Teaparty Nation President: Restrict voting rights to property owners.

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[skyrider 0]

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Ya left off the word "only" , makes your title read incorrectly! YWIA

[quade 4]

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Perfect example of someone attempting to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century. The founding fathers never could have imagined the millions upon millions of people in the US today that live in apartments and condos.

What a moron.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Perfect example of someone attempting to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century. The founding fathers never could have imagined the millions upon millions of people in the US today that live in apartments and condos.

What a moron.

I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote? Welfare...LOL, goodbye..

PLus , define "Owner" My house still belongs to me & the Bank...so am I the "owner", or only leasing from the bank?

[billvon 3,009]

>I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote?

Clever developers would sell one square foot parcels of Florida swampland to welfare recipients.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote?

Clever developers would sell one square foot parcels of Florida swampland to welfare recipients.

And anyone that has ever drove the backroads of Deland, knows there are hundreds of miles of developed (roads belt, no homes) swamp land ...dayum, I could get filthy rich...I'm voting for it!

Lot of that kind of land around Eloy too!

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote?

Clever developers would sell one square foot parcels of Florida swampland to welfare recipients.

Would a trailer in the DZ getto count as "property ownership?"

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Perfect example of someone attempting to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century. The founding fathers never could have imagined the millions upon millions of people in the US today that live in apartments and condos.

What a moron.

that's how I originally felt but then I heard what he actually said, oppossed to what the writer portrays:

Quote

"...It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know,you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner..."

To me it seems as though he's simply giving a little history lesson.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[rehmwa 2]

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

PLus , define "Owner" My house still belongs to me & the Bank...so am I the "owner", or only leasing from the bank?

You own your house. The bank holds a lein against it until you pay back the money you owe them. Hence why you pay the property taxes on it and why they don't get a key.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Many of these restrictions were phased out by the 1820s and replaced with requirements that the voter pays taxes. By 1850, these requirements, too, were phased out.

This actually makes sense. Base it on federal income tax. This way if someone tried to get around this to vote, they'd actually be contributing.

Would help to put an end to bread and circuses. ;)

This of course would need to be coupled with some sort of requirement that taxes raised must equal x% of the national debt or equal to the the annual budget, whichever is greater.

This would deter the extremely rich from simply changing the tax law so people making under say 6 figures no longer pay taxes so lose their right to vote and they then drop their rate to a low number.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[PiLFy 3]

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Who is that Jerk? He wants to espouse the Constitution, but isn't aware that we fought the Revolution, in part, over this very issue?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

Right. Because when a company shuts its doors in a town, you lose your job, can't afford to pay your mortgage, have to sell your house and live in an apartment . . . yeah, you should also lose your right to vote.

Sigh.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tkhayes 348]

exactly why the tea party, when it comes right down to it, will never get anywhere,

Constitution would have to be changed along with a million other state and federal laws.

Not happening.

THe NAZI party has a lot of ideas that 'good ol folk' share too, but they will never get anywhere either.

[Tink1717 2]

Yeah, the rightards have been saying this and other things like it for decades now. Anything they can do to eliminate the right to vote, and other rights as well, to anyone other than themselves is what they will try to do. The sad part is that almost no one amoung them sees that they will be targets as too.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[mnealtx 0]

"Rightard"....gee, that's *almost* witty - who'd you crib it from?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/

Perfect example of someone attempting to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century. The founding fathers never could have imagined the millions upon millions of people in the US today that live in apartments and condos.

What a moron.

I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote? Welfare...LOL, goodbye..

PLus , define "Owner" My house still belongs to me & the Bank...so am I the "owner", or only leasing from the bank?

considering that property can be taken for non-payment of property taxes, we're effectively leasing property from the government.

--
Rob

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

So, all the bankers who took TARP money would lose their right to vote? All the military contractors whose livelihood depends on corporate welfare form the government would lose their right to vote?

This might be a plan I could get behind.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

Why stop there? Only billionaires should vote. The Republicans would love that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

>I agree...but imagin the changes if only property owners could vote?

Clever developers would sell one square foot parcels of Florida swampland to welfare recipients.

And anyone that has ever drove the backroads of Deland, knows there are hundreds of miles of developed (roads belt, no homes) swamp land ...dayum, I could get filthy rich...I'm voting for it!

Lot of that kind of land around Eloy too!

Swamp land around Eloy? You've really lost it now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

So, all the bankers who took TARP money would lose their right to vote? All the military contractors whose livelihood depends on corporate welfare form the government would lose their right to vote?

This might be a plan I could get behind.

last thing I remember the bankers and military personel have jobs and contribute to the country, people eating on the couch watching tv and collecting welfare do not.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

Right. Because when a company shuts its doors in a town, you lose your job, can't afford to pay your mortgage, have to sell your house and live in an apartment . . . yeah, you should also lose your right to vote.

Sigh.

living in an apartment you still pay property taxes, it is included in the rent. my comment was you need to be productive not a drain on the country.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on welfare or other government subsidies. to many vote for handouts and don't contribute to the country in any meaningful way.

Why stop there? Only billionaires should vote. The Republicans would love that.

I'd be up for that if they had to pay off at least 10% of the national debt each year and 10 years to fully pay it off.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Niki1 1]

Quote

The point that the citizen had to have a vested stake in the country does make sense. But in today's realm that doesn't now mean real estate ownership, maybe it might just be if you are a taxpayer, then suddenly how that money is spent suddenly becomes important in a less selfish way.

I can see a slippery slope with the ones who pay more taxes wanting more of a say. Problematic. A lot of land is owned by corporations and businesses. Corporations and businesses can't vote.

I would look to campaign finance reform. ONLY those who can vote can contribute to those they can vote for. Businesses and corporations can't vote. They shouldn't be allowed to contribute. Some one living in North Carolina should not be allowed to contribute to some one campaigning in Florida. We have a reprasentative form of goverenment. I think theat was supposed to mean that the people from an area, say the 1st Congressional District of whatever state, voted for one of their own to go represent them in Washington. But too often people are elected in one area because of the money they get from everywhere else in the entire country. That dilutes the voice of the people in the "1st Congressional District of whatever state." That bastardizes the original concept and turns our elected officials into whores.

Sorry if this wan't directly on point.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?