Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[TooTall]

Social Security payments were no different than income taxes, business taxes or any other tax that you don't pretend it a trust fund. Government taxed and immediately spent the money saving not a dime.

So you blame the elderly that were forced to pay into a government insurance program for the incompetence of the government to manage the program they invented.

What does who I "blame" have to do with anything? Did you understand the point I made? There is no money, it's welfare. Who I blame for that makes no difference to that point.

Your point is not made. Collecting on an insurance policy is not welfare, period.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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, ...

LOL, another concrete thinker. I left out a bunch (lots of banana) simply because my post was sarcastic. Add any which pleases you, doing so puts the OP where it belongs, in the shit can.

Once again you are the one who missed the point. You wrote a sarcastic post,again, dripping with liberal bias.

As for your point, it was stupid. We were discussing people who politicians give other people's money to. That has nothing to do with anyone with an interest in what government does

And yet giving no bid work to Cheney's past and future job does not figure into your reasoning?

But why restrict voting only to those who are most needy? That is as partisan as what I'm accused of being, plus being morally corrupt. Say, speaking of being morally corrupt, how about Eric Cantor's move to Wall Street or Jim DeMint going to the Heritage Foundation. Shouldn't they and other lobbyists be denied the right to vote?

But I digress. We live in a Democratic Republic in spite of what the crazy New Right wants us to believe. Having skin in the game is a poll tax; once that is changed by an activist Supreme Court, the desire to suppress voting will change our nation from the Democratic Republic into a Plutocracy. For once we legalize some skin needs to be needed, the amount of skin will grow and grow.

 

[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.

Why should the people who have to pay for this debacle be penalized for it?

Why should the people who ALREADY paid for the insurance be penalized? In the real world, an insurance company would go bankrupt if the were stupid enough to add programs to a policy that would self destruct the original policy. Make SSDI and payment to dependent children survivors separate programs from the original old age program and it would work just fine.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

Should veterans give back any payment made by the federal government for education? Should we warn vets that, taking advantage of the G.I. Bill will compromise their right to vote?

Should we warn retirees that Social Security benefits means a loss of voting rights?

Do you believe that being poor is a character flaw?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why should the people who have to pay for this debacle be penalized for it?

Why should the people who ALREADY paid for the insurance be penalized? In the real world, an insurance company would go bankrupt if the were stupid enough to add programs to a policy that would self destruct the original policy. Make SSDI and payment to dependent children survivors separate programs from the original old age program and it would work just fine.

1. It's not insurance. It's welfare.
2. The only way to avoid "penalizing" the beneficiaries is to penalize other people (the young) who have to pay for the benefits. You failed to explain why they should be penalized.
3. Medicare when bankrupt a long time ago.

 

[TooTall]

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, ...

LOL, another concrete thinker. I left out a bunch (lots of banana) simply because my post was sarcastic. Add any which pleases you, doing so puts the OP where it belongs, in the shit can.

Once again you are the one who missed the point. You wrote a sarcastic post,again, dripping with liberal bias.

As for your point, it was stupid. We were discussing people who politicians give other people's money to. That has nothing to do with anyone with an interest in what government does

And yet giving no bid work to Cheney's past and future job does not figure into your reasoning?

But why restrict voting only to those who are most needy? That is as partisan as what I'm accused of being, plus being morally corrupt. Say, speaking of being morally corrupt, how about Eric Cantor's move to Wall Street or Jim DeMint going to the Heritage Foundation. Shouldn't they and other lobbyists be denied the right to vote?

But I digress. We live in a Democratic Republic in spite of what the crazy New Right wants us to believe. Having skin in the game is a poll tax; once that is changed by an activist Supreme Court, the desire to suppress voting will change our nation from the Democratic Republic into a Plutocracy. For once we legalize some skin needs to be needed, the amount of skin will grow and grow.

No bid work was given to the software company that screwed up the ACA website. It was one of Michelles friends that got that contract. No bid contracts are still being awarded, and with few exception like the one cited, they are awarded to companies that have a proven track record of being able to do the job.

