ECON 101: Required to Vote?

[TLRMADE]

Over the past few years I have had quite a few Economics classes. My major is Marketing and minor in Management. I am retaking a Macroeconomics class this year bc of transfer issues. I'm really glad I took it! With this class being right in the middle of the election it has been very interesting. After the election the teacher was talking about the taxes situation and some of the Obama policies. It was...well I should say not a surprise....but i was surprised by how many people did not know what his policies meant or stood for? I could tell who they stood for and their views. Most of their statements and arguments did not have any validity or educational backing. The majority of the people in my class did not/do not understand how our Economy operates.

My question is: Should an Individual also be required to have taken and passes an ECON 101 class to be able to vote? Discuss....... I know there would be an argument for those who go into service right after high school....so why not require it in High School education?

[Hershmeister]

Yes

[kieefer]

Always thought Dave Ramsey's books should be required reading in HS but yeah, basic economics ought to be a required course.
More importantly, it's all going to depend on whose doing the teaching.

I could think of a lot more requirements needed before your right to vote is accepted. Edited December 5, 2012 by kieefer

[Guest bkelm18]

No.

The people deserve who they vote for. If a person is elected out of ignorance by the populace, the people deserve the repercussions of their ignorance.

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name='kieefer' timestamp='1354674474' post='855051']
Always thought Dave Ramsey's books should be required reading in HS but yeah, basic economics ought to be a required course.
More importantly, it's all going to depend on whose doing the teaching.

I could think of a lot more requirements needed before your right to vote is accepted.
[/quote]

They would never accept Ramsey's books as part of the economic curriculum b/c it's based too much on God faith principles, and he's too conservative for a liberal driven public school education. But it's a shame that most of our electorate are still third world educated.

[Guest HvyMtl]

A Civics class would be nice.

[c.a.willard]

I'm kind of surprised to see a board member recommending adding a restriction on a constitutional right. Also you already shot your own argument in the foot when you said the majority in your econ class does not understand how the economy works. I'd bet that the majority will still pass the course. Meaning under your rule they would still be allowed to vote.

[Guest drv2fst]

I know it's outdated but I like the old idea of only property owners get to vote. I think having someone's future invested in a community will only help. People that are productive members of society but also move a lot would just buy into some investment property to get their vote.

Another idea is that you must actually PAY taxes to vote. If you are not helping to pay for our government then you have no right to elect our government.

[1gewehr]

[quote name='c.a.willard' timestamp='1354688762' post='855160']
I'm kind of surprised to see a board member recommending adding a restriction on a constitutional right. [/quote]

What Constitutional 'right' are you referencing? If you mean voting, there is no 'right' to vote. Congress could restrict the vote to only left-handed, bald piano players if they wanted. Voting is not a 'right'. It is a duty and a privilege.

Your average 14 year-old fifty years ago knew more about economics and civics than most adults do today. Government education has done it's job well. If this past election teaches us anything it should be that the populace will now vote for the person who gives them the most 'free stuff'.

[TLRMADE]

[quote name='c.a.willard' timestamp='1354688762' post='855160'] Also you already shot your own argument in the foot when you said the majority in your econ class does not understand how the economy works. I'd bet that the majority will still pass the course. Meaning under your rule they would still be allowed to vote.[/quote]

Actually what I was saying is that they had voted before they realized what everything meant, and had completed and passed the course. By the discussions we had during class it was apparent that they did not understand before taking the class. By taking the class it helped them understand more. So that validates my point.....? Your also going off what you "think" the outcome will be in their grades. I'll post a screenshot of the class average when I get home. Edited December 5, 2012 by TLRMADE

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like HvyMtl said, a civics class and some kind of understanding of what the vote is for. I would rather have anyone
one any kind of welfare not allowed to vote, however, since they tend to vote for what they are offered as a bribe.
If someone is on the government dole, with the exception of the working and the military, they shouldn't be allowed
to vote.
You need to have an investment in your country's outcome instead of permanent food stamps and public housing.

[wjh2657]

[size=5][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]The level of economics required to understand Federal financing would entail about 4 Semesters of College Level Economics and probably some Graduate Level courses to be safe. ECON 101 wouldn’t give you the foggiest notion of national economics. This is one big reason that our Representatives and Senators are botching things up so bad. They don’t possess the level of Economics education necessary to actually make the tax money work. They listen to know-nothing special interest lobbyists and academics that subscribe to just one school of economics (either Free market or Keynesian) neither of which has worked by itself in the last century. I have a Master’s Degree (in Education) but as of right now I have read at least 30 books on Economics (have 65 on the Kindle, 35 more to go!) To be totally honest, I still don’t understand Federal Spending! It does us no good to know Economics when the people who run our government obviously don’t even understand how a checking account works ( Government version: write lots of checks but don’t worry about making deposits!) State and County Economics could be taught in High School but Federal Economics are beyond any system of teaching. There is no system, just snatch and run for your own interests. [/color][/font][/size] Edited December 5, 2012 by wjh2657

[RobertNashville]

If an IQ test were required for voting eligibility a large percentage of the population would be ruled ineligible. But even more dangerous than those who don't possess basic intelligence skills or who don't understand economics are those who remain purposely uninformed but vote anyway.

