Politics

Not intending to intrude but I like your idea. Originally you had to be a land owner to vote in America. Ive read they viewed land owners from a position of stability and responsibility and that made them the perfect guardians of the future of the colony.
I’m not advocating going back to that but I do agree that having some skin in the game would probably be better for the nation.
Bullseye.

People that are enamored with socialism are usually the laziest and the type to demand something for nothing.

For proof, I give you exhibit A, Karl Marx.

Karl_Marx_by_John_Jabez_Edwin_Mayall_1875_-_Restored.png

A totally worthless human being that never had a real job his entire life! Read Das Capital carefully, and it becomes obvious that he is not only advocating for an overthrow of the old system, he was to be put in charge of the new system. No skin in the game, but thinks he should be in charge of the entire world around him.

Exhibit B, Bernie Sanders.
Bernie_Sanders_February_2026_(cropped).jpg

Another worthless human being that has never had a real job his entire life, therefore no skin in the game. Work to a Socialist is what Kryptonite is to Superman, yet they think they should run the World and remake it in their image.

Socialists always demand other people's labor and money, because they produce nothing themselves.

Churchill had it right when he described Socialists as lazy, envious, and greedy for other people's money in order to make their Vampire system work.

Also, don't be fooled when these types use the word Democracy. If you read Marx carefully, he wanted one vote ONE TIME. Then when they are in power all the voting stops, and anyone that helped them obtain power but speaks out against this new tyranny are the first useful idiots to be thrown in the gulag.

I believe that anyone advocating or voting for socialism is either an idiot or a fraud.
 
Last edited:
If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t land ownership a requirement to vote in most States in the US when it was founded?
Land ownership and the vote was a big deal in South Africa during the time of Cecil Rhodes. It has always been painted as anti-black, but another view is that it wanted the voters to be educated and have some skin in the game.

As Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, Cecil Rhodes drove the passage of the Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892. This law raised property and wage qualifications and added a literacy test. The explicit goal was to restrict the vote for Black and Coloured Africans, laying early legal groundwork for segregation and later apartheid. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The 1892 Franchise and Ballot Act
    • Higher property limits: Raised the required property ownership value from a low £25 to a much higher £75.
    • New education rules: Added a strict basic literacy test to register as a voter.
    • Targeted impact: Systematically cut thousands of Black and Coloured citizens from voting rolls because low wages made it hard for them to meet the new financial rules. [1, 2, 3]
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
It’s been an open secret, but apparently they finally admitted it.


I have zero problem with this. Rape grandmothers and kill infants and murder college kids dancing at a love festival just because they are there .. you should be hunted down like the rabid dog you are and exterminated…
 
Isnt it in Starship Troopers that service (in the military) equals citizenship? I guess that would not work for any western democracy (since most of its inhabitants probably allready are citizens), but adjusting it so you have to pay taxes in order to vote should not be so problematic.

But I would assume making it so you could get more votes for paying more taxes would be a hard sell, since that would mean that you could basically buy votes while also violating the idea of One man, one vote. Perhaps one vote for each citizen that is paying taxes in combination with the citizen in question being over a certain age (for example 30 since it would seem to be when the brain is fully developed according to research) might be the way forward.

Wasnt it Churchill who said something like: ”If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain”. In Sweden the liberal party is part of the right so here its more like "If you are not left at 20, you have no heart". Left being the social democrats, the left and the greens here.
 
The fallacy in your argument is that it is not a 1:1 increase in labor costs to overall goods and services costs. I've already debunked this in an earlier post about corporate labor costs using McDonalds as an example. If a corporate owned store has labor costs of 23%, then if you double the wages and benefits of every employee there, the total expenses don't double for the company, they go up 23%. The most your happy meal should increase is 23%. So a 100% increase in their wages = a 23% increase in the end products price to the consumer. Or a 0.23:1 ratio. And that's assuming the Golden Arches doesn't absorb any of that increased cost by reducing their profit margins. Which they might.

The cost of a BigMac in Denmark is cheaper than the USA, but the starting wage for a burger flipper in Denmark is $21/hour, versus $13/hour in the United States. A danish burger flipper gets 50% more rate, but the product costs less. By your logic the cost of a BigMac in Denmark should cost almost $12, but it doesn't.

Edit:
And then you have to realize that for workers making less than $15/hour, that's only 13% of the workers, and for workers making under $17/hour, that's 23% of workers. So lets say we double labor costs for the bottom 13% of workers (we wouldn't) but assume worst case scenario for the oligarchs here. 23% labor costs x 13% workers is 3% country-wide. A one time 3% national increase in the total labor costs for goods and services produced by all of these workers, spread out over the total economy, assuming no company absorbs the increase from their profits. And yet their wages and benefits have doubled, so they have more spending money, and the gov finally gets to take a share.

@Big Easy, since you have such a command of all the figures and facts, how much does the Danish McDonalds pay in property tax? I don't have a clue, but I do know what a McDonalds in my home town in Louisiana pays. It's over a $100k per year. Gotta sell a lot of Big Macs, just to cover the property tax.
 
On a different note, was reading that last week Ukraine took back over 75sq KM of territory back.

Has Putin miscalculated the war of attrition, where Ukraine now has its own war machine manufacturing enough munitions to keep them in the fight.
 
On a different note, was reading that last week Ukraine took back over 75sq KM of territory back.

Has Putin miscalculated the war of attrition, where Ukraine now has its own war machine manufacturing enough munitions to keep them in the fight.
It may take years, but bet your bottom Dollar Ukraine is going to take back every inch of territory, including Crimea.

The memory of the Holodomor is alive and the people of Ukraine aren't willing to allow it to happen again.
 
Last edited:
It may take years, but bet your bottom Dollar Ukraine is going to take back every inch of territory, including Crimea.

And just imagine how that might look if the U.S. had been and was assisting in the ways that some of our military folks on here have suggested, instead of seemingly favoring Putin.
 
And just imagine how that might look if the U.S. had been and was assisting in the ways that some of our military folks on here have suggested, instead of seemingly favoring Putin.
Better yet, if we had given them the assistance they asked for when Obama sat behind the Resolute Desk.
 
Better yet, if we had given them the assistance they asked for when Obama sat behind the Resolute Desk.

I agree completely. Trump has often been verbally petulant about it, and erroneous in his facts (saying Ukraine started it). That's just the simple truth.
 
That’s why homeownership is so heavily pushed in America. Partially so you have a stake in the game. It makes you a citizen of your local, state and federal communities.

You’re less likely to want to raise taxes. And more likely to stay in line and play the game.

And your less likely to revolt
CA passed Prop. 13 a while back that limits property tax increases. The Democrats have been trying to chip at it since then. The same proposition also prohibits tax increases unless a super majority votes on it in the CA legislature. Democrats have the super majority hence tax increases, but they need a ballot measure to eliminate the property tax limits and so far people are not voting for it.

As more illegals have kids that just rent I expect that to change in the future though.
 
I told you the easiest way to reduce the deficit is to pass a law saying congress can't run for reelection unless there is a balance budget
That would require a constitutional amendment, not a law. The constitution stipulates the requirements to serve in congress in Article 1. This doesn't sound like a realistic plan at all. Far from it, a constitutional amendment would probably be the hardest solution to implement.
Congress, not random dudes on the internet, has to do their job, instead of posturing for relection.
Technically their job descriptions don't require them to balance the budget.
I also said we need to start phasing the retirement age for collecting social security up. Those under 50, can collect at 62.5 or 67.5 or whatever it is, those under 40 today, 63 or 68, etc.
And I agreed with that proposal. But it would take decades to see any real substantial savings from it, and the savings would most likely be applied to the Social Security program deficits in the future, rather than general revenue deficits now.
The other thing to do is to tax consumption not production
Thats an idea. But most studies online have demonstrated that the rate would have to be between 30-44% in order to make up for all lost revenue. Depending upon a variety of factors.
I haven't played with the numbers but that is the most progress tax out there and it makes sure everyone is paying.
Everyone would be paying, but it would be a highly regressive tax, not progressive.
How much of the IRS would go away over night. How much of the lobbying industry would take a hit, ends countless loop holes.
The IRS budget is only $11.2 Billion. The savings generated from their elimination would be minimal compared to the current or future deficit.
 
It may take years, but bet your bottom Dollar Ukraine is going to take back every inch of territory, including Crimea.

The memory of the Holodomor is alive and the people of Ukraine aren't willing to allow it to happen again.

I sincerely hope you're right good sir. It sure looks like it's moving that way. The thought of Putin being embarrassed makes me smile.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
69,604
Messages
1,552,012
Members
163,139
Latest member
nettruyenaovn1
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

MHYOUNG 375 wrote on DLSJR's profile.
Dan who is C. W. Richter? He seems to not be a fan of myself!
MHYOUNG 375 wrote on DLSJR's profile.
Who's this C. W. Richter? Seems to have a chip on his shoulder.
Andrew NOLA wrote on Huntforever's profile.
Lbarr might be a scammer

it appears he sold the same brass to me and another member
Nomosendero wrote on gregrn43's profile.
Between Blak Rock and Pocahontas, I did not want to say that on the forum. That's a nice Cat!
30-06Ken wrote on ftothfadd's profile.
I'll take the Vortex scope cover you have listed in the Pay it Forward thread.

Ken [redacted]
 
Top