2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
The real reason our republic is over (it started a long time ago)
Posted on 11/5/26 at 10:03 am
Posted on 11/5/26 at 10:03 am
TLDR hypothesis: only people who have a positive financial contribution (they contribute more than they receive) to the government should vote. Anything less will lead to a slow death spiral of any country. Everything else is meaningless banter and a distraction from the slow bankrupting of our country.
The country as we knew it is over. But it’s been over. The only question is how long it takes to die.
The cause is a majority of people who can vote are getting handouts from the government. Once that crucial threshold is crossed they will keep voting to empty the coffers and bankrupt the country.
No one ever votes to give themselves less. That’s basic game theory. So there is no way to stop the death spiral. No politician will ever be elected that will take anything away. And if they happen to get in they will be voted out for someone who will return to the status quo.
The founders knew this and John Adams wanted only land owners to vote. I would be a little more lenient and say as long as you don’t take more than you give to your government you can vote. I would also allow active or retired military to vote.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 10:10 am to Knuckle Checker
No representation without taxation.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 10:31 am to Knuckle Checker
Does this mean you think people with a positive financial contribution are not getting handouts from the government? Conversely, do you think that nobody has ever got handouts from the government, then transitioned into a fully functioning tax payer who does pay in more than they take out? Should your theory be implemented at the state level, in other words should states that take more than they put in not be allowed to vote in federal elections?
Posted on 11/5/26 at 10:33 am to BiglyMelt
How it is implemented can be debated.
The point is you can’t have people the receive more than they contribute deciding how much more to give. Do you acknowledge that?
The founders were very aware of this and wrote about it.
My idea was net overall contribution. So for example, maybe you received some sort of $5,000 government handout, but you paid $20,000 in taxes. I think you should be eligible to vote. You have skin in the game.
This would be reassessed on some sort of recurring basis so you could become eligible if you started to contribute.
The point is you can’t have people the receive more than they contribute deciding how much more to give. Do you acknowledge that?
The founders were very aware of this and wrote about it.
My idea was net overall contribution. So for example, maybe you received some sort of $5,000 government handout, but you paid $20,000 in taxes. I think you should be eligible to vote. You have skin in the game.
This would be reassessed on some sort of recurring basis so you could become eligible if you started to contribute.
This post was edited on 11/5/26 at 10:35 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News