Funny quote

[laktrash]

funny quote from Ben Franklin

[Guest cardcutter]

One of my favorites.

[Sidinman]

Haven't seen it in a while, but always liked it.

[1gewehr]

Our Founding Fathers were not believers in Democracy. To them, it was a dirty word. There was a reason why they restricted the vote to only free male property owners over 21 years old.

They believed that those who were settled and had something to lose would be the ones most interested in adhering to the principle of liberty and upholding the Constitution.

Personally, I can't see any reason not to restrict the vote to only those over 21, and requiring a one-time $500 performance bond in order to vote. The bond would be lost in the event you voted illegally. That would stop a LOT of the fraudulent voting!

[quietguy]

Personally, I can't see any reason not to restrict the vote to only those over 21

If you throw in an exemption for active duty military, I could go for that. If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to vote.

Rather than a bond, a test to ensure that a person has a basic understanding of the operation of government would be a better measure in my mind. We spend a lot of money funding a public education system, and the primary purpose of that system is to create Jefferson's "educated citizenry". If it takes a couple hundred thousand dollars and 12 years, the least we can expect is to have an adult who understands the difference between their State Senator and US Senator.

Our Founding Fathers were not believers in Democracy. To them, it was a dirty word.

I have long held that repealing the 17th Amendment is a critical step to returning to a more pure Representative Democracy. The election of the Senate as set forth in Article One of the Constitution was ingenious and critical to the operation of government as envisioned by the founders.

Edited January 24, 2012 by quietguy

[Jonnin]

No, if you are old enough to be DRAFTED you should get a vote. Active or not, you should have a say. However I am ok with upping the draft age to 21 first, then the voting age etc afterwards --- but the two need to be the same age.

How do you get your $500 back? Voting is a lifelong process, it would be forever on hold and returned to your family when you died once you proved the dead person never voted twice? I do not see that working out and it disenfranchises people who do not have $500 to spare. And it is to spare, since they do not seem to get it back (?).

Democracy would have the whole country using NY+CA values, due to the large populations of those (and a couple of other like minded) states. It was, and is, a very bad word indeed. You certainly would not have a handgun today in a majority wins type system, probably no rifle either.

[Just2Honor]

One of my favorites,too. Have used it with some somewhat "anti" friends to lighten the conversation.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think if do not file tax returns you should not be allowed to vote. If you can't support your country with taxes you shouldn't be allowed to be part of the decision making process.

And if you do file your taxes the majority of your income cannot come from non taxable income.

Dolomite

[Mike.357]

The downhill slide started when people figured out how to vote themselves a free ride.I am real good with only taxpayers getting a vote.

[JAB]

Maybe we should only allow Free Will Baptists with peg legs named 'Frank' (the FW Baptist that is, not the peg leg) to vote. After all, if we are going to start putting 'criteria' on which citizen does and which citizen does not get to have a say, let's make it real interesting!

I have a lot of respect for the Founders and their way of thinking. I believe that this country would be better off if we went back to their philosophies in many areas. That said, not everything they believed was 'perfect'. After all, in their day (and their thinking) slavery was okay. I don't think going back to that setup in the modern era would be a good idea any more than would limiting the right to vote.

Me, I'd settle for ILLEGAL ALIENS and foreign friggin' countries not having a say in the way our government runs.

Edited January 24, 2012 by JAB

[Guest drv2fst]

I think it would be great if only "payers" got to vote. We shouldn't let those that can't pay their own fair share of the country's bill keep voting in crap we can't pay for. Freeloaders should not be able to vote for me to pay for their handouts.

[JAB]

I think it would be great if only "payers" got to vote. We shouldn't let those that can't pay their own fair share of the country's bill keep voting in crap we can't pay for. Freeloaders should not be able to vote for me to pay for their handouts.

So some guy who has lost his job and hasn't paid taxes this year because he is having a hard time finding employment shouldn't get to vote despite having been a hardworking, steadily employed 'payer' for thirty or fourty years prior? What about people who work but whose low incomes result in them getting the majority of their income tax returned? Technically, they aren't 'payers' either, right? Should they just shut up, keep their heads down and accept what their 'betters' decide?

