Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote

[AllieBaba]

In many cases, if a woman's name was on the land patent she could vote....It's just that such a thing didn't happen very often.

If you don't buy in, you should have absolutely no say in how the game is played.

So you're admitting that government should be bought but only by those who stand to gain the most from their "investment." Good one.

I'm saying nothing of the sort....And that's an extremely pathetic attempt at putting words in my mouth.

Mags just makes things up, and doesn't live in the land of reality.
In other words...

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's imagine we are ordering a pizza for 10 people who need to decide on the toppings democratically. Each additional topping costs an extra dollar.

If roughly half the people eating aren't paying what incentive do they have to me a sound financial decision?

If roughly half the people are being forced to pay for toppings they don't want what incentive do they have to keep paying?

In this day and age, you wouldn't even be offering to buy the pizza in the first place. Let them eat catsup... Just read the other postings by your fellow cons for confirmation of that fact.

 

[Big Fitz]

How about people who don't pay taxes (get a full refund or more) can't vote. Gotta give up the gubmint benefits to have a voice in the system?

One of two things will happen. The tax code will change so everyone pays or two, benefit payments will drop precipitously.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now we have defined what it is and some mistakes that were made. Start implementing the policies. Yes, Reagan was not perfect, but many of the things that were said and done were excellent. Use the plan with more limited gevernment.

None of the republicans back to and including Reagan have reduced the size of govt.
Seems like the only one to do that was clowntoon.

can i presume you mean clinton? yes. he downsized government.

give them about 30 seconds, though... they'll say newt did it.

Actually, it was compromise on the part of both. Unfortunately, we no longer have any Newt Gingriches around willing to be a player instead of an antagonizer.

 

[MaggieMae]

All programs with the exception of military, police forces, infrastructure and environmental maintenance. Social Security is a program that Americans paid into so they should recoup the amount they put in and then we should end social security altogether or go back to the original intent. L.B. Johnson (D) really fucked it up by moving Social Security out of the Trust Fund and putting into the General Fund. And then Al Gore (being the tie-breaking vote) and his cronies voted into law taxing Social Security annnuities further fucking it up.

And lets not forget Reagan upping the withholding too much so that the govt would have a trillion or two more to spend on other stuff like Star Warz.

Congress approved every dime. Republicans controlled the senate, the Democrats controlled the House.

Um, the Senate enacts the bills, the House provides funding for bills after they are approved. You need one of those civics lessons.

 

[MaggieMae]

That will never happen.

The 47% who pay for nothing will no doubt vote for whoever wants to continue their free ride.

Wonder how long the country can afford em???

yeah...gotta make sure the rich people who make their money tax exempt start paying.

and let's get rid of that corporate welfare.

Name those "rich" people whose money is tax exempt.

You want "names"?? How about just accepting the fact that they find the loopholes, which isn't rocket science.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And lets not forget Reagan upping the withholding too much so that the govt would have a trillion or two more to spend on other stuff like Star Warz.

Congress approved every dime. Republicans controlled the senate, the Democrats controlled the House.

Um, the Senate enacts the bills, the House provides funding for bills after they are approved. You need one of those civics lessons.

Point out what I said that was wrong. Congress did approve the funding for SDI and at that time the Democrats controlled the House. Before you try and correct me, be certain that I am wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yeah...gotta make sure the rich people who make their money tax exempt start paying.

and let's get rid of that corporate welfare.

Name those "rich" people whose money is tax exempt.

You want "names"?? How about just accepting the fact that they find the loopholes, which isn't rocket science.

In other words, you got nothing. Just like the others that I posed this question to.

 

[MaggieMae]

Defining who is a contributing member of society based on their ownership of property is fascism.

Really?
Perhaps you would care to study what fascism actually means.

Requiring people to own property in order to vote insures they have a stake in the land. Someone without property could vote for something they realized would be devastating to the region (City, State, Nation) and leave when it turned out they were correct.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the vote."
Turns out Ben Franklin must have been a fascist too, at least by your moronic standards.

Non sequitur. Thanks for playing.

I knew there was a reason I didn't get the analogy!

 

[MaggieMae]

yeah...gotta make sure the rich people who make their money tax exempt start paying.

and let's get rid of that corporate welfare.

Yes. I'm all for getting rid of corporate welfare and all the subsidies as well.

As for the rich.

They already pay the majority of the Fed taxes that run this country.

Once the Bush tax cuts expire they will be paying even more.

Of course the Govt will try to tax them even more to pay for HC.

Will have to wait and see how that turns out and what the consequences will be.

.

when 1% of the population has 95% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay 95% of the tax burden given that's what proportionate to their earnings.

i'd submit they pay far less in terms of effect on their wealth.

this idea that they're being hurt is silly. they paid higher taxes when ronald reagan was president then they will after bush's tax cuts sunset.

btw... you are aware, yes, that bush was the only leader in the history of recorded time who cut taxes during wartime, right?

how about getting off of the subject of 'entitlements', which wouldn't be a drip... and get to the issue of military spending.

And don't forget that between 2001 and 2007, the pre-tax income of the top 1% grew by 50%, whereas the pre-tax income for the bottom 50% increased by far less, around 30% (if at all).

 

[MaggieMae]

The welfare system isn't designed to help people. That's just a selling point. The purpose of welfare is to mandate that a portion of our income can be taken to pay the private companies who finance the welfare system. Welfare is a profit scheme for the banks who earn interest from it every time a budget bill is passed and financed by them.

That's one of many reasons why welfare recipients will always be allowed to vote. It's also why so many welfare recipients receive funds even when they are capable of working. If it means bigger welfare budgets, it means more of our income can be taken and placed into the pockets (as interest payments) of those who finance the welfare budgets.

