Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by RussP, Feb 15, 2014.
anyone read the article besides the headline? the generalized basis behind the headline is "skin in the game." interpolate however you wish...
If you make under $1 million and are male--no federal voting rights.
I agree 100% with the concept of votes based on the amount of taxes paid but I think it should be based on your total compensation to or from all forms of government. Local, state, and federal taxes all together added up should determine your votes, MINUS of course ALL OF THE INCOME YOU DERIVED FROM ALL GOVERNMENT SOURCES.
If you are a NET supporter of the government then you get that number of votes. If you are a NET beneficiary from government then you get NO vote on any thing and also are NOT eligible to hold any elected position. Welfare, WIC, farm subsidies, government employees, contractors, bail outs... yer out. If you gain more financially from government than you pay then you don't get to vote your self jobs, raises, or benefits to the people who pay or hire you.
So do you enjoy ignorance?
Reminds me of the ABC special where they interviewed some billionaire who explained why rich people should pay NO TAXES. They do "smarter" things with money so they should be able to keep all of it.
It goes without saying they are smarter than everybody else so they should get more votes.
In fact, the vote counter machines should have sensors to let them ignore votes cast by the inferior people. We have to let them keep the illusion of voting so they won't rise up in revolt, but the votes shouldn't actually count.
Now that the whole voting process is electronically counted, it is easily corrupted/hacked/manipulated so really, all this is rather moot...more an exercise in semantics.
The winners and losers of the big elections are bought and paid for long before any of us go to the polls.
Then why did Karl Rove and the gang get that horrible shock at the last election?
He's not "in the loop".
The decisions are made outside DC.
So you disagree with a system that allows all non-felon citizens of voting age to vote? You think allowing the government to start choosing who can vote on a whim is going to turn out great? Believing that Kablam could pick his magic set of parameters and they'd stay in place forever without being changed and manipulated is incredibly myopic.
You've seen too many movies.
How many of you read the entire article? I mean the one linked to in my original post. Did you click on the link?
Perhaps you remember his Letter-to-the-Editor in The Wall Street Journal - Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?? I believe there is a thread here somewhere discussing it. He did say:
Back to this event...
In another report of the evening...
Another version of the statement is a bit different...
See, little things get left out of some reports. The original story, in Post #1, was reported by NBC News. Surprised they edited his comment?
The Commonwealth Club event was an interview format. Fortune's Adam Lashinsky interviewed Perkins. Here is a video of the entire program, 1:06:05 worth.
Here is another point made...
I say we don't let those vote who have collected welfare for more than 6 months in the preceding 4 years.
I don't think owning property or having a minimum net worth should be a requirement. You can be working and pay taxes without meeting those two conditions. Your choice to rent and spend all of your paycheck.
Myopic's ***. I never said, nor implied, that "I" should or could pick any set of parameters. The states get to do that according to the COTUS. Once again you let your emotions get in the way of pragmatically analyzing what the original intent was. Here's a clue...not unfettered democracy and the resultant irresponsibility of the voters and the government. Prove me wrong.
I disagree with a system that keeps moving the powers reserved for the states to the federal government. If the states individually allow "all non-felon citizens of voting age to vote," then that's fine. Why deny felons by the way? I'm not arguing who has the right to vote, I'm simply questioning who has the power to determine voting eligibility under the Constitution. You see, just because you want something to be "your" way, doesn't mean it should be.
The founders had a good reason to limit the power and size of the federal government...they foresaw exactly what has happened as we've eroded the power of the states and transferred it to the fed. They knew "one size fits all" would not work in this country. You can surely see that, correct? Education (absolute nose dive across the board since the D of Ed was founded), popularly elected senators (used to be the states took care of that to protect state's rights), unemployment (used to be provided by insurance at the state level), federal income tax (gives the fed complete power of the purse by holding the taxpayers money over the "heads" of the states)...over $17T in debt and no end in sight. States typically have to balance their budgets by their constitutions. How's that ever growing omnipotent federal government working?
A flat 10% income tax across the board would solve a lot. JMO.
Yes, but that wouldn't work according to some. However, the alternatives, well, here's an article related to Mr. Perkins...
There's more to read in the article...
I pay sales tax, can I still vote?
Some of the idea proposed in this read are just systemic of ignorance of economics and a sense of entitlement that whatever hey do is somehow a better job than somebody who chose a different profession.
Look at some of the vitriol directed at government workers. BS claims that cops and firemen are somehow connected to organized crime. BS implications that because your paid through tax money you are somehow a leech. Just an amazing display of ignorance.
What about DOT? Do you like having roads salted in the winter or maintained in some semblance of repair? Good luck getting to your real job via horse if you don't expect communities to put money towards infrastructure. Or hey how about those tax money vampires working in air traffic control centers across the country. Yup federal employees maintaining economic viability for the nation. But none of those bastards should get a vote because the dude that owns a bait shop in the middle of nowhere has a better understanding and idea as to the direction his country should take. His job is somehow more important than any of the hundreds of government jobs that serve a purpose.
Are you able to deduct that tax paid from your taxable income?
What you say is true. Take it as mostly a cross section of Repubs and you can very easily see why they can't get together to defeat a common enemy!