Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote

[peejay 327]

Texas would > the country lol.... As the overwhelming vast majority of our land is privately owned!

Other than that though, I honestly feel welfare recipients, people who don't work, nor have any income tax liability as stated before, should NOT be allowed to vote... No one should be able to decide that others should pay money to them when they don't contribute a dime...

Given that many of these folks are as they are, they normally wouldn't even register to vote nor would they even vote on their own volition for the most part. But send a van or bus into the projects or 'hood with "community activists" to beat the bushes to round 'em up and lead them to the polls to vote Democrat (think ACORN) and we can see the downward spiral of democracy when large numbers of people depend on government largess to for their livelihood.

That doesn't even take into account the ever growing count of government employees.

It scares me when a little less than half of the people in the USA actually pay no US income tax and a "community activist" is sitting in the White House.

It's not a "who should be able to vote" problem, but rather a "what is wrong with this scenario" and "where is the country heading" problem.

Edited December 5, 2010 by peejay

[Dan J 277]

Given that many of these folks are as they are, they normally wouldn't even register to vote nor would they even vote on their own volition for the most part. But send a van or bus into the projects or 'hood with "community activists" to beat the bushes to round 'em up and lead them to the polls to vote Democrat (think ACORN) and we can see the downward spiral of democracy when large numbers of people depend on government largess to for their livelihood.

That doesn't even take into account the ever growing count of government employees.

It scares me when a little less than half of the people in the USA actually pay no US income tax and a "community activist" is sitting in the White House.

It's not a "who should be able to vote" problem, but rather a "what is wrong with this scenario" and "where is the country heading" problem.

Two biggest reasons for zero tax liability:

1. Child tax credits and deductions.

2. Stuck in minimum wage or close to minimum wage jobs.

A married couple with no children has to earn at least $19000 per year before they have a tax liability (Assuming there are no special tax credits). Add a couple of kids to that, and you can earn up to $38,000 per year before before you have to pay any federal taxes.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Given that many of these folks are as they are, they normally wouldn't even register to vote nor would they even vote on their own volition for the most part. But send a van or bus into the projects or 'hood with "community activists" to beat the bushes to round 'em up and lead them to the polls to vote Democrat (think ACORN) and we can see the downward spiral of democracy when large numbers of people depend on government largess to for their livelihood.

That doesn't even take into account the ever growing count of government employees.

It scares me when a little less than half of the people in the USA actually pay no US income tax and a "community activist" is sitting in the White House.

It's not a "who should be able to vote" problem, but rather a "what is wrong with this scenario" and "where is the country heading" problem.

I wondered about that myself when Bush Jr. ran for the first time. The FREE LOADING TAX EXEMPT CHURCHES were pushing hard for Bush.

[peejay 327]

I wondered about that myself when Bush Jr. ran for the first time. The FREE LOADING TAX EXEMPT CHURCHES were pushing hard for Bush.

That's another topic named, "When tax exempt religious groups tell their congregations who to vote for". Then they are no longer churches, but political organizations.

[Danno 1,228]

That's another topic named, "When tax exempt religious groups tell their congregations who to vote for". Then they are no longer churches, but political organizations.

Would that include MLK and Jessie?

I don't see anything wrong with a Church within it's walls advising on which candidate suites their views the best.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Would that include MLK and Jessie?

I don't see anything wrong with a Church within it's walls advising on which candidate suites their views the best.

Let them advise all they want, but in the meant time make sure the freeloaders (churches) pay their taxes. Churches not having to pay taxes is about the biggest bunch of f#####g BS that there is. If churches want to be free loaders, let them freeload in some other country.

[scandal 951]

Let them advise all they want, but in the meant time make sure the freeloaders (churches) pay their taxes. Churches not having to pay taxes is about the biggest bunch of f#####g BS that there is. If churches want to be free loaders, let them freeload in some other country.

Churches, and other houses of worship, are typically established as non-profits. Non-profits, by definition, have no profits on which to pay any taxes. Hospitals, universities, NGOs, the Red Cross, and other non-profits file to be 501© corporations to maintain their tax exempt status. They are required to keep records, and maintain the restrictions on their budget income/expenses allowed for 501©s, and most of them do have an IRS filing obligation.

f####g "BS"? Uhkay, coz of course you know better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let them advise all they want, but in the meant time make sure the freeloaders (churches) pay their taxes. Churches not having to pay taxes is about the biggest bunch of f#####g BS that there is. If churches want to be free loaders, let them freeload in some other country.

I disagree. That would be an encroachment between church and state.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Churches, and other houses of worship, are typically established as non-profits. Non-profits, by definition, have no profits on which to pay any taxes. Hospitals, universities, NGOs, the Red Cross, and other non-profits file to be 501© corporations to maintain their tax exempt status. They are required to keep records, and maintain the restrictions on their budget income/expenses allowed for 501©s, and most of them do have an IRS filing obligation.

f####g "BS"? Uhkay, coz of course you know better.

One word for that.... scam.

I disagree. That would be an encroachment between church and state.

Encroachment is when they tell their brainwashed "flock" who to vote for...Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ring any bells ?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Encroachment is when they tell their brainwashed "flock" who to vote for...Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ring any bells ?

Yeah, telling followers who to vote for is wrong and they should face tax penalties for it. However, political activism for or against certain viewpoints, like the death penalty or abortion, IMO, are protected under the First Amendment.

[Captain Oates 911]

There are a lot of legal immigrants and people where on work visas who pays taxes but cannot vote.

Excellent point - and

There are lots of naturalized citizens who are barred from becoming president - all of them actually

Those who have the power, work hard to keep it. They take tax but don't give.

The tea party just want 1773 back - let the ladies take note and the descendants of the freed slaves whom the tea party see as 'runaways'.

Public witch burning and the cucking stool (last used usa in 1824) too would attract large crowds but The NFL would object to the competition for business

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

The tea party just want 1773 back - let the ladies take note and the descendants of the freed slaves whom the tea party see as 'runaways'.

it should also be noted that in 1773, we were under british rule. i'll pass.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I would be happy if there were a simple quiz required.

Of course you would

Sorry Danno, I don't think the U.S. will be returning to Jim Crow Laws.

one gal i was seeing in 2002, by the time she was finished with earned income credit and all that, she got a check for about 7k. she made about 10k a year, and any money paid in was returned as part of that 7k.

her only expenses were utilities and some food - she lived on some land of her mom's, in a house of her mom's. and yes, she got food stamps and all those other benefits that go along with having low income (i'm not real sure she didn't fudge rent payments in that, as there was no rent payment).

Did you have a mullet and a 86 IROC to macth?

[^_^ 5,021]

it should also be noted that in 1773, we were under british rule. i'll pass.

Alan the Red can be Prime Minister.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Did you have a mullet and a 86 IROC to macth?

nope, but there was more mullets in arkansas than the gulf of mexico.