Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[kaz]

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

Great question. This should clear up your confusion.

Mutual of Omaha collects premiums and invests the money in a combination of funds to protect principle but also allow the fund to grow. When a policyholder dies, they take the money out of the fund and pay the beneficiaries.

Social Security collected premiums and put the money in the General fund. They wrote themself an IOU and spent the money. When someone retires, they give their kids the bills to pay for their retirement and to pay back the IOUs the government wrote themselves because they never actually saved anything.

How are you not getting this?

 

[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.

Like blacks and mexicans?

No, I believe I clearly stated "Republican."

 

[Moonglow]

Then you'll want a drug test for voters, just to waist money and then complain about expanded govt and right to privacy issues..

A lot of companies have mandatory drug testing programs for their employees. Are you concerned about their right to privacy?

Which individual has the more right to privacy?

 

[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?

No, I believe I clearly stated "Republican."

Blacks and mexicans dont vote Republican.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Do you believe that the poor should get nothing?

Do you believe that poverty is a character flaw?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

No, I believe I clearly stated "Republican."

Blacks and mexicans dont vote Republican.

You're right, but poor trailer trash Republican's do.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Do you believe that the poor should get nothing?

Do you believe that poverty is a character flaw?

That would depend on why they're poor. If they're able bodied I see no reason why they should get anything.
If they're disabled ...and I mean a legit disability,than I dont mind them getting some help.

 

[TooTall]

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

Great question. This should clear up your confusion.

Mutual of Omaha collects premiums and invests the money in a combination of funds to protect principle but also allow the fund to grow. When a policyholder dies, they take the money out of the fund and pay the beneficiaries.

Social Security collected premiums and put the money in the General fund. They wrote themself an IOU and spent the money. When someone retires, they give their kids the bills to pay for their retirement and to pay back the IOUs the government wrote themselves because they never actually saved anything.

How are you not getting this?

Nothing that I didn't already know. Mutual of Omaha got the money to invest from voluntary policy holders who GAVE them the money to invest.

The bottom line is as long as the Federal government can require wage earners to pay SS taxes and can borrow money on the full faith and credit of the US economy, Social Security will be solvent.

 

[TooTall]

Then you'll want a drug test for voters, just to waist money and then complain about expanded govt and right to privacy issues..

A lot of companies have mandatory drug testing programs for their employees. Are you concerned about their right to privacy?

Which individual has the more right to privacy?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

There is no more or less right to privacy. You either have it or you don't. It is the right of a company to determine if an employee is addicted or under the influence of a mind altering drug for a number of valid reasons. Safety of the individual while on the job as well as the safety of fellow employees is just one reason.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Do you believe that the poor should get nothing?

Do you believe that poverty is a character flaw?

That would depend on why they're poor. If they're able bodied I see no reason why they should get anything.
If they're disabled ...and I mean a legit disability,than I dont mind them getting some help.

So an able bodied single mother of two working two jobs at minimum wage should expect no help at all? When those 'job creators' who enjoy plenty of government largess fail to 'create' jobs paying a living wage, the consequence, the blame, the burden should fall on those who, while trying to get ahead, cannot seem to be able to. Circumstances like dying towns where there are no opportunities and the cost of moving is prohibitive because there are no buyers for a house in a dying town. Divorce (which Conservatives seem to love even though it presents a greater threat to the institution of marriage than same sex marriage), bankruptcy, death of a family member all contribute to the unnecessary trials and tribulations of the poor.

Is poverty a character flaw, or is it a whirlpool of grief few can escape?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Do you believe that the poor should get nothing?

Do you believe that poverty is a character flaw?

That would depend on why they're poor. If they're able bodied I see no reason why they should get anything.
If they're disabled ...and I mean a legit disability,than I dont mind them getting some help.

So an able bodied single mother of two working two jobs at minimum wage should expect no help at all? When those 'job creators' who enjoy plenty of government largess fail to 'create' jobs paying a living wage, the consequence, the blame, the burden should fall on those who, while trying to get ahead, cannot seem to be able to. Circumstances like dying towns where there are no opportunities and the cost of moving is prohibitive because there are no buyers for a house in a dying town. Divorce (which Conservatives seem to love even though it presents a greater threat to the institution of marriage than same sex marriage), bankruptcy, death of a family member all contribute to the unnecessary trials and tribulations of the poor.

Is poverty a character flaw, or is it a whirlpool of grief few can escape?

So much BS here it's hard to know where to start.
First of all,if someone is working two min wage jobs thats an average of 16.00 dollars an hour. You can most certainly raise two kids on that,it wont be pleasant but it's doable.
And there is no reason anyone should stay at min wage unless they're disabled mentally or physically....or just flat out lazy.
And I love how you say "those job creators" like it's a dirty phrase. If you dont like those job creators go somewhere else and work.
As far as blaming politicians? Stop voting democrat and those evil job creators will have more money to hire and give raises and thats a fact. That goes for your dying town theory as well,stop electing dems. Take a look at detroit for a perfect example of what dem rule does to a city.
And when you said republicans favor divorce you lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. How many time have you heard conservatives rile against single parent homes?
I was dirt poor when I left home at seventeen and lived in a house with no electricity and no gas. We took cold showers and cooked over the fireplace.
And when I say we,I mean my room mates which is just one of those things you have to have when you cant afford the rent on your own.
Anyone can work their way out of poverty if they want to. I'm living proof of that.
Anyone who says they cant isn't trying hard enough.
I could continue for pages about the reasons these people fail but I'm not up to writing a novel.

And I guess I'll have to say this again because apparently you missed it.
I dont have a problem with a leg up. I do however have a problem with people who refuse to try and better themselves and dont even try because they've become dependent on the government. Stop making it so easy to suck on the government tit and I promise you those people will find work.