What about people who are truly disabled? Should someone be stripped of the ability to vote because he or she is paralyzed or otherwise permanently and severely disabled? Retired people probably aren't really paying all that much in taxes, either - maybe we shouldn't let those old farts vote regardless of how long they spent in the work force, paying taxes and so on.

[Dennis1209]

The downhill slide started when people figured out how to vote themselves a free ride.I am real good with only taxpayers getting a vote.

I'll vote for that if you include taxpayers and property owners. I lived in a POS house and small lot until I retired. The property taxes grew to over $4,000.00 per year in a crime ridden neighborhood. This all came about from the welfare recipients, Section 8 people, food stamp wastes, non-employed voting my taxes up to the point I could no longer afford nor desire to co-mingle with the scum. I'd like to put my hand out too, both of them, and not have to work. Where's mine?

[Dolomite_supafly]

So some guy who has lost his job and hasn't paid taxes this year because he is having a hard time finding employment shouldn't get to vote despite having been a hardworking, steadily employed 'payer' for thirty or fourty years prior? What about people who work but whose low incomes result in them getting the majority of their income tax returned? Technically, they aren't 'payers' either, right? Should they just shut up, keep their heads down and accept what their 'betters' decide?

What about people who are truly disabled? Should someone be stripped of the ability to vote because he or she is paralyzed or otherwise permanently and severely disabled? Retired people probably aren't really paying all that much in taxes, either - maybe we shouldn't let those old farts vote regardless of how long they spent in the work force, paying taxes and so on.

People pay taxes on their unemployment benefits so your theory of a person loosing their job doesn't work. As long as they collect unemployment they are required to file with the IRS and if they file they should be allowed to vote. If they are let go through no fault of their own they are eligble for unemployment and in turn pay taxes. Now if they have not found a job in the 2+ years most people have to find a job nowadays then, yes, they should loose their vote because most likely they are going to vote to improve their own standing and not that of the nation. Now once they go back to work and are paying taxes then they should be allowed to vote again.

I said nothing about those who get all their money back as part of a return because they are being paid such a low amount. Those people have probably worked very hard to survive on the small amount they are being paid. And those same people would have paid taxes otherwise they would not be filing. I wouldn't be concerned if they filed and got back more than they paid in so long as they filed.

And yes some retired people pay taxes and yes they probably get the majority of it back but they do in fact file their taxes and are taxed on their income even if it is retirement. If they are filing their taxes they should be allowed to vote.

I am more concerned about those individuals who do not declare their income or do not have any taxable income because they have never worked a day in their life and who collect government assistance. Those people should not be allowed to vote.

People screamed about taxation without representation. I say it works both ways if you are not paying your taxes you should not have a say in how others taxes are spent.

Dolomite

[Guest drv2fst]

So some guy who has lost his job and hasn't paid taxes this year because he is having a hard time finding employment shouldn't get to vote despite having been a hardworking, steadily employed 'payer' for thirty or fourty years prior? What about people who work but whose low incomes result in them getting the majority of their income tax returned? Technically, they aren't 'payers' either, right? Should they just shut up, keep their heads down and accept what their 'betters' decide?

What about people who are truly disabled? Should someone be stripped of the ability to vote because he or she is paralyzed or otherwise permanently and severely disabled? Retired people probably aren't really paying all that much in taxes, either - maybe we shouldn't let those old farts vote regardless of how long they spent in the work force, paying taxes and so on.

Some valid points there. I would agree that "payers" does not need to be limited to people that are paying right now. It should definitely include those that have contributed. The point is to exclude those that have never contributed or have not taken out far more than they have put in. The details are really not relevant since it's all for nothing anyway. Nothing that resembles voter reform will pass in our lifetimes.

