Shut up and do what you are told, the new taxation without representation.

[WingDinger]

The original Tea Party, was a reaction to corporate domination of our colony. Leaving that aside, even though Occupy does not, the OTHER issue was taxation without representation.

Now, the Tea Party wants all those that need any help, or avail themselves of any offered by Gov, to be stripped of their vote. Redefining taxes ONLY to include Federal ones. So, taxation without representation is to be the order of the day. And if they complain? Put them down.

The Republicans have become the Red Coats. And the Corporations are the Mother England. Should this remain and expand, we will be every bit as justified in not shooting till we see the whites of their social Darwinist do or dies.

I can only hope comfort of sorts doesn't trump the demand for liberty and justice for all.

[MoreGOPoop]

1. Kick

Comfort is becoming an increasingly rare commodity.

[zbdent]

2. The TEA Party only really showed up after a Dem was elected ...

until then, they were more than happy to follow the "manly" leader that preceded Obama ... um, whatever his name was. Ask one of them ... they probably can't tell you who was before Obama (unless they try to say Clinton).

[Lionessa]

3. Link please? I've not heard anyone calling for revoked voting privileges due to gov assistance.

I've heard of voting rights revoked for lots of stupid reasons lately and requirements to show id, and even some on DU wanting intelligence tests, but not heard at all about this meme.

[WingDinger]

4. Visit ANY winger frequented board.

The push to deem ONLY federal taxes, with the title of taxpayer, is all about the drive to disenfranchise the poor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think that people that pay more taxes should have a larger share of the vote; just like stockholders in a company; if you own more shares you get more votes.

---
Attn: Yellow Go Lightly - there is no constitutional "right to vote". it doesn't exist. Every state defines what their criteria is for voting eligibility. The constitution only stipulates that voting cannot be denied based on certain criteria such as race and gender but nothing says that you have a "RIGHT" to vote.
Also this question does not ask what the constitution says; it asks what "SHOULD" be the law, not what IS the law.

Yes. That would be nice, but since almost 50% of the people pay ZERO taxes and are getting a free ride you could never get this law passed. It is the Democratic plan - get enough people on welfare and living off the government and you got it made. They will just keep voting for you because they like the free ride.

yes definately, cos then u wouldnt get all the low life criminals, lazy @ss benefit claimers and those 18 year old gangster wannabe thugs voting for brown the clown

Instead of removing the vote, one could try offering $100 to confirmed non-voters

Just showing that you are not dependent on government largesse for your livelihood should be good enough to vote. Voting yourself more benefits is decadent.

At the very least deny the vote to any multi-generational welfare recipient. One generation may be a fluke. But multi-generational welfare recipients are bad seed that should not be allowed to pollute the electorate with their loser mentality.

Anyone who enrolls in government healthcare should lose the right to vote. It can't be cost-free. If Democrats insist on enacting socialized medicine, then Republicans should make this demand. Then maybe Democrats won't be so interested in socialized medicine anymore.

Restricting the franchise should be the Republican demand for every new program. Then we can talk about restricting the franchise for those receiving existing benefits.

People who live off government checks are starting to outnumber taxpayers. If parasites can vote and also outnumber productive persons, the growth of government can approach what we're going to see with Obama, Reid, and Palosi. How do you stop that steamroller of a bloodsucking movement?

Certainly Obama will take more of my money.

Eugenics: I think we should start by offering money for sterilization to drug addicts that have babies. Then move on to offering money to child abusers to get sterilized. Then offer money to prisoners to get sterilized.

Bubba said at November 5, 2008 10:08 PM:

Can't we just have a basic damned intelligence/civics test? 10 math questions (basic algebra), 10 science questions, 20 civics questions. That would pretty much do the trick, and it would actually encourage something good: education. And it has as much chance of passage as your scheme: absolutely none.

The USA as configured is a dead experiment. We're just marking time until something new comes along.

What America needs is "a system which eliminates the upper class, keeps the working class in its place, and hands unlimited power to people very similar to themselves [the upper middle class or cognetive elite]." In the long run I don't see any other solution. Fundie 75-100-IQ whites, poor Mestizos and poor blacks should not be anywhere near the reins of power. Unfortunately the Right tends to idealize the former, and the Left the latter (and neocons, scarily and idiotically, often idealize ALL of the above groups). A clear-thinking person should realize that there is nothing to be idealized about *ANY* of these groups. Given the choice between the above groups, I say "NONE OF THE ABOVE."

Some pretty good comments here.
Yes, I think a system where folks with nothing to lose have the same political rights (one vote) as those with much at stake pretty much stinks. I prefer the 19th century English system where only the landed/property owners could vote.
Another observation: I stood in line on tuesday behind some immigrants chatting away in some other tongue, holding their precinct cards, probably first-time voters. Now I'm no xenophobe, but hear me out. My wife's great-grandfather fought in the Civil War. My great-great one did. Her father flew the Hump in WWII. My grandfather was in WWI's trenches. All the male ancestors worked their asses off physically building this country. Now, is it fair that these brand-new citizens have the exact political leverage that we do? Did those ancestors (and yours) sweat, bleed, cry and pray, only to have "newbies" usurp the will of their descendents (first-time voters help put BHO over-the-top)? I dunno. But I do know universal suffrage is not fair.

I support limiting the right to vote to net taxpayers and taking it away from net tax-recipients.

That'd be a nice first step.

However, I support limiting voting to nobody. Voting is always a sort of advance auction of stolen goods.