Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[bigheadfred]

It may have fallen, but it does not change the fact that it was a great idea.

It would have been more efficient to close the loop holes than to open the voter rolls wide open.

Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?

If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?

[Bigun]

The Founder's idea was that only they who paid taxes should be able to vote, and since there was no direct taxation of income, only land owners and those who owned businesses (usually one and the same) could vote.

This meant that women, slaves and (generally speaking) recent arrivals to the nation, as well as those with limited means could not vote on the politicians who would decide how property and businesses could be taxed in order to fund the needs of the government. In essence, only people with "skin in the game" were allowed the vote which would elect those who would tax them.

That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. 

This also avoided the practice of "buying" the votes of the unwashed masses by promising wealth in return for support.

We've deeply and repeatedly screwed the pooch since.

Excellent observation.   I agree entirely.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?

If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?

Would people who owned REIT's get to vote?

[Cyber Liberty]

Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?

If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?

Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished.  What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for).  If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess.  Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.

[bigheadfred]

Would people who owned REIT's get to vote?

Yes. But only on odd years/off years. Which primarily means in the primarys, especially in the specials, but not generally in the generals.

[Cripplecreek]

The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:

In a nation that was practically giving land away (in some cases literally giving it away) it was a pointless requirement. It might have been true in some places but it was never true in all places.

The fact is that our founders debated having an aristocracy and in the end aristocracy lost. A landowner requirement was a small first step down the road toward aristocratic rule and eventually feudalism. Before long someone would realize that they own 5 properties yet only get the same vote as the man who only owns a tiny half acre and end up wanting his vote counted proportionally.

Personally I find the idea of landowner only voting to be the height of elitism and the belief that poor are unworthy of voting is repulsive in the extreme. I just find it to be a cop out and a lazy means of avoiding the heavy lifting of educating people so they make their own better choices.

Some of the most genuinely conservative people I know are renters. 1 is an 80 year old Korean war vet. His house burned down a few years ago and he saw no point in rebuilding so he took the insurance payout and rented an apartment to live out his days. My dad is conservative and I don't think he's ever wanted to own a home. It made a lot of sense last summer when he sat in the AC listening to the roofers on the roof his landlord paid several thousand dollars for. I'm poor as dirt and till next weekend when I sign the deed for my mother's house over to my cousin, I own 2 houses. BTW my cousin leans democrat.

[Mom MD]

Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished.  What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for).  If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess.  Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.

Exactly. One should have to be a net tax payer to vote.  I would argue for the landowning qualification to vote in one instance -- local tax, county commissioner, and schoolboard elections should be voted on by those who actually pay the property taxes

[bigheadfred]

Exactly. One should have to be a net tax payer to vote.  I would argue for the landowning qualification to vote in one instance -- local tax, county commissioner, and schoolboard elections should be voted on by those who actually pay the property taxes

Please tell us your definition of a "net tax payer".  I am a property owner but not a landowner. I pay property taxes on my domicile but not on the land.

[Sanguine]

Yep!  The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.

And, avarice of the elected.

[Cyber Liberty]

Please tell us your definition of a "net tax payer".  I am a property owner but not a landowner. I pay property taxes on my domicile but not on the land.

I'd consider you a net payer.  Here's an example of somebody who's not:  A person who has negative income taxes because of the EITC.  If the EITC is higher than the taxes withheld, that person collects and is therefore a net tax receiver, not tax payer.

[LMAO]

 If he does this I'm afraid what will end up with. This is, after all, the party that did give us Obamacare in the first place. And Trump is on record more than once stating that he does like universal healthcare

[bigheadfred]

I'd consider you a net payer.  Here's an example of somebody who's not:  A person who has negative income taxes because of the EITC.  If the EITC is higher than the taxes withheld, that person collects and is therefore a net tax receiver, not tax payer.

Thanks Cyber. I view income taxes as negative, though. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks Cyber. I view income taxes as negative, though. 

Well, there's that.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?

If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?

Landowners and people who owned businesses.

The criteria for this  modern age would have been worked out as time went by.

We worked it out, but not very well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I just find it to be a cop out and a lazy means of avoiding the heavy lifting of educating people so they make their own better choices.

That's worked out so very well.

[corbe]

   Seems it's unamimous, It's all up to Chuckie and Trump now.


Jeanine Pirro tells Trump to reach out to Democrats and forget Republicans

    Mar. 26, 2017 10:22 pm by SooperMexican

Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro is demanding that Trump forget the Republicans and reach out to Democrats to “make America great,” because he’s such a great negotiator, he’s the only one who can do it.

No really she said this.

Doesn’t this mean exactly that Pirro and her ilk don’t give a damn about ideology, about conservatism? Guess what’s going to happen when you reach out to Democrats? They’re going to want Democrat solutions. So you’re telling me that this moron who couldn’t get a deal done with people of his own party is going to do better with people that disagree with him, supposedly?

