Ban the over 50's from Voting

I know of a movie the op would just drool over. I took my girlfriend at the time to a Drive-in to see it, and there was even a local band playing during intermission, while wanna-be "hippies" danced around like a bunch of fairies. Those were the days of all that "flowers in your hair" crap, "free love", and "make love, not war!". I was a teenager and of course it was the "free love" that got my attention, as it did the guys I rode with. My first attempted experience with a female of the species that would rule the world, was a real bust! There is something about a girl with more hair on her legs and under her armpits than I have myself, that for some reason just doesn't appeal to me!
My next and last experience with a "flower child" was the most incredibly beautiful night I had so far known in my young life, and even now as an old guy, I can look back and remember that night as one of the most beautiful I have known in my life! She was beautiful and had a personality to match. There turned out to be only one problem, though one that was enough to deter me once and for all from all this "free love", I had managed to stumble upon! Of course I had met most of her hippie "family", and they were always too spaced out to care about anything, but she had a number of aquaintances who were downright vicious, and very capable of making life miserable for anyone with whom they came in contact! CRABS! Those hippies sure did believe in "caring and sharing", and she proved this by giving most of hers to me! Seeing that I had no shortage of growth on my legs and around the "other area", there was no shortage of "jump-off" spots for the evil critters, and they used that fact to full advantage!
The name of the movie, by the way, was "Wild In The Streets!", and in it, all people aged over 30 were rounded up and shipped somewhere to be offed. The op and his ridiculous post just reminded me of the movie, and how I remember thinking that there was no way this would work, and in fact if put into practice even with just the voting age limit, the country and in fact the entire world would soon become one scary place!
I personally think that one of the biggest problems in politics are "The Old Boys' Clubs"! There are too many old farts who have been around for so many years, some can't even remember why they are there! They belong back in the days when a drink in the local watering hole was worth a few votes, and the occasional buck or two was passed under the table. I think there should be a better representation of different age groups, although I don't know how that could come about. I do know there's more than a few politically smart younger folk out there who could do a much better job in the White House and in Ottawa, than some of those old geezers simply looking for another place to sleep!

reply to post by Bkrmn

There are too many old farts who have been around for so many years, some can't even remember why they are there!

Which would further suggest that the left vs right paradigm is ongoing, and the division that is kept will continue to increase the power over the masses.

On topic: Though the Constitution gives adults the power to vote, there are those who shouldn't be allowed to leave the house..( *coughing*...BenRecluse..* coughing *). With those above 50, if they had taken the time to establish there own means to retire, they wouldn't be on ATS complaining about this that or the other. A few posters made valid points, expressing anger over those who receive care for free. Thats the fault of TPTB that didn't shut down the borders, and prevent illegal immigration. Those alone are an expenditure in the billions annually.

www.factcheck.org...

We could go on for hours, discussing the variables that led to our demise. But the simple fact is, the majority of individuals in the US over 50 depend on social programs. It is not the job of the USG, nor is it the job of the every day tax payer, to prepare for someone else' s retirement.

reply to post by Realms

It was the actions of another poster, and his demise if I may add, which ever so slightly "derailed " the thread.

Sorry Realms, but I'm still here.

In an effort to get back on topic, I feel that people with a propensity for dishonesty, regardless rather one is age, should not be allowed to vote.

I fear however this may include you.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


And Im still waiting for your response. Are the programs known as medicare/medicaid, including SS Constitutional or not?

A simple yes or no will suffice?

reply to post by BenReclused


Given that you have shown no evidence whatsoever that you understand the purpose of the federal government, or the Constitution for that matter, why should you be allowed to vote?

reply to post by Realms


Hi Realms,

Let me put that back into the proper context for you. The complete, and proper, sentence is: "In an effort humor you, I have refered to page 24, and I did indeed, comfirm that you are a liar."

Here is the source of that little snippet.

Your selective copy and paste quotes (?) only demonstrate your lack of maturity and honesty.

That's fine with me. You only make yourself look bad. Keep it up! I'd hate to see you ruin a grand slam.

I'm beginning to think that you, and angus1745, might be the same person. If I am wrong, I will certainly owe him an apology.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


You have confirmed nothing. Further you have shown your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Constitution and role of the government. Again, avoiding the questions I have presented to you.

By the way:

comfirm that you are a liar

Your earlier post about grammar...its CONFIRM not comfirm.

Your selective copy and paste quotes (?) only demonstrate your lack of maturity and honesty.

My ' selected ' coping and pasting of your quotes proved my point.

I'm beginning to think that you, and angus1745, might be the same person.