[Mike.357]

I'll vote for that if you include taxpayers and property owners. I lived in a POS house and small lot until I retired. The property taxes grew to over $4,000.00 per year in a crime ridden neighborhood. This all came about from the welfare recipients, Section 8 people, food stamp wastes, non-employed voting my taxes up to the point I could no longer afford nor desire to co-mingle with the scum. I'd like to put my hand out too, both of them, and not have to work. Where's mine?

Unless I am wrong, property owners pay taxes. A property tax is every bit the same as an income tax, it is money the .gov takes from me.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Unless I am wrong, property owners pay taxes. A property tax is every bit the same as an income tax, it is money the .gov takes from me.

It is not property tax, it is rent that is assessed against property owners. After all what happens if you don't pay it? You get evicted.

That is what we tell the tax clerk every year. "We are here to pay our rent". We get some strange looks then the "Honey, this isn't were you pay your rent". Then we tell them our property taxes are rent and the government is our landlord. Then they realize we are being a smart butt and they take our payment.

Dolomite

[quietguy]

No, if you are old enough to be DRAFTED you should get a vote. Active or not, you should have a say.

Since there is no draft, how can we presume what the draft age would be if implemented?

Edited January 25, 2012 by quietguy

[Guest lostpass]

Ben Franklin never said that. Though Adams did say

"I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."

As for the notion that only the "payers" get to vote....

So is the argument that only the people who pay taxes get to vote? If you shop in a store you pay sales taxes. Or is the argument only those that actually pay federal taxes get to vote? Say you make 30,000 a year. You don't pay any fed taxes. Sure, they take it out of your check but at the end of the year you get back everything you pain in. Well, except social security. You get that back when you retire (supposedly). Actually the number can go much higher. Depending on your family situation you can get to a hundred grand before you pay actual federal tax.

The tax burden of those that "don't pay taxes" is often higher percentage wise that the actual "payers". The notion that those folks shouldn't get to vote is crazy.

But wait, what people really mean is that people on welfare shouldn't get to vote. Good news everyone, people on welfare vote in such low numbers it doesn't matter anyway.

[JAB]

...they should loose their vote because most likely they are going to vote to improve their own standing and not that of the nation.

Dolomite

Thanks for the clarification. My argument would be that a person who is on unemployment isn't paying taxes. Sure, taxes may be taken from their unemployment benefits but, as they aren't working for the money they are receiving, they aren't paying taxes. I guess that is splitting hairs, though, so I will concede the point. It sounds, however, like you aren't really talking about only tax payers having the vote but actually tax filers. If what you are talking about is actually people who do not file taxes then that is a different matter, entirely. However, as anyone can hit a rough patch or have a run of bad luck I'd say it would be more reasonable to say that a person should lose the right to vote after not having filed taxes for a certain number of consecutive years - say, maybe, three years in a row (for the record, I have worked and filed taxes every, single year since I was 16.) Thing is, though, in a system where people who are clearly ineligible to vote still seem to be voting, sometimes, how the heck do you monitor something like that?

As for the portion of your post I specifically quoted, do you really believe that almost every, single person who goes to the voting booth isn't going to be voting for the candidate they think will be the best for them and their families? I know I sure as heck am not going to vote for someone who I think will make things worse for me regardless of how good he or she might be for the 'nation'. Maybe that makes me a bad citizen - or maybe I am simply honest. Heck, even the Founders had their own, personal situations at least partially in mind when deciding to revolt.

Edited January 25, 2012 by JAB

[Dolomite_supafly]

Since there is no draft, how can we presume what the draft age would be if implemented?

Selective service.

If a person registers for the selective service that are in turn eligible for the draft. And just so you know registering for the draft is a legal requirement for all males once they turned 18. failing to do so has a lot of ram

[Dolomite_supafly]

Since there is no draft, how can we presume what the draft age would be if implemented?

There actually is a requirement for all males to either register for the draft or enlist in the military at age 18. Failing to register has plenty of legal as well as civil ramifications for those who don't. For those who do not join they can be drafted at a later date if needed.

Dolomite