It shows just how insanely stupid and emotional these people are. They just want vengeance and “winning” no matter what that means. Were they ever actually “conservative”? I doubt it.


Video at Link

http://therightscoop.com/jeanine-pirro-tells-trump-to-reach-out-to-democrats-and-forget-republicans/

[INVAR]

No, they aren't and probably never were Conservative.

They want to 'win', because politics is just another sporting event now, and the ideology that everyone has gravitated to is Collectivism.

Government is our Mamma, and everyone must respect Mamma.

[roamer_1]

Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished.  What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for).  If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess.  Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.

AND anyone who is employed by the government should also lose the right to vote. Governmental employees are swiftly becoming a majority who will vote for their own continuation and benefit. 

[DB]

AND anyone who is employed by the government should also lose the right to vote. Governmental employees are swiftly becoming a majority who will vote for their own continuation and benefit.

I don't think that would be an issue if government were anywhere close to the size it should be and if government employees couldn't unionize.

[Jazzhead]

Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.

Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.

Quoted for truth.   The Freedom Caucus set back the cause of conservatism and left Trump with a dilemma he can only solve by partnering with centrists from both parties.    The ObamaCare crisis WILL be solved - just not in a way that will favor free markets.   

[Jazzhead]

   
Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro is demanding that Trump forget the Republicans and reach out to Democrats to “make America great,” because he’s such a great negotiator, he’s the only one who can do it.

No really she said this.

Doesn’t this mean exactly that Pirro and her ilk don’t give a damn about ideology, about conservatism? Guess what’s going to happen when you reach out to Democrats? They’re going to want Democrat solutions. So you’re telling me that this moron who couldn’t get a deal done with people of his own party is going to do better with people that disagree with him, supposedly?

Trump was perfectly willing to work with conservatives.  Freedom Caucus conservatives let him down - in no small part because of their refusal to join with party leadership.   Jeanine Pirro is right - if the Freedom Caucus can't be counted on,  the next move is to pivot to the center and pick up Democratic support.    There's nothing radical in that - it's how legislation has traditionally gotten done.   Trump is not going to enter the next battle with the Freedom Caucus in his foxhole.   

[Smokin Joe]

Quoted for truth.   The Freedom Caucus set back the cause of conservatism and left Trump with a dilemma he can only solve by partnering with centrists from both parties.    The ObamaCare crisis WILL be solved - just not in a way that will favor free markets.

All the freedom caucus did was expose every slacker on the hill who has been wearing Kabuki makeup for votes during the Obama administration. Considering that exposes those exceptional conservatives who are all conservative, except           (fill in the blank with one or more conservative positions on the issues), I don't think the cause of Conservatism has been set back one iota just because that bunch of cockroaches on the Hill were sent scurrying for cover. Dust off that 2015 Bill that everyone voted for and take another run at it, or will the liars in Congress run away from that?

[Jazzhead]

All the freedom caucus did was expose every slacker on the hill who has been wearing Kabuki makeup for votes during the Obama administration. Considering that exposes those exceptional conservatives who are all conservative, except           (fill in the blank with one or more conservative positions on the issues), I don't think the cause of Conservatism has been set back one iota just because that bunch of cockroaches on the Hill were sent scurrying for cover. Dust off that 2015 Bill that everyone voted for and take another run at it, or will the liars in Congress run away from that?

Health care reform is dead for the foreseeable future.   There's no "bill to dust off".   Conservatives blew their shot, and Trump's too smart to be fooled twice by the Freedom Caucus.   

[Smokin Joe]

Health care reform is dead for the foreseeable future.   There's no "bill to dust off".   Conservatives blew their shot, and Trump's too smart to be fooled twice by the Freedom Caucus.

Twenty five votes out of 435? Must have been just a great bill if it couldn't get a majority without those. A real leader owns their failures and doesn't blame everyone else, but it's easy to see why the RINOs and Trump would point the fingers at Conservatives, after all we have less in common than Trump and the Dems.

[Jazzhead]

Twenty five votes out of 435? Must have been just a great bill if it couldn't get a majority without those. A real leader owns their failures and doesn't blame everyone else, but it's easy to see why the RINOs and Trump would point the fingers at Conservatives, after all we have less in common than Trump and the Dems.

The blame should be fixed on those that deserve it.   I won't condemn conservatism - because many of us recognized what short-sighted idiots the Freedom Caucus are.    But these knuckledraggers have killed the best shot we'll likely have to reform health insurance along free market lines.   The implosion of the ACA over the next several years will indeed create the crisis necessary for reform.   But conservatives then won't have a place at the table, and the reform won't reflect our values.