Do we need to do this again?
Elinnia
A democracy can only thrive until the people figure out they can vote themselves more and more unsustainable benefits until there's not anymore to take (which leads to a dictatorship),
This rather makes it look like you do not know what the term Dictatorship means. A dictatorship is a form of autocratic government (which actually requires one person or a small group to have unlimited power with no restraint to law). Since all laws pass through 2 sets of votes before the president even sees them and bills may also be subject to a popular vote that is hardly the case. You also have 3 branches of government acting as a set of checks and balances specifically to prevent the rise of an autocracy.
Quote:
which is what we are seeing happen.
A baseless assertion in direct contradiction to how the democractic system as well as the branches of government work.... so no point in even going into detail here.
Quote:
Note how cities are blue and the rural and country areas are red. Cities are where most welfare dependents or lechers are, along with naive college stupids being indoctrinated into the liberal mindset during school, students
Blatant use of a Poisoning the Well fallacy trying to undermine entire voting sectors based on who
might be present. Of course this ignores that your high rises, luxury apartments and penthouses, etc are also generally downtown in cities meaning that there is also a higher concentration of the wealthy and affluent in many larger cities.
Quote:
who are usually not paying taxes or much expense at all.
You clearly have never tried to go to collage if you feel they pay no taxes or any expenses. Anyone who is working pays taxes and many students do in fact work part time. Also expenses... Collage itself can be a massive expense and that is before you even include cost for a dorm or apt, books, and any other materials needed for classes.
In short.... this is a blatant falsehood you assert in an attempt to further fallacious attacks.
Quote:
These special interest groups vote themselves more benefits (welfare, healthcare, food stamps, etc)
Again you make it seem as if you do not actually know the meanings of words you are trying to use... or at best are really reaching to try and apply them where they do not neccesarily fit. Special Interest groups are advocacy groups for a given interest that work to increase knowledge of a cause and/or lobby for it. But the people you are accusing of being such a group do not have the funds to lobby for them, and it is hardly as if they are out in droves handling out pamphlets on the benefit of welfare or foodstamps to the general populace.
You may have been able to claim people or groups acted out of self interest.... but that does not make them a special interest groups.
Also it is rather hypocritical to scream of Special Interest groups being in the wrong... When such groups and their Super Pacts funneled millions into Romney's campaigns in hopes of him catering to their desire for specific tax cuts in the upper income brackets (and those people do have the money to lobby and push for such tax cuts)
Quote:
while demonizing those who oppose their selfish actions but are the ones paying for all these benefits.
Yet you seem to have no problem using crass over-generalizations and outright misinformation to demonize the people who did not agree with your opinions. Which is compounded by your assertion that anyone who is making use of these services is not (or possibly never has) contributed to them.
What about the family who works yet has a disabled relative that lives with them? They pay into taxes and services which in turn are used to support their family member. Or how about people who do work and pay taxes but due to where they live or the economy are coming up a bit short and so apply for foodstamps? They are paying into the support of the very service they are using. What about those who worked for years or decades and who may now be having trouble finding work or have since become disabled? Your claims could be seen to imply that people that these people should pay into the systems for years but that they do not have a right to make use of them.
That is the problem with such crass generalizations as the ones you are making. They make these broad strokes but in doing so they actually make it look more like you can not make a specific point and in the process make you seem rather elitist as your claims can also end up targeting people with every right to these services.
Quote:
Eventually this system of vote and take collapses and will be the end of America as it is now.
That is a further assertion and one that you do nothing to prove the premise of. Try again when you can actually provide some factual info to back up what you have to say.
Also while some of your suggestions have merit... two are brutally flawed.
Quote:
*Cut expensive and antiquated farm subsidies
This comment actually shows how little you understand about agriculture in the US. There are actually over a million farmers and they employ over 750k agricultural workers. The US actually produces more product per acre than most countries via agriculture such as farms be they growers or breeders. Value of those crops in 1997 was actually roughly 77 billion USD. On top of that if you check our top exports you will find that foodstuffs such as soybeans, rice, corn, grains, and nuts as well as meats and poultry often appear on those lists.
So you are saying that in a time when we need to grow the economy, we should undercut a US industry that could generate billions in revenue and provides many of our major exports as well as endanger almost a million jobs.
There is no logical argument for how that will "help" our nation.
Quote:
*Any unemployed persons on public assistance cannot vote
That is actually unconstitutional.
Fourteenth Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In this specific instance what it means is that The Constitution has an Amendment that specifically prohibits the creation or enforcement of any law that would limit the rights or privileges afforded to a citizen. This means you can not legally create or enforce a law that would say Citizen A can vote but Citizen B can not.
The irony here being that many Republicans rave about how the democrats are "trampling the Constitution" but that is exactly what you just suggested be done.
You really make it seem as if you can not actually prove any premise you are arguing... and then beyond that you make it seem as if you think it is fine for Republicans to do the very things you want to fault Democrats/Liberals/Independents for doing.
In the end it makes you look like you are just complaining for the sake of doing so without any real way to back your claims.... and are being rather hypocritical as you do so.
100
100
100
