moneywatch.com / Saving & Spending / Home Equity
Tea Party: Don’t Let Renters Vote
By Ilyce Glink | Dec 1, 2010 | 163 Comments
What to know what the Tea Party says about foreclosures and the housing crisis?
Nearly two years to go until the next Presdential Election and already the Tea Party is deciding how to slice and dice voters.
Here’s a new Tea Party plank: Don’t let renters vote.
Gawker reported that Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation, has a terrific idea: “The Founding Fathers… put certain restrictions on… the right to vote… you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense.”
Here’s the full quote, from Tea Party Nation Radio:
“The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.”
Republicans have always had a fondness for the past. But, do we really want to jump right back to the Middle Ages?
READ MORE:
- Tea Party on Foreclosure: “They Bought Houses They Couldn’t Afford”
- Are You Getting Screwed by Your Lender?
- Help For Homeowners: 4 Million Homeowners Ask For Help
- Foreclosure Counseling For One Million, And Counting
- Foreclosure Process Shows Mortgage Lending Isn’t The Only Problem
- What Does Main Street Know That Wall Street Doesn’t?
- Real Estate Crisis Continues - Non-Residential Construction to Fall 20% by End of 2010
- Jobs, Small Businesses, Payrolls, and the Economy
- Loan Modification Hell: Join The Club
- Loan Modification Success Story - Filing a Complaint With the OCC Can Help
- Loan Modification Hell: New Solutions To Avoid Losing Your Home
Ilyce R. Glink is the author of several books, including 100 Questions Every First-Time Home Buyer Should Ask and Buy, Close, Move In!. She blogs about money and real estate at ThinkGlink.com and The Equifax Personal Finance Blog, and is Chief Content Strategist at RealtyJoin.com, a community for real estate investors.
MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic
Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS
What a ridiculous idea. Sure the Founding Fathers kept the right to vote restricted to property owners. If we're going to take their advice, are we going to remove the right to vote from women and black people, as well?
I'm a renter, and I have a very vested interest in my community. I support local business, I pay taxes, and I VOTE.
And an addition: I think by staying a renter and saving up money for a down payment, I am supporting my community MUCH more than people who bought more property than they could afford. Now they're dragging the community down with their foreclosure.
If the renters don't have the right to vote, then they have no representation, hence they don't need to pay federal or state income taxes.
I just love the Tea Party...
This was a "quote" from someone, obviously, unaware how comments can be taken completely out of context. I do believe we should give an IQ test to voters though. We are really trying to "dumb down" America.
@ozilot:
Flat tax be darned - Let's just do away with the IRS altogether! Sign me up.
Thanks for your comment. Let's see who else buys into the strategy.
@ralphchaffin:
An IQ test isn't bad. Should we start with all major parties who ignore 40 percent of the population?
Thanks for your comment
As a young America, I still don't own property, but I've voted in EVERY election since I turned 18. Don't even think of taking away that right from me. I'm a citizen, I vote. That's how it works.
From Ken via Facebook:
Ken wrote: "So does this mean if you don't make enough money to buy a house they're gonna disqualify you from being a citizen? I've heard some pretty crazy stuff lately, but this is right up there with the craziest."
Who do these people think pays the property taxes and the homeowners insurance?? The renters do its part of their rent and if the landlord isn't passing that cost onto the renter it is their stupidity for not doing so! I have never understood why people think renters are second class citizens; if it weren't for renters then who would landlords rent to?? I don't belong to any party but I do tend to vote more center right then center left but I would not vote any kind of change where you leave any American Citizen out of any vote! I am a homeowner but I rented most of my life and believe me raising kids, shopping, paying taxes and living in the community does make you vested in that community! This guy is a blow hard and it's not the first time he has shot his mouth off about something he knows nothing about!!
From John Via Facebook:
"Ilyce I enjoy reading your blog but I think this last post is a bit unfair. You ended it by saying, "Republicans have always had a fondness for the past. But, do we really want to jump right back to the Middle Ages?" In your blog you said that this was a statement by the president on ONE tea party organization. As you are aware, there are numerous tea party organizations. To imply that this man speaks for the Republican party is irresponsible at best."
From Mark via Facebook:
"So voting rights come with property rights. How 18th Century."
Oh good grief.
The founding fathers also thought that Blacks and women should not be allowed to vote....
Last time I checked, renters still do things like eat, wear clothes and need entertainment and services -- which they get -- and pay for with real dollars just like home owners -- locally in their communities.
This is one of the most utterly ridiculous statements I've ever heard. And I'm a card-carrying Republican.
From Ken via Facebook:
"I read it, and it's still crazy. The world was a different place back then and our Constitution has been amended to reflect that change. I'm a homeowner, but I'm sure the renters down the street have as many concerns as I do when it comes to the community. Heck, even the term "community" has a different meaning than it did back in 1776."
From Mel via Facebook:
"A large number of renters don't vote already."
From Ulises via Facebook:
"Next it will be women and minorities shouldn't be allowed to vote either. And then they will say slavery should be brought back."
From Craig via Facebook:
"I believe that regardless of whether or not a person is a property owner or not as long as they are legal citizen of the US they should be allowed to cast their ballot. "
From MIKE via facebook:
"That seems a bit extreme and not likely to ever really happen."
This may not be the dumbest idea I've ever heard, but its right up there.
From Jeff via Facebook:
"John, Ilyce clearly points out this is a tea party policy, i don't see where you are getting her lumping all Republicans into the mix. The Tea Party, perhaps in a stroke of genius, exists in a loose collective of unaccountable ideological similarities. No one kook's rant is taken as the party line, therefore their MANY questionable views on democracy continue unchallenged. This land-owners only vote idea is blatant plutocracy, but what's the use of getting worked up over it? People say outlandish things all the time - I remember pundits recommending we eliminate the minimum wage all together back when it was adjusted."
From Mel via Facebook:
"The Tea Party? Whose original slogan was "No taxation without representation.""
I can't believe they don't recognize this platform for what it is:
totally classist! In the early days of this nation, only property
owners could vote, marginalizing slaves, women, and the poor.
Thankfully, we've come a way since then, but it looks like the
Tea Party would like to take us back to the "good old days"
when only white men had democratic privileges.From Dick via email:
I am going to repeat what I wrote in one of my newsletter a few weeks ago:
The biggest political story of the past year was the Tea Party. The media with its simple-minded "red state/blue state" way of looking at politics was simply not prepared. The Tea Party movement consists of two sets of people with one common and one differing point of view. The common thing to all Tea Party members is that they want less government.
There are two approximately equal sized groups of Tea Partiers. One is classic (at least on paper) Republicans. By this I mean that they preach less government spending but hold the Republican sentiments that politicians should defend what I will simply describe as traditional values. I grant that the expression "traditional values" could be discussed all day so I will not even start to discuss it.
The other set of Tea Party members are libertarians. There are people who believe in less government and less government spending but who believe that the government should simply leave the public alone to set its values. Libertarian thinking is best explained by the Cato Institute.
Casting a general net over the Tea Party makes relatively little sense to me. I would guess that very few of even the first set I describe (The Republican Tea Party) would agree with that inane statement about the relationship between owning property and having the right to vote.
It is not accurate to say ?The Tea Party says "Don?t Let Renters Vote.? It is accurate to say that one guy in one part of the Tea Party said that.
@Dick:
You might be right in that it would have been slightly more accurate to say: Tea Party Nation: Don't Let Renters Vote. It's the top guy at one tea party faction.
That's the best part of the Tea Party: Everyone gets to be on top!
Thanks for your comment.
From Roger via ActiveRain:
Hmm, let's see...there were other restrictions at the time, too. What were they? Oh, Yeah! You also had to be white and male. I'm sure that those traits make you more qualified to vote, too, right? Sometimes, backward thinking is just that, backwards.You pay taxes...well..you own property...Yellowstone Park, Yosemite Park, numerous national forests, you get my drift...this teabagger proposal is a just the rantings of a child, a child that needs to stand in a corner.
Only thing I can say to this if we the rest of the voters if we don't stop people like this from getting elected then we are the ones who are to blame. Come on all of you vote in the next election and get our government to work for us. That is if it does not freeze up with the new mess elected in November.
Don't let renters vote? Fine. But only after we take the franchise away from fraudulent lenders and bankers first.
Juanita Driggs
Don't let renters vote? Fine! But only after we deny the franchise to fraudulent lenders, bankers and their congressional toadies first.