You do owe angus1745 an apology, because had you known, and read the T&C rules, you would also know that having more than one account is not permitted. I am simply saying what Angus1745 is thinking, along with others. That right there in itself, proves beyond a reasonable doubt the lack of understanding you apparently have in the ways of things.

You go ahead and keep embracing those Unconstitutional social programs you enjoy. For others, doing for ourselves is alot better than being dependent on others to supply a lifestyle.

Again, it is not the role of the Federal Government to provide an annual salary to you. What part of that don't you understand?

Heres a link [ below ] to the Constitution. Please refer to Article 1 section 8, [ Powers of Congress]. Please use this as a platform to formulate a response. Where in the text of this information grants the powers to enact social welfare programs?

www.usconstitution.net...

Little hint : there are no powers vested in Congress to implement such programs....period.

reply to post by Realms


www.health.state.ny.us...

judging by these guidelines here, I would venture to guess that the majority of the under 50s are receiving some type assistance!!!

what?? I am wrong, not everyone one under 50 has children???

well, guess what your stat is way off also....
I mean, reckon, what is the percentage of those between the age of 50 and retirement age???
opps, it drops down significantly, I bet!! probably below the percentage of families with children getting state subsidized insurance for them!!!

my supervisor at work stayed a night at the hospital, she's over 62 and has medicare...they charged over $10,000 for her to stay that night!! a broken ankle costs over $20,000 to fix...when people talk about the fraud in the medicare program, well, just who is it that is defrauding the system?? the patient?? or the doctor, the hospital, ect? hate to say this, but well, alot of those doctors are under 50!! just like most of the robosigners were under 50, just like most of those fathers faking bad backs to justify not working to get out of child support, or working under the table, well, they are under 50, just like most of those single moms are under 50,
need I go on??
the fact of the matter is, most of those who are getting social security at the moment either worked most of their adult lives, or were those traditional housewives, which is work!!! they paid their dues!! so didn't most of those over 50!! they worked, they paid their taxes, they paid their social security tax, they didn't take handouts, heck, in the 70's early 80's there wasn't that much in handouts!
social security isn't a social welfare program, taxes were taken out, a promise was given!! want to break the promise, sure, go ahead, just don't be too upset when those who are affected by your decision decides that they can act just as dishonorably!! a gov't that doesn't keep it's promises, especially this one that so often spends insane amounts of money on crap, can't say crap to us if we decide not to be as obedient and willing to give up our hard earned money!!
but don't expect us over 50s to work till we drop, and keep giving money for you younger ones and your kids.....
if we can starve, so can't yous!

reply to post by Realms


Hey there good buddy,

Why are you asking how I feel about programs that you have already claimed that I support, and depend on?
Have you forgotten about posting this:

Indeed, that Benreclused person actually thinks its the job of others to establish a retirement for him/her, much less medical attention. It is not the function of the tax payers, or the USG to provide financial aid for their retirement. That was a responsibility left up to him/her, which they clearly failed to do so.

What further solidifies his/her arrogance is the mere fact that he/she wanted to defend SS, a system which has failed since its induction, not to mention, the funds have already been spent prior to the collection of the taxes.

We have individuals like that able to vote? Thats scary!

Source

Anyway:
I have already answered that, but I'm not surprised you missed it. You are not very perceptive, so here ya go again:
"It's not up to you (thankfully), or myself, to decide the constitutionality of any law, or program, in this country. That's up to the Supreme Court of the United States."
Source
Look near the top of the source file. It's there! You need to keep your eyes open though.

Why do you avoid my questions?
Hell, it doesn't matter, I guess. I'm certainly not interested in what's on your mind.

Now you be a good little boy/girl!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by dawnstar


I understand your concern. But you do realize that your source:
www.health.state.ny.us...

Only covers the state of New York right? Those aren't national numbers.

Secondly, considering that the retirement age for normal retirement is 67, [ early retirement as early as 62 ] en.wikipedia.org...

Retirement for most, including yourself wont be till your 60's. So with that:

but don't expect us over 50s to work till we drop,

I do think your gonna have much of a choice, unless you do as you stated in a previous post, and live in the hills.

and keep giving money for you younger ones and your kids.....

You do understand that we " younger " folk pay taxes too right? You do understand the concept that though YOU may have Social security to rely on, us younger generations realized quickly that it most likely wont be available to us, therefore we made the decisions [ hopefully most of the younger caught on to the scheme ] and took things into their own hands and established a retirement fund for themselves.