Conspiracy Theory #568?

 

[MaggieMae]

The welfare system isn't designed to help people. That's just a selling point. The purpose of welfare is to mandate that a portion of our income can be taken to pay the private companies who finance the welfare system. Welfare is a profit scheme for the banks who earn interest from it every time a budget bill is passed and financed by them.

That's one of many reasons why welfare recipients will always be allowed to vote. It's also why so many welfare recipients receive funds even when they are capable of working. If it means bigger welfare budgets, it means more of our income can be taken and placed into the pockets (as interest payments) of those who finance the welfare budgets.

Most Adults receiving Welfare ARE working....ever since Gingrich welfare reform that passed in the late 90's is my understanding....or did his welfare reform NOT WORK?

The last report I saw on it, the Welfare-to-Work program was at a 70% success rate.

 

[MaggieMae]

Dud is a big government stooge. I bet he supports the death penalty, too.

That's cute..I would have liked having it handy the day you became a mod. Or would you have just altered my post?

Wrong appendage, probably.

 

[MaggieMae]

Its not the voters that are the problem, its the people they vote for.

The system is busted, they won't follow the rules anymore, and even worse, the last arbiter of the rules (the Supreme court) is appointed and approved by the same clowns who defy the system as is.

Um....isn't that what the Constitution says to do?

Why do you make it a habit to throw out pointless non sequitors?

Except it wasn't. Your implication is that justices are being appointed illegally.

 

[MaggieMae]

The welfare system isn't designed to help people. That's just a selling point. The purpose of welfare is to mandate that a portion of our income can be taken to pay the private companies who finance the welfare system. Welfare is a profit scheme for the banks who earn interest from it every time a budget bill is passed and financed by them.

That's one of many reasons why welfare recipients will always be allowed to vote. It's also why so many welfare recipients receive funds even when they are capable of working. If it means bigger welfare budgets, it means more of our income can be taken and placed into the pockets (as interest payments) of those who finance the welfare budgets.

Most Adults receiving Welfare ARE working....ever since Gingrich welfare reform that passed in the late 90's is my understanding....or did his welfare reform NOT WORK?

Whether it worked or not, the primary purpose of welfare is to legislate the transfer of individual paychecks into the profit statements of the banks who fund the welfare budgets. Helping the poor is just the excuse to justify the theft.

 

[MaggieMae]

whew! just amazing how the ability to use critical thinking is lacking....it's like a brain fart or something...shees sheesh sheesh.... shaking my head....we obviously need to add CIVICS, and Constitution study, as a requirement to high school and college

It once WAS a requirement.

I'm actually all for having a short quiz given at the time a person registers to vote because I believe far too many people have either no clue how "government" is supposed to operate or they are completely mislead and/or misinformed by the talking heads they see on television.

A person applying for citizenship needs to do some heavy homework on civics and then take a test which includes a selection out of 100 questions. If we can demand that of a brand new citizen, I would think our own natural born citizens should be able to answer at least, say five, predominent questions on the makeup of government and the job descriptions of the three branches as detailed in the original Constitution. I'll wager that an awful lot of natural born people who vote can't even name what those three branches are.

Here's some of those citizenship questions. Which ones would you include in the five asked when someone fills out a voter registration form?

Pass the US Citizenship Test | Sample Citizenship Questions

<<<

I don't know about the new Citizenship test, but the old one asked "Who are the 3 most important men in American history?" Guess what, Washington wasn't one of them, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Benjamin Franklin. Who were they? JFK, MLK, and Abraham Lincoln. I would have flunked that test.

You'll need to prove that to me.

 

[MaggieMae]

It once WAS a requirement.

I'm actually all for having a short quiz given at the time a person registers to vote because I believe far too many people have either no clue how "government" is supposed to operate or they are completely mislead and/or misinformed by the talking heads they see on television.

A person applying for citizenship needs to do some heavy homework on civics and then take a test which includes a selection out of 100 questions. If we can demand that of a brand new citizen, I would think our own natural born citizens should be able to answer at least, say five, predominent questions on the makeup of government and the job descriptions of the three branches as detailed in the original Constitution. I'll wager that an awful lot of natural born people who vote can't even name what those three branches are.

Here's some of those citizenship questions. Which ones would you include in the five asked when someone fills out a voter registration form?

Pass the US Citizenship Test | Sample Citizenship Questions

<<<

I don't know about the new Citizenship test, but the old one asked "Who are the 3 most important men in American history?" Guess what, Washington wasn't one of them, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Benjamin Franklin. Who were they? JFK, MLK, and Abraham Lincoln. I would have flunked that test.

The questions should not be subjective.

I'm thinking Sheila might have looked at a sample test (which is provided to applicants), that gives multiple choices.

 

[MaggieMae]

How is this thread a "Current Event"?

It's tax day.

 

[Old Rocks]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

Then none of the upper management of the banks and insurance companies that were bailed out should be allowed to vote. None of the people in management of Exxon and GE should be allowed to vote as they payed less taxes than you or I.

Sure, Phil, we can take this a long way. All those states that take in more federal funds than they send in should have their electoriral votes cut in half, same for Senators and Representatives. Those that send in more than the take out should have their representation doubled.

I am sure all you Conservatives would love that.

 

[Vast LWC]

However, while the small businesses may hire a half dozen people, Walmart puts dozens and hundreds to work.

You don't like selling products from other countries in the US, stop forcing our companies to pay exorbitant taxes and kowtow to unions.

Even if there were NO taxes at all on corporations, American pay scales are many times as much as our counterparts in far Eastern countries.

Do you think corporations will not take advantage of that?

Or are you suggesting that Americans should be paid the same as Taiwanese workers or Cambodian workers?