What a great idea! Bring Fuedalism back! Wow I just can't wait to be a dirt poor Serf making my King happy!
This is the stupidest idea yet. I guess renters don't need to pay taxes either.
Wow-these people are really getting carried away! Especially
for all young people who usually start out renting before they
can afford to buy a house-they get exempted too! We are
suppose to be moving ahead & not backwards as it sounds like
these people certainly are!!!! Time for alot of people to wake
up!Wow-these people are really getting carried away! Especially
for all young people who usually start out renting before they
can afford to buy a house-they get exempted too. Not to
mention the people that have lost their homes because of a
loss of their jobs too! This is totally insane & ignorant. We are
suppose to be moving forward in time & not backwards as it
sounds like these people certainly are!! Time for alot of people
to wake up!I think the most abusive part of this argument is that renters do
not have a "vested interest in the community." Especially with
the economy as it is, renting is the only option for a lot of
people getting out of school and starting a family. These are
the people who will be invested in the community the most,
because they have a deeply vested interest in the quality of
the schools and neighborhood safety.Who wrote that? From the grammar, it sounds like Sarah P.
The taxes get paid out of the rent I pay you *******. While you're at it, let me buy a couple of slaves to burn your house down.
hey all you liberals, here is the deal-the Tea Party has no "leader" and while the many who made those comments represents a tea party somewhere, that was not a prepared statement and it in no way reflects the Tea Party ideals. so for you to post the story Miss GLink, and for those of you here calling Tea Partiers names, because some guy made an off the cuff comment like that is rather juvenile.
The tea party at its core, across the country is made up of many different people-some who speak out of turn, out of context, and out of this world, like that comment, and some like myself who are sick to death more of lefty voters calling us names, than we are of our government taxing us to serfdom, and destroying our country.
if you morons want to be angry, read the healthcare bill, read the "food safety bill. Look at the trampling of YOUR rights. Think about what is befalling you as well as us.
you are so angry all of the time, you can't see the forest for the trees. You ignore the fact that this president keeps throwing up EO's that piss all over YOUR rights as well as mine! Think about the fact that 800 million dollars has been sent to Hammas this year-and more bailout money went to Europe than went to American banks-and obama just pledged more money to failing EUROPEAN banks.
You are all so busy following pseudo-journalists and their propaganda for obama, you don't realize you are getting bent over as hard as we are-and you are going to wake up one morning, to go to your government job, on a government bus, from your government apartment, without cable, or internet, and with the lights being turned out at night by the government when they say it is time for you to go to bed, after you eat a government approved meal.
And if you don't think that is coming, start reading the legislation that your reps and senators are writing. It is not just coming, but most of it is here. I think if you start looking at what we are afraid of, you will see that it is exactly what you and your peers were protesting when W was in office-and you will realize that the G foments this hatred between the right and left, as a way to make us all blind to their theft of our belongings, our hard earned money, and our rights.
Wake up guys-you may find that the tea party are not only looking out for you, but we believe a lot of the same things.If that's the case, I demand to get two votes, since I own two
condos.That's ridiculous. Whoever voiced that, is wacky.
Still, it is true, that most illegals in this country, rent, and that we need to not only be sure they do NOT vote, but that we do everything possible to expel them from the country.
Here's one renter who won't be voting for any Tea Party
candidates!As long as us renters can legally require landlords and landladies to repay the property tax portion of the rent and be forced to not compensate for the removal of that income.
Who in their right mind thinks that the renter isn't paying the tax for the property owner?
If only land owners can vote, I guess that means that only the
banks can vote, for the most part. Almost no one actually
OWNS their property these days. If they did, we wouldn't have
all of these foreclosures...What I love is that the more members of the Tea Party talk, the easier they make it for us to want to vote against any of them.
I say thanks for the comments and keep them coming!
Perhaps it is going too far to restrict non-property owners from voting in general, but certainly non-property owners should not be allowed to vote on any property tax issues. It's pretty simple, they are called "property taxes" for a reason, because they only apply to "property" owners! For non-property owners have a voice on property owners is unjust.
To argue that landlords pass the increased taxes on to tenants is ridiculous because usually the increased taxes come in smallish increments, so the tax increase from one election may only amount to a few hundred dollars. When that is split over 4-8 tenants over 12 payments it would mean a rent increase of $4-5/month. The fact is most landlords will eat that for a few yrs. before they raise the rent for the tax increases. Hence non-property owners have the perception that property tax increases do not affect them therefore the vast majority will vote for all property tax increases. "Representation without taxation"! It's wrong.
Dear Americans, please consider as you may not be fully aware of the impact your country has on a global level. Community is not only where your own property. Kindest regards
That's too stupid an idea even for them.
Michael Hauser,
With all due respect, I can find no agreement on your point of property tax issues. I will use my instance for example. I rent a home and the taxes on this home is approximately $3000 yearly (not a large house in high property tax NH). Breaking that down to approximately $250 monthly, that is a far cry from $4-$5 monthly and is and should be something that is a requirement if something crazy like this passed.
And since we are talking about a principle and not the actual monetary outcome (only property owners should be abe to vote on these matters), your labeling "taxation without representation" as being wrong is incorrect in and of itself in many instances. Since public schools are funded in many states through property taxes (and this is not an optional tax), limiting representation to only the property owners would be limiting representation of tax payers on this particular matter (and a whole host of other maters directly related to renters).
Maybe we should retrict school funding decisions to parents of children only since the impact is only a few dollars a month according to your logic. And since we are a homeschooling family, we should be exempted from this tax (and then our vote would be uneeded) and we can take our $250 monthly and apply it to our school budget.
And if the increase is only so little per month per person according to your calculations, property owners should not be trying to get out of their small obligation...or maybe we should just eliminate property taxes all together and states should find funding from other sources altogether?
Best Regards,
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
? H. L. Mencken
A downright moron? We already had 8 years of that. On the topic I must agree that I doubt the comments in the article reflect the overall views of the "Tea Party". The Tea Party seems to me to be a block of voters that are tired of the status quo, being charged too much, being lied to by politicians and so on. Since it is a new movement there will be fringe elements that try to co-opt it. It will take a while but if politicians don't take heed, the Tea Party will grow, stabilize and become a legitimate political force.
This is yet another attempt from the extreme right to
marginalize traditionally liberal voters, people who had
experienced genuine wronging at the hands of society and its
rules. This is pathetic, and fortunately, will fail, but is terrifying
that there are people in our government that still think this way.@matthew s harrison as you have demonstrated very well, the problem with the tea party is there is no party platform, which is more than a bit fraudulent as a lot of people think the party has their ideals which directly contradict others in the party which think the same thing.
It's a old type of propaganda ploy by powerful interests, who stand to gain if they aren't held to very much scrutiny by the government. Ever wonder who pays for the tea party buses? It ain't the little people who are lured in by vague 'the government is bad' but we don't have any solutions groups.
If as you say the tea party isn't controlling itself, well, someone else is and they aren't real interested in your pocketbook or your future.
So yeah, when these little gems come up as attributed to the tea party - it's only the tea party's fault for not telling it's members - this is our party platform and that idea isn't a part of it. When you do that, you have to take responsibility for everything you don't do too.
Yipes! This is why we left England! The ignorance of this just baffles me- I love how they have named their "party" (or rather, their movement) after a taxation revolt and now want to bring us back to the good ol' days of the Stamp Act of 1765 and taxation of the people without representation. The irony is sublime!
To matthew s. harrison -12/02/10
I've been around awhile & I've seen similar 'movements'.
You caution folks to not be angry, then proceed to diatribe in Glenn Beck style warning that the sky is falling.
Are various Tea Party 'heads' responsible for their actions and their slogans? Or is
everybody else to blame? Such rhetoric is historically known as: reactionary.
Glen Beck & Sarah Palin, et al, often conclude their diatribes with one-line slogans serving as shorthand to keep listeners fired up. What a shame. The tea party may have remnants of
constructive ideas, unlikely to be addressed due to uneven crosstalk from scattered, disorganized leaders.
What is needed is thoughtful dialogue by leaders committed to promoting the best working solutions for the greatest number of citizens - in other words: E Pluribus Unum - not divisive owners vs. non-owners.
Both the U.S. and the world have substantial problems. The public must turn away from tangential, fantastical thinking resulting in unworkable historical solutions currently presented as fresh, new ideas. They didn't work before and, in today's world, will prove to be quicker disasters.
