Europe has fallen behind America and the gap is growing

[Trav]

I have always believed only filing taxpayers or property owners over 25 years old and no students of any kind should be allowed to vote.
Military and first responders exempt and can vote anytime.

 

[Fla]

The only problem with that is, most can't save anything. Or else won't by choice. And are just as incompetent financially as the government..... And in many cases worse.

They will end up working their way through life, check to check, hand to mouth, buying everything they see, until their bodies break down, and will no longer allow them to do so. They will never save enough on their own to provide for a prosperous retirement.... Or any retirement for that matter.

They will then become everyone else's problem as they age, and the government will look to, "tax the rich" in order to, "help level the playing field". Where have we heard that before? And naturally, if you don't go along with this type of thinking, you are "cruel" and "uncompassionate".

Regardless of how you slice it, it always comes back to this....

https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/per...ns-cant-handle-a-500-emergency-without-worry/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/credit-card-debt-total-us-data-2023/

Yeap, And this is why the US Gov mandated the SS program. Most people couldn't or wouldn't save and ended up on the street in their old age. The Great Depression is a great lesson in what can happen and on an absolutely MASSIVE scale. In the 1920s the people that did save money put their meager savings into the stock market to get the best return on their savings but then Wall Street collasped and the small investors ended up with literally nothing and with NO retirement.

 

[Number_35]

I have always believed only filing taxpayers or property owners over 25 years old and no students of any kind should be allowed to vote.
Military and first responders exempt and can vote anytime.

Renowned SF author Robert Heinlein proposed, I think in Starship Troopers, that only those who had volunteered for public service could vote. How and where someone served was up to the government, not the volunteer, and could include military service.

The rationale was that overall those who were willing to sacrifice for others would vote more responsibly than the general public.

 

[camrydriver111]

Their modern culture is to blame. But i can't get too into it without getting in trouble.

If that was true, Poland and Hungary should have the highest GDP/capita.

But they don't, because this angle is nothing more than a cheap political attack.

 

[Fla]

Renowned SF author Robert Heinlein proposed, I think in Starship Troopers, that only those who had volunteered for public service could vote. How and where someone served was up to the government, not the volunteer, and could include military service.

The rationale was that overall those who were willing to sacrifice for others would vote more responsibly than the general public.

YES, that was in Starship Troopers.

This is similar to the old US and English voting rational that only property owners should be allowed to vote since they were the ones most affected by new laws and if you let all of the plebes vote then they would vote for nothing but "bread and circuses". I.E. things that they largely didn't have to pay for, but they get the majority of the benefits of.

I loved reading Heinlein and I agree with his rationale about who should be allowed vote, and that only those that have a serious investment in the fate of their community/state/country should be allowed to vote!

 

[Number_35]

YES, that was in Starship Troopers.

This is similar to the old US and English voting rational that only property owners should be allowed to vote since they were the ones most affected by new laws and if you let all of the plebes vote then they would vote for nothing but "bread and circuses". I.E. things that they largely didn't have to pay for, but they get the majority of the benefits of.

I loved reading Heinlein and I agree with his rationale about who should be allowed vote, and that only those that have a serious investment in the fate of their community/state/country should be allowed to vote!

Nevil Shute put forth an interesting idea in one of his novels, "In The Wet", if I recall correctly.

The idea was a multi-vote system. Everyone (of voting age) was given one vote, but one could earn up to six more. It's been a long time, but I think extra votes were earned on the basis of military service, level of education, foreign travel, and a couple of others. Finally, the Queen could bestow a 7th vote at her discretion for outstanding service.

 

[Pew]

Renowned SF author Robert Heinlein proposed, I think in Starship Troopers, that only those who had volunteered for public service could vote. How and where someone served was up to the government, not the volunteer, and could include military service.

The rationale was that overall those who were willing to sacrifice for others would vote more responsibly than the general public.

That's an extremely poor concept. Just because somebody took a different path in life should not mean they're any less eligible to vote, "free voting" literally one of the reasons why European explorers decided to settle in America. Lots of garbage public service folks out there too.

 

[Number_35]

That's an extremely poor concept. Just because somebody took a different path in life should not mean they're any less eligible to vote, "free voting" literally one of the reasons why European explorers decided to settle in America. Lots of garbage public service folks out there too.

Heinlein liked to float ideas. He was not typically preachy about them. The proposed system would certainly be open to abuse.

What would you think of a means test, whereby the potential voter had to show they had a basic understanding of the issues and the party platforms?

 

[Fla]

That's an extremely poor concept. Just because somebody took a different path in life should not mean they're any less eligible to vote, "free voting" literally one of the reasons why European explorers decided to settle in America. Lots of garbage public service folks out there too.

LOL! NO! They did not come to America for freedom to vote, they came to America mainly for freedom of religion! Many of my families came to this country before 1630 and I've made a long and careful study of them and with only one exception, they all came for freedom of religion. My ancestors include English Puritans and Quakers, French Huguenots, German Anabaptists (today called Mennonites), Dutch Reformed, and Swiss Reformed church (followers of Huldrych Zwingli), Irish Protestants and Irish Quakers from Wexford, and Scottish Covenanters, just to name a few. And they ALL came to America so that they could escape the religious restrictions in their home countries. And like many religious groups today they all voted (when allowed) in a block for the person that best represented their religion and that their religious leaders TOLD them to vote for. I have personally studied over 90,000 records and not a single one mentions the freedom to vote among the reasons that they came to America.

