- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you receive funds from government
Posted on 10/24/22 at 10:54 am to ApexTiger
Posted on 10/24/22 at 10:54 am to ApexTiger
The issue is what an be done in reality without starting a riot. The answer is nothing. The answer is save, invest wisely, and get your family as far from the city as possible.
1
Posted on 10/24/22 at 10:59 am to Eurocat
quote:
So no farmer should vote if they get any kind of farm aid (which is the vast majority of them)?
No. Welfare queens.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:01 am to ApexTiger
quote:
Can you vote objectively?
Who the Hell votes "objectively"? What makes anyone think they should?
I vote for the candidates that best align with my beliefs and how they relate to their office. (Eg, I don't care how a candidate for public utilities commissioner views abortion). There is very little "objective" about that.
If you vote for any candidate based on their political party, are you voting objectively? Is it objective to vote for someone clearly unqualified just because of their party? I think not.
Democratic voting allows people to vote using whatever criteria they choose. We have guardrails in place to prevent things from getting too crazy.
That said, if you promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:13 am to ApexTiger
If it's from legit unemployment, then yes they definitely have the right to vote.
Quiet quitting, quitting because things aren't going your way, your skill level is low and other shitty reasons is not legit unemployment.
Quiet quitting, quitting because things aren't going your way, your skill level is low and other shitty reasons is not legit unemployment.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:47 am to Tmo Sabe
quote:
see where you're going, but it's slippery.
Can't we be specific of such terms in the spirit and pursuit of fair elections?
A job within the public sector shouldn't be compared to government aid distributed for the sole purpose of housing and food...
Welfare enables people not to work...it also sustains Democrat power in elections.
It lends itself to corruptions and conflict of interest...
Can we break the cycle?
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:51 am to ApexTiger
[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]
"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."
"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:54 am to ApexTiger
quote:
For housing or food... Can you vote objectively? Should these people forfeit their right to vote?
This counts for government paychecks also ‘conservatives’
And no, they shouldn’t be able to participate at the same level as a taxpayer
Posted on 10/24/22 at 11:56 am to Tmo Sabe
quote:
Government employees?
Shouldn’t be able to vote or should have their vote reduced in elections involving their branch of employment. Because they don’t pay taxes to that branch.
If your paycheck comes from the Federal government you don’t pay Federal income taxes. Not really.
Essential employees like military and emergency services excepted.
This post was edited on 10/24/22 at 11:58 am
Posted on 10/24/22 at 12:01 pm to ImaObserver
Remarks on Mr. Jefferson’s Draft of a Constitution
James Madison
October 15, 1788
[Madison’s concern about class warfare between rich and poor led him to favor a House of Representatives elected by the people at large, and a Senate elected by property owners. — TGW]
Excerpt:
" If all power be suffered to slide into hands not interested in the rights of property which must be the case whenever a majority fall under that description, one of two things cannot fail to happen; either they will unite against the other description and become the dupes and instruments of ambition, or their poverty and independence will render them the mercenary instruments of wealth. In either case liberty will be subverted; in the first by a despotism growing out of anarchy, in the second, by an oligarchy founded on corruption."
James Madison
October 15, 1788
[Madison’s concern about class warfare between rich and poor led him to favor a House of Representatives elected by the people at large, and a Senate elected by property owners. — TGW]
Excerpt:
" If all power be suffered to slide into hands not interested in the rights of property which must be the case whenever a majority fall under that description, one of two things cannot fail to happen; either they will unite against the other description and become the dupes and instruments of ambition, or their poverty and independence will render them the mercenary instruments of wealth. In either case liberty will be subverted; in the first by a despotism growing out of anarchy, in the second, by an oligarchy founded on corruption."
Posted on 10/24/22 at 12:34 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Can you vote objectively?
Can anyone vote objectively? It's the expression of one's opinion.
quote:
Should these people forfeit their right to vote?
The last successful Constitutional Amendment was 30 years ago. The last voting-related one was 60 years ago and it expanded the vote, so whether they should or shouldn't forfeit their right to vote really isn't relevant.
It will never be ratified.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 12:46 pm to ApexTiger
Allowing takers to vote is like having a homeless charity and allowing homeless people to sit on the Board of Directors.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 12:59 pm to ApexTiger
I'd be more in a favor of a scaled down amount of "entitlements" over time. The concept should be that the government assistance is to help individuals become productive members of society, not full-time grifters.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 1:10 pm to Bill Parker?
quote:
I'd be more in a favor of a scaled down amount of "entitlements" over time.
I say, pop the popcorn, grab a 6 pack and just pull the rug...
Posted on 10/24/22 at 1:52 pm to ApexTiger
You are basically asking if the poor should have a right of say in the government. A vote is more than just a say of what happens with government hand outs. It's national laws, defense, transportation, etc.
Keep in mind while they did not contribute to the national government, those monies do contribute to state and local sales tax when they make purchases.
There is also the possibility that while the government assisted area have a higher crime rate, removing funding in those areas may lead to the crimes moving out to areas that do have more privileges. Would we then question gun rights for that group?
As another poster stated, removing the rights of non-tax payers can be a slippery slope. Should higher tax contributors have a weighted vote? Should the top 1% have a 37% (outright) say in government policies? That's bit extreme, but removing the rights of the less privilege is a move towards an aristocratic government.
I don't like the party for which many will vote, but they still have a right to vote.
Keep in mind while they did not contribute to the national government, those monies do contribute to state and local sales tax when they make purchases.
There is also the possibility that while the government assisted area have a higher crime rate, removing funding in those areas may lead to the crimes moving out to areas that do have more privileges. Would we then question gun rights for that group?
As another poster stated, removing the rights of non-tax payers can be a slippery slope. Should higher tax contributors have a weighted vote? Should the top 1% have a 37% (outright) say in government policies? That's bit extreme, but removing the rights of the less privilege is a move towards an aristocratic government.
I don't like the party for which many will vote, but they still have a right to vote.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:01 pm to Nosevens
quote:
So are you suggesting no older people vote because of Ssi or ins they paid for last 40-50 years?
You really think this is a gotcha moment? Something I am forced to pay into that if I invested myself would garner a much higher return……please don’t reproduce! You gene line needs to die out.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:08 pm to Dday63
quote:
Who the Hell votes "objectively"? What makes anyone think they should?
I understand your point.
...add your lively hood every month into the voting booth and this a bride...
Its lopsided...
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:09 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Should these people forfeit their right to vote?
yes.
anyone on the dole who does not receive an EARNED BENEFIT from the fedgov (SSA, Medicare, Veterans benefits) should not be able to vote.
This post was edited on 10/24/22 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:10 pm to ApexTiger
You should surrender your right to vote if you are on the govt teat. Sorry not sorry.
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:52 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You should surrender your right to vote if you are on the govt teat. Sorry not sorry.
Politically, how do we get this message across and implemented?
Posted on 10/24/22 at 2:55 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Politically, how do we get this message across and implemented?
Wish I knew. We’re a long ways away from it happening though.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News