Instead, statistics and substantive analysis digested by a broad spectrum of citizens is required.
In support of that goal corporate network executives could invigorate the power of press for our nation's citizens by replacing ALL provocative, reactionary left & right talking heads with the very best of professional journalists.
This decision might mean less advertising dollars in the short term, but those executives who would initiate improved news reporting would be heavily rewarded with ever increasing audiences thirsting to understand the most important pressing issues. More viewers, more advertising revenue.
Responsible reporting would result in a calmer, deliberative electorate in support of responsive legislation, thereby reducing confusion & angst which results in more ignorance and hysteria so prevalent today.Seriously? Most home owners wouldn't vote anyway, because it isn't a matter of voting for the appropriate candidate anymore. It is a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
@ matthewsharrison: bravo good man. i agree.
Go Teaparty!!! If you are not a property owner then you do not pay City, County and school taxes like we do. Howevere, you want the same rights for no fee. Bull ****. It has never been fair for property owners. We get taxed when you reap the rewards. That is the facts.
Go Tea Party!!! It is about time someone stands up for property owners. Everyone benefits from the City, County and School taxes that few of us pay. If you want a say then you to pay for how many people are in your home and how many kids you have in school. Thats a free America. Tax all not few.
I would like to see the full context of the quote before passing judgment. What was the previous conversation that led up to this particular comment and what followed it? That is truly the problem with so many so called news agencies and others that claim to be unveiling truth. Anything can be taken out of context.
@kross-over Is that your go comment? Comparing any outlandish comment to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin? Can you debate the context of the comment based on the comment itself without linking to people who were not even mentioned? Should watch your own paranoid opinion.
why all the....................in between the lines? I am sure there have been some things cut out which would make the story actually make sense. thankfully our society is starting to recognize that reporting the news is not actually reporting the news.
While I don't think that property ownership is a great way to
limit the voting franchise, there seems to be a lot of people out
there who forget that we still have limitations of voting.
Property owner or not, why do we think that a 30 year old idiot
should have the right to influence the direction of the country
when an informed, 16 year old genius should not?Ilyce, I think this type of article misses the forest for the trees
and only serves to further polarize and entrench people who
might otherwise be willing to participate in a worthwhile
discussion about what restrictions SHOULD we have on the
voting franchise.Here's the rub: property owners get stuck paying property tax to support the schools to which renters send their kids. For everyone here who says renters have as vested an interest in their communities as property owners - I say, "Let them prove it. Stand up and change the system so that the burden of paying for schools is borne equally by renters and owners."
The founding fathers were clear, you had to be white, male and a properity owner. They were also clear that capitalism had no chance of surviiving without the institution of slaverly.
so if we want to return to the founding fathers teachings some group needs to volunteer to fill the necessary position of slave. Are the Tea Party members going to step up to the plate and take their turn for about 400 years.Sorry Renters who think they are vested. Its about what your financial and emtionals stakes are. You dont have financial stake in rental. The point is why should someone else who can pick up and leave at any moment and lose nothing get to say what I have to contribute to, when my taxes are raised etc (this is what the voter is voting when he elects a socialist in the house)? I who have sacrificed for what I OWN and still PAY TAXES on get only equal say to you what that loses nothing? The founders were brillant and they understood human behavior.
Why do the ignorant left think because we who are the taxpays, landowners, businessowners should even think that that must mean we think women or minorities should be 'our next right move step' when they are so quick to point out how much has changed in America? they have to play the race card and label this very profound and legitimate point about vested people making the rules and deteriming what is fair? Do we not have a half black man as president? did that not proove anything? granted he sucks ass and is going to tragically for the African Amercan people ruin any chance for the next GOOD black man to be the president but God you liberals are so brainwashed into believing that protecting what is the entire financial backbone of America (WE THE PEOPLE) is somehow wrong is just stupid. Black people and women are among these taxpaying land owners in throngs. Those hardworking Americans many of whom are among us Tea Partiers. Wake up liberal jackasses. Stop thinking those of you who live in your moms basement should have the right to tell me how to run my business or how much my home is worth, you shouldn't. If you cant see that you belong in another country where they also think sharing poverty is a good plan.
The right to vote? you had to be a property owner? Well then if that is the case renters should not have to pay taxes or be force to enlist in the military if there is a major war. Let the property owners handle all those issues. Back in George Washington time the majority of the people who went (i.e. called to war) was the poor and middle class rarely the rich (upper class). Yes! even the poor know their history.
EW
Everyone benefits from an educated populace and public schools. Are you intending to import doctors and engineers from India when you need one? Would you prefer to live somewhere where most people can't afford to go to school and they all hang out and steal for a living? How about living in a country where no one can be productive so large parts of the population have to beg?
It's called a 3rd world country. If you want so bad to live there, please move.
rtvelayas,
Sorry but your view on the founding fathers is quite a bit off.
First of all slavery wasn't seen as being needed by many although it was considered a necessary evil by much of the southern states. Some people back then thought that but the Framers were very intelligent in how they originally treated the slave issue. The 3/5 vote of a slave was to keep the power of the Southern slave states lower so they could revisit and work to eliminate slavery in 20 years as the Constitution was written. Without the 3/5 count, the USA would never had been born.
PA was the first state to abolish slavery in 1780 and in the same year MA gave full citizenship to the decendents of slaves. MD banned slave importation in 1783 and by 1786, many slave owners (including Washington) were trying to get a complete and total plan to eliminate slavery for good.
Single women were able to own property and such but married women were not. Unfortunately, it was the way things were back then and was certainly influenced by the English law of that time period. It should never had been that way but it was a progressive issue that has been worked on for centuries. To think that they should have had the same thinking as we have today is the same for people in 200-300 years from now to judge us against their coming time period and society. Moving forward on these issues is the key and move forward we did.
As for a requirement of being a landowner to vote, I think Ben Franklin said it best;
"Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers?but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass? "
In the end, although the Founding Fathers were far from perfect and our system was far from perfect (like it is perfect today?), when one compares our experiment back then in the time period it began (the absolute reign of monarchs where the people had no rights), the system set up by our Founding Fathers was a quantum leap in getting people involved socially and politically with power in the nation.
Ahh, so good to see the Tea Party showing its true colors. They are the haves and against the have nots.
Or maybe the doers against the do-nots?
Let's be consistent. For many Americans, all they have is a
mortgage--they are not property owners--they are renters.
Unfortunately, we did not follow the founders' principles, and
the federal government is inappropriately intertwined with
home ownership.The founders' would have certainly resisted the current role of
the federal government in private property.Since many corporations (not people) own most of the land and millions of people own stock in those companies, apparently the tea party wants to sell rights to vote to corporate interests. Yet another indication of who really runs that party?
At any rate, land owning does not give one any more concern or responsibility in how this country is run than not.
Great point akabg!
"Let's be consistent. For many Americans, all they have is a mortgage--they are not property owners--they are renters."hhhhmmm..I guess we need to limit to corporation/company voting since most homes are owned by the banks...
"Or maybe the doers against the do-nots?"
Owning a home is not always a good investment, certainly not in this market. Why would you force people to make a bad investment to get voting rights or pretend they are not doing something just because they didn't buy a home.
That's just ridiculous.
This should re-confirm just what idiots and nasty people the "Tea Partiers" are! The founding fathers said a LOT of things about who could and couldn't vote (women, blacks!), but we don't follow that today.
Someone above had a good point that it was homeowners with ridiculous mortgages they couldn't afford, aided by greedy bankers, who started the housing crisis, NOT renters! How soon the TP's forget! Or are they really that ignorant?
I say we stop allowing THEM to vote and ship them all back to whatever countries their ancestors came from, as they keep saying should be done to immigrants now.
KB,
Who said anything about forcing anyone to purchase a home or not vote? Not I. My comment was to Betty when she made the comment of haves and have-nots. Generally speaking TP members are not the "haves>" Haves are made up of both Democrats and Republicans that have much (as the richest people in Congress being Democrats) and the TP people seem to be those who would be considered have-nots by most standards. At least the TP'ers I have met or interacted with are far from the "haves" (unless we are now considering the "haves" not as rich but those with incomes well under the 250K threshold set by Obama and the Democrats).
Considering home ownership priimarily as an investment is ridiculous - for most it is their home.
Best Regards,
Please all you people. Read comment 36. Renters, homeowners. America Citizens. We need tp get our coumrty back before we end up being ran by the government. Comment 36 sees whats happening. Read for yourselves. Quit listening and check the facts before you beliee them
Looks like the two monster heads of the US Government Hydra have been joined by a third. I'm glad I don't live in the USA - over here in Europe there are at least one/two good parties in each country who matter.
Just to clarify, renters DO pay property taxes. Landlords are not in the biz to be charities. They pass on 50% to 90% of their property tax to their tenants -- built into the monthly rent payment. It varies depending how tight the rental market is. In a hot rental market, they can pass on more of the property tax to tenants. In a weak rental market, they can't pass on as much of it.
In addition, of course, the landlord passes on the financing costs (interest, fees, etc.) of the building to the tenant. The landlord isn't just going to pay those out of pocket, or else it is not a viable business model to be a landlord in that case.
Hence several states have tax deductions for renters, and it cannot really be justified at the federal level to have a tax deduction for mortgage interest and a tax deduction for local property taxes without having a similar deal for renters.
I am all for a return to the original language and intent of the Founding Fathers vis a vis voting.
Typical Tea Party idiocy.
You guys made my day! 99.9% of the comments reflect the thinking of calm intelligent individuals. I have so many favorites from your comments, all true by the way! my favorite is "I own two condo's so I get two votes" that's right for sure...and all the rest of us who own several properties!! thank you for making my day. MRF/Anthropologist.
OK, Last year I went from a home owner to a renter because I lost my job and my house to Chase. So lets use the same mentality and apply it to other conditions.
Unmarried people cant vote on issues that effect only married people. Of course married people could not vote on single issues. Married people could not take away any tax advantage from singles.
Married people could not take away the right to get married from any group ( gay or otherwise)
People that didn't own guns could not vote on gun issues.
See a pattern. So someone would have to know all the personal data about you in order to determine what you could or could not vote on. And if you switched rules would change.
We already have a system in place where the largest property owners have a larger vote. Its called unrestricted campaign contributions - tea party why are you complaining?
As a landlord, I think this Tea Party proposal is insane. My renters should never lose their voting rights. Who pays the property taxes (directly or indirectly) is not relevant to voting or citizenship any more.
I would rather restore my rights by repealing the so-called Patriot Act than run scared from a little well-deserved government regulation of corporations. China shows what happens when there is no regulation and no freedom. In my view of the USA, people have rights, not fictional entities that issue stock.
To Mr. Matthew S. Harrison, watch who you are calling a moron. Your simplistic thinking, prejudice and bias is showing. I am a proud liberal patriot, voter, and veteran. Those words DO go together.
I think the property owner should have one vote, regardless how many property he or she owns, on every issues, and the renter vote non bonds issue only. Renter doesn't pay property taxes.
I think a better solution should be: if you are receiving government aid, then you cannot vote (or...if you are not paying taxes, then you cannot vote). Both ideas are more fair. Either one also ensures that the people that refuse to get off the 'gummint cheese' cannot vote themselves a raise.
Since I as a renter pay the taxes for the property owner through my rent, I pay property taxes. Owners aren't taking that cost as a loss.
LOL willowreed - since we all receive government 'aid' in one way or another, apparently you think no one should vote.
Firstly, the premise is all wrong. How many Tea Partyers really fully own their home. I think if the Vote should only go to property owners then you need to define what a property owners is. Private Home, Condomium, Co-operative or renter. If your home is unencumbered by any lien, Mortgage, tax lien, municipal or otherwise. You do not Own your home. If you re-finance then you lose your right to vote. If you have a mortgage you do not havve the right to vote. If your cousin Billy Bob goes to jail and you put your house as bond you do not have the right vote. If you get loan against your property to subsidize you farm you loose the right to vote.
The Tea Party should think more clearly about their platform.
When the vote was "given away" it has no value except to the people who will sell it. Beggers, squatters, illegals, spook voters and welfare abusers all should be cut from the tax roles. Simple enough....fingerprint voters, problem solved. PROBLEM SOLVED!
Amazing - I was an active 60's youth. Drugs, sex and rock n roll BUT even then - none of my friends were as IDIOTIC as these folks.
Is Sarah Palin feeding them spoiled 'moose meat' ?
Maybe we should only allow hunters, fishermen, and farmers vote just like when the founding fathers were around.
The TEA Party scares me - just like AH should have been stopped in Munich!
Here is a MUCH BETTER idea... DON'T LET ANY RADICAL IDIOT THAT BELONGS TO THE "TEA PARTY", VOTE!!!! Those belonging to the "Tea Party" are all hot-head fanatics that are followers and don't have a real grasp of government and its role, or how it woeks, and "Tea Partiers" allow themselves to get all worked up by a LUNATIC housewife from Alaska that thinks SHE is PRESIDENTIAL TIMBER. Oh, please!! ATTENTION ALL TEA PARTIERS!!! Go home, lock your doors, and give the key to someone else, because America does NOT need, nor want, RADICAL FANATICS LIKE YOU PEOPLE, running loose on the streets. YOU folks are really scarey!!!! YOU "Tea Partiers" are America's own home-gtown TERROISTS, and the really bad thing is, we can't deport you to someplace else!!!! WE DON'T WANT YOUR OPINIONS!! WE DON'T WANT YOUR CRAZY IDEAS!!!! WE DON'T WANT YOUR VOTES!!! Just stay home and SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!
Of course the TP does not want to limit renter's votes. Article slanted, claiming this is part of the plank. Add to long list of lies about us dangerous TP ppl. Absurd!
Well, A. You are the only tea party avocate that has said it isn't.
B. This is what happens when you don't have an official party platform - everyone has a different idea of what it is and apparently on this issue in this forum, you are in the extreme minority.Typical leftist. Ilyce sets it up her slant with keywords and the
hysterical lefties all jump to spike the ball without any thought
at all. Look at comments 15 and 25 and dozens of other
shameless examples here of a mindless mass of humanity. We
just saw this kind of cued up contagious hysteria with the
Tuscon tragedy. What a bunch of Dupniks!Response to Omni-max, everyone has a right of opinion..You should be locked up for statement you made. Tea Party is right what they are saying. This country is not going in a right direction. Why do you think that some states are considering to Secede from the union.
TO ALL TEA PARTY MEMBERS? please please keep talking?. The more you talk the more we true Americans see how ridicules you all are.
Do you guys know the difference between "The Tea Party" (of which there is no real party), and "Tea Party Nation"? One is a movement by people fed up with government (The Tea Party), and "Tea Party Nation" is one blogger. Now people are blaming "The Tea Party" for one person's opinion. Typical.
If we're embracing tax history, let's go whole hog!
There was no income tax until 1913. When it became constitutional, income under approximately $60,000 in today's dollars was not taxed.
Because of enforecement difficulties (most people were paid in cash and bookkeeping was on paper), most working people did not pay tax until after WWII.
Ilyce Glink wrote
then, she reported this: <... reported that Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation, has a terrific idea: ?The Founding Fathers? put certain restrictions on? the right to vote? you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense.?>
Ilyce Glink has committed a basic logical fallacy of assigning an attribute of a part to the whole. Specifically, she has taken one man's comment, and claimed this was a new Tea Party Plank, which it isn't. It was merely one man's take on a historical aspect of voting.
I am a bit surprised that with all mental acuity that liberals claim to possess, that you let this very basic logical error slithered by without calling attention to it.
Also, in scanning some comments, I see that there is an abundance of 'liberal civility' and open-mindedness expressed toward those who disagree with them.
Hmmm. . .
I've said for a long time that renters should not be allowed to vote on bond issues. I think its totally unfair that people who never see the bill get to vote to put levies on other peoples homes and businesses. Furthermore, the politicians and school district officials behind these public embezzlement funds rely on the ineptitude of these voters to ensure themselves access to unlimited amounts of money. Case in point: Anaheim City School District. 24 elementary schools, approximately 20,000 kids. 2003 Bond Issue $111,000,000. 2010 Bond Issue approved using inept votes $169,000,000. Total levied against property owners approximately $350,000,000. Per school that is about $14,580,000. Per student that is about $17,500. All of that on top of the money the district already gets from the state every year. These appropriations are financed solely by property owners; therefore, they should be voted on solely by property owners.
LOL, apparently there are a lot of Tea Partiers that agree with that 'one man's opinion'. From the overwhelming responses here, it doesn't appear that it's such a far distance from being a party 'plank'.
Middle Ages? Like a liberal...ignorant about everything, especially when the Middle Ages were.
Just because he said that, once, doesn't mean that's how he actually feels. I could give you a list of about 500 quotes from Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Chris Matthews, etc that were said without thinking it out first. Hell, I can give you about 500 that they said on purpose that are more ridiculous than that statement.
Besides, he makes a valid point (although not a good one). The reason that property owners were originally the only people allowed to vote? The states had records of them. You couldn't stuff the ballot boxes with 10,000 votes as easily when every vote had to match a record (and the only records kept in the colonies...land ownership). Especially since at that time, they didn't have the technology to keep up with everyone in the country, especially with boats arriving all up and down the colonies around that time. It wasn't about racism (morons commenting), it was about being able to verify who actually existed and who didn't (and who has been in the country for a year and who arrived 20 minutes ago).
The reason his point is valid, even if it's stupid and wrong, is because land owners technically own a piece of this country. They pay property taxes (which are stupid...once you own something, you should own it) and they have an actual stake in the country. I don't think he meant they are the only ones who should be able to vote now and even if he did, no one agrees with him.
But I love how you apply his comment to all members of all the Tea Party organizations. I guess I'll apply Chris Matthews comment about "for an hour tonight, I forgot Obama was black" to the entire roster of democrats in America....oh wait, is that wrong? Yeah, thought so...b*tch.
I think you have to define "property owners." I don't think owning a Double Wide should count, so that would eliminate most of the Tea Pary itself.
A bit of reality here, it's extremely hard to stuff ballot boxes anymore and it very rarely happens, if you had ever voted, you would know they match you to your address, it would make little difference to logistics if you owned it or not.
Another ridiculous idea. They need to focus on solving real
problems, like slashing government and regulations. Take a look
at some of the real numbers behind unemployment in our recent
post...Actually, stuffing ballot boxes is not so difficult in many states for a variety of reasons. When dead people are not cleaned off the rolls and there are more voters than residents, that is ballot stuffing. When voters are added to rolls and addresses are not checked out for being valid (lots of empty lots and graveyards are the "residence" of ballot stuffers, that is ballot stuffing. Where ID is not required to register or actually vote (as in quite a few states) ballot stuffing has shown to happen quite easily.
Ballot stuffing has become a bit more savvy than in places like Haiti or Iraq (where they actually stuff the boxes with non-voter paper ballots) but ballot stuffing has been occuring and now in many places those avenues for doing so have been codified in law under the auspices of motor-voter registration and a refusal to certify basic information given by those registering.
Since we aren't talking about Haiti or Iraq, that's inconsequential. Stuffing ballot boxes technically means a voter coming in and voting more than once. Evidence has shown that individual voter fraud in the US is exceedingly rare and isn't worth worrying about. The biggest issue in US voter fraud is electronic voting and the ethics of those who write and install the system. That problem cannot be solved by any action at the polls, no matter how the voter is scrutinized.
Well DC residents pay federal taxes but have no representatives to vote for!
Hmmm.... me thinks that renters in Silicon Valley could buy
large homes in the Midwest. We just don't want to do it. I'd
rather rent until I can buy here. So, land ownership as a req to
purify the voting process doesn't work anymore.I think a better idea (a more targeted one if you will) is to
administer a civics test to determine if a citizen does indeed
understand American government, OR if their act of voting is
zero degrees away from a monkey throwing a dart.It is not as rare as we like to think (ballot stuffing). We have many areas where more people voted than reside in that particular voting precinct or district. Who is doing the extra voting? Common sense tells us that people are re-entering under different names and voting more than once. Unless one is thinking that these dead people are actually voting personally, someone is voting more than once. It is an institution in places like Chicago, NYC and other areas. Rarity is an issue but when the "rare" occurance happens with large numbers it has a large impact.
Of course voter fraud is far more of a dangerous isse than just ballot stuffing and is really the issue goes with the plethora of ways to vote fraudulently.
They want only non renters to vote. That way most city would not be able to vote. A large block of city voters are liberal. With that they could take over.
They want only non renters to vote. That way most city would not be able to vote. A large block of city voters are liberal. With that they could take over.
Firstly, to think we know what the founding fathers thought is an exercise in futility. I make no claim I know what my parents thought when they had my brother (that?s a joke), but hopefully you get my point. We hold the constitution and the way it was written as a vestige of sacred rules to govern our way of life, some we had to repeal because it did not live up to the philosophy of moral ethical code of rights. Some we had to amend because there were wrong and disregarded humans, equal without damnation to ones color. Rightfully so, we have the right to change or amend based solely on what is right for today, but to interpret what others thought in the 1700?s brings me to the conclusion, ?madness?. Here?s what is fundamentally wrong with this assessing, everyone thinks differently; there was no way the population back then would ever thought it would be this big of a nation.
When the forefathers MADE IT FOR landowners, I could easily state that this was for the elite to maintain control; it was another mechanism of control; to leave the voting to men of property and wealth; not to much different from great Britain at the time. The constitution is contrary document at times, because it did not take into account generations to come; the people that would come with it; the weaponry man would produce; the hatred man would muster up to protect the right to own slaves and condemn women. No the constitution is not a flawless or sacred document and we should consider rewriting it, now that would be a historical event, but until then its what we have and am glad that every single person of sound mind has the ability to cast a vote, or not.
What is most ridiculous about this assertion is the narrow-minded viewpoint that all adults are either "renters" or "property owners". What about family members that share homes to save money? What about adults living is assisted living facilities? What about people renting one place while they build a home on another? What about people whose housing is provided due to volunteer service, school, or jobs? What about people serving overseas in the military or diplomatic services? Are all of these folks "second class citizens", too?
I would add that even as a renter (I am one, so I know) one does have a vested interest in community and school affairs. I don't particularly want a second truck stop built in a state forest corridor, as is being proposed across the street from my rental property right now. I care very much about the quality of education children in our local schools receive. I care about whether zoning issues are going to bring more traffic to my road, or drive small businesses broke. I know I'm paying land taxes for my landlord, and I also pay local taxes and state taxes on my paycheck and purchases. Bottome line: I should have a say in what goes on in the community in which I reside, regardless of whether or not I own a single square foot of land there.
Alcoholics Anonymous is an organization that
brainwashing people to give up $$$$$$$$$ &
rob them of their spirit being in believing in a
false delusion of not drinking alcohol. Without a
GOD it's hopeless & helpless. This must stop!mazyck.. I really like your post, it should be a living and breathing document. As for property owner. I think they might have done that more for the fact of education. Most property owners could read and write. That is just a guess on my part.
Jim, all I can say, is to let real journalists know with your proof, if you have it. If you don't, then well, not so believable.
mazyck,
On some issues your post would be valid but since on most of the principles contained in the Constitution we have a plethora of letters and recorded speeches (in written form of course) from those same Framers, much of the time your claim of "madness" is far from valid.
You are correct that we have made changes to the COnsitution previously and for me, that is important. But more importantly is that there is a specific way to amend the Constitution proscribed in the Constitution itself in order for us to follow (otherwise we are just ignoring the document and ideals that provided the framework for our success in the first place) and this is how these decisions to change the document should be viewed and followed.
The Framers were smart enough to address issues specifically and generally in the Consitution. But, the mechanism for changing things was included by those same men and is contained within the Constitution itself.
In reference to slavery, they specifically put a mechanism in place in order to revisit the issue in 20 years from adoption and they did this as a compromise in order to unite the colonies and be able to rectify the situation after independence was secured and the newly formed government was solidified and able to function properly.
jeff_fla,
By definition a constitution is ot a "living and breathing document." it is inherent in the concept itself. If you wish to have a "living and breathing document" feel free to move to countries that have that concept and where their stability is not on par with ours. Saying a Constitution is a living and breathing document is like saying a square has round corners or speaking in non-sequitors like Jim Morrison did in so many songs (which I love the Doors by the way). In the end it all becomes meaningless jibberish when it becomes a "living and breathing document."
the only people who should not be allowed to vote
those in jail
those on welfareas for the IQ test:
lets reserve that for those who want to be parents
if they don't pass the test, and hey we can provide a course to take first, then they could be required to get birthcontrol shots or if they absolutely don't want kids-sterility shots...
this could solve a whole-lot of problemsIQ testing for parents is a poor idea. Most of the bad parents I have met have been on upper end of the IQ scale. Intelligent doesn't mean smart or caring. In fact, they are completely unconnected...
#1. No one is a permanet resident of the Earth; Every one is just passing through.
#2 With the number of homes that are being foreclosed on;
what will those people be for the next 2 to 3 years?
#3 How many Bankers that sold folks the homes they could not afford are wealthy Republican "Tea Party" supporters?
It seems to me those "Banker" types don't want to be exposed by the "Renters" as what they are.
Maybe it would be a good idea if those that rented did NOT have to pay any taxes!
Then we could all afford to own something nice, if 30% of our meager earnings, were NOT going to taxes and our fantasticly corupt Government!I don't have a right to vote, but everytime I get paid taxes are taken out of my check. I've been working since I was 18, no one has given me anything. My vote counts, because I want to decide on where my money is spent.
It isn't just renters that people want to exclude. Try being a US
government civilian assigned overseas, to get a renewed
driver's license from many states. The majority of states have
barred automatic renewals for citizens residing out of the
country beyond the renewal date, quoting US Homeland
Security rules as their reason. Talk about feeling like a non-
citizen, person without a country! So much for helping with the
GWOT.The fact that the tea party has so much support either speaks volumes about the intelligence of most of us Americans or the devious manipulative and malice of the tea party.
roflmao............really? This is exactly why we need changes in the political process of electing politicians in ALL parties. When we/you/I apply for a job, we are subject to interviews with 1 or more people within the company, given background checks, asked to take a "questionnaire" to determine if we "fit" within the specific guidelines of the company we applying with. So why would we not ask politicians running for office to be interviewed by a panel of TBD citizen/folks who ask legitimate questions about the issues of the day, then take a "questionnaire" to see if there is a good "fit" for the community/county/state/country office they are running "applying" for. Or even have an "on air" broadcast with people voting similar to American Idol or Americas Got talent or any other consumer advocated show.
Makes perfect sense to me. Away go the ridiculous fictional ads bashing other applicants running (applying) for the same office. Gone are the ridiculous soundbites, pictures, placards, etc etc. A breath of fresh air where people can decide if a particular candidate "fits" what the democratically elected majority thinks is the best for their respective office. We need common sense changes. What do you think about an idea like this? Seriously.roflmao
I have a problem with people who don't pay taxes having a voice in how my money gets spent. Get your hand out of my pocket.
To Swedish_Snus and the rest of the Tea Partiers:
Swedish_Snus said: "I have a problem with people who don't pay taxes having a voice in how my money gets spent. Get your hand out of my pocket."
Everyone in the U.S. who is alive pays some type of taxes. People who do not earn enough money to pay federal income tax still pay Medicare and Social Security taxes, including illegal immigrants. States without state income taxes have sales taxes. (Even that socialist haven Alaska, which taxes oil companies and pays its citizens, still has sales tax.)
If you missed the comments above, rent partially goes to pay for property taxes. Unless someone is living on roots and berries in the woods and wearing bearskins, in which case they're probably not voting anyway, your ignorant comment applies to NO ONE.
I'll bet you Tea Partiers voted for that "compassionate conservative" twice, in 2000 and 2004. That former president was neither compassionate nor conservative, and neither are you.
Tea Partiers are now loudly (and ignorantly) blaming the results of GWB's fiscal mess, cutting taxes and nearly doubling the national debt from $5.5 Trillion to over $10.5 Trillion, on everyone who is responsibly trying to clean up. That's the definition of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party: Cut taxes, spend money, and try to sneak out when the bill comes.
My hand is not in your pocket. Your hand was in everyone else's pocket when you Republicans-turned-Tea Partiers voted for politicians who told you they could cut taxes and keep spending. They lied; Doubling the national debt proves it didn't work. (Your saint Reagan did the same thing, doubling the debt from $2 Trillion to $4 Trillion. Some people never learn.) You wanted to believe in faith-based economics. You Rep-Tea Party types voted for them anyway. I didn't. If anything, I should be telling you to pay for the bill that's come due. Get your tax-cutting-and-big-spending hands out of my pockets.
Americans are under attack and most homeowners bought
homes at the prices they could afford when they were
working.Many have lost jobs not because they were not great
employees but due to the wrecking ball the government has
swung against the small business community. The banks
have strapped all of us with incurable debt.To restrict voting to homeowners only at this time would
plunge America into a medieval feudal state with few in the
near future qualified to vote.Many young people had no other choices than accept the
price of homes and the bankers terms on them, interest only
loans.....in debt FOREVER and that is just what everyone
seems to want for American Citizens! I guess they could
have purchased boxes to live in...Don't unload the blame for this economic disaster on the
working middle class! I just want to know why the Tea Party
is not calling for justice for the American people instead of
blaming the American people!Why isn't there a call in Congress to support with special tax
benefits and cutting any & all regulations which restrict the
restoration of manufacturing in America. A call like
President Kennedy issued: We will be on the Moon! Why not
We will Restore America's Economic Base of Manufacturing,
Farming, and Development of New Products in the world
market place. We will support any company with new top
selling products to build factories in America and hire
Americans.And, Why aren't the Bankers being brought to trial ??? Why
are Government leaders & regulators not being charged and
tried for their role in compliance with the banking scandals?Why was the press so "uninformed" about the growing
financial disaster looming just ahead?How could all the Bankers, Reporters, Government
Regulators, Congress and all the Presidents up to George
Bush be so In The Dark About this ??It wasn't until the last week-end of George Bush's presidency
that he announced we had to Give the Banking community a
whopping bail out or risk going into a depression. Up until
that week-end everything was Great...so with out any
discussion, vote, or public involvement we gave the keys to
Bankers for our national treasury.So "We" the American People are to blame-Shame on You
Tea Party-You are a Party of Idiots..You still don't get it.
This is not Ron Paul Speaking, he was they only right man in
the last presidential election....And He Was Not Allow to
Speak in Most Debates, He was Vilified and Universally
laughed at. He was So Wrong then when he said, "We're
Broke, we can't afford this war, these programs!" Well,
guess what, He was Right!Once again, a recession is about a lack of transactions in the marketplace. You don't have jobs because business isn't seeing enough demand. You don't increase demand in the economy by cutting spending to the bone and further. Guess what that does? You are right, sends the US into a greater depression.
You can either have jobs and a growing economy or lower debt that there is no way to pay off, you don't get both. Which do you want?
I realize this is an older article but as I just found it, I'm
commenting now. Here's what I say to those morons in the
BS titled Tea Bagger Party -- P**s off and grow a brain that
you actually warm up and use. I'm a renter, BY CHOICE and
I'm the owner of multiple businesses so I'm going to state for
the record that even though I'm a renter due to my being a
business owner I probably have more vested in the U.S.A.
than you loose-cannon morons and your ridiculous idea-
filled, yet empty heads. What a joke you people are! I'm
electing to vote all of you "off the continent". Clueless idiots
only breed more clueless idiots and the Tea Baggers
personify that in Spades!Since government does not create productive jobs or demand, cutting government spending is not an issue with generating demand for company goods. In fact, when one is demanding our grandchildren to pay (with massive interest attached) for government intervention (which only gives minor and short-term relief while enlarging the problems down the road) it retards growth.
No Jim, Government does create productive jobs and demand. I have no idea where you got that idea. It's a huge factor in the economy. People who work for the government spend money. Contracting companies spend that money on tools, supplies and employ millions. People on social aid spend money on food, rent and everything they need. Tax breaks do not do this. A business with a tax break has no incentive to spend that money on employing more, it just socks it away in terror. Business will only employ people when it has a contract. So it's far better for the economy for the government to give out contracts to build infrastructure that the country needs rather than tax breaks which do nothing at all. Both cost us, one builds an economy, the other just runs up debt.
It's not rocket science, it's just plain common sense.
KB,
Hope you are well today.
Government by it's very nature is not productive, nor effective in responding to the actual needs of the people. Programs become sacred cows and never die. Budgeting by government (fiscal sanity and honesty) makes Wall St and the private sector look pristine in comarison. If the government was effective and not a money waster, it would have gone out of business long ago. Unlike the private sector, the people are not to be served but are the servants (required to support the programs no matter what) and it doesn't change in order to do what is needed but what is best to get politicians re-elected.
Budgets in government if applied to the private sector would result in jail time (and has so in the past with cases like Enron) for those who demand and implement them.
Social Security is the world's largest, most inefficient and damaging ponzi scheme in existence. Madoff goes to jail (as he should have) but those formulating, demanding and/or implementing the program do so with impunity and with ZERO legal responsibility.
