Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

The details can be worked out. But the idea is valid, and we should be doing that.
In order to vote, you have to be or have self supporting; if you're just riding on the cart, you go where the people pulling it decide to go. If you don't like that, get off the cart and start pulling it, then you get a voice.

I have heard a few people argue that point before.. That since single folk don't have any 'vested interest' in the future cause they have no offspring for that future to matter to, their vote shouldn't count as much as those married with kids (or single with kids) should..
.

Sorry, but that's just strictly undemocratic. People voted into office don't just deal with money, they also deal with...everything. All laws, and the enforcing of all laws. No one forfeits their right to equal protection just because of economic status, nor should they. Period. All I see here are arguments for the restriction of rights and a disfranchisement crusade based on insanity.

[Annoyed]

Sorry, but that's just strictly undemocratic. People voted into office don't just deal with money, they also deal with...everything. All laws, and the enforcing of all laws. No one forfeits their right to equal protection just because of economic status, nor should they. Period. All I see here are arguments for the restriction of rights and a disfranchisement crusade based on insanity.

No, what you see here is a group of people who are sick and damned tired of government operated for the benefit of freeloaders to the detriment of the working class citizens.

[jelgate]

I agree with aretood on this one

[SoulReaver]

In order to vote, you have to be or have self supporting; if you're just riding on the cart, you go where the people pulling it decide to go. If you don't like that, get off the cart and start pulling it, then you get a voice.

it'd be funny if they go further down that slope & start scaling voting power according to the horsepower on that cart

your vote will only count as 1, that of the Monsanto CEO will count as 1000
lol

No, what you see here is a group of people who are sick and damned tired of government operated for the benefit of freeloaders to the detriment of the working class citizens.

interesting: no word about the elites

[Gatefan1976]

interesting: no word about the elites

Look, all you need is a small loan of a million dollars, and you can do anything.

[aretood2]

No, what you see here is a group of people who are sick and damned tired of government operated for the benefit of freeloaders to the detriment of the working class citizens.

You simply fail to see just how suicidal that is (trigger word warning for victims of self terminations...oh...I guess it's too late since you already would have read that...oh well). What you are proposing is a system where votes are counted based on pay...that is pay per vote. That's exactly that kinda thing that exists in Continuum. Eventually all the purchasing power is concentrated in an oligarchy and the citizens are simply the costumers who have no recourse. It's not a democracy at all in that system.

[SoulReaver]

Look, all you need is a small loan of a million dollars, and you can do anything.

bah! why bother with a loan
just inherit the damn money, easy peasy

[Annoyed]

I am not advocating a system where the more dollars you earn, the more votes that you get. What I'm saying is that you must be self supporting in order to vote. Once you meet that standard, you get your 1 vote. It doesn't matter how much you have above that standard, you still only get 1 vote.

[jelgate]

So I guess we are going to ignore the Constitution then?

[SoulReaver]

I am not advocating a system where the more dollars you earn, the more votes that you get.

point is your idea would open the door to such a scenario & it'd be only a matter of time

So I guess we are going to ignore the Constitution then?

yup when it suits them

[Gatefan1976]

bah! why bother with a loan
just inherit the damn money, easy peasy

Sorry, was feeling presidential, it must be something I read or saw.

[Gatefan1976]

So I guess we are going to ignore the Constitution then?

OK, who are you, and what have you done with Jelgate??

[garhkal]

Right, so when you -actually- look at the problem, it's not so much the government handouts that are costing the taxpayer stupid amounts of money, it is the waste found within the system. You could conceivably knock a 3rd off the cost of social services (some 230 billion dollars based on my info) and deliver better and more effective services.
Yes, Social Services are expensive still, but I would say they are worth it. As Womble said, investing in your people and their future is investing in your countries future as well.

True getting rid of the bloat would help out. BUT till they get serious imo in going after welfare cheats/fraudsters as well, i don't think people are going to stop hating on welfare.

What is wrong with either of these things?
You submit to a licence for a car, and vehicle registration with the state, and upping the cost of ammo is hardly a bad thing is it? Most responsible gun owners probably only use 20-60 rounds per month if they keep their training in would you not think?

Cause Driving is a privelige, where owning a gun is a right (2nd amendment)..

[Gatefan1976]

True getting rid of the bloat would help out. BUT till they get serious imo in going after welfare cheats/fraudsters as well, i don't think people are going to stop hating on welfare.

Haters gonna hate, there is nothing you can do about it.
I find it hilarious however seeing people bagging on "welfare cheats" (which are a tiny fraction, even a few hundred thousand is less than 1%) whilst they hold up signs saying "keep your government hands off my Medicaid", a social program run, and funded by the federal government.

Cause Driving is a privelige, where owning a gun is a right (2nd amendment)..

[/quote]
Then why can't released felons get guns legally?
It's a right, right?
Or, are you saying that the state and the fed have the right to curtail your constitutional rights sometimes?
Restricting sales of high cap magazines does not stop you from owning a "arms". In fact, allowing the general public to own nothing more powerful than a 5 capacity .22 pistol breaks exactly ZERO rules in the 2nd Amendment, nor does denying them to own more than the 5 rounds to fill the weapon. It curtails CHOICE only.

[Annoyed]

So I guess we are going to ignore the Constitution then?

No, the Constitution would have to be amended using the processes that are in place for doing so. I don't think the idea would be able to get enough support to do so, however.