it easier to ship my job overseas then I should have recourse against the politician in the form of a vote. Everyone is effected by government so we should have a say in it (no matter how small).

That being said, I really would like you to talk to your Republican leaders about making this part of their platform.... it is a lot more straight forward and honest than the way they are trying to disenfranchise voters now, plus it will ensure that they lose.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Who should be allowed to vote, IMO, only those with an IQ above 110.

Does that mean your IQ is 111? Why have any arbitrary limits on voting beyond age? Disinterested citizens tend not to vote anyway, it takes care of itself.

Arbitrary is right. Restricting voting based on arbitrary qualifiers such as IQ is pointless and cruel. My argument is not the least bit arbitrary because it's based on people's investment in the country. Those who subsist off the labors of others should not have the power to vote to sustain and increase what they can plunder from their neighbors. It's a very simple concept.

So if politicians change welfare policy to include your income level and they send you a check then you lose your vote... that doesn't make sense. If I get laid off from my job because a politician changed policy to make it easier to ship my job overseas then I should have recourse against the politician in the form of a vote. Everyone is effected by government so we should have a say in it (no matter how small).

That being said, I really would like you to talk to your Republican leaders about making this part of their platform.... it is a lot more straight forward and honest than the way they are trying to disenfranchise voters now, plus it will ensure that they lose.

The problem is not with the temporary use of government assistance,it's with people who make it a way of life and have no intention of getting a job.
The problem could be easily solved by requiring some form of community service after a certain amount of time on the dole.

 

[Eric Cartman]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Who should be allowed to vote, IMO, only those with an IQ above 110.

Does that mean your IQ is 111? Why have any arbitrary limits on voting beyond age? Disinterested citizens tend not to vote anyway, it takes care of itself.

Arbitrary is right. Restricting voting based on arbitrary qualifiers such as IQ is pointless and cruel. My argument is not the least bit arbitrary because it's based on people's investment in the country. Those who subsist off the labors of others should not have the power to vote to sustain and increase what they can plunder from their neighbors. It's a very simple concept.

So if politicians change welfare policy to include your income level and they send you a check then you lose your vote... that doesn't make sense. If I get laid off from my job because a politician changed policy to make it easier to ship my job overseas then I should have recourse against the politician in the form of a vote. Everyone is effected by government so we should have a say in it (no matter how small).

That being said, I really would like you to talk to your Republican leaders about making this part of their platform.... it is a lot more straight forward and honest than the way they are trying to disenfranchise voters now, plus it will ensure that they lose.

The problem is not with the temporary use of government assistance,it's with people who make it a way of life and have no intention of getting a job.
The problem could be easily solved by requiring some form of community service after a certain amount of time on the dole.

I am totally for a worker program in the welfare system. It could start small and expand if it were successful. Have people filling potholes,helping upgrade bridges, they could do data entry for the VA and catch up on back logs, work in daycares, etc... all the while learning job skills . Pay them a small amount so they would be incentivised to take a private sector job using their new skills.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Who should be allowed to vote, IMO, only those with an IQ above 110.

Does that mean your IQ is 111? Why have any arbitrary limits on voting beyond age? Disinterested citizens tend not to vote anyway, it takes care of itself.

Arbitrary is right. Restricting voting based on arbitrary qualifiers such as IQ is pointless and cruel. My argument is not the least bit arbitrary because it's based on people's investment in the country. Those who subsist off the labors of others should not have the power to vote to sustain and increase what they can plunder from their neighbors. It's a very simple concept.

So if politicians change welfare policy to include your income level and they send you a check then you lose your vote... that doesn't make sense. If I get laid off from my job because a politician changed policy to make it easier to ship my job overseas then I should have recourse against the politician in the form of a vote. Everyone is effected by government so we should have a say in it (no matter how small).

That being said, I really would like you to talk to your Republican leaders about making this part of their platform.... it is a lot more straight forward and honest than the way they are trying to disenfranchise voters now, plus it will ensure that they lose.

The problem is not with the temporary use of government assistance,it's with people who make it a way of life and have no intention of getting a job.
The problem could be easily solved by requiring some form of community service after a certain amount of time on the dole.

I am totally for a worker program in the welfare system. It could start small and expand if it were successful. Have people filling potholes,helping upgrade bridges, they could do data entry for the VA and catch up on back logs, work in daycares, etc... all the while learning job skills . Pay them a small amount so they would be incentivised to take a private sector job using their new skills.

I dont have a problem with a plan like that. Just make sure they are paid less than the private sector so they are encouraged to get off welfare.
This whole sitting on your ass collecting a check and selling drugs for a living needs to end.

 

[TooTall]

Cool! Another USMB nutter has outlined the primary USMB nutter motivation. Fear that some lesser being is going to take their shit.

Lesser beings are taking my shit, and if you have job, they are taking your shit as well and you are too dumb to know it.

 

[TooTall]

Then you'll want a drug test for voters, just to waist money and then complain about expanded govt and right to privacy issues..

A lot of companies have mandatory drug testing programs for their employees. Are you concerned about their right to privacy?

 

[TooTall]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

So American troops don't get to vote?

Do you know what earned benefits are and can you distinguish them from welfare?

I quote you:
It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase

American troops are entirely dependent upon government payments.

American troops perform a service for their pay. One of those services is protecting your right to be an asshole.

