Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[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.

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

Yep.

 

[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.

Yes! Bill Gates should get millions of votes !

Exactly.

Also, we shouldn't reward people with silly degrees too much. But we should reward useful degrees. So, for example, if you have a hard, useful degree, like biochemistry or electrical engineering, your vote is adjusted by a factor greater than one, like maybe 2x. But for easy, useless degrees, like history, your vote is adjusted by 0.5.

 

[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 !

Exactly.

Also, we shouldn't reward people with silly degrees too much. But we should reward useful degrees. So, for example, if you have a hard, useful degree, like biochemistry or electrical engineering, your vote is adjusted by a factor greater than one, like maybe 2x. But for easy, useless degrees, like history, your vote is adjusted by 0.5.

Yeah! History is bullshit!

 

[Bill Angel]

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.

Check out this table:
Educational attainment in the United States, Age 25 and Over (2013)
Education level and Percentage of population:
High school graduate 88.15%
Some college 58.33%
Associate's and/or Bachelor's degree 41.50%
Bachelor's degree 31.66%
Master's and/or Doctorate and/or professional degree 11.57%
Doctorate and/or professional degree 3.16%
Doctorate 1.68%
So if people with doctorates were given 100 votes each, their weighted influence in an election would be just slightly larger than the segment of the population with Bachelor's degrees, each of whom got 5 votes.

 

[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.

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

That's the whole point. They saved nothing. They ... spent ... the ... money.

When I went to the grocery store today, I didn't create an asset, I spent the money. The money was gone. When I want to the gas station, I didn't have the money I spent on the gas anymore. I spent it.

When I put money in the bank, I have the money still. That is saving. That isn't what they did with social security. The government collected it and spent it.

Did you buy lunch today? Is the money you spent on a tuna sandwich still in your wallet? Why not? You seriously don't grasp this? Only government says money it spent is an asset, and only complete suckers believe them.

 

[kaz]

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.

None of that answers the question...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

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

 

[bripat9643]

[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.

Only according to the Mafioso definition of "solvent." According to the legal definition, SS went bankrupt a long time ago.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Social Security will be solvent.

dear, the Govt can print money too, but solvency achieved by printing, stealing, or borrowing money is not real solvency for a govt, family, or business. Solvency at the very least requires honesty among participants and liberals are not capable of that as regards SS or health care or anything. The socialist ends justify the means!

Do you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What about when he's off the job? What if your employer doesn't like the kind of things you say in forums like this one?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I disagree because a degree in "Women's Studies" should be worth -2 votes. It definitely won't get you a job or help you make money. The more education a person has, the more of a fool he tends to be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This notion of violating the inalienable, fundamental right to vote of those receiving public assistance is just as repugnant to the tenets of our Constitutional Republic as is the notion of violating the inalienable, fundamental right to vote of those who are not property owners:

Crazy GOP Congressman Suggests Only Property Owners Should Be Allowed To Vote

 

[MaryL]

More far right reactionary nonsense.

Well, not really. The OP has a point, vested interest are always suspect. People that are dependent on government for their existence solely should not be able to influence elections to further their dependence. That's part of the reason we got Obama to begin with. The man isn't really American in spirit and a hell of a lot of us hard working souls can't relate to that MAN.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

inalienable, fundamental right to vote !!!!


a right to vote for the commonweal exists but not a right to steal from others to put more welfare in your pocket!!

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This notion of violating the inalienable, fundamental right to vote

inalienable, fundamental right to vote????

a right to vote for the commonweal exists but not a right to steal from others to put more welfare in your pocket!!

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

More far right reactionary nonsense.

Well, not really. The OP has a point, vested interest are always suspect. People that are dependent on government for their existence solely should not be able to influence elections to further their dependence. That's part of the reason we got Obama to begin with. The man isn't really American in spirit and a hell of a lot of us hard working souls can't relate to that MAN.

Yes, really, when vested interest includes those getting corporate welfare, those of us who at one time or another got deductions and exemptions, and those of us now who are getting property tax reduction because of age or veteran status, and so forth and so on.

We all have vested interests in our government, we all have the right to vote.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We all have vested interests in our government, we all have the right to vote.

some are primarily producers for the liberal leeches. Voting is not supposed to be about leeching it is supposed to be about the commonweal.

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

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

I disagree because a degree in "Women's Studies" should be worth -2 votes. It definitely won't get you a job or help you make money. The more education a person has, the more of a fool he tends to be.

You're just saying that so you don't look foolish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all have vested interests in our government, we all have the right to vote.

some are primarily producers for the liberal leeches. Voting is not supposed to be about leeching it is supposed to be about the commonweal.

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

It is not about producers and workers, it is about citizens, period.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I disagree because a degree in "Women's Studies" should be worth -2 votes. It definitely won't get you a job or help you make money. The more education a person has, the more of a fool he tends to be.

You're just saying that so you don't look foolish.

Wrong. All one has to do to know what I said is true is look at all the foolishness that comes out of public universities.