the franchise

[RespectTradition]

I think that if people had to work for the pitiful sums given by social programs, then they would eventually decide that if they have to work anyway, they might as well get a better paying job and do productive work rather than being a drain.

 

[RespectTradition]

Disnfranchisement(sic) is not inherently good or bad but to be a law-abiding, legal citizen who is of age to vote in the country which they reside to be denied their vote is unequivocally evil.

So, you put conditions on the franchise.
1) legal citizen
2) of age
3) law abiding

why is it so wrong to add
4) net tax payer

 

[JayVols]

Good stuff. I think at the very least most reasonable people see the need for safety nets to exist, though the execution of those things is what's up for debate.

The bottom line for me, being perfectly appreciative of capitalism, is that for a healthy system to exist there must be a certain level of unemployment, i.e. not every able bodied person can have a job in a healthy economy, and that's just the way it is.

The whole career welfare recipient, or welfare queen thing is very, very overblown. Are there people who take advantage of it? Absolutely. It's like banking regulations; does the fact that a few abuse the system, and even test its strength from time to time mean we should just say "**** having any rules"? No.

I agree with you. We need a safety net. We just need some accountability along with it. Anyone worth their salt would be willing to do some community service for help. I admit that I do not know how exactly many welfare queens are out there, but 1 still irks me. I was raised to take pride in providing for my family. That's one reason why I still work despite my health situation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

Pretty much, more or less jobs where there probably isn't a buck to be made. I was thinking more along the lines of a mix of privately and publicly run volunteer programs.

Community food kitchen type stuff and other civic minded groups.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[trevols81]

So, you put conditions on the franchise.
1) legal citizen
2) of age
3) law abiding

why is it so wrong to add
4) net tax payer

That is not the law of the land and it would be a benefit to a wealthier(than most) demographic.

EDIT: when did I, me personally, put conditions on the 'franchise'?

 

[RespectTradition]

That is not the law of the land and it would be a benefit to a wealthier(than most) demographic.

I think weaning people off of welfare is of more benefit to the one receiving welfare than the one paying for it.

But ignoring that, is it wrong for something to benefit the wealthy? The wealthy are definitely the minority. Is it ok for the minority to be in a position where the majority can take their stuff? Or it is only acceptable if the minority is the rich and therefore a valid target?

 

[milohimself]

With the current state of campaign finance, I think it's fair to say that the wealthy have much more agency as-is.

 

[RespectTradition]

That is not the law of the land and it would be a benefit to a wealthier(than most) demographic.

EDIT: when did I, me personally, put conditions on the 'franchise'?

If you say 'but to be a law-abiding, legal citizen who is of age to vote in the country which they reside to be denied their vote is unequivocally evil' then it would appear to a reasonable reader to mean that it is not evil to deprive a lawbreaker, illegal citizen(?), or underage person of the vote. That appears to be a statement of approval of the listed conditions.

When did you or I, personally, enact any of the policies that we may agree with? or disagree with? I am not sure what your point is on that.

 

[JayVols]

With the current state of campaign finance, I think it's fair to say that the wealthy have much more agency as-is.

Spot on.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[RespectTradition]

With the current state of campaign finance, I think it's fair to say that the wealthy have much more agency as-is.

Do you think that the majority of people are so simpleminded that tv ads about candidates affect who they vote for? I think about 40% of everyone votes democrat no matter what, 40% votes republican not matter what. The remaining 20% are the intelligent ones who make up their own minds. They tend to do independent research.

 

[JayVols]

Do you think that the majority of people are so simpleminded that tv ads about candidates affect who they vote for? I think about 40% of everyone votes democrat no matter what, 40% votes republican not matter what. The remaining 20% are the intelligent ones who make up their own minds. They tend to do independent research.

It's not ads. It's the 'access' that is purchased via campaign donations. Same could be said for any special interest group. Until we stop the legal bribery of politicians, We The People don't have a chance. Before someone has an aneurysm, this statement applies to both parties and all special interests.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

Do you think that the majority of people are so simpleminded that tv ads about candidates affect who they vote for? I think about 40% of everyone votes democrat no matter what, 40% votes republican not matter what. The remaining 20% are the intelligent ones who make up their own minds. They tend to do independent research.

No, it's much more than just tv ads. If you have some spare time, take a serious look into the influence of people like George Soros or the Koch brothers. There are people still living old enough to have cognisant memories of Kansas as a hotbed of socialism in the US.

 

[RespectTradition]

It's not ads. It's the 'access' that is purchased via campaign donations. Same could be said for any special interest group. Until we stop the legal bribery of politicians, We The People don't have a chance. Before someone has an aneurysm, this statement applies to both parties and all special interests.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

My solution to the access problem is not acceptable to most people. I think that if the government stayed out of almost everything, then there would be no favors to buy or loopholes to pay for.

 

[RespectTradition]

Thanks trevols81, JV and milo. Its been a fun conversation, but its time for bed. To think, I have been spending all my time over at the football board. This one is fun too!

 

[JayVols]

Thanks trevols81, JV and milo. Its been a fun conversation, but its time for bed. To think, I have been spending all my time over at the football board. This one is fun too!

No problem, bro. The fun will fade. Serious bidness up in the politics forum.;-)
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

So, you put conditions on the franchise.
1) legal citizen
2) of age
3) law abiding

why is it so wrong to add
4) net tax payer

Well... the first three show equality. Unless you die prior, everyone living makes it to 18+. Unless you are illegal, everyone with legal citizenship is... at least initially, equally legal. Unless you committed a felony, everyone, is, again, equally, at least initially, law abiding.

Net tax payer... not as equal. Unless you are willing to start everyone off at zero, and reset everyone to zero at the birth of every new potential voter... not so much initial starting point of "equal."

A new born, in Tennessee, starts off 1. law abiding, 2. legal citizen, 3. requiring the same amount of time to reach 18 as any other newborn born at the same time.

However, that same new born may or may not have equal time necessary to become a net tax payer.

In short, such a system is inherently unequal.

And, simply because I want to make this long... you may suggest (or have?) that a wealthy individual doesn't have as much equality as the poor, in that they are taxed higher. Well, that is not true. The wealthy can give away their money to reclaim their equality. Can the same always be said of poor people to garner wealth?

 

[NEO]

Age discrimination on voting does not show equality.

Personally, I think you should either be military or 30 unless you own land, a business or---

de ja vue

 

[fl0at]

Age discrimination on voting does not show equality.

Elaborate?

Who, at 17, can legally vote, whereas others at 17 cannot?

 

[NEO]

Elaborate?

Who, at 17, can legally vote, whereas others at 17 cannot?

same logic if non workers were not allowed to vote.

"who, not working can legally vote, whereas other not working cannot?"

it's still age discrimination. It the same as not hiring someone because they are 55. You can turn everyone you interview down who is 55 and state it's a rule but it's still age discrimination.

 

[milohimself]

Its not the same.when you hire someone, you are expecting a return on investment. That its the nature of wage labor. When somebody votes it is a singular decision based on ones own stake in government and society. Everyone does, and even though some may not contribute in taxes, they may in the future. Age discrimination works in our instance because if someone is under 18, they are a dependant of someone who does have the right to vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

Its not the same.when you hire someone, you are expecting a return on investment. That its the nature of wage labor. When somebody votes it is a singular decision based on ones own stake in government and society. Everyone does, and even though some may not contribute in taxes, they may in the future. Age discrimination works in our instance because if someone is under 18, they are a dependant of someone who does have the right to vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

so because they are dependant they lose the right to vote?

seems to me you would then agree that people with 0 net income should not vote like the OP stated.

I know you won't but logically this is what you stated.

 

[RespectTradition]

Let me clarify what I was saying last night in case I came across wrong. I do not think it is right to take someone's franchise away from them. I do think that it is ok to allow someone to choose to give it up. Anyone can refuse government handouts and thus be eligible to vote (in my scenario). It is a choice by the individual.

 

[fl0at]

Let me clarify what I was saying last night in case I came across wrong. I do not think it is right to take someone's franchise away from them. I do think that it is ok to allow someone to choose to give it up. Anyone can refuse government handouts and thus be eligible to vote (in my scenario). It is a choice by the individual.

Ah, maybe I misunderstood what "net positive tax" meant, considering that I, like most all professional school students, are on Federal student loans...

 

[MystifyingVol]

Ah, maybe I misunderstood what "net positive tax" meant, considering that I, like most all professional school students, are on Federal student loans...

Student loans are not the same as welfare... one requires payments back to the originator of the loan, the other does not.

I would be okay with removing the franchise from those on the dole for longer than 12 months. As RT said, it ends up being a choice whether or not to be disenfranchised. There needs to be a waiting period after you come off the dole before you are allowed to vote though, or you'd see people dropping off before an election.

 

[fl0at]

Student loans are not the same as welfare... one requires payments back to the originator of the loan, the other does not.

It isn't the same, but I am still not a "net tax payer." And as stated, that means I don't have the right to vote.

It is ideas like these, poorly worded and without thought to implications that result in bad laws. And we already have enough of those.
Posted via VolNation Mobile