That’s what this Tea Party bozo believes:
Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property “makes a lot of sense” during a weekly radio program.
“The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote,” Phillips said. “It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote.”
“Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today,” he continued. “But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community.”
Well, since Banks are people too (cf. Citizens United)I guess that would give banks a vote for every home they assume ownership through foreclosure, or at least it would give fractional votes to all those investors who owned a slice of those mortgages that were sold by the banks and mortgage companies as collateralized debt obligations. Sounds like the RIGHT idea to me.
That Tea Party sure has some great thinkers, don’t it?
But that means Fannie and Freddie would get a few million votes, also, too. Phillips isn’t very bright. Is “Weird” Al Yankovic going to do a 1999 parody called 1789? Because that’s where the Pukes want to take us.
Naah, they just want to disenfranchise a couple dozen million people who rent, minorities, young people, and urban city dwellers.
Who, you know, tend not to vote Republican.
Original intent of our Founding Fathers and all that.
Or perhaps let’s not stop at recognizing the bizarre right of a corp should to vote, we can expand on the MSNBC version and expect even property owners to ask permission of the corp to cast a ballot.
This is what passes for being “consistent with your Constitutional principles.” Next one gets attention by talking about 3/5 of a person in the Census in redistricting the House.
Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave.
Intriguing.. I’ve been pointing out over on the Orange blog for some time now that Zinn makes this quite clear in his “A People’s History of the United States”, i.e. the U.S. was originally set up to be controlled by and for the benefit of wealthy white males… “propery holders”. in addition, government largesse is to be exclusively for wealthy white males.
thus Teabaggers like Mr. Phillips reveal it’s wealthy white males who are the “entitled class” in the U.S.
When it comes to property taxes, I’ve always believed that renters should not have a vote on that issue since they do not own the property they are proposing to tax. Since schools are so heavily funded with property taxes, this undoubtedly would impact them. However, a great point is raised when the concept of giving banks a vote for every home they own is raised.
Outside of property taxes on homes, renters have every right to representation if you ask me. But with multi-year leases, it is possible that some renters can vote on taxes which will never indirectly impact them if they are under a lease contract.
Renters pay to, just not directly. When property taxes go up, the landlord raises rents.
too not to. Of course
Actually this is in keeping with the fine traditions associated with the rebellion against the King of England.
All of the colonies had an elected group to advise the King’s governor.
After the rebellion succeeded and the american oligarchy took over, the number of people eligible to vote dropped in every colony but Rhode Island. Can’t have non property owners voting you know?
Of all of the complaints that the upper middle class in America cited as a reason for the rebellion, by 1812, the “new” “democratic” government had implemented even more stringent measures than the British had ever contemplated. Check out the increase in import duties, the increase in censorship, the new laws that could throw people in prison for expressing their personal views…….