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 liberal trick is pointing to the gap between rich and poor instead of pointing to the poor themselves. Liberals exploit peoples' selfishness and envy. So what if you have an apartment, a car, cable TV, and a cell phone. That guy over there has his own airplane. You're oppressed!
And we'll just ignore the fact that he has a graduate degree in business and worked 50 hour weeks for decades the climb the career ladder while you never went to college, work a no-skill job, and spend your time watching TV and drinking beer. You're a victim!
Liberals simply enable people to feel good about themselves for achieving nothing. In exchange for your vote, they'll sell you an excuse not to take responsibility for your choices.
No, it's absolutely true and you just proved it for me.
Perhaps only the people who pay the majority of taxes should be allowed to vote.
With only 1% of the country then eligible, the results should come in much faster on election night.
I can't believe what i'm hearing. you're trying to take away people's right to vote are you serious? I'm surprised republicans are taking this position that everyone should pay taxes. I take the position that no one should have to pay direct taxes. it's an invasion of privacy by the government. instead we should have a progressive sales tax system, where food and other essential goods are either tax free or taxed at a low rate (0-3%) while common wants like movie tickets or sporting equipment get's taxed at a medium rate(6-12%) and then luxuries like jewelry,BMW's, and yachts get taxed at a high rate(18-24%). nothing should get taxed more than 24%.
I just don't get this. If one of 3 are on some kind of government assistance and continues to grow, then won't the majority be poor, in America, voting?
Of course those on government assistance will vote to get free services. This is tragic for America! It's no doubt our system is broken. If the poor's vote gets bigger, we will for sure be a socialistic country and will be in BIG TROUBLE!
Basically, what you're saying is to change the Constitution of the United States.
I do believe most people pay a tax on items they purchase, some states even have it set up where someone's labor is taxed.
I just don't get this. If one of 3 are on some kind of government assistance and continues to grow, then won't the majority be poor, in America, voting?
Of course those on government assistance will vote to get free services. This is tragic for America! It's no doubt our system is broken. If the poor's vote gets bigger, we will for sure be a socialistic country and will be in BIG TROUBLE!
This is why the Democrats keep giving away the store. Keep people needing them and they'll stay in power.
Even though some people don't pay income tax, they do pay other federal taxes.
Then I must be really progressive cause I think all three are wrong and the Supreme Court agrees with me.
Of course. However, the poster was suggesting that the Constitution guaranteed EVERYONE the right to vote. That is very far from the truth.
The founding fathers knew the difference between responsible and irresponsible citizens, thus the voting laws of the times. Keep in mind that -
income tax started in 1913
social security in 1933
medicare and welfare in 1965
women were granted the right to vote in around 1919
Now we have mouths at the government trough, which was never anticipated by the founding fathers. Why in the world should people recieving benefits from the federal government have voting rights? If so, they are going to vote irresponsibly and make decisions which simply increase thier personal benefits, much to the detriment of the nation.
Why should dependents be able to vote? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course. However, the poster was suggesting that the Constitution guaranteed EVERYONE the right to vote. That is very far from the truth.
The founding fathers knew the difference between responsible and irresponsible citizens, thus the voting laws of the times. Keep in mind that -
income tax started in 1913
social security in 1933
medicare and welfare in 1965
women were granted the right to vote in around 1919
Now we have mouths at the government trough, which was never anticipated by the founding fathers. Why in the world should people recieving benefits from the federal government have voting rights? If so, they are going to vote irresponsibly and make decisions which simply increase thier personal benefits, much to the detriment of the nation.
Why should dependents be able to vote? It makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't think women are responsible when it comes to voting? Have you tried using that pick up line on the ladies?
Of course. However, the poster was suggesting that the Constitution guaranteed EVERYONE the right to vote. That is very far from the truth.
The founding fathers knew the difference between responsible and irresponsible citizens, thus the voting laws of the times. Keep in mind that -
income tax started in 1913
social security in 1933
medicare and welfare in 1965
women were granted the right to vote in around 1919
Now we have mouths at the government trough, which was never anticipated by the founding fathers. Why in the world should people recieving benefits from the federal government have voting rights? If so, they are going to vote irresponsibly and make decisions which simply increase thier personal benefits, much to the detriment of the nation.
Why should dependents be able to vote? It makes no sense whatsoever.
If you think you would eliminate half the Democrats you would eliminate more than half the Republicans. Republicans have spent the past four years demonizing paying taxes. You would think their official position would be its patriotic to not pay taxes.
I can't believe what i'm hearing. ou're trying to take away people's right to vote are you serious? I'm surprised republicans are taking this position that everyone should pay taxes. I take the position that no one should have to pay direct taxes. it's an invasion of privacy by the government. instead we should have a progressive sales tax system, where food and other essential goods are either tax free or taxed at a low rate (0-3%) while common wants like movie ticke...ts or sporting equipment get's taxed at a medium rate(6-12%) and then luxuries like jewelry,BMW's, and yachts get taxed at a high rate(18-24%). nothing should get taxed more than 24%.
I would be okay with this but if the poor vote and have a large say...would it ever pass?
This entire thread is a red herring. The issue is simple.
The Federal Government was never given the power to establish any kind of charity system. The clause of the Constitution which empowers government to provide for the general welfare means that it must provide for all people equally.
To take from one citizen and give to another is not in the welfare of all the people. When you take away the illegal practice of stealing money from people to run a charity system then this entire question is moot.
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.
If so, they are going to vote irresponsibly and make decisions which simply increase thier personal benefits, much to the detriment of the nation.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
