Re: Occupy America I thought it was 99% vs 1%? According to that ratio, it wouldnt have that much of an effect. Also, theres a few more groups besides welfare recipients and millionaires.
Re: Occupy America Removing anyone's right to help shape the government based solely on their financial standing is a terrible idea. The problem isn't the voters, it's the welfare system and its policies.
Re: Occupy America Yes, of course there, I simply laid out the extreme case for clarity's sake. The point is that according to many, it is right and rational for people to vote on financial incentives in one case, and wrong and corrupting to vote on financial incentives in the other case. This seems incongruous and without much justification. And given their lack of financial means to influence the process elsewhere, removing or limiting the poor's ability to vote has a much larger impact on them than it would on other groups. As they don't typically spend much in campaigns, write for editorial pages, or have many of their own representing them, it's the only way their voice is heard. We like to claim we're a democracy (or even a republic, for that matter), so perhaps we should act like one.
Re: Occupy America I know I sound like Ebenezer Scrooge, but I'm not saying poor people shouldn't vote, I'm saying welfare recipients shouldn't. No one is forces anyone to go on welfare, you apply for those benefits. And you can get them if you really need them, but you don't get to participate in elections until you're not. People should have some skin the in game. With that said, I do agree with part of the OWS sentiment that most people are left out and have no influence on political decisions aside from the rich on both sides of the isle. It scares me that the popular vote doesn't matter in elections. Hell, electoral college members can submit a vote for whoever they want regardless if they're even running.
Re: Occupy America I can't agree with it, it is too much of a true disfranchising of voting rights. Though I do agree that requirements for food should be considered (which I think some places do only allowing certain food to be bought with food stamps, such as perishable items since they generally cost more). Not allowing them to turn around and sell them on a black market should also be strictly enforced.
Re: Occupy America Your logic is completely flawed, and here is why: Every single person that votes has a "conflict of interest" in voting. That is the point. We vote for those who we feel would do best for us. Those on Welfare don't want to lose their Welfare. Corporations (and their CEOs and employees and stockholders) that are making huge amounts of money using tax loopholes don't want to see those loopholes closed. No one forces them to use those loopholes, you fill out the forms and get your accounts to make it happen, and you can get them if you really need them. The Middle Class doesn't want to see their taxes raised, and they want to see jobs created. It doesn't even have to apply to issues regarding money. What about other rights? According to your logic, gay people who want to legalize gay marriage shouldn't vote, because they have a 'conflict of interest.' They stand to directly benefit if a government legalizes gay marriage. Having a stake in voting is the entire REASON for voting. Telling an entire group that there is a "conflict of interest" is silly, because everyone has a "conflict of interest."
Re: Occupy America Well shit, I guess that means in your system I just lost my vote. I was a welfare recipient from the government last year in the form of the mortgage interest reduction on my taxes and the 15% federal refund I got for installing energy efficient windows and furnace in my house. Now that I think about it, if no one who received government welfare was allowed to vote I'm guessing that rules out north of 95% of the population.
Re: Occupy America This points to one of the major problems Congress has with dealing with money. They define things like reductions in the amount of increase as a "cut" and try to figure out ways to "pay for" tax cuts. What you described is not welfare at all, unless you received back more than was withheld throughout the year. You still had a net amount that you paid into the government. It's true that it reduced the amount that you owed, but the government didn't give you anything. They just let you keep more of what was already yours.
Re: Occupy America I think I enjoy being the seagull. Junk Food is not cheaper than good food. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?pagewanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opini ... wanted=all</a> You can't still claim that Americans are obese AND not eating enough. Especially when cooking a good meal is less expensive then ordering at McDonalds. The way America originally worked was that all Land Owners, i.e. Those paying property taxes, were the only ones that could vote. It makes sense when you think about it. Those that are positive contributors to society are able to vote, while those that don't contribute can't. (Let's ignore the white male land owners and women and blacks can't vote, it is a distraction to the real issue). And like Benny Franklin said, "The republic will only last as long until the people realize that they can vote themselves the money." And he was dead on, and we are reaping the consequences of it. The problem is that I think we need some sort of gate to become voters. And without that gate, without people having worked hard in some fashion or another to earn the vote, we will quickly degenerate into a group of people voting to fuck over another group of people, and the fucked over group of people will realize they can't win and either give up, or join the fuckers. We are seeing the results of this in Greece, Spain and the UK. We are on that road. We can choose to get off.