My suggestion would be that unless you can prove you actually pay more Federal income tax into the system than you get out in benefits you should not be allowed to vote regardless of how intelligent you are or how many economics courses you've had.

[jtmaze]

Just a thought, would like to hear all arguments. How bout a flat tax so it won't be hard to prove that you pay taxes and a limit on only taxpayers can vote. That would fix the free stuff buying of elections. If the everyone was a productive member of society then this wouldn't be a problem but social programs have made purchasing an election to easy.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone

[Guest bkelm18]

Of course there is a flaw in these ideas. If knowledge were the key to smart voting, then why does the majority of academia lean left? No amount of "education" is going to change voting patterns. People vote with emotion, not knowledge.

[gregintenn]

[quote name='jtmaze' timestamp='1354746659' post='855411']
Just a thought, would like to hear all arguments. How bout a flat tax so it won't be hard to prove that you pay taxes and a limit on only taxpayers can vote. That would fix the free stuff buying of elections. If the everyone was a productive member of society then this wouldn't be a problem but social programs have made purchasing an election to easy.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone
[/quote]

Sounds good, but how in the hell do you think you'd get politicians to pass it?

I've always thougt that a person should be allowed 1 vote in a federal election for every dollar he/she paid in federal income taxes the previous year. There again, it would be counterproductive for any politician to even consider such a thing.

[Garufa]

I'm all for the right to vote only being extended to those owning property or paying a mortgage. No exceptions, that include renters so don't even go there.

Furthermore, let's get back to Senators being appointed by the States they represent rather than this election foolishness.

No person who ever has been in debt other than the normal mortgage, car payment or acceptable business loan should even be allowed to place their name on the ballot. Bankruptcy in your history? Even through association from business dealings, disallowed.

Finally, the aburd economic conditions and practices put in place not only by our government but by all others, is unsustainable. There is not a thing we can do about it. I don't think there is any one person that can figure it all out.

[1gewehr]

Anyone who can manage the finances of a small business successfully has the ability to understand national economics. Where it gets complicated is that politicians are always seeking one thing; power. In order to get and keep that power they want to be able to buy votes without having any negative consequences. Since most of them are lawyers, they are used to playing games with words and concealing the facts.

Economically, here are the facts:
1) We are broke. We spend more money than we take in. Raising taxes on the rich won't change that, even if you declare that $75,000 a year income makes you 'rich'.
2) The US dollar is backed only by faith. If folks quit believing that it is worth something, it won't be worth anything. Right now, the Fed is creating dollars from thin air. If they didn't, the US debt would be MUCH higher than the current more than $16 Trillion dollars.
3) The current US Gross Domestic Income is only $15 Trillion. In other words, if you add up ALL of the money made by EVERY person, corporation, and company in the country in a whole year, it adds up to less money than the government owes right now.
4) The only way out of this is to CUT spending. A LOT! You can talk about waste, military, etc, but they won't solve the problem. the problem is entitlements. They make up over 50% of Federal spending, and are growing at a horrendous pace.
5) Politicians do NOT want to cut spending. Especially entitlements.

That's the case, plain and simple. Either we reduce entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc), or we all go down.

[Guest fauklin]

[quote name='bkelm18' timestamp='1354751618' post='855452']Of course there is a flaw in these ideas. If knowledge were the key to smart voting, then why does the majority of academia lean left? No amount of "education" is going to change voting patterns. People vote with emotion, not knowledge.[/quote]
Professors lean left because government funding, pell grants, and federal student loans pay their salaries.

Bionic Post Edited December 9, 2012 by fauklin

[JohnC]

This should be a start....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zPkTItOXuN0

[mcurrier]

This would be a good step -

[img]http://cdn.conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Fiscal-Cliff-Proposal.jpg[/img]

[jtmaze]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1354752896' post='855459']

Sounds good, but how in the hell do you think you'd get politicians to pass it?

I've always thougt that a person should be allowed 1 vote in a federal election for every dollar he/she paid in federal income taxes the previous year. There again, it would be counterproductive for any politician to even consider such a thing.[/quote]

I didn't say it would be possible. Cutting social security is only possible if the government finds out somehow to pay back the billions that they have forced people to pay in. I don't think someone should be able to draw social security if they didn't pay any. That is where the system is flawed. Social security insurance was sold to the public as insurance and there are people drawing it that never paid the premiums. I don't know how to fix the problem I just see a big one.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone