Let's just stop pretending and put the rich white men in charge

They strike me as being more melancholy than the plantation owners in the second half of Gone With The Wind.

Jesus christ. I don't even have a comment other than to say that these tea partiers are dangerous American Fascists

The rhetoric is, to put it bluntly, frightening. They need to be treated as a dire threat to the nation by every last sane individual. Their obstruction on climate change alone endangers our national security, and now they talk openly about eliminating birth right citizenship and the fucking RIGHT TO VOTE. These people have no place in the future, and I wish dems would realize that they can't just ignore this craziness and let it sneak up on them. The ruling class and their mouth breathing tea bagger brown shirts need to be called out for their hatred and backwardness, politically isolated and stripped of any real power

The original idea behind limiting the Vote to people who owned property was, they had a stake in the system....they weren't just leeching off the system, but were involved in society.

Remember I said "Original idea".

Totally inapplicable now, particularly when people are (finally) questioning the wisdom of buying a home as some sort of American Nirvana.

I do think we've got to somehow get back to the idea that being a Citizen is a two way set of obligations, not just show up and vote when your team, er, Party gets you riled up, and the rest of the time you just passively receive a set of rights and services.

But this ain't the way to do it.

If you live in America, you have a stake in the system. Period.

EDIT: That is not to say that I don't think Americans in general really don't know what they're doing when they cast their ballot, and mostly have no business being part of the political process. I actually toy with the idea of a civics test for voting, from time to time. With local elections, if I do not know the issues or candidates, I do not vote. I don't vote the party line just for the heck of it

To suggest that you have more stake in your country if you own property though is absurd. If you live your life somewhere, you have stake in how that place operates

I bet you voted for Obama, you dirty apartment-dweller.

Didn't you!

DIDN'T YOU!!!

Bullshit.

I didn't click the link. I will later. Property owners isn't the way to go as far as restricting voting but restricting voting is a thoughtful suggestion.

The proper way to go about it however is net tax consumers are the people who ought to be removed from the voting rolls. If you aren't paying into the system you shouldn't be allowed to vote yourself largesse from said system. Full disclosure: In my 15 years of being gainfully employed I would say that I personally would qualify as a net tax consumer in all but three of those years. No voting for me except those three years.

And, Kate, the right to vote in a federal election doesn't exist in the constitution.

*EDIT* Clicked it, he's a semi-nutter. Net tax consumers need to go though.

Right, Kate , but compare what you get from the system to what you put into the system:

You GET:

Police, Fire, Defense, Welfare (if you need it), Food Stamps (if you need it), Medicare, Medicade, Student Loans for collage, NPR, Assurance that your food is (relatively) safe to eat, a system of laws that provide a myriad of protections, a national transportation system, protected Parks and Monuments, Protection for endangered animal species, etc etc etc

You PUT IN:

Your vote (except most don't)

Taxes (which everyone hates and quite a few do their best to avoid)

National Service (military or Peace Corps, and in either case it's a tiny percentage of the population that participates in those).


What I (and I think some in the Tea party) are getting at, is that people have no concept of the Greater Good of the Country, are only out for themselves. And irony or ironies, that ought to make them Progressives, but they are instead arguing for the elimination of most of the benefits I' list above.

I doubt its what the Tea Party had in mind, but it seems like restricting the vote to owners of American property would just be the quickest way to have the whole Constitution thrown out in favor of a Maoist communist state.

But would Service guarantee Citizenship?

If you own multiple homes, do you get multiple votes? How does it work if your family has a vacation home in Hawaii and a winter home in Florida... do you get to vote in all 3 places? This seems really complex, I say we just go with whomever gets the most illegal contributions wins, worked in 2008.

They need to a put a modern spin on it:

- The hoi poloi get fractional votes depending on how much equity they have in their land, the balance going to the shareholders of the mortgage holders
- Rich bastards sunning in the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands get extra votes for extending US dominance abroad
- Likewise, soldiers in the field get bonus votes for occupying land abroad, minus depreciation for equipment used in said acquisition

Service Guarantees Citizenship!

Would you like to know more?

Tzu,

If you live in America, you have a stake in the system. From the government to the infrastructure, education and the economy, every last bit of it effects you, and you are rightfully entitled to a say. Can't find that nugget of wisdom in some document written in the 18th century? I don't really care

In case you didn't notice, I would not have been able to vote in any election whatsoever in the America the founders envisioned. Jefferson and the rest had a few good (and legitimately revolutionary) ideas, but slavery to their dogmas is one generation binding the next to it's will and IMHO morally indefensible. Many Americans seem to regard a document that states black people are three fifths of a human being as some sort of holy text. The constitution is a framework that can and should be changed as the needs of the nation evolve, in order to build a more liberal and just future

That is my political end game, just so you know where I stand

If you live here, you should be allowed to contribute your voice and single vote to help steer the ship of state. That principle is paramount above all else, for me anyway. There is no common ground for discussion as far as I'm concerned if we can't see eye to eye on that

I understand, but what I am saying is that even if there are people who don't know what they are doing or are voting for abhorrent things, they still need to be allowed to have their vote

If the people you're so worried about are a large enough segment of the population to derail the national agenda, then how can you be for voting at all? Couldn't all the tax paying property owning non felons get swept up in some stupid election cycle fever one year and vote in a bunch of crazies? If we can't trust some people to vote because they "don't have a stake in the system" as this tea bagger says, how can we trust anyone? How do I know that the property owners really love America? Maybe voting itself is too risky!

Good God, she's 100 percent right.

Seriously people, restricting the right to vote? Jesus.

Wow, there's a lot of crazy in this thread.

I'm actually holding back.

Here's some more!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...eo.php?ref=fpa

Honestly, what's his point here? Is it that we need to look into the possibility of secession? How's about our state don't send troops to the next war Republicans start? This type of baiting is not helpful. If you're not going to call out this a major issue, STFU since the very idea of overturning federal law is inherently a big one.

Everyone who's into politics even a little has had moments of thinking "If only these uninformed idiots couldn't vote, everything would be so much better." Everyone. But if you're as smart as you think you are, you follow it up with thinking "Okay, then. How could you set this up?" And then the innumerable ways in which this would mean the absolute end of western democracy become all too clear.

And you decide we should give this idea a pass.

Is your post directed towards me, the tea bagger from the article, or people in general? If this is in reference to my civics test idea, that is why I said I toy with it from time to time. It is a nice thought, but like you say, risky to implement as it's a slippery slope. I think a better solution is to fix public education so that people are better informed in general, and eventually you'd see fewer 'morans' at the polls

What a wonderful opportunity for the Republican Party to say "HOLY SHIT THESE GUYS ARE NOT US!" I guess they don't jump on these kinds of opportunities because they figure they get them weekly at this point and there's no rush?

I'd really like to hear what Tzu is holding back.

But Phil, don't you understand? The Tea Party is just the base being energised and they're a totally legitimate political movement and those of us criticising them wholesale know nothing about them! jvc told me so in another thread.

Ugh. Way to go Cantor, keep making our home state proud. What a lot of people who support stuff like this seem to keep forgetting is that we tried something like this already... and it failed miserably. Which is why we have the Constitution. This type of thought prevails in the South, too, where the "States' rights" rhetoric is the strongest because of lasting "memories" (i.e. bullshit appeals to the past) of the Civil War run "deep." Everyone down here wants to be like Robert E. Lee (or rather, the image they have of him in their head). We should try being more like James Madison.

I just love how the Tea Party is supposedly all about Freedom, and yet so many of their ideas are about restrictions.

At this point I want to ask what "freedom" actually MEANS to the Tea Party.

Freedom to be white, male and Christian. Because christian white males are the new oppressed minority.

To be fair, the two best Presidents in the previous century were both rich white men, and were even born into their money (and the same family). And all the hippies love JFK, and he was born in the exact same situation.

Of course, that has nothing to do with their abilities as President. But it's not like rich white people haven't produced good leaders in the past.

Also, many of the best Pharaohs ever to rule were Egyptian children. Discuss.

The Republicans will not disown a party that is bringing them more votes. Especially since, once they win, the Tea Party politicians are very willing to be brought into the republican fold. Hell, even right wing god, Rush, had to backpedal and apologize for comments he made on the tea party.

Also: if they disown or even criticize the Tea party, they get a shit storm of Hate N' Crazy from the Tea Partiers. Mid-Terms removed a lot of good, thoughtful people.

How about people who pass a written IQ test get to vote, and no one else, how about that?

Next they're gonna be talking about how, since statistically women don't really work, they shouldn't get to vote either. You know, statistics.

The far right has been wanting to restrict voting forever, lest ye forget Paul Weyrich in 1980:

We already have profoundly low voter turnout, and as education is defunded and destroyed and more people slip into poverty, the dream of an older white utopia where only the haves get to vote is almost within reach.

The title of this thread is perfect.

I love how you bring education into it as if education in this country was designed to do anything but produce dumb masses that can be exploited into thinking government is the answer to all their woes.

Breaking the union stranglehold on education in this country would go quite a long way towards beginning to create a more educated populace.

That being said, and not wanting to derail this too much I wonder why Chris Christie isn't being batted around Republican circles for 2012? I bet it is because he is overweight and doesn't fit the alpha male model image that is needed to get to certain voting blocs.

Maybe because he canceled a job-creating NJ infrastructure project that will cost New Jersey millions of dollars? Just sayin.

And dumb masses being exploited by the government? How about people who are just barely struggling to hang on because they're working three jobs and have kids to feed? How about people who have only vague ideas about their civic duty because your idol Ronald Reagan took civics out of textbooks? You can't blame unions when the country is only 7% unionized, and blaming teachers unions for the decline in education is ridiculous when you say it to somebody (me) who has had practical experience within the public education system for most of my life, both my own experience and my kids'. I don't know if you have kids, Tzu Doh Nimh, but if you're ever involved in public education you will quickly learn that teachers and teachers unions are clearly not the problem.

How many of you were taught the government is the answer to all your woes?

Funny, I was taught that government is people, and it's where we come together to tackle the problems we can't handle as individuals

Yeah, I must've missed those classes on "how to apply for food stamps" and "How to milk unemployment benefits" in High School.

Besides, you have to love the hypocrisy of the folks that cry "Keep the government out of my business!" in one breath, and then in the other say "Make sure the nation turns into a de-facto evangelical Christian theocracy!" in the other.

It's so sad to think of how Europeans live and realize how brainwashed Americans are, how they let themselves be fleeced and worked to death. We are beginning to have more in common with third world nations--where you see the incredible chasm between the very rich and impoverished "everyone else"--than a European country where most people have a good life, free education, government-secured benefits like a year-long maternity leave, etc. They have millionaires in those country's too, but not this incredible greed that eradicates all regard for having a solid, healthy society.

Woah, it can get pretty bad/sleazy over here too...just google 'Sir Philip Green' and 'tax dodge'.

It's nothing idealized like that. We've just been fucked in the ass so hard and so many times that we're much more inclined to simply laugh at those that go "Rah, rah, go us!" Which makes for the higher ups putting wool in front of our eyes and selling us their bullshit self serving philosophy, much harder than it is for the still politically naive US citizens. So when someone is trying to sell crap like trickle down economics to us, the usual response is "Fuck you, pay me."

For fuck's sake, politicians in the US say things like "God and country", "the city on the hill", "beacon of democracy", "land of the free" and use the word heroes un-ironically and they're not laughed off the stage immediately.

Lets be honest though, the entire EU is going through some tiny financial woes right now (eg the bailout of entire nations with more to come in the next few months).

While I agree with some of your ideals, it should be considered that things like a generous government sponsored pension at 62, free (or almost free) university, etc is maybe too good to be true when you factor in the small matter of paying for such things.

Especially if you have to keep the effective tax rate for corporations somewhere under 4%! Priorities people! Exxon needs a tax cut!

Heh heh I like this thread. Banks and Corporations need tax breaks and bailouts didn't you know? Gotta keep the money funneling!

2013: 100 year anniversary of the Federal Reserve!

I would refer you to the numerous posts of mine going back to 2008 where I advocate closing the corporate tax loopholes and raising the individual brackets on top earners to as high as 50%, but I figure there's no point.

If you're advocating that policy, then great, I agree with you. The fact of the matter is we could afford the social safety net other civilized country's have, but we just don't want to.

Not to be an ass, but if you could explain that a bit more that would be awesome. Even the most left-leaning economists I know of would probably raise their eyebrows at that statement. Unless, of course, you're speaking only of "small" additions like a more generous maternity leave policy.

The countries that have them now cant even afford them.