 

[TooTall]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Time for this rightwing lunacy to make another of its regular appearances.

How do you propose to calculate whether a rich guy is a giver or a taker? He might pay taxes of a certain amount, but he might be getting a net higher benefit from all the government funded goods and services he's using,

in a business, for example.

It's not whether you benefit from government goods and services, like roads and police protection, it's wether you get payments from the government.

We can always count on a lib to misstate the argument because they can't win otherwise.

Goods and services are payments moron.

btw, this looney idea takes the right to vote away from everyone on Medicare, because Medicare is only 60% covered by the payroll taxes those people paid. The rest comes out of the general fund.

So good luck convincing your parents or grandparents they don't deserve to vote.

You can't blame the person that paid the required premiums for Medicare just because the government wrote such a piss poor insurance policy.

 

[TooTall]

The far right droids like Kosh should not vote until they have their lobotomies reversed.

Kosh, most illegals here would be better at citizenship then you.

Anchor babies are brighter than you.

Corporations should not be able to vote because they are business welfare dependent on government.

I was really pissed when a corporation was voting right next to me. Good catch.

 

[TooTall]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

May I suggest MIT Professor Johnathon Gruber? He thinks everyone else is stupid and could tax the country back to prosperity.

 

[kaz]

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

I don't get the "zero taxes" but I agree anyone getting a check by government of other people's money should not vote, it's a blatant conflict of interest. You didn't mention the biggest welfare program, social security.

 

[kaz]

Corporations should not be able to vote because they are business welfare dependent on government.

Businesses generate all wealth in this country and provide all jobs (government takes that which business produced), and we are the welfare dependent ones? You're a retard, Jake.

Oh, and tell me how you're a Republican again, Comrade.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who in their right mind can disagree with this?
If you have no skin in the game you wont do whats right for the country,only that which will further enrich you at the cost of the tax payer.
It's a no brainer really.

Those who have "skin in the game" and donate to any political action committee, any candidate, or any effort in any state to put forth any Initiative to amend a state constitution, any one who signs a petition for such an amendment and all Gay people, all people who attend church, are members of the NRA, AMA, Federalist Society, hold stock in a Military Industrial Complex Company, smoke MJ or tobacco, drink alcohol and belong to a political party, labor union, should be excluded, for each of them wants something.

That's a no brainer.

 

[kaz]

Who in their right mind can disagree with this?
If you have no skin in the game you wont do whats right for the country,only that which will further enrich you at the cost of the tax payer.
It's a no brainer really.

Those who have "skin in the game" and donate to any political action committee, any candidate, or any effort in any state to put forth any Initiative to amend a state constitution, any one who signs a petition for such an amendment and all Gay people, all people who attend church, are members of the NRA, AMA, Federalist Society, hold stock in a Military Industrial Complex Company, smoke MJ or tobacco, drink alcohol and belong to a political party should be excluded, for each of them wants something.

That's a no brainer.

LOL, but not Unions or other liberal special interests, what a tool.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who in their right mind can disagree with this?
If you have no skin in the game you wont do whats right for the country,only that which will further enrich you at the cost of the tax payer.
It's a no brainer really.

Those who have "skin in the game" and donate to any political action committee, any candidate, or any effort in any state to put forth any Initiative to amend a state constitution, any one who signs a petition for such an amendment and all Gay people, all people who attend church, are members of the NRA, AMA, Federalist Society, hold stock in a Military Industrial Complex Company, smoke MJ or tobacco, drink alcohol and belong to a political party should be excluded, for each of them wants something.

That's a no brainer.

LOL, but not Unions or other liberal special interests, what a tool.

Mea Culpa, edited and included labor union.

Of course you missed the point, no surprise there.

 

[candycorn]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

So American troops don't get to vote?

Do you know what earned benefits are and can you distinguish them from welfare?

I quote you:
It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase

American troops are entirely dependent upon government payments.

American troops perform a service for their pay. One of those services is protecting your right to be an asshole.

Apparently some supposedly "rich" person here doesn't think they provide a service for him/her since he swears he gets "nothing" from the government.

 

[kaz]

Who in their right mind can disagree with this?
If you have no skin in the game you wont do whats right for the country,only that which will further enrich you at the cost of the tax payer.
It's a no brainer really.

Those who have "skin in the game" and donate to any political action committee, any candidate, or any effort in any state to put forth any Initiative to amend a state constitution, any one who signs a petition for such an amendment and all Gay people, all people who attend church, are members of the NRA, AMA, Federalist Society, hold stock in a Military Industrial Complex Company, smoke MJ or tobacco, drink alcohol and belong to a political party should be excluded, for each of them wants something.

That's a no brainer.

LOL, but not Unions or other liberal special interests, what a tool.

Mea Culpa, edited and included labor union.

Of course you missed the point, no surprise there.

But not other liberal special interests, just the one? What about NOLW, the ACLLU, the NAALCP, the NEA, the NEA, so called environmental groups, ...

 

[TooTall]

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

I don't get the "zero taxes" but I agree anyone getting a check by government of other people's money should not vote, it's a blatant conflict of interest. You didn't mention the biggest welfare program, social security.

I always thought that the "I" in FICA stood for Insurance and you are telling me that those that paid the insurance premium and are now collecting it are on welfare?