Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

GamePlayer wrote:This has to be some bullshit band-aid solution to help compensate for the dreadfully low levels of voter participation. I can almost hear some idiot in a focus group barking "Get 'em involved sooner!" like it's a good idea

I wonder which way 16-year-olds would vote?

Oh, I can imagine...

"LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!"

Beats what I was just going to type.

Britain has an awesome overlap with the 16-18 range.

You can, perfectly legally (although many do it younger now without prosecution) have a baby at 16 years 9 months, and yet are not considered an adult until 18, therefore most places (swimming pools, theatres etc) will NOT allow you to be held responsible for the child (you cant enforce an agreement like that with a minor, so any damage done by the child, or liability could NOT be deferred to the parent).

You can have a full time job from 16, paying taxes... without any say in how the money is spent? ("taxation without representation" is, i believe, the name of the bill which keeps running up to parliament, prodding them and running off every few years)

You can join the army, hold key positions as lifeguards, volunteer in difficult situations like hospices and many other things at 16.... and yet cant vote to show whether you think the war was just etc

As i stated above, my problem is that most adults arent informed enough to vote, so what chance have 16 year olds got?

I would follow the instructions of a doctor, and i wouldnt question whether a scan was necessary if he thought so.... so why do people presume to tell the government how to do their job? it's in no way as simple as the media make out. Sure i want people keeping an eye on them to make sure they do it correctly, but thats what the British Medical Association and, in politics, the Opposition Party is for.

In britain it USED to be 21.

I think most people were anti lowering it then, but it still dropped to 18.

If we go back far enough, we didnt let the weaker sex vote either.

If you go back to the 1830s.... you needed land and a career to vote.

When it comes to voting, I don't care if someone has a penis or land, only a brain.

The "paying taxes but no say in how it's used" argument doesn't sway me at all. Actually, none of them do. Tough teat, life's rough all over.

SandChigger wrote:Sorry, again, but WHY?

I mean, it's not like most 16-year-olds are gainfully employed and living independently of their parents; they don't own land, pay taxes (except income, maybe, on part-time jobs?) or serve in the military. We used to be able to get a driver's license in Ohio at 16, but I think they've raised that a year or so now (or implemented some sort of provisional, restricted license for people below 18? I haven't checked). By what twisted fuck of logic does anyone think it's a good idea?

Probably because the same arguments for not letting them vote could be used against kja fans and we let those idiots vote.

Good point!

loremaster wrote:Britain has an awesome overlap with the 16-18 range.

You can, perfectly legally (although many do it younger now without prosecution) have a baby at 16 years 9 months, and yet are not considered an adult until 18, therefore most places (swimming pools, theatres etc) will NOT allow you to be held responsible for the child (you cant enforce an agreement like that with a minor, so any damage done by the child, or liability could NOT be deferred to the parent).

You can have a full time job from 16, paying taxes... without any say in how the money is spent? ("taxation without representation" is, i believe, the name of the bill which keeps running up to parliament, prodding them and running off every few years)

You can join the army, hold key positions as lifeguards, volunteer in difficult situations like hospices and many other things at 16.... and yet cant vote to show whether you think the war was just etc

As i stated above, my problem is that most adults arent informed enough to vote, so what chance have 16 year olds got?

I would follow the instructions of a doctor, and i wouldnt question whether a scan was necessary if he thought so.... so why do people presume to tell the government how to do their job? it's in no way as simple as the media make out. Sure i want people keeping an eye on them to make sure they do it correctly, but thats what the British Medical Association and, in politics, the Opposition Party is for.

I really think if someone is old enough to die for their country they're old enough to decide who's running it. I understand that there are lots of other intermediate steps to becoming an adult (driving at 14 with learners license and at 16 with a real one), but this one is total bullshit - they should up that fighting age or lower the voting age, it's a complete joke to leave it as it is.

I've never actually looked at how old we have to be to fight here in Canada...


... shit, with parental consent you can join the reserves at 16 and the real military at 17. What a fucking joke.

You don't even have to be a citizen to join the US military.

Freakzilla wrote:You don't even have to be a citizen to join the US military.

Same here, but you have to have some special skill that our army needs, and Canadians have first grabs at all the jobs.

A non-citizen can stop a bullet just as well as a citizen... INFANTRY!

Kind of applicable here. With a decentralized government, one would expect a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is because our representatives can relate to what it is like to be us, the regular people, right?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html



Report: 237 millionaires in Congress
By: Erika Lovley
November 6, 2009 12:00 PM EST

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”

The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.

Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.

Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.

He’s hardly the worst off.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), freshman Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) each a net worth of less than zero, CRP says.

One caveat on those numbers: Federal financial disclosure laws don’t require members to list the value of their personal residences. That information could alter the net worth picture for many lawmakers.

Even so, Levinthal said, “It is clear that some members are struggling financially.

“Over a calendar year, one’s wealth can change drastically. Many peoples’ investments took a nose dive over night in the last year,” he said.

A number of lawmakers are estimated to have suffered double-digit percentage lossed in their net worth from 2007 to 2008. The biggest losers include Kerry, who lost a whopping $127.4 million; Warner lost about $28.1 million; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lost about $11.8 million; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost about $10.1 million.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

We should pay lawmakers based on what the average citizen makes. That might inspire them.

Freakzilla wrote:We should pay lawmakers based on what the average citizen makes. That might inspire them.

And cut out all of that unnecessary spending. Reimbursement for gas mileage...to drive your place of employment to work? What a joke. I wish I got paid for driving to work. That money alone right there could prop up ObamaCare.

Slugger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:We should pay lawmakers based on what the average citizen makes. That might inspire them.

And cut out all of that unnecessary spending. Reimbursement for gas mileage...to drive your place of employment to work? What a joke. I wish I got paid for driving to work. That money alone right there could prop up ObamaCare.

I drive 110 miles a day round trip.

Idahopotato wrote:Kind of applicable here. With a decentralized government, one would expect a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is because our representatives can relate to what it is like to be us, the regular people, right?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html



Report: 237 millionaires in Congress
By: Erika Lovley
November 6, 2009 12:00 PM EST

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

Look at all those Democrats at the top of the list. That's a shit-load of champagne socialists.