Voting Rights - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: Voting Rights

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by disneyr View Post
    Homeowners? How many people in the U.S. actually own there homes? By far most supposed "Homeowners" are living in homes that are in fact owned by a bank or credit union to whom they pay monthly mortgage "rent" to live there. As many people have found out in the last few years, even paying extra principal payments to try to pay off a mortgage faster does not result in any benefit with the bank when one is no longer able to make payments. Just because one is a renter should not preclude them from voting. Those on "The Dole" however are another matter.


    The root word of mortgage is "mort" as in "until death".


    Ooooh! Etymology! Like.

  2.   
  3. #12
    I too have heard that people who rent should not be able to vote. Which makes no sense. Living in NV, there are so many people I know who are landlords and their tenants all pay the property taxes. Unless your landlord is a dunce, every renter does. Even apt dwellers.
    But guess who deducts the property taxes?
    People on government assistance I can agree should not be able to vote. Felons I am ok with, unless the felony was related to voter fraud, of course :)

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataw. Co. NC.
    Posts
    135

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by disneyr View Post
    Homeowners? How many people in the U.S. actually own there homes? By far most supposed "Homeowners" are living in homes that are in fact owned by a bank or credit union to whom they pay monthly mortgage "rent" to live there. As many people have found out in the last few years, even paying extra principal payments to try to pay off a mortgage faster does not result in any benefit with the bank when one is no longer able to make payments. Just because one is a renter should not preclude them from voting. Those on "The Dole" however are another matter.




    The root word of mortgage is "mort" as in "until death".
    disneyr I never earned enough money to qualify for a home loan so I figured that the only way that I could ever own a home was to build it myself with Cash Money. It took me 11 years 2 months to build my home. It was worth the wait.
    In NC a citizen does not have to be a licensed building contractor to build their own home, but you do have to pass the building inspections and you have to live in the home for at least one year before the home can be sold. That is not a problem for me. I built it to live in.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    There's not being permitted to vote at all, and then there's not being permitted to vote only on certain issues. I agree that people who rent should not be prohibitted from voting generally, but as a renter, they are not tied to the land. They are free to back up a truck, load all their earthly possessions into it, and drive away never to be seen again. The landlord, on the other hand, has all of the responsibilities of maintenance, taxes, and code compliance crap related to the rented domicile. Their renters have the opportunity to set and agree to the terms of their relationship to the property in the lease agreement. They should not be permitted to do so further in the voting booth.

    Specificly, I am thinking in terms of referenda regarding property tax issues, code issues, and similar. Now, granted, if a candidate for public office vows to pass laws to increase property taxes, then renters would be free to vote for that candidate, and generally outnumbering property owners, would likely win, which is why I would also like to see a Constitutional regulation requiring any tax increase go before the public as a referendum, in which, as stated, only property owners affected directly by same would be permitted to vote on said referendum.

    I'll just echo what seems to be the general sentiment that criminals, whether misdemeanors or felonies, from the moment they are convicted to the moment they are released from prison unconditionally, or from parole, or from whatever pre-trial diversion or probationary program they are sentenced to, or to the moment they pay off any and all fines and fees associated with the crime, they should not enjoy the power to have their vote affect the government of the society to which they have exhibitted a propensity to be detrimental. Immediately after that time, they have paid back their debt to society, whether it's a parking ticket, or a 25 year sentence for murder. They get their voting rights back. If you disagree with this, then you agree that they need to be punished more harshly and they need to be fined more heavily or imprisonned for longer, etc.

    Now, this is where I'm likely to diverge quite a bit from the consensus. I would also deny the vote to anyone who has applied for and been granted and tallied benefits for any welfare or entitlement program, bar none. This would include any and all federal or state subsidy programs. If you are a CEO of a corporate farm that receives one red cent of otherwise free federal monies whatsoever, YOU, personally, do not get to vote in the next federal general election, OR partisan primary election. If you get unemployment, you can't vote in the next election. If you receive disability, TANF, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, any government giveaways other than those in your paycheck as an employee (and that's begrudgingly) or as a tax deduction or write-off, that disqualifies you to vote in the coming election, whether that's a mid-term or a presidential election doesn't matter.