 

[TooTall]

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.

Why should the people who have to pay for this debacle be penalized for it?

Why should the people who ALREADY paid for the insurance be penalized? In the real world, an insurance company would go bankrupt if the were stupid enough to add programs to a policy that would self destruct the original policy. Make SSDI and payment to dependent children survivors separate programs from the original old age program and it would work just fine.

1. It's not insurance. It's welfare.
2. The only way to avoid "penalizing" the beneficiaries is to penalize other people (the young) who have to pay for the benefits. You failed to explain why they should be penalized.
3. Medicare when bankrupt a long time ago.

The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. Where did you see a W?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

Should veterans give back any payment made by the federal government for education? Should we warn vets that, taking advantage of the G.I. Bill will compromise their right to vote?

Should we warn retirees that Social Security benefits means a loss of voting rights?

Do you believe that being poor is a character flaw?

And of course none of those things are welfare. Thanks for playing...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why should the people who have to pay for this debacle be penalized for it?

Why should the people who ALREADY paid for the insurance be penalized? In the real world, an insurance company would go bankrupt if the were stupid enough to add programs to a policy that would self destruct the original policy. Make SSDI and payment to dependent children survivors separate programs from the original old age program and it would work just fine.

1. It's not insurance. It's welfare.
2. The only way to avoid "penalizing" the beneficiaries is to penalize other people (the young) who have to pay for the benefits. You failed to explain why they should be penalized.
3. Medicare when bankrupt a long time ago.

The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. Where did you see a W?

It doesn't matter what the government chooses to call it. The 'A' in ACA stands for "affordable," and we all know that's a lie.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

Should veterans give back any payment made by the federal government for education? Should we warn vets that, taking advantage of the G.I. Bill will compromise their right to vote?

Should we warn retirees that Social Security benefits means a loss of voting rights?

Do you believe that being poor is a character flaw?

And of course none of those things are welfare. Thanks for playing...

What's the difference between Social Security, the G.I. Bill and any other government largess?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Republican's need the poor Red state Republican votes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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, ...

LOL, another concrete thinker. I left out a bunch (lots of banana) simply because my post was sarcastic. Add any which pleases you, doing so puts the OP where it belongs, in the shit can.

Once again you are the one who missed the point. You wrote a sarcastic post,again, dripping with liberal bias.

As for your point, it was stupid. We were discussing people who politicians give other people's money to. That has nothing to do with anyone with an interest in what government does

And yet giving no bid work to Cheney's past and future job does not figure into your reasoning?

But why restrict voting only to those who are most needy? That is as partisan as what I'm accused of being, plus being morally corrupt. Say, speaking of being morally corrupt, how about Eric Cantor's move to Wall Street or Jim DeMint going to the Heritage Foundation. Shouldn't they and other lobbyists be denied the right to vote?

But I digress. We live in a Democratic Republic in spite of what the crazy New Right wants us to believe. Having skin in the game is a poll tax; once that is changed by an activist Supreme Court, the desire to suppress voting will change our nation from the Democratic Republic into a Plutocracy. For once we legalize some skin needs to be needed, the amount of skin will grow and grow.

No bid work was given to the software company that screwed up the ACA website. It was one of Michelles friends that got that contract. No bid contracts are still being awarded, and with few exception like the one cited, they are awarded to companies that have a proven track record of being able to do the job.

Here is what I found out, four bids were submitted. For much more detail on the First Lady and her supposed role in the matter read this comprehensive link:

Michelle Obama and CGI Federal

This link provides sources for you to check and after reading it I believe the original allegation was printed in the Conservative Washington Examiner. My link has substantial detail suggesting the First Lady had no influence in the matter.

Now, comment on my last paragraph.

 

[kaz]

Social Security payments were no different than income taxes, business taxes or any other tax that you don't pretend it a trust fund. Government taxed and immediately spent the money saving not a dime.

So you blame the elderly that were forced to pay into a government insurance program for the incompetence of the government to manage the program they invented.

What does who I "blame" have to do with anything? Did you understand the point I made? There is no money, it's welfare. Who I blame for that makes no difference to that point.

