OT - Politics

Page 8 of 15  
NoOne N Particular wrote:

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain income threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have enough numbers to significantly influence election results by much anyway.
What should be required is that people who are living from government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money from the people who are working and provide it those who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test, required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to voting.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such testing was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black man, even if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a test.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what animates our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all manner of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Uh, the President doesn't fund anything.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

No, but he approves and advocates for it as Bush did with the entirely illegal senior drug benefit program, for example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

If it's illegal the Supreme Court will knock it down. If they don't then in your mind it's because they are part of the conspiracy. Now I'm getting it.
Your tinfoil hat isn't working--maybe you should get some titanium foil.
<plonk>
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

No, I'd deny the vote to people who are going to use the vote to obtain a government that uses its power to take money from other people who are productive and "redistribute" it to themselves.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet. There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing Other People's Money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are those among us whom cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. To deny these as less worthy to vote than those blessed with good health is quite despicable. And I would suggest quite contrary to the basic ideals of a freedom loving people. How with a clear conscious can one support such arrogance? Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in need by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do so with the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides for me just who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to vote......
On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to earn said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded Government. People by their very nature would not voluntarily send in sufficient funds to finance even a shell of what we have today. Oddly worldwide as well as historically countries that spend money and tax their people have the highest standard of living and are the most productive societies. One may rationally argue that being on the lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but societies with little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have anything to tax is a losing proposition.
And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the assertion that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

But not a realistic position......there is always someone to tax.
It does prove that taxes do not destroy a country otherwise the poorest least taxed countries would prosper....incidentally I do feel a Government should tax and spend as little as possible but they are responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate for desired services or functions.

I'd be happy to question our level of freedom in a country that requires me to wear a seatbelt or that requires a permit(permission) to trim a parking strip tree etc.....however the likely failure of voluntary taxation only demonstrates that grocery stores can't survive on the honor system either.....its human nature. Realistically people vote every year for taxes via whom they elect, school levies they pass....majority rule is a bitch when yours is a minority position. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

If taxes were the only factor.

Does a majority in the US want those "services or functions"? And don't say "if they didn't they'd vote the suckers out"--that is a very naive view of American politics. At every election we vote some of the suckers out and with every election the new suckers just go do the same thing the old ones did but with a different line of bullshit.

I've seen no armed guards searching people leaving grocery stores. In point of fact they _do_ substantially survive on the honor system. In fact some local stores are almost completely on the honor system--it's quite easy to sneak things through the automated checkout.

So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.
Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher taxes?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.
Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite probably by a considerable amount.
Look for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is another way than the American way, apparently. I left Holland almost 40 years ago, so my personal experiences don't really count, but the Dutch have a "new" healthcare system: Government mandated health insurance, paid for by the subscribers in some sort of income-adjusted fashion. It apparently has very high compliance by the subscribers, and is a work in progress. There are descriptions in the current issue (Dec 13 2007) of the New England Journal of Medicine. One of the 2 articles on the subject is here: <http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/357/24/2421.pdf
Of course, the language of the NEJM isn't exactly geared to the average man/woman, but possibly you can get the gist of it. Keep in mind that taxes in Holland are higher than here. Moreover, the Dutch are trying to "wean" themselves off of a rather extreme welfare state (financed in the 60-70's by the sale of government-owned natural gas). The Dutch seem convinced that they like that "welfare state", but now realize that they have to pay for it, AND they are willing to do so.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Specifically, how much?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

> for desired services or functions.

desires universal "free" health care, for example, is the government responsible to tax and spend enough to make that possible? What if the public desires universal free ivy league quality higher education, or universal housing, or universal sirloin steaks at hamburger prices?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.