The world's economic problems are mainly related to governmental policy (with large doses of help from the friends of the government who get to profit massively now with impunity - no matter the party in power) of massive borrowing, forcing private institutions to make loans to those who cannot repay (under the guise of promoting fairness and equal outcome for all no matter how stupid the concept), devaluing the money to almost worthless pieces of paper and then doubling down on the mistakes of the past.
The issue is policy (which includes regulation, government being responsible, making sure conflicts of interest are avoided and/or disqualifying those in power from using their position of influence with impunity, etc). Tax cuts can help but they are only a bandaid at this point and avoids the massive gash that is the real problem.
Government employees certainly spend money that has been confiscated. Unfortunately, much of the governmental employees are within programs and agencies that are nothing but a waste of the people's money. Making the case that my spending of a very small portion of the money I get by force from you is not a good way to make a case for me being productive as you would be (example of me being a government employee and you being a taxpayer).
Common sense starts with basic economics and those who understand basic economics understands that Kensyian economic theory has been an utter failure in the long term and has brought us to the edge of fiscal destruction worldwide (Greece, the US, Denmark, Spain, etc). Massive confiscation of people's wallet contents coupled with an unaccountable and inefficient and ineffective "driver" that demands that the future generations be forced to sustain our debt (through our desire for our own pleasure) is not common sense.
At best government employee spending is a temporary and limited lift to an economy (notice how the stimulus, stimulus 2 and stimulus 3 as well as quantatative easy (QE & QU 2) by the Fed has not brought anything but very small short -term relief. Everytime it is tried it is a failure. Common sense dictates that one doesn't follow in the footsteps of those who have failed before you.
LOL Jim, Kensyian theory brought us out of the depression with the most effective Kensyian effort at all, World War. That doesn't work so well anymore since now it is all contracted out and the benefits go in a few pockets in other countries.
I'm sure you'd like to think that business is more effective than government but it hardly addresses any requirement that is not profitable. Damns, roads, court systems bridges, internet infrastructure, and basically the overhead that is required for a country to act in it's own interest require government which cannot be served by anything else. I'm sorry you have problems with understanding that. It's a common problem with libertarians, they have no ability to understand large system dynamics.
And yes, Kenysian effort is not effective when short changed by small thinking and small pockets. It's not an easy way out of the problem but it is our only way at this point. I would think if you were the least bit honest, you would have noticed that tax cuts were one of the biggest problems with our debt, especially in light of the fact that we had just started a very expensive and very useless war.
I'm sorry that you think that your responsibility for paying for your fair share of the securities and benefits of living in this country is confiscation. I would hope a person would be more moral than that. If you have a problem with how your tax money is being handled, you have every opportunity to go to your government, ask questions and learn and engage in the process. Unfortunately as someone who does that, I see very very few people who bother other than to rant on forums.
This is merely propoganda. I agree with the tea party on most issues, I am familiar with the concepts discussed on talk radio and I discuss current events with many of my acquaintances. I have NEVER heard anyone promote, or even discuss the idea that renters shouldn't vote. It's nothing but a straw man argument.
When conservatives come up with non-representative quotes from the radical left, they are appropriately dismissed. So why are the right's political outliers publicized by the lamestream media s/a CBS Moneywatch?? To create the false impression that the Tea Party is not mainstream, that's why.Cool then I don't have to pay taxes either since I don't get a voice. I will tell my boss and HR to stop withholding on my paycheck if this goes through.
Baggers what a bunch of idiots.
KB,
War is not Kensyian economics at work... What brought us out was the war AND the fact that we had the only relatively unscathed economy when it was done so there was no competitors for the next 15 or so years. A nation going on war footing has zero to do with Maynard's theories and trying to make such a connection is hysterical in a very sad sort of way due to the lack of basic understanding of economic theories. And attempting to continue and have a conversation that will be a discussion of actual facts and truth is unfruitful since you lack that basic understanding and education and real world experience. So I will id you a fair day and God bless KB.
LOL, just saying that war isn't a government supported economics stimulator is not any proof. I can see Jim that you aren't even replying to anything I'm saying and just repeating bad economics theory that has no proof and never worked. I guess I don't blame you, there are lots of pseudo intellectuals that do. Do try to think it through. I know it's work but that's what it requires. That's real economics and there are plenty of real economics experts out there. Just not any libertarian ones.
I think it should be those who don't pay income taxes that shouldn't vote.
This is some rhetoric coming from the right wing hijacked version of the tea party. A REAL original tea party member would NEVER suggest such a thing. Some people are renters by choice. I sold my home and am a renter by choice because I realized that having a 30 year mortgage is nothing but a golden handcuff keeping me from possibly moving to where work is in the futiure. Read The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson and you'll see quick what you have isn't what you think you do when you take out a motgage. BTW, mortgage is literally translated in latin (or maybe Greek?) as "Death guage" I've never been so relived to get something off of my back. I pay state and federal taxes and have the right to vote. I met plenty of fools that were given houses from their aprents that haven't contributed an ounce to society, they should have the right to choose an elected offical over myself? homowners who become owners through government based programs, they should have the right over myself? I am college educated, my husband and myself worked to pay through college and NEVER recived any form of assistance from anyone. Tea partiers are about more idependance from the federal goverment, not more regulation about who can and can't do ANYTHING. Turn off the Hannity and READ FOR YOURSELF ABOUT LIBRITARIANISM!!!!
How about limiting the right to vote to property owners and veterans? These are the people have an investment in our nation. The average American citizen is just a consumer, and that applies regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum...left, right or center.
As an additional comment to my last post, I don't really believe this way, but wanted to throw a little gas on the fire. I know a lot of Tea Partiers, and very few have ever done anything to benefit this nation beyond being avid consumers of infotainment wrapped in the cloak of "Fair and Balanced" reporting of the "news".
This thing has gotten way out of hand and out of context.
The discussion was Renters shouldn't vote on bond issues for which they don't have to pay. Its not fair. It will never be fair. Its just a way to get an easy approval from the ambivalent to side step taxation limitations already voted in.KB,
Your attempt to make war a Kensyian economic policy makes addressing your specifics needless and pointless. One does not seriously address the specifics of someone's specious basic premise. War is not Maynard's theory - period. War - at best - is a temporary stimulant that usually ends with more long term damage to an economy. It is not an economic stimulus, it is a temporary diversion (economically speaking) that ends up usually not doing much for the economy after the war is complete because the economy is usually either devestated by debt, geared for the wrong products and services and if one looks at history a bit closer, the unemployment rate is usually higher for a few years after the war is over - and that is usually what happens to the winner of the war. Because we were relatively unscathed because of our geographical location, our nation was spared the destruction of our infrastructure (during WW 2) and we were the big lender during the war (especially before we entered the war) so when the other nations had nothing left on which to build, we were in a prime position to lead the way.
Our wars since then have not been so beneficial to our economy and have been a drain - unless one considers being in perpetual debt and declining economic productivity and innovation (esp. since the 70's) are somehow a stimulant to our economy. We are farther in debt, our economy is not geared up for the future because of massive government confiscation for bad policies (which include wars) and we have devalued the dollar so much of purchasing power has declined remarkably and we have helped to destabalize the world economy along the way.
If the idea of a short-term boost that causes long-term damage is your idea of "stimulus" than Kensyian economics aare the way to go.
Pseudo - intellectuals try to take bad premises and have others debate the specifics of that bad theory. Carry on with the tradition though.
Cool Jim, you tried to think it over. War worked exactly the way Keynesian theory said government contracts would. Did you think it mattered what the contracts were for? What is important in a depression or bad recession is for there to be more economic activity. Business and the public won't because they are too scared, so government has to.
Yup, we were further in debt, but did you notice we came out of it because the economy created more value and that value created more taxes which paid it off.
If you bothered to check, we had to change the value of the dollar - get off the gold standard. That was another thing that was freezing the economy. As soon as we did that, it made a huge difference.
I'm sorry you think the world came to an end after World War II. I'm thinking it didn't.
Bummer about your theory.
Bond issues affect people who don't pay directly property taxes, so obviously they need to have a say. It would be nice if the Tea party admitted it was libertarian so all of the crazy religious fanatics would get off the boat, but it won't, for just that reason. You get into bed with the crazies, you have to sleep with them. Face it, it's basically a corporate sponsored wing nut drive to push republicans into doing what the corporations want them to by flaming the foolish up.
As a single mom and $35,000/yr earner, I WAS RESPONSIBLE. I didn't cave to the pressure of my local Bank of America. Every time I bought a cashier's check to pay my rent, I was approached by a supervisor who tried to talk me into making an appointment to talk to a loan officer, because, of course, I was just throwing money away on rent - I should own a house!! Even when I said I couldn't afford it, they said, "we can get you into a house, we can get anyone into a house - we will make it work". I refused over and over again. I WAS RIGHT AND I STILL RENT. NOW THE TEA PARTY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO VOTE? OVER MY DEAD BODY.
This is not a tenant of the Tea Party. More like an anti-Tea
Party red herring, frankly.I am both a property owner and a renter. Perhaps the Tea Party would consider me three fifths of a citizen?
Funny quote from the tea party, by the way. You can tell that half way through, the guy was thinking 'uh-oh, this sounds a little crazy now that I'm saying it out loud.'Yes. Yes it does.
So, if one person out a million Republicans and Conservatives
and on group out of thousands has a ridiculous statement
everyone in that group has the same belief? Well, if that's the
case, then an idiotic racist statement from a Democrat should
mean they all believe that way right? What a bunch of BS, and
all of you call yourselves civil and so much smarter than those
that don't believe as you? I love to have discussions with you,
because I only end up getting screamed at telling me how
stupid I am.I love the idea, it should be proportional to their land area (sorry you city condo owners). And I have an even better one: Each citizen gets one vote per dollar of tax they pay. That way, people other than Chicagoans can increase their votes by voluntarily paying more tax. Instead of hitting a tipping point in entitlement forcing functions, where more people get entitlements and therefore vote for those who give them more entitlements until we have a society of a few payers and mostly takers (oh, I am behind, we have that already) that eventually collapses, it would become self-limiting taxation and spending, where the small number of large-voting payers could reach an equilibrium with the large number of small-voting takers. James? Ben? Thomas? George? Did you guys think of that?
I pay personal property taxes on property I own, specifically my car. My property taxes go to support schools, community infrastructure, trash collection and the like. If this is not supporting my community (not to mention the volunteer activities I take part in) I don't know what is. Obvioulsy, the Tea Party person has a very narrow definition of 'property', and seems to be referring only to real estate ... which is not the only property we own. I am a homeowner but rented for most of my adult life; I have also voted in every election since I was of legal age, which was about 40 years ago. Give me a break!
There are restriction on voting now. Like you have to be registered. But what we have found is that this issue was addressed in the 14th admendment under the Equal Protection Clause. Limiting voting to property owners would intential violate rights of non property owners.
In addition what do you mean that renters don't have to pay for tax increase. Is that not included in the rent. Do you think landlords are taking losses on property because taxes increase? No They raise the rent. Everyone is affected by taxes regardless of which way you look at it. You guys have to look at the big picture because obviously you have a limited view.
If you are taxed by a locality then you should be allowed to vote for issues affecting that locality. I pay income tax in Cols. OH, yet I do not have representation because I live elsewhere.. THAT IS TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Signed: A possibly ex-T-PARTY republican TEACHER
you must realize that the "organic constitution for the united States of America" is still valid, this is the constitution for the "Republic-the Union" the form of government who's supreme TENET is State political sovereignty. but the government has side step it.
The Constitution of the UNITED STATES, notice the difference in terms, is the by laws for the Corporate State, which was established 1871.
The federal government of the UNITED STATES is a foreign government to the people of the union states.
The government of the District of Columbia formed by the 39th, congress with the Act of 1871 doing business as the corporation known as "The Federal Government of the UNITED STATES" is collateral for the international banking cabal.
The founding fathers rejected the government as being a corporation, because under international law, when a country goes bankrupt, the government and all it's department are dissolved.
thus fast forward to march 5th 1933, we know as the "banking holiday" called by FDR, but in reality is the bankruptcy of the corporate state, The Federal Government of the UNITED STATES. check out Title 50.
In 1944 the corporate state , because of the bankruptcy was quick deeded over to the IMF and the world reconstruction bank. How does it feel to be a UN citizen?
This is why, congress does not listen to the American people,
FDR has declared you a enemy of the Federal Reserve System,because of the bankruptcy. Since the Federal Government contracts with the Federal Reserve System, you are a enemy of the Government of the UNITED STATES
Folks executive order #100 by Abe Lincoln put the union under marshal law and it has never been rescinded.
You have one political party since the bankruptcy. check out Title 8, section 1101 section 34 under definitions. it talks about a totalitarian government for the United States.
So you have the Republicans and Democrats playing go cop and bad cop.this why laws are rarely repealed when different parties take over congress.
Folks stand up for your "Common Law" Natural God given Rights.
You think the UNITED STATES is not bankrupt, then why is your federal,state and local governments passing statuary law or Uniform Commercial Code.
Title 22 of the United States Code section 72 states, all crime inclining murder is commercial crime!
what does crime have to do with commerce.
Statuary law is private Roman law , it is copyrighted, still feel free. Tried of being farmed?
American's you can not be a UNITED STATES citizen and be in compliance with the Constitution for the united States of America, the Union, the Constitutional Republic.
God Bless America and her people.
JR Haren
you
must realize that the "organic constitution for the united States of
America" is still valid, this is the constitution for the "Republic-the
Union" the form of government who's supreme TENET is State political
sovereignty. but the government has side step it.The Constitution of the UNITED STATES, notice the difference in terms,
is the by laws for the Corporate State, which was established 1871.The federal government of the UNITED STATES is a foreign government to
the people of the union states.The government of the District of Columbia formed by the 39th, congress
with the Act of 1871 doing business as the corporation known as "The
Federal Government of the UNITED STATES" is collateral for the
international banking cabal.The founding fathers rejected the government as being a corporation,
because under international law, when a country goes bankrupt, the
government and all it's department are dissolved.thus fast forward to march 5th 1933, we know as the "banking holiday"
called by FDR, but in reality is the bankruptcy of the corporate state,
The Federal Government of the UNITED STATES. check out Title 50.In 1944 the corporate state , because of the bankruptcy was quick deeded
over to the IMF and the world reconstruction bank. How does it feel to
be a UN citizen?This is why, congress does not listen to the American people,
FDR has declared you a enemy of the Federal Reserve System,because of
the bankruptcy. Since the Federal Government contracts with the Federal
Reserve System, you are a enemy of the Government of the UNITED STATESFolks executive order #100 by Abe Lincoln put the union under marshal
law and it has never been rescinded.You have one political party since the bankruptcy. check out Title 8,
section 1101 section 34 under definitions. it talks about a totalitarian
government for the United States.
So you have the Republicans and Democrats playing go cop and bad cop.this why laws are rarely repealed when different parties take over
congress.Folks stand up for your "Common Law" Natural God given Rights.
You think the UNITED STATES is not bankrupt, then why is your
federal,state and local governments passing statuary law or Uniform
Commercial Code.Title 22 of the United States Code section 72 states, all crime
inclining murder is commercial crime!what does crime have to do with commerce.
Statuary law is private Roman law , it is copyrighted, still feel free.
Tried of being farmed?American's you can not be a UNITED STATES citizen and be in compliance
with the Constitution for the united States of America, the Union, the
Constitutional Republic.God Bless America and her people.
JR Haren
The idea that if you are not a property owner you should not be allowed to vote is ridiculous. I do however believe if you do not pay federal taxes here you should not be allowed to vote. Someone who does not pay their share to support this Country should not have any say in how it is run by voting. That is to include an American Citizen who owes the IRS back taxes. Once you have paid your fair share, you then get your rights to vote back.
If you are convicted of a felony they take away your voting rights, what makes someone who does not pay taxes any better than a criminal. Basically they are steeling from this country the same as a criminal steels from your home. To me it about the same thing.
All of you "Tea Party" people are worse than Republicans. How
do you think that you have the right to deny Americans
regardless of where you live. Isn't that what our anseteries
fount for. You people are snobs, control freeks and worst of all
try to prevent "Americans" who may not be in the upper class
makes you a bunch of Natzis. You are hurting this country
more than you know. Sarah Palin you should move to a
different country if you want to be a dictator, may you can go
to Lybia.Sounds like a good idea at first, However, property is a commodity that anyone can own, citizen, terrorist, foreign or not. Therefore it has little connection to patriotism.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment