Satire on democracy!

[Bud Williams]

No it wouldn't. The majority of people vote for whom they believe will most likely increase their standing (financial or otherwise) by the greatest amount--regardless of whether they're officially "on the gov't dole" (food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc.) or unofficially "on the gov't dole" (this is very broad-ranging, but can include government employment, government contracts, or even simply receiving the benefits of deficit spending). It's all about "keeping the largesse coming", regardless of whether you are currently financially contributing to that largesse as a taxpayer or not.

LBJ's "war on poverty" has cost Tens of Trillions of dollars, and hasn't done much.

Social services are a huge portion of the government spending.

Alot of these efforts should be done by charity organizations, civic organizations, religious organizations. They run things far more efficiently than the layers of government it takes to

do this. John Stossel had a segment of this yesterday, concerning Central Park as an example...

 

[Bill V]

LBJ's "war on poverty" has cost Tens of Trillions of dollars, and hasn't done much.

Social services are a huge portion of the government spending.

Alot of these efforts should be done by charity organizations, civic organizations, religious organizations. They run things far more efficiently than the layers of government it takes to

do this. John Stossel had a segment of this yesterday, concerning Central Park as an example...

I don't necessarily disagree. But I also don't think it's relevant to the point I was making--which is that people who are benefiting from welfare and other such programs are no more likely to vote for whomever is best for their pocketbooks than those who are paying significant taxes.



Paying income taxes does not somehow make people more altruistic than others--they don't "vote for what is best for the country" any more than anyone else. Those people are still just as motivated to use the voting booth to try to obtain/retain the almighty dollar for themselves as is anyone else.

 

[Bud Williams]

I don't necessarily disagree. But I also don't think it's relevant to the point I was making--which is that people who are benefiting from welfare and other such programs are no more likely to vote for whomever is best for their pocketbooks than those who are paying significant taxes.

That is exactly where the phrase, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

comes from, however the people that do not pay income taxes is growing and so are the people on government assistance. It's like a ponzi scam, soon the people paying for the system will not be enough to support the pyramid...it's gonna come craching down....

 

[H D]

military service may not be constititutional? Were my rights violated when I got drafted in 1966?

IMO, yes.

Would be nice if we could reset the clock to back when we had debtors prisons, and no welfare or medicare...

I've brought up debtor's prisons to people before and they looked at me like I was crazy. As if they shouldn't really be held responsible to pay back money the were lent in good faith if times got tough for them. They say that's ridiculous and unfair. I say its theft and should be punished as such.

It's like a ponzi scam, soon the people paying for the system will not be enough to support the pyramid...it's gonna come craching down....

Speaking of Ponzi schemes, compare Social Security to what Madoff did. I don't see a difference except the power of the criminals running it.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I've brought up debtor's prisons to people before and they looked at me like I was crazy. As if they shouldn't really be held responsible to pay back money the were lent in good faith if times got tough for them.

Sponging Houses never made much sense to me. If you don't have enough money to pay the loan back in the first place, how are you going to have enough to pay the loan, when you're in prison and cannot work?



Then it comes time for your friends and family to pay...but isn't that what a cosigner is for anyhow?



I stand by the principle that a man has to pay back what he owes, that his word is his bond, but I do not see the return of the sponging house as an improvement. Maybe I'm missing something.



Gone are the days when debtors would take an opportunity to make good on their debts and rise in society (e.g. Georgia immigration). Today I see debtors taking prison as a free ride rather than pay. 3 hots & a cot and no responsibilities? For the people who refinance and declare bankruptcy with abandon, I could see the choice being easy.

 

[H D]

I stand by the principle that a man has to pay back what he owes, that his word is his bond, but I do not see the return of the sponging house as an improvement. Maybe I'm missing something.

Its more than "his word." Its a contract. Failure to repay is theft. I think it is that simple. Maybe I'm missing something.



I think debtor's prisons would add an extra deterrence to taking a loan you know you can't pay in the first place. Also, public works while in prison would be a great help to paying off your debt. The time and work could correspond to the outstanding debt. We also wouldn't have to pay state employees $15/hr to spin a sign from STOP to SLOW, therefore saving tax money. Then, the debtor pays off his debt, the loan originator would get their money, and public works projects get done at a cheaper rate. Actually, I've always favored using prisoners for public works (with caveats - but I don't want to get even more off topic). If you've ever spent much time on Georgia highways, you'd see the effects chain gangs had on our highway system (not that it was run correctly, or humanely, but the general idea isn't all bad).



Somewhat back on topic, I don't think felons should be banned from voting. Unless its written into law that a felony bars you from citizenship, they should be allowed to vote. They're still citizens, even if not the favorable "type."

 

[Bud Williams]

Somewhat back on topic, I don't think felons should be banned from voting. Unless its written into law that a felony bars you from citizenship, they should be allowed to vote. They're still citizens, even if not the favorable "type."

IMO, Felons of Violent crimes should not be allowed to vote. Felons of non-violent crimes should be restricted for a period of time.

 

[Kevin Lang]

The time and work could correspond to the outstanding debt.

Unless I'm missing something, this makes even less sense.



You owe me money, but you don't pay me, so you go to jail. In jail, you do "public works" which save the state money...



Okay, that's fine and good, but saving the state money does NOT give me MY money back.



Is the state going to pay me back, in your stead? If I don't get MY money back, with interest, then I'm still out, and this is pointless.



Honestly, it's probably cheaper to pay a state worker 15/hr to fix a sign then to pay dozens of state employees to guard a debtors prison, and millions to contractors to build said prison.

Its more than "his word." Its a contract.

No, a contract is less than "his word". The idea of a contract was conceived when it was found that most people can't keep their word elsewise.



So now, what is the rationality for felons not being able to vote? So being a felon makes you a de facto non-citizen? Shoot, with making a person a felon having that much power, we're going to need more judicial oversight.

 

[H D]

Sorry, I was unclear. The state and taxpayers still pay the money to the loan originator. The person owed gets their money, the debtor pays off their debt, and the state gets some much needed work done. The actual point is that there would be more deterrence to taking out a loan with uncertainty of being able to pay it.



Overcrowded jails is a whole other issue I think there are easy solutions to, but its another topic. Prisoners working off their debt to society falls into that.

MO, Felons of Violent crimes should not be allowed to vote. Felons of non-violent crimes should be restricted for a period of time.

I agree with you on many things, Bud, but this is not one of them. They are still citizens. Your idea creates a lesser class of citizen. I don't think that is right. If there is an action that deems you less of a citizen, are there also actions that deem you more of a citizen (I guess you could argue military service)?

No, a contract is less than "his word"

I don't mean to imply that a contract is greater than a man's word, only that a contract is legally binding and punishable by a measurable sentencing, not just a shamed name or less trust among others which doesn't seem to mean anything to a great number of people these days. I absolutely believe a man's word is his most prized asset.

 

[Bud Williams]

I agree with you on many things, Bud, but this is not one of them. They are still citizens. Your idea creates a lesser class of citizen. I don't think that is right. If there is an action that deems you less of a citizen, are there also actions that deem you more of a citizen (I guess you could argue military service)?

So should we allow people in jail to vote as well?

People make mistakes, I understand that. But, if they cannot abide by the law, how can we entrust them to elect our lawmakers? I don't think All felons should be disallowed to vote, only the most violent ones. I think that is fair.

Keep in mind that in most prisons these days, they have better living conditions than the average troop serving in Afghanistan.

 

[Les]

Speaking of Ponzi schemes, compare Social Security to what Madoff did. I don't see a difference except the power of the criminals running it.

Until this year, SS has operated in the black. The reason it is experiencing current problems is primarily due to your elected officials deciding to raid it's surplus in order to balance the budget for Clinton. Also, if you taxed every earned dollar and don't set a ceiling on contributions, SS would continue to run in the black.

So should we allow people in jail to vote as well?

Simple answer is no. Criminals are second-class citizens and should be treated as such. If you are in jail, or on probation, your voting rights should be suspended until your debt to society is paid.

 

[Bill V]

fftopic:



:fire: nline: (<--That's me, hijacking the post temporarily...)



TJR said:

I am now a member of a Mennonite church.

TJR, that surprises me quite a bit. Not that you'd be a Mennonite--but that a Mennonite would be on this board, or on any computer in general. Or driving a Sport Trac.



The region of Wisconsin where I grew up is now heavily populated with Mennonites, and they don't use computers. Or cars. Or even phones or (most forms of) electricity. They do use tractors in the fields--but with steel wheels, not rubber tires. Their main modes of transportation are horse-and-buggy and bicycles. When it comes to technology, they're not quite as conservative as the (stereo-)typical Amish, but they're very close.



So--How is it that you're on this board? If we were to report you, would you be excommunicated and shunned? (That's not meant as sarcasm--I know that it happens among the Mennonites I know in Wisconsin for those who leave the fold.)



:back2topic:

 

[Les]

From what I remember, it sounds more like you are describing the Amish, although there are several levels of Mennonites, some reformed, some progressive.

 

[Bill V]

From what I remember, it sounds more like you are describing the Amish,...

Nope--these people are definitely Mennonite. There are some Amish in the area as well, but far fewer of them than there are Mennonites. The most noticable difference between them to the untrained outside eye--the Mennonites work their fields with steel-wheeled tractors, while the Amish use draft horses.

...although there are several levels of Mennonites, some reformed, some progressive.

That would go a long way to explaining the seeming contradiction.

 

[Kevin Lang]

....I thought TJR was being facetious with being a Mennonite, that it was a sort of hypothetical example. ??



Anyhow,

Criminals are second-class citizens and should be treated as such. If you are in jail, or on probation, your voting rights should be suspended until your debt to society is paid.

Not to sound like Huxley, but how do you prevent this from being exploited? Someone does something that the current "regime" dislikes, and bam!, to prison they go, rights denied, citizenship revoked de facto, persona non grata.



Say I go to an anti-Obama political rally. I get jailed, and since it's me I'll say for bogus reasons, and then lo and behold, I can no longer cast a vote against the current regime.



You may cry Orwell or Huxley, but it is possible.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Actually, I am a Mennonite. No, I am not Amish.



Some Mennonite sects are like the Amish portrayed in books and on TV, but most are indistinquishable from "regular folks."



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

Ah, and here I was thinking of Weird Al's Amish Paradise ??

Some Mennonite sects are like the Amish portrayed in books and on TV, but most are indistinquishable from "regular folks."

Well, that brought back memories of that "Amish in the Real World" reality show that I wish I could "un-see". :banghead:

 

[Tom Schindler]

The most noticable difference between them to the untrained outside eye--the Mennonites work their fields with steel-wheeled tractors, while the Amish use draft horses.

There are SO many different orders of Amish, Menonite, and Hitite it isn't funny. We have friends that were Amish. (They were shuned because of some issues from "doing the right thing", but that is a different story)



There is something like 400 different orders of Amish alone, while one order will not allow zippers, they will allow gasoline tractors. Another order will allow zippers, yet they must use a diesel tractor with steel wheels.



The difference between Amish and Menonite is that the Amish broke away from the Menonite church. Besides that, they are all the same.



I can spot someone that broke away from the Amish church a mile away.





Tom

 

[Mark K 2]

I always wondered what happened to the males who didn't have the beard-growing genes.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

You missed one VERY important freedom in the USA. Freedom of religon and some religons do not allow their followers to join the military. --Caymen

Not to be intolerant or rude, but choosing religion is a personal choice. The consequences of that choice are not the government's problem. There are people starving in India, yet cattle roam freely through the streets. We all know cattle taste great and provide good nourishment.



People suffer hardships and even die because of their religious choice.