    Now, this is strictly at the federal level, I'm talking about. If a given state wants to use the same criteria to disable aid recipients from voting in state, county, city, local, etc. elections as well, until after a given election date, mazel tov! If, the person so disabled from voting due to receiving of the government largesse ceases to qualify, ceases to receive payments, ceases to tally benefits prior to the close of the polls and, until such time as they again do so, THEN they regain the franchise for that period of time.

    This only seems rational to me. If the people want to get free $#!& from the government, then you don't get a say in how much or whether the program continues. If you want a say in government spending and other societal decisions, then stay off the public dole. Simple as that.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Cathy, you have little actual control over your employment. I got laid off when my last employer cut 150 jobs. I've been looking for 2 years, but there's this here recession/depression thing going on, and there's not many jobs out there. Maybe you missed that part.

    So who loses their suffrage if I draw unemployment? Me? My wife, too? And adult children living at home? What if they're working at minimum eager jobs that won't quite support us, and we end up on food stamps? Hell, what if me and my wife are both working part-time minimum wage jobs, and still can't make ends meet, and get federal assistance? You're still going to deny me the right to vote? That's wrong on so many levels, it's scary.

    Y'all say liberals are looney? Look in the mirror, folks.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    Ummm. Yeah. Consider it additional incentive to get back on your feet. You don't have to work for a corp to be earning your own money and be off of the public dole. You can start your own business or just work odd jobs under the table. My only issue is public assistance. The details of why are irrelevant. Whether you're a good person who just fell on temporary hard times or a bad person sucking the system dry, public dole should deprive you of your rights to vote in the next election.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Did you miss the part about looking for work for 2 years? I couldn't even get hired at a Walmart warehouse for seasonal work last Christmas.

    And where am I supposed to get the money to start this business? I could get a federally guaranteed loan, but you probably wouldn't let me vote till it was paid off.

    So answer my questions. Does my wife lose her right to vote if I'm receiving unemployment?

    Are you including social security payments in "public dole?"

    What about government employees? That's public money too. They should probably lose their right to vote too, since they'll just vote for people who will help them keep their jobs. No conflict of interest there.

    You are willing to give control of your vote to your employer. That's f***img amazing.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    I said that I exempted the salaries of federal employees, but only begrudgingly. Though, if you want to include anyone getting paid money directly from the federal government that does not have to be paid back and is not a tax refund, it would not break my heart any. Federal employees already get twice the salary and benefits of their private sector direct equivalents. If the consequence of that flavour of largesse were loss of franchise, so be it.

    If you have a federal loan that you have to pay back, then no, that would not be disqualifying. If you have a federal loan that you have reneged on, then that would conceivably disqualify one for life, since it would mean you gained a benefit by deceit and no longer had any capability to repay it.

    As for your question about your wife, that would depend. If your state uses household income to calculate your unemployment eligibility/benefit level, then yes, because it would mean that if she were gainfully employed, then you would not need the public dole. If your unemployment benefits were calculated exclusively on the basis of your employment history only and her employment or unemployment did not affect the decision in any way, then no, she would still retain her vote, since her benefit from your being on the public dole would be indirect.

    And yes, as I said, SSI would disqualify you from the franchise. Ditto Medicare and Medicaid, as I stated unambiguously. This is because such systems are not the lock box of Al Gore fame. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes, robbing from the future to pay benefits in the present. If they were the lockboxes they were originally designed to be, where you only got back what you put in, then no. That would not be the public dole. That would be you getting back your own money, not someone else's.

    I never said I was willing to give control of my vote to an employer. It's not predicated on whether or not you are gainfully employed. It should be predicated upon whether or not, in the immediately previous election cycle, you lived off the employment of others who paid the taxes for the public assistance you received.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hurtley View Post
    (If you rent out a house, and DON'T pass the taxes through, then you're being disingenuous.
    OK, how is not passing the taxes on to the renter disingenuous?

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    I would submit, first and foremost, as any financial endeavour with any hope of success, all overhead must be passed on, or else the endeavour is doomed from the start. Any business that accepts taxation without passing said taxation on to their customers and ultimately to the end users, is not "maximizing shareholder value". to allow taxes to come straight out of profits is impermissible. If not passed on, it would have to instead be taken out of salaries of employees fired or not hired.

    No corporation not doomed to go out of business pays any taxes. All corporate taxes are passed on to the individual beneficiary of the corporations products and services is the corporation is not to go out of business. To claim otherwise is... disingenuous.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast