Can anyone stop this?

[ga-hvac-tech]

See, the only real problem I have with owning land being required to vote is that it is much harder to obtain land in this day and age. In those days you go out and just claim a peice of land by improving on it, aka the homesteading principle. If owning land was the sole requirement for voting you would see wholesale land grabs by the wealthy and emeinent domain, which is used in ways that where not thought of in our founders day, would also be abused to control voting. AKA well your not going to vote for me Im going to build a statue where your house was.

You miss the point Elf... read my post again. Think outside a 'me vs them' attitude.
The restriction to own land is a way to limit voting to folks that have the EXPERIENCE of managing money successfully (even simply on a family level). It is kinda like letting the mature chickens be in charge of the hen house... rather than the rooster or the fox.

Now perhaps land ownership may or may not be the best route... however lets think of a solution where only folks who have learned how to manage $$$ (writing/following a budget, having savings, planning ahead, etc) choose the folks who make the rules which govern how taxation is accomplished and how tax $$$ is spent. Can you see the difference between someone who has lived with a silver spoon in their mouth (always had more $$$ than they needed) OR a person who has learned to live within a budget and save for rainy days... making fiscal policy. Seems simple to me.

There is nothing wrong with folks having to work to eat... and the churches took care of charity more than adequately before the govt took over.
There is something about earning one's living that grows a person from a spoiled child to a contributing/society adult. If we took away the endless safety nets folks would go back to work and that maturing process would take hold of America. The only loosers would be losers and polecats... I think we can let them slide... what do you think?

[Elfshadow]

You miss the point Elf... read my post again. Think outside a 'me vs them' attitude.
The restriction to own land is a way to limit voting to folks that have the EXPERIENCE of managing money successfully (even simply on a family level). It is kinda like letting the mature chickens be in charge of the hen house... rather than the rooster or the fox.

Now perhaps land ownership may or may not be the best route... however lets think of a solution where only folks who have learned how to manage $$$ (writing/following a budget, having savings, planning ahead, etc) choose the folks who make the rules which govern how taxation is accomplished and how tax $$$ is spent. Can you see the difference between someone who has lived with a silver spoon in their mouth (always had more $$$ than they needed) OR a person who has learned to live within a budget and save for rainy days... making fiscal policy. Seems simple to me.

There is nothing wrong with folks having to work to eat... and the churches took care of charity more than adequately before the govt took over.
There is something about earning one's living that grows a person from a spoiled child to a contributing/society adult. If we took away the endless safety nets folks would go back to work and that maturing process would take hold of America. The only loosers would be losers and polecats... I think we can let them slide... what do you think?

I was not disagreeing with the concept of limiting who gets to vote, just that its a tough one to do correctly because it really is hard to figure out whom is worth voting for. You do it wrong and you end up with sociopaths that have no problem lieing about everything being the only ones who get to vote.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Have you read about the election between Thomas Jefferson and his opponent in the early 1800's... makes today look like grade school kids.

Personally, I think integrity of polecats would be higher if they had to appeal to a higher mentality and maturity of voter. Polecats are kinda flexible characters; they will adapt to whatever it takes to get into and maintain power. as such; IMO the goal would be to have the highest caliber of voter... thus the polecats would have to campaign and govern to higher standards if they wanted to get elected and re-elected.

[Tool-Slinger]

I was doing a job today for a landlord that I do some work for. The house wasn't in the best area but it was a decent house with five bedrooms and it even had an in ground pool. He was telling me that he rents it through section eight. The rent is $2050 a month. The government(me and you)pay $2030 and the tenant pays $20. I said does the tenant work. He said no. She has nine kids. In addition to the basically free rent she also collects social security and gets food stamps. He said she receives about sixty thousand a year from the government(me and you). Will anyone stop this lunacy or are we just going to go broke?

No, it cannot be stopped. I would advocate free soup and a warehouse type shelter. Nobody would ever be hungry or cold.

That won't happen.

[energy star]

Post #1 upsets me to no end. If you have NINE KIDS and find yourself only able or WILLING to pay twenty bucks a month, you should live in the street.

[matt1124]

Nope, that's why my side business is landlording!

[Mrak]

What I start worrying about is that it may not be too far in the distant future that there will be so many that desire and take advantage of all the government handouts (your's and my taxes) that when a politician runs for office all they will need to say is: "Vote for me and I'll double your welfare benefits".
I promised myself I wouldn't talk politics.....

[ga-hvac-tech]

Post #1 upsets me to no end. If you have NINE KIDS and find yourself only able or WILLING to pay twenty bucks a month, you should live in the street.

I agree... however we have too many bleeding hearts that vote.

I kinda like Tool's suggestion: A warehouse that is barely warm enough to not be cold... and a cup of soup a day... and proof of working to earn the right to be there. Let the govt arrange litter pick-up details. You work your 8 hours, you get to stay at the shelter and get min wage in cash. Childcare (no litigation allowed) would be provided.

Kinda like prison; It should be better to be outside than to be inside. Make it literally that bad... and folks will choose to be outside.

[texas cooler]

I agree... however we have too many bleeding hearts that vote.

I kinda like Tool's suggestion: A warehouse that is barely warm enough to not be cold... and a cup of soup a day... and proof of working to earn the right to be there. Let the govt arrange litter pick-up details. You work your 8 hours, you get to stay at the shelter and get min wage in cash. Childcare (no litigation allowed) would be provided.

Kinda like prison; It should be better to be outside than to be inside. Make it literally that bad... and folks will choose to be outside.

At a basic sustenance level with no EBT card to re-sell or receive cash back, how can you buy cigs, alcohol and dope?