Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since we are playing the over the top ridiculous game...
Just donate everything that means anything to you, to charity.
I guess voting means more to me than just how it affects my wallet. Yeah, that's a big thing...but I want to live in a truly AMERICAN (in spirit) country where every citizen has a voice and some dignity.
There is unfairness on BOTH the "welfare mom" side and the "corporate greed" side. Both sides have people that take advantage. But I think MOST people work hard and try to do the best they can. They deserve a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Remember?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,774,755 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895
The trainwreck that is the Obama admiinistration has shown we need to reform voting standards NOW. Suggestions:
1) Only those paying income tax may vote.
2) Raise the minimum voting age to 25.
The framers were onto something when they said only landowners could vote. They founders knew voting was a privilege and only active contributors to the system should have a say.
We should revert to that mentality today. Only those who show gross income on their tax returns should be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve the privilege. We use the gross figure so as not to penalize people who play the game but have earned tax credits or other deductions which help the economy (such as charitable contributions and depreciation for rental property).
If you're a welfare momma, you stay home on election day. This isn't a punishment; it's the absence of a privilege. Only those who support the system should get a say in how money is spent. If you only sponge off society, why should you get to vote yourself more benefits?
This would go along way in slowing the cycle of inter-generational dependency the Democrats have created. It would also curtail their practice of getting elected by buying votes as Obama has done. And above all, it will reverse the ever-looming point-of-no-return threshold where more than half the population pays no taxes. (See the Roman Empire).
As for a minimum voting age, I think it's important to have first-hand historical perspective. 1992 seems like yesterday to me. For those who recall, we had a similar situation as we have today. We had an unqualified candidate in Bill Clinton with a thin resume and questionable character getting a total pass. We saw the results; an ineffective incompetent morally bankrupt president whose big legacy was getting impeached. We paid for his inaction against terrorism with 9-11. You could argue Clinton's incompetence and inattention to the job (he spent all of 1998 working on his impeachment defense) caused 9-11 and thus the Iraq War. Economically, Clinton's actions with the CRA were the foundation of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent severe recession we are in. Yes, we are still paying and paying dearly because the media failed to scrutinize Bill Clinton.
The problem is, many young voters don't remember any of this. An 18-year-old is too young to have witnessed the backstory, and to have seen the disaster from a media that does not vet liberal candidates.
The result? History has repeated itself. We again elected a completely unvetted unqualified incompetent dishonest candidate in Obama who, only a month in, is wreaking disaster on this country and this economy. And as with Bill Clinton, America will be paying a dear price for decades to come for not heeding history.
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown, or a 20-year-old unmarried high school dropout on welfare with three kids should have an equal say in choosing our leadership as the guy working 70 hours a week, employing five workers, and raising a decent family?
There's no way the OP is both serious and sane at the same time. This thread can only have been started with the intent to have people arguing. But no argument is actually necessary. If anyone feels that this country has gone so far down the toilet, they are free to leave. Nobody will detain them against their will at the border.
The idea that someone's voting rights should be restricted because they didn't vote the way someone else thought they should have doesn't even merit the time it takes to read the proposal.
If Obama is a trainwreck, then what in the hell was Bush and his band of dimwits? I find that those who are critical of Obama this early in his presidency are:
1) Reeling from sour grapes overload.
2) Have the poorest political instincts in history.
3) Voted for the re-election of Bush, which eliminates them from relevance.
4) Couldn't recognize a good administration if it bit them on the butt.
5) Never wanted him to succeed and pray every day that he fails.
5) Are wrong.
As a result, the only voting changes that this country desperately needs is to eliminate the red state vote. This segment has weighed this country down far too long.
The trainwreck that is the Obama admiinistration has shown we need to reform voting standards NOW. Suggestions:
1) Only those paying income tax may vote.
2) Raise the minimum voting age to 25.
The framers were onto something when they said only landowners could vote. They founders knew voting was a privilege and only active contributors to the system should have a say.
We should revert to that mentality today. Only those who show gross income on their tax returns should be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve the privilege. We use the gross figure so as not to penalize people who play the game but have earned tax credits or other deductions which help the economy (such as charitable contributions and depreciation for rental property).
If you're a welfare momma, you stay home on election day. This isn't a punishment; it's the absence of a privilege. Only those who support the system should get a say in how money is spent. If you only sponge off society, why should you get to vote yourself more benefits?
This would go along way in slowing the cycle of inter-generational dependency the Democrats have created. It would also curtail their practice of getting elected by buying votes as Obama has done. And above all, it will reverse the ever-looming point-of-no-return threshold where more than half the population pays no taxes. (See the Roman Empire).
As for a minimum voting age, I think it's important to have first-hand historical perspective. 1992 seems like yesterday to me. For those who recall, we had a similar situation as we have today. We had an unqualified candidate in Bill Clinton with a thin resume and questionable character getting a total pass. We saw the results; an ineffective incompetent morally bankrupt president whose big legacy was getting impeached. We paid for his inaction against terrorism with 9-11. You could argue Clinton's incompetence and inattention to the job (he spent all of 1998 working on his impeachment defense) caused 9-11 and thus the Iraq War. Economically, Clinton's actions with the CRA were the foundation of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent severe recession we are in. Yes, we are still paying and paying dearly because the media failed to scrutinize Bill Clinton.
The problem is, many young voters don't remember any of this. An 18-year-old is too young to have witnessed the backstory, and to have seen the disaster from a media that does not vet liberal candidates.
The result? History has repeated itself. We again elected a completely unvetted unqualified incompetent dishonest candidate in Obama who, only a month in, is wreaking disaster on this country and this economy. And as with Bill Clinton, America will be paying a dear price for decades to come for not heeding history.
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown, or a 20-year-old unmarried high school dropout on welfare with three kids should have an equal say in choosing our leadership as the guy working 70 hours a week, employing five workers, and raising a decent family?
I don't. We need voting reform NOW!
There are so many things wrong with this post, I just don't know where to start. But I will cover one point:
First,
those over 30 voted for Obama 50% to 48%
in the under 29 group Whites voted for Obama 54% to 44%
those with College education voted for Obama at both the under and the over 30 age groups.(65 to 32 and 50 to 49)
"Young people were not, however, crucial to Barack Obama's victory, according to the exit polls. Obama would have lost Indiana and North Carolina, but carried other key states such as Ohio and Florida, as well as the national vote. But young people provided not only their votes but also many enthusiastic campaign volunteers. Some may have helped persuade parents and older relatives to consider Obama's candidacy. And far more young people than older voters reported attending a campaign event while nearly one-in-ten donated money to a presidential candidate."
So they only way this would work would be if you only allowed uneducated over 30 white people to vote....
and that is how i take your proposal. rich and white need only apply.
still pissed, one more:
Quote:
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown... or
Many of those "homeless bums" are military veterans. Lets throw them out.
They don't count now. Thanks for serving but no thanks.
Republicans love America - They just hate half of the people in it ~Jon Stewart
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