Re: Occupy America A requirement of property ownership for voting just leads to a more bifurcated society. Requiring land ownership means that people who want to vote buy property. Which in turn drives up prices, making it harder for the poor to vote. Which leads to a smaller group having even more power than they do now. The same goes with most requirements for voting. The group that can vote makes it harder for those who can't to get the ability to vote. As for being on the same path as the PIIGS (not sure why you included the UK and not Italy), I'm not really sure I follow your train of thought. Are we moving back towards more societal benefits and a stronger social safety net? I sure hope so. Are we living in a society that's being weighed down by bad bets its financial sector made? Yes. Are close to not being able to pay our bills? Not even close. But returning to your original point about people voting themselves the money. What do you think tax cuts at the top end are? Or the capital gains rate?
Re: Occupy America So now we are debating whether welfare recipients should have the right to vote and whether we should put up barriers to voting? That is seriously where we are in this thread? Just making sure...
Re: Occupy America Which is great, except half of Americans don't pay taxes. I'd restrict the franchise to people who are high school graduates or GED holders (maybe an exception here for naturalized citizens) AND have paid federal income taxes in at least one of the previous 3 years; OR are currently members of the military (active, guard, or reserve) or have completed a term of service and received an honorable discharge. To go hand in hand with the first criteria, in order to graduate from any high school in the US (or American schools overseas--this would still allow a few people who grow up overseas as American citizens and attend local high schools to slip through the cracks, but they wouldn't be numerically significant) or receive a GED you have to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants to the US pass in order to become American citizens. Anyway, this is absolutely fantastic. My favorite part: I'm not sure if I'd rather comment on the fact that an 18-year-old who owned a $5500 laptop traveled from Florida to New York to protest their economic oppression and is now complaining about not having money to eat, or the fact that this particular crowd is bitching about people having their personal property taken against their will by others. Tocqueville, not Franklin. But the rest of your post is right on.
Re: Occupy America Waitaminute, we're actually going to disenfranchisement of welfare recipients now? As a way to reduce income inequality? This is fucking absurd. I love Starship Troopers too (the book, not the movie), but it is not the model for a functioning America. Go start your own country and fuck it up however you want.
Re: Occupy America Who are these people that everyone talks about (and claim are 47% of the population) who don't pay: sales tax, property tax, state and local taxes, payroll tax (Social Security, Medicare, implicit Unemployment taxes...)? Everyone loves throwing this statistic around, despite the fact that it is obviously false and/or misleading. Also,, we had poll taxes and tests once. Do you guys not remember what they were used for? Not really that far from the real issue. Rather than sex or race, you've just replaced it with class. What you are suggesting is a country where economic might is right. So your solution to the idea of warring voting factions is to give only one of those factions the right to vote. Well, I guess that is a solution of sorts.... I can't comprehend anyone thinking the problem with the United States is that we haven't concentrated enough political power in the hands of the wealthy and fortunate. This thread has taken a turn for both the overly political, and the terrible.
Re: Occupy America I wouldn't say overly political, just stupid. Makes you wonder how many people in this thread jerk off to Atlas Shrugged.
Re: Occupy America Jesus, I go away for the weekend and come back to this? Since this thread has crossed the Rubicon long ago, I have a random question for anyone who's willing to answer: does the lack of an established third party in the U.S., specifically geared towards the working class, have anything to do with everything that's been going on? As I understand it, (1) most other industrial countries have such a party, and (2) it's been tried in the U.S. previously, and for some reason it was unsuccessful. For all I know, that's probably a fundamentally stupid question. But I'm being genuine here; my knowledge of political processes is so slim that I'm out of my element here.
Re: Occupy America As it stands now, 60% of the people on the United States receive more in benefits from the government then they pay in. The concentration of power is very evident. Do you think they will let this end?
Re: Occupy America There's a number of worker oriented parties. There's even ones that get more granular and are based around certain industries. The problem is they never get enough traction and publicity where the public hears about them. Theres never been a true third party that's taken the presidential election, except for maybe Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. And even then, it was a splinter Republican party.