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.
The problem I'm seeing with the people who support the OP is that they only see voting as something to do to affect what they already have ie voting to lower property tax for their home, or voting to lower spending on schools they don't use.
What is bad or wrong about people who haven't made it, voting to direct resources so that they can make it ie more money for schools, for job training, for businesses in their neighborhood?
I am a firm believer in the ONLY people voting should be property owners and those who actually have a tax liability. What we have now is a large number of non contributors voting for whoever promises them more of other peoples money. That is contradictory to the idea of freedom and success.
Voting could be a reward for finally finding a job for those who are unemployed.
My high school GF inherited $1M on her 18th birthday and the first thing she did was buy a house on the Jersey Shore three blocks from the water, and invested the other $900K. (Great location, but the house itself is just like your typical middle class house, nothing special.)
She still lives in the house (worth $1.5M in 2007), collects investment income, and pays taxes, without actually having a job. Has she earned the right to vote in your world?
The problem I'm seeing with the people who support the OP is that they only see voting as something to do to affect what they already have ie voting to lower property tax for their home, or voting to lower spending on schools they don't use.
What is bad or wrong about people who haven't made it, voting to direct resources so that they can make it ie more money for schools, for job training, for businesses in their neighborhood?
We already know more money for schools doesn't work. It's just throwing more good money after bad.
My high school GF inherited $1M on her 18th birthday and the first thing she did was buy a house on the Jersey Shore three blocks from the water, and invested the other $900K. (Great location, but the house itself is just like your typical middle class house, nothing special.)
She still lives in the house (worth $1.5M in 2007), collects investment income, and pays taxes, without actually having a job. Has she earned the right to vote in your world?
what is so unfair about one having skin in the game as a prerequisite to voting?
Oh look. It's another conservative who wants to take away Americans' right to vote. Why do we never see conservatives argue in favor of expanding voting rights? Or even maintaining the voting rights that we've got?
First, we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
Secondly, what section of the Constitution do you believe this would violate? If your answer is the 15th or 19th Amendment, you better try again. That does not guarantee a right to vote, they simply deal with prohibiting voting due to race or gender.
So does this mean that you (and the OP) acknowledge that renters are second class citizens under the Constitution?
Oh look. It's another conservative who wants to take away Americans' right to vote. Why do we never see conservatives argue in favor of expanding voting rights? Or even maintaining the voting rights that we've got?
They want religion (as long as it is Christian) in schools, want to control who marries who and who votes but want no control over guns - something that can be used to kill people. So people who don't own property or pay taxes shouldn't have the right to vote but should have the right to own missile launchers and bazookas.
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.