Your point is not made. Collecting on an insurance policy is not welfare, period.

LOL, that the "insurance company" never saved any of the premiums you paid them doesn't phase you at all. Winston Churchill. I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

They spent the money as it came in. Nothing was ever saved. There is no trust fund. They are simply getting checks of other people's money. Which is referred to as "welfare."

 

[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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Republican's need the poor Red state Republican votes.

It seems to me that the rhetoric is what convinces the poor in Red States to vote for Republicans. Most of the poor seem not to understand that Revenue Sharing provides money to their state in excess of what the state pays in taxes; furthermore, the GOP pushes an agenda which appeals to single issue low information voters: Gays, Guns, God and Immigrants.

 

[kaz]

And yet giving no bid work to Cheney's past and future job does not figure into your reasoning?

Strawman. BTW, there is no such thing as a "no-bid" contract. There is a one bid contract. And Haliburton does things that no one else does. Explain how you propose that government handle it when there is one bidder. I'm open to suggestions.

Also, a better example is earmarks. They are clearly welfare, they are a wealth transfer of other people's money to a specific citizen. Anyone getting an earmark should not vote.

But why restrict voting only to those who are most needy?.

Strawman, I said anyone who gets checks from government of other people's money. And I also answered the question. Voting for someone to use force to take other people's money and give it to you is a clear conflict of interest. Suppose we stop doing that and let everyone vote? I'm up for that.

 

[TooTall]

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

Why should the people who have to pay for this debacle be penalized for it?

Why should the people who ALREADY paid for the insurance be penalized? In the real world, an insurance company would go bankrupt if the were stupid enough to add programs to a policy that would self destruct the original policy. Make SSDI and payment to dependent children survivors separate programs from the original old age program and it would work just fine.

1. It's not insurance. It's welfare.
2. The only way to avoid "penalizing" the beneficiaries is to penalize other people (the young) who have to pay for the benefits. You failed to explain why they should be penalized.
3. Medicare when bankrupt a long time ago.

The I in FICA stands for INSURANCE. Where did you see a W?

It doesn't matter what the government chooses to call it. The 'A' in ACA stands for "affordable," and we all know that's a lie.

The US government is over 17 trillion dollars in debt and you are worried about Medicare. The young are paying Medicare and Social Security, just as the elderly did when they were young and they are relying on the full faith and credit of the US government to collect their benefits.

 

[TooTall]

Social Security payments were no different than income taxes, business taxes or any other tax that you don't pretend it a trust fund. Government taxed and immediately spent the money saving not a dime.

So you blame the elderly that were forced to pay into a government insurance program for the incompetence of the government to manage the program they invented.

What does who I "blame" have to do with anything? Did you understand the point I made? There is no money, it's welfare. Who I blame for that makes no difference to that point.

Your point is not made. Collecting on an insurance policy is not welfare, period.

LOL, that the "insurance company" never saved any of the premiums you paid them doesn't phase you at all. Winston Churchill. I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

They spent the money as it came in. Nothing was ever saved. There is no trust fund. They are simply getting checks of other people's money. Which is referred to as "welfare."

Where does Mutual of Omaha get the money to pay the beneficiary when someone dies?

 

[kaz]

Now, comment on my last paragraph.

I answered your question so the ball is in your court.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

Should veterans give back any payment made by the federal government for education? Should we warn vets that, taking advantage of the G.I. Bill will compromise their right to vote?

Should we warn retirees that Social Security benefits means a loss of voting rights?

Do you believe that being poor is a character flaw?

And of course none of those things are welfare. Thanks for playing...

What's the difference between Social Security, the G.I. Bill and any other government largess?

You actually worked for those. Unlike welfare.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Wanting things isn't the issue. Getting paid by the government is the issue. corporations don't allow their buyers to take money from vendors for a reason. It's the same reason anyone sucking on the government tit shouldn't be allowed to decide how much milk the tit gives.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Republican's need the poor Red state Republican votes.

Like blacks and mexicans?