In article , Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 8:45 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In article8uWdnRGuat4XwqbWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.

Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where
it belongs.

I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.

I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they
simply can't stand up to practicality.

:-)