Should the US lower the voting age to 16?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

a large portion of people on welfare are there due to poor life choices, poor life planning and poor attitudes
and i do not believe we need to support them all.
there is plenty of money already out there for the truly needy, who actually fell on hard times
screw the rest

There'd be even more money if a hundred million workers had an extra 15.4% of their income to invest. Many of them would feel so secure in their own futures that they'd willingly donate more to charity. That's how Americans are, something the Left refuses to accept.

Not only that, by re-creating a culture of self-reliance, fewer and fewer resources would go to the deliberately dependent and go into creating wealth (ie, jobs) that the formerly dependent would use to ride their own personal elevators.

The culture of dependency and forced support we've been saddled with by the Left grows like a cancer, creating more and more dependency over time.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

"Old Codger" What the **** did an old person do to you to deserve your hatred remarks? Wait until you get old and see who cares about you.

No one cares about me now and I don't give a crap about it. Why would I care later? I fully expect to ride the cynanide highway when I become dependent on others. I will certainly be doing that before demanding anyone give me money.

Yes, I believe those who don't want to pay into the welfare system should give up thier right to police protection, then see how they like getting robbed by the guy who WAS collecting a welfare check in addition to his job. Then, he will really be living off of you.

Um....paying into the welfare scam isn't the same as paying for police protection. Needless to say, police enforcement of the law IS a legitimate function of government, it is moral, and if need be I'd simply be one of many that pays half of what I was paying on welfare maggots to support cops, and wind up with a better force than we got now.

You're belief is simply wrong and irrational. The two conditions are not directly related.

 

[RightinNYC]

Social Security started out as a ponzi scheme, and it's still a ponzi scheme. it was never a pay-as-you-go system, the first recipients never paid in a dime.

It was morally wrong to begin with, and it hasn't changed.

Explain what's "fantastic" about forcing a person to pay 15.4% of his income into a scam that yields a rate of return under three percent when that same money could be earning three times that in the equities.

1. If it were a ponzi scheme, it WOULD be a pay as you go. But because it's a pay as you go doesn't mean it's a ponzi scheme, it just means it was poorly planned.

2. It was initially a prefunded system. If that were maintained, the system would work just fine.

3. It's not 15.4%, it's 12.4%. The rest is for Medicare, SSI, etc.

4. The fact that the system is risk free and 3% means that it's a choice by the govt where to invest it. I would agree that the system should be privatized into a national form of the Thrift Savings Plan, to offer a much better return. Doesn't mean the plan itself should be eliminated.

Explain what's moral about taking money from people that are working for it now to buy votes from people that aren't working anymore.

If both parties support it, I'm confused as to how it's buying votes. SS is the most popular federal program in history.

No, we live in a republic and the way its supposed to work is that people carry their own burdens. Unless you find it acceptable for someone to rob a bank and keep the money, you can't justify the same immorality when a mob of people called 'voters' does the same thing to everyone else. Stealing is stealing is stealing.

I don't know what bizarre version of public policy you took, but that's not quite how it works. The legislature is well within its rights to tax the people however it likes, and spend however it likes. You don't like it, elect different people.

Oh, so since I don't vote for the thieves, I should be exempt from the theive's taxes? You do realize that this second sentence totally invalidates the first sentence your paragraph, right?

I have no clue what you're talking about.

Is it? or are you throwing that out in the presumption that I'll find some point of disagreement?

1) Technically the military is a legitimate function of government, intended to protect all persons equally. It has Constitutional grounding, a logical existence, and a definable purpose. But hey, I know what we can do. Instead of just taking money away from people, we give them a flat tax rate, plus a form listing all the things they want their money spent on. They fill in the percents and those programs get paid that percentage, nothing more.

I'd be willing to bet that the military remains suitably funded, the old codgers and the welfare maggots don't. But that would be a reasonable thing to do, so it won't happen.

Right, except that's not how the government works. Sorry. You lose.

2) Since the government shouldn't be providing "services", why should an anarchist or anyone else be paying for them?

And that's your view, which you're perfectly entitled to. Unfortunately, the vast majority (read: everyone who matters) disagrees with you. So, you don't get priority.

Ah, the boring old "don't like it leave, I'm a blind flag waving fool" argument.

You apparently have some discomfort over my exercise of the First Amendment. I suggest that the First Amendment is even more important than the Sixteenth and that you get over it. Skip my posts if you can't argue better. I see you've failed to justify the morality of taxation, you've merely said "taxes exist, pay them or get out."

I've never said you shouldn't complain, but rather that if you're so angry about them, why don't you do something? Rather than wasting your time here, why don't you form a PAC? Run a candidate in a local election. Create a website, message board, forum, etc, dedicated to your cause. Get out there and volunteer on the campaign of someone whose views you support. Do something other than complain about how the form of government which has served us for 200+ years isn't good enough for you.

 

[RightinNYC]

what does denying the vote to welfare recipients have to do with them being on the tax roll?

excuse me, tax rolls should have read "voter rolls"

 

[DeeJayH]

"Old Codger" What the **** did an old person do to you to deserve your hatred remarks? Wait until you get old and see who cares about you.

3
while this was not directed at me, i must respond
why are so many old geezers living off the govt dole?
now in times past, i do believe it was a neccessity. woman were expected to get married, get pregnant, yada yada yada...
if the man failed to provide for her, in the event of his early demise, yada yada yada

now that women have been liberated I think the govt should just admit the ponzi scheme known as SS will be gone in a few decades, so make sure you take care of yourself and your later years.
each person, and therefor the country and the world, will be better off

 

[DeeJayH]

excuse me, tax rolls should have read "voter rolls"

i thought it might
but when i started on message boards last year, i would read too much into what was typed
so i try to stick to 'just the facts ma'am"

 

[Caine]

3
while this was not directed at me, i must respond
why are so many old geezers living off the govt dole?
now in times past, i do believe it was a neccessity. woman were expected to get married, get pregnant, yada yada yada...
if the man failed to provide for her, in the event of his early demise, yada yada yada

now that women have been liberated I think the govt should just admit the ponzi scheme known as SS will be gone in a few decades, so make sure you take care of yourself and your later years.
each person, and therefor the country and the world, will be better off

This just goes to prove yet in the 3rd thread that I debate with you, that you don't care for anyone but those who are in the socio-economic class as yourself.
You give no consideration for the man who worked construction for a company that provided no medical insurance or "retirement plan" and he worked for 10-19 dollars per hour for his whole life, paid into the social security, and now deserves to receive money back on that investment.

Until a Republican can understand how those of a lower economic status than themselves actually life, I refuse to argue these programs with them, cause your obviously selfish and don't care about anyone but yourself.

Hint: You already tried to mention aborting your 16 year old son to make a point... that shows enough of who you really care about.

 

[Mikkel]

when was the last time a poor person on welfare broke a story on corruption and cronyism?

career welfare recipients and others on the government dole, are very likely to vote for whoever promises to give them more money for doing nothing.
causing the divide themselves, instead of getting off their asses and making something of their life

I didn't mean welfare recipients would break the story:roll:

Look, the media breaks the story about corruption and cronyism but the media isn't what holds the government accountable, it's the voters. If you eliminate a large group of people who would be very upset to hear about upper class patronage and pork barreled politics that hurt them, the voters are less likely to kick those wrongdoers out of office, regardless of party. I'm not debating your motives, but rather the outcome of your wishes actually put into practice.

Just to play Devil's advocate...it wouldn't actually play out that way. First off, this is operating under the assumption that the numbers of those on welfare are large enough and that those on welfare vote as a bloc and in high enough numbers to affect policy.

Even assuming that, if you take those on welfare off the tax rolls, then those who had the vote might potentially vote to cut welfare. So welfare gets cut, and those who were previously on welfare lose their welfare, and become eligible to vote again. Then they vote welfare back in, etc etc. Cyclical.
by RightatNYU

That is an excellent point that I was actually considering when I origninally posted on this thread. Here's why I still think it's a bad idea; This creates a level of extremes that is bad for both sides. If the rich choose to cut welfare altogether, then we have people starving on the streets again. Once enough people are off of welfare to create a significant voting bloc, they are sure to reestablish welfare to the point it is now (or even more, supposing they have enough sympathy from regular voters to do so), creating extremely harsh taxes on the rich until enough people get on welfare and the bloc no longer exists and the process starts all over again.

The process is already cyclical as it is, but the two polar ends in modern politics are much less extreme than the scenario mentioned. The result is a reasonable tax rate (for most Americans) and a good enough welfare program that ensures large groups of people aren't dying from poverty.

Besides, think of the headache for voter registration and ballott counting (who was on welfare when? people voting regardless. etc.) It's bad enough as it is already.