Even after the Revolutionary War, in most states no one could vote that didn't own land. Also women couldn't vote, and in most cases Blacks and Indians couldn't vote. The Right to Vote didn't become anywhere close to being universal until after the American Civil War and after woman's suffrage in 1920.

One of my 10th great grandfathers was Rev Samuel Maycocke of Jamestown. You might want to go look him up.

​

 

[Snagglefoot]

Nothing is free. You paid for it via taxes including your fellow citizens. The lecturer didn’t do it for nothing, the building you were in was heated or cooled depending on weather.

Hope you had a good time.

Let Jeff enjoy it while he can. Some guy from India will be taking his job soon.

 

[mbres2000]

You're fooling yourself if you think the US isn't trying to "catch" Europe.

Most of what I've heard from Urban and Suburban, "highly educated" people under 60 for the last 20 years is how in love with Europia they are. How great it is. How the US should become Europe.

"How great it is? How the US should become Europe?" Have you or your highly educated friends (rich liberals?) been to Europe recently? Nothing I experienced in Italy or the UK would entice to move there. They have very high gasoline and diesel prices and a 20% VAT tax built into most goods and services. Electricity is so expensive that folks still use clotheslines instead of dryers. I also noticed the propensity in the UK for warnings and disclaimers on advertisements for just about any product. And not in fine print. Very nanny-like.

 

[Kalle.J]

"How great it is? How the US should become Europe?" Have you or your highly educated friends (rich liberals?) been to Europe recently? Nothing I experienced in Italy or the UK would entice to move there. They have very high gasoline and diesel prices and a 20% VAT tax built into most goods and services. Electricity is so expensive that folks still use clotheslines instead of dryers. I also noticed the propensity in the UK for warnings and disclaimers on advertisements for just about any product. And not in fine print. Very nanny-like.

We have expensive fuel you have expensive healthcare. We have tax break on long commutes. And less car centric citys with better public transport...

2. Dryers are not used because they wear out clothes unnecessarily, I use my dryer for bedding and towels only.
3. Stop looking at advertisements

 

[Pew]

What would you think of a means test, whereby the potential voter had to show they had a basic understanding of the issues and the party platforms?

Strictly talking about the USA, being a citizen should be enough, that was the point of completely free voting that certain groups had to fight for in the USA up in the 60s. Some US states also require passing a civics/constitution test in highschool - which I thought was a federal requirement but after a quick google, I guess it's not a requirement. All citizenship and naturalization tests also require some knowledge of the Constitution.

 

[Pew]

LOL! NO! They did not come to America for freedom to vote, they came to America mainly for freedom of religion! Many of my families came to this country before 1630 and I've made a long and careful study of them and with only one exception, they all came for freedom of religion. My ancestors include English Puritans and Quakers, French Huguenots, German Anabaptists (today called Mennonites), Dutch Reformed, and Swiss Reformed church (followers of Huldrych Zwingli), Irish Protestants and Irish Quakers from Wexford, and Scottish Covenanters, just to name a few. And they ALL came to America so that they could escape the religious restrictions in their home countries. And like many religious groups today they all voted (when allowed) in a block for the person that best represented their religion and that their religious leaders TOLD them to vote for. I have personally studied over 90,000 records and not a single one mentions the freedom to vote among the reasons that they came to America.

Even after the Revolutionary War, in most states no one could vote that didn't own land. Also women couldn't vote, and in most cases Blacks and Indians couldn't vote. The Right to Vote didn't become anywhere close to being universal until after the American Civil War and after woman's suffrage in 1920.

One of my 10th great grandfathers was Rev Samuel Maycocke of Jamestown. You might want to go look him up

Saying 'mainly' for religious freedom ignores the rest of the reasons why European expansionism and colonialism was going on during that period of time. God, glory, and gold they say.

I'm not interested in looking up anybody with that name.

 

[mk378]

[T]hey came to America mainly for freedom of religion!

They wanted a (more complete) theocracy, and they got it. They were applying the power of the State against people for purely religious infractions, such as adultery, heresey, and "witchcraft." The system had to be totally replaced. The Constitution had one very forward idea-- a country with no official religion. That was revolutionary for its time.

The Right to Vote didn't become anywhere close to being universal until after the American Civil War

And that was a problem for certain factions, who added two restrictions which have again been proposed in this very thread-- poll taxes and literacy tests.

 

[Pew]

And that was a problem for certain factions, who added two restrictions which have again been proposed in this very thread-- poll taxes and literacy tests.

I don't think half of this forum understands why Martin Luther King Jr. day and Juneteenth is a federal holiday.

 

[billt460]

I don't think half of this forum understands why Martin Luther King Jr. day and Juneteenth is a federal holiday.

Don't confuse not giving a hoot, with being "uneducated" on the subject.

 

[Trav]

That's an extremely poor concept. Just because somebody took a different path in life should not mean they're any less eligible to vote, "free voting" literally one of the reasons why European explorers decided to settle in America. Lots of garbage public service folks out there too.

It is called having skin in the game. Freeloading off the system is not really a different path in life.

 

[alarmguy]

... Quality of life for the average citizen is arguably much higher in the EU.

Not even close ... but that is subjective to what you think "quality" is. Waiting 4 to 6 months for an MRI?

 

[pbm]

The US Government was never established to support the livelyhood of it's citizens. It was established to protect this country.

Our gov't does a great job of protecting other countries but as far as protecting Americans it leaves a lot to be desired. Most large cities in America are not safe. One of my favorite charities is 'Tunnel to Towers' but I'm always annoyed that private citizens have to pay to take care of those who were catastrophically injured serving their country while Wahington gives tons of money to pay for pensions of Ukranians.