We, the younger generations, though we tip our hats to the elders who did built this country, the younger of the groups realized that the fallacy of lies that your generation bought into hook, line and sinker, ...the promises that were made to your generation would suggest that though you built this country, you werent the brightest bulb in the box. You guys bought into lies, and deceit, and yet your gonna judge the younger generations for being smarter than you and refrain from buying into the lies? So much so that your gonna generalize and pout in the corner about not paying into the system anymore.

Wow...just wow!

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Realms
I 'd say a discussion in regards to the Constitutionality of said programs would be right on topic. Also putting into consideration, that those very same 50 year old people, tend to Vote when their dependency of social programs are threatened.

No, it doesn't and no, it isn't.

You can't make the claim that you KNOW why anyone at all votes...or are you the next prognosticator on ATS that, invariably, has their own "end of life as we know it" threads

Putting entitlement programs onto the chopping block in the same sentence as putting Constitutional Rights is tantamount to putting Gun restriction laws on the same docket as a murder trial. Neither one is relevant to the other. So, no, it's not on topic. Go start another thread on why Medicare is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Realms

You are not very perceptive

im not huh? Again who is it that has yet to prove a point about the topic with given factual data? Oh thats right, it certainly wasn't you!

Perception isn't based on factual data...

reply to post by Realms

well, gee, ya know how to get me to agree to the idea????
convince the danged gov't to act like the situation is as serious as they seem to want us to think it is!! and, well tighten the belt equally in all areas....
I give up a portion of my future security, the rich give up a portion of thier precious tax cuts, the poor give up a portion of their food stamps, hud, and all that, the doctors and healthcare providers along with the insurance companies give up a portion, the warmongers give up a war or two, we all shared in the good times, or most of us, we shared in the screw ups, and well.....we can share in the pain, or well...
like I said, don't think I am gonna keep on working till I drop dead at work just to turn over the money to uncle sam, who thinks the kid down the street needs the money worse, to treat his snotty nose...
no thanks. there's one thing that I believe is unconstitutional....and gee, it's been going on for a long, long time, it's more offensive in my opinion than the social security scam, that is when you look out amoung all those who truly need help with their healthcare or whatnot, and well, you decide that you will help a portion of them, never try to help all of them, and then commence to decide who should get the help.....all the help they could ever need, and you should, regardless of how much they need it. like I said, I am lucky to even be walking!!! and I could sit down with pen and paper, with anyone and prove that not only didn't my family have the money to provide for the family, but also, my family didn't have the means to obtain what the gov't was providing non income families of the same size!! that is unconstitutional, you don't take the food out of one person's mouth, just to give it to another!! you want me to agree to no more social security, then fine, that's the condition!!! if help is to be given to some, then well, they make every effort possible to ensure you ain't taking the resources from someone who needs that help even worse just to help a few!!

Alright boys and girls.

This here playground chitter chatter is going to stop.

Supposedly, you are all capable of having an adult conversation without all the personal back and forth. How about proving it...

Now then, the topic of the thread is:

Ban the over 50's from voting.

Won't be warning you all again...

Surely the problem is really the mix of people that are doing the voting. We actually need to try to get more people voting rather than prevent people from voting. Otherwise we stil end up in a similar situation, with a select group of people force their political leaning on others.

I don't see how difficult it would be in an electronic age to setup a system whereby instead of having one vote every 4 to 5 years, you have a conitual voting system.

So on day one of a new government, you 'set-up' on-line, or via a telephone, your vote. You are a voter for Party A. Say, for example this happens to be the party in power. Should Party A do something you disagree with you have the opportunity to change your vote, either on-line or via telephone. This would make Party A instantly aware of how their policies/laws are going to efect them come election time.

At any time you could recast your vote and as many times as you want. When it comes to election time either you vote again, as we do now. Or your current vote at the stroke of midnight on election night holds as your vote. Whether you changed it 1000 times or not at all since last election day, 5 years before.

I think it would engage the public more, make the politicians work harder to give us what we want. It might even give the politicians a useful tool to get decisions close to the 'will of the people'.

Our election system currently is archaic and was designed hundreds of years ago. Before anyone says it, the current system is just as open to fraud as a modern one would be.

reply to post by region331


umm...but it appears to me, that they are doing things that I'd say 90% really don't want them to do!! we would like them to quite spending insanely....NOW!!! I think that is something just everyone agrees!! I don't really think that there is that many people in the country that would like a frog riding fairy queen sitting in front of a new pentagon building. and, well, I think that we all agree, no matter how bad things get, our troops should be paid for services rendered....and yet, that seemed to be up for debate with our elected officials. they are just raising issues that they know we aren't ever gonna agree on, hoping we'll be too busy arguing to notice how much money they've wasted today,and what they got in return for that money!

and well, voting isn't gonna help much without decent candidates to vote for.