 

[Toro]

Perhaps we should vote based on education, since knowledge and technology is the primary driver of the economy. The more education you have, the more your vote is weighted.

It would look like this

No high school: 0 votes
High school, GED: 1 vote
Some post-secondary: 2 votes
Associate degree: 3 votes
Bachelors Degree: 5 votes
Masters, advanced degrees: 20 votes
PhDs: 100 votes

And once you have at least a Masters, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen.

That's very fair.

 

[kaz]

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

Great question. This should clear up your confusion.

Mutual of Omaha collects premiums and invests the money in a combination of funds to protect principle but also allow the fund to grow. When a policyholder dies, they take the money out of the fund and pay the beneficiaries.

Social Security collected premiums and put the money in the General fund. They wrote themself an IOU and spent the money. When someone retires, they give their kids the bills to pay for their retirement and to pay back the IOUs the government wrote themselves because they never actually saved anything.

How are you not getting this?

Nothing that I didn't already know. Mutual of Omaha got the money to invest from voluntary policy holders who GAVE them the money to invest.

The bottom line is as long as the Federal government can require wage earners to pay SS taxes and can borrow money on the full faith and credit of the US economy, Social Security will be solvent.

So as long as government is solvent and can pay welfare it isn't welfare. Got it. Where is my pen? I'm learning so much today that want to write down.

 

[TooTall]

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

Great question. This should clear up your confusion.

Mutual of Omaha collects premiums and invests the money in a combination of funds to protect principle but also allow the fund to grow. When a policyholder dies, they take the money out of the fund and pay the beneficiaries.

Social Security collected premiums and put the money in the General fund. They wrote themself an IOU and spent the money. When someone retires, they give their kids the bills to pay for their retirement and to pay back the IOUs the government wrote themselves because they never actually saved anything.

How are you not getting this?

Nothing that I didn't already know. Mutual of Omaha got the money to invest from voluntary policy holders who GAVE them the money to invest.

The bottom line is as long as the Federal government can require wage earners to pay SS taxes and can borrow money on the full faith and credit of the US economy, Social Security will be solvent.

So as long as government is solvent and can pay welfare it isn't welfare. Got it. Where is my pen? I'm learning so much today that want to write down.

While you are writing, note the difference between a paid for benefit and a gift.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, comment on my last paragraph.

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

You answered a question with an opinion. Below is my response:

he accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

Link: FOCUS Cheney s Halliburton Made 39.5 Billion on Iraq War


Kinda makes that entire hysteria around the $535 million for Solyndra look like chump change.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Perhaps we should vote based on education, since knowledge and technology is the primary driver of the economy. The more education you have, the more your vote is weighted.

It would look like this

No high school: 0 votes
High school, GED: 1 vote
Some post-secondary: 2 votes
Associate degree: 3 votes
Bachelors Degree: 5 votes
Masters, advanced degrees: 20 votes
PhDs: 100 votes

And once you have at least a Masters, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen.

That's very fair.

Holy shit. We'd be very progressive if we did that. No Trey Gowdy's or Michelle Bachman's would be elected.

How many people who don't have a high school diploma do you think vote? Do you think it is a large percentage of the electorate?

Think first, nutter. It will be more interesting that way.

 

[Toro]

Perhaps we should vote based on education, since knowledge and technology is the primary driver of the economy. The more education you have, the more your vote is weighted.

It would look like this

No high school: 0 votes
High school, GED: 1 vote
Some post-secondary: 2 votes
Associate degree: 3 votes
Bachelors Degree: 5 votes
Masters, advanced degrees: 20 votes
PhDs: 100 votes

And once you have at least a Masters, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen.

That's very fair.

Holy shit. We'd be very progressive if we did that. No Trey Gowdy's or Michelle Bachman's would be elected.

How many people who don't have a high school diploma do you think vote? Do you think it is a large percentage of the electorate?

Think first, nutter. It will be more interesting that way.

1 vote by someone without a high school education is 1 too many!

People with more education are just better people. We should all recognize this obvious fact. We want smart people making decisions, not dumb people! Can you believe dumb people think they should be able to vote just because they were born here?

Here's another: 500 votes for every commercially viable patent you own.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Perhaps we should vote based on education, since knowledge and technology is the primary driver of the economy. The more education you have, the more your vote is weighted.

It would look like this

No high school: 0 votes
High school, GED: 1 vote
Some post-secondary: 2 votes
Associate degree: 3 votes
Bachelors Degree: 5 votes
Masters, advanced degrees: 20 votes
PhDs: 100 votes

And once you have at least a Masters, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen.

That's very fair.

Holy shit. We'd be very progressive if we did that. No Trey Gowdy's or Michelle Bachman's would be elected.

How many people who don't have a high school diploma do you think vote? Do you think it is a large percentage of the electorate?

Think first, nutter. It will be more interesting that way.

1 vote by someone without a high school education is 1 too many!

People with more education are just better people. We should all recognize this obvious fact. We want smart people making decisions, not dumb people! Can you believe dumb people think they should be able to vote just because they were born here?

Here's another: 500 votes for every commercially viable patent you own.

Yes! Bill Gates should get millions of votes !

 

[bodecea]

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.

That was the philosophy behind letting only landowners vote in the beginning,

 

[Wry Catcher]

Every citizen has a right to vote. Those who want to restrict that right ought to have a very good reason, and the person whose franchise is denied ought to be compensated when evidence is produced that their right was infringe.

The Captain of the voting place should be required to sign an affidavit for the reason(s) a person has been denied their right to vote under penalty of perjury.