Should those that pay no taxes be allowed a vote?

[Master PO]

With all due respect to the founding fathers, we have had much more time to observe democracies and other forms of governments than they have. They should be taken as useful sources of advice but they shouldn't be the end-all be-all of our policy.

they have said that democracies die, a violent death, because when power is place only in one set of hands, it will be .....corrupted.

republican government is the founders is not corruption free, they say it has just less of it, and power in never in one set of hands, so as to prevent abuse of the minority.

 

[samsmart]

republican government is the founders is not corruption free, they say it has just less of it

The Founding Fathers may say that.

But they're wrong.

 

[blaxshep]

The corruption we have is rooted in wealth disparity. Those with virtually unlimited wealth have corrupted the government to legislate their profits. If we are going to allow unlimited wealth than we need to completely eliminate that wealth from gaining access to those who run the government. Granting corporations the rights of citizenship was essentially a coup de gras to a government that represents the people.

 

[Master PO]

The Founding Fathers may say that.

But they're wrong.

America is republican government

James Madison federalist 10 --The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

 

[samsmart]

America is republican government

James Madison federalist 10 --The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

I'm saying that the Founding Fathers were wrong in that there is less corruption in a representative government.

In fact, representatives who can make government policy without the democratic consent of the people is the very definition of corruption, as well as tyranny.

And it is democratic processes that reduce corruption.

 

[Paschendale]

Actually it is aligned with the founders method of voting in a presidential election. There exists no right to vote in a presidential election, only the privilege allowed by each individual state. Each state in the union could suspend popular voting for the electoral votes, and move the mechanism to the state's congress.

How do you guys not get that the amendments and two hundred years of supreme court cases are binding? You can't just pretend that they don't exist or don't matter. And if you were to suddenly find them gone, you'd lose a lot more liberty than you think.

 

[the makeout hobo]

they have said that democracies die, a violent death, because when power is place only in one set of hands, it will be .....corrupted. [/quote[]
Do you have a source to that?

republican government is the founders is not corruption free, they say it has just less of it, and power in never in one set of hands, so as to prevent abuse of the minority.

What IS Republican government, by your definition? It's obviously more than just having a Constitution, a democracy can have a constitution to keep order. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any government this side of Ancient Greece that wasn't a pure dictatorship that didn't have Constitutional Law.

As a side, just out curiousity, why is your username that of a Nazi soldier?

 

[Master PO]

I'm saying that the Founding Fathers were wrong in that there is less corruption in a representative government.

In fact, representatives who can make government policy without the democratic consent of the people is the very definition of corruption, as well as tyranny.

And it is democratic processes that reduce corruption.

here is why they say the opposite.

in Democratic government, power is concentrated in one set of hands those of the (elective) who have been place there by the people, NOW all those key positions of power which control ( money and creation of laws). A government now controlled by those representatives, act as agent for the people to do their ---->bidding. Since the representatives are elected directly, and act as that agent of the people, then the people WILL want the federal government to work in ---->THEIR INTEREST. Because the people WILL vote for their representatives directly to give them what they want, (special interest/or faction) work to sway the population and those representatives, for the federal government to create things, PROGRAMS, OR LAWS WHICH USUALLY BENEFIT A FEW. As government continues to create, as the people want more and more from the --->public trough, this results in government expanding its power, growing and it exercising that power----> over the people. This is why in democratic governments, the government is BIG and is ----->powerful over the people. As government is continuing to expand, government cost more, and requires more taxes to operate, this in the end causes loose fiscal policy, and finally the decline of that government.

Hench the quote of:

federalist 47--"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or (elective), may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". ----->Remember the federal government is supposed to be LIMITED in its capacity<---, and state power is supposed to be VAST, the federal government with those limited powers ONLY , (1) secures the rights of the people (2) preform 18 duties of the constitution (3) leaves the people ALONE.


In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money.

since the house and senate have a way of keeping in-check the --->others power, ...........the federal government stays limited, federal power (it expanding) is kept in-check and people are more free. Because federal power is kept limited and government cannot dispense handouts, it cant create federal programs, it cant create laws benefiting (special interest/faction) or creating laws, which violate the rights of the American people.............this also prevents people voting for the president, because he is promising to give you things(FREE STUFF), because government is limited, and has no power to give you anything he (the president) would promise YOU. government remains small and limited, the people are more free, and cost of government is kept low, and good fiscal policy is maintained.

 

[samsmart]

here is why they say the opposite.

in Democratic government, power is concentrated in one set of hands those of the (elective) who have been place there by the people, NOW all those key positions of power which control ( money and creation of laws). A government now controlled by those representatives, act as agent for the people to do their ---->bidding. Since the representatives are elected directly, and act as that agent of the people, then the people WILL want the federal government to work in ---->THEIR INTEREST. Because the people WILL vote for their representatives directly to give them what they want, (special interest/or faction) work to sway the population and those representatives, for the federal government to create things, PROGRAMS, OR LAWS WHICH USUALLY BENEFIT A FEW. As government continues to create, as the people want more and more from the --->public trough, this results in government expanding its power, growing and it exercising that power----> over the people. This is why in democratic governments, the government is BIG and is ----->powerful over the people. As government is continuing to expand, government cost more, and requires more taxes to operate, this in the end causes loose fiscal policy, and finally the decline of that government.

Hench the quote of:

federalist 47--"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or (elective), may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". ----->Remember the federal government is supposed to be LIMITED in its capacity<---, and state power is supposed to be VAST, the federal government with those limited powers ONLY , (1) secures the rights of the people (2) preform 18 duties of the constitution (3) leaves the people ALONE.


In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money.

since the house and senate have a way of keeping in-check the --->others power, ...........the federal government stays limited, federal power (it expanding) is kept in-check and people are more free. Because federal power is kept limited and government cannot dispense handouts, it cant create federal programs, it cant create laws benefiting (special interest/faction) or creating laws, which violate the rights of the American people.............this also prevents people voting for the president, because he is promising to give you things(FREE STUFF), because government is limited, and has no power to give you anything he (the president) would promise YOU. government remains small and limited, the people are more free, and cost of government is kept low, and good fiscal policy is maintained.

Except the flaw of the Founding Fathers, and of yourself, is that you equate "the people" as all the same.

They are not.

Rather, the people make up a variety of competing interests. Such competition that is resolved through policies.

When resolution is limited to an oligarchy, they will resolve the competition for resources to their benefit - either directly or indirectly.

When resolution is expanded to all people, competing interests will block those of other interests, and so keep us free from tyranny.

And history supports this.

Look at the decline of Rome when the patricians tried to keep political power out of the hands of the plebians, power which they used to their own individual benefit. This also happened when Rome refused to expand citizenship to allied nation-states that supported Rome. The inability for these conflicts to resolved peacefully via political process is what led to the civil wars during the days of Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar.

Look at the Kingdom of France. The king was an absolute monarch who wielded judicial, legislative, and executive authority. But he required the nobility and the clergy to maintain it. The king waged several wars throughout Europe against its neighbors and in the New World for colonial possessions. These wars - which were waged without the people having any government process of prohibiting them - bankrupted the nation.

As privileges of their offices, the nobility and the clergy were exempted from taxes. And so the burden to pay for these wars that the people had no say in were put on those same people.

And that led to the violence of the French Revolution and to the Reign of Terror.

No, history has proven that

1) When power is limited only to a few, those few abuse their power
2) Democratic resolution of conflicts lead more to peaceful resolution of conflicts
3) Disenfranchisement of people in the political process invariably lead to violence as it leads to government without the consent of the governed

So the Founding Fathers were wrong.

 

[Master PO]

Except the flaw of the Founding Fathers, and of yourself, is that you equate "the people" as all the same.

They are not.

Rather, the people make up a variety of competing interests. Such competition that is resolved through policies.

When resolution is limited to an oligarchy, they will resolve the competition for resources to their benefit - either directly or indirectly.

When resolution is expanded to all people, competing interests will block those of other interests, and so keep us free from tyranny.

And history supports this.

Look at the decline of Rome when the patricians tried to keep political power out of the hands of the plebians, power which they used to their own individual benefit. This also happened when Rome refused to expand citizenship to allied nation-states that supported Rome. The inability for these conflicts to resolved peacefully via political process is what led to the civil wars during the days of Marius, Sulla, and Julius Caesar.

Look at the Kingdom of France. The king was an absolute monarch who wielded judicial, legislative, and executive authority. But he required the nobility and the clergy to maintain it. The king waged several wars throughout Europe against its neighbors and in the New World for colonial possessions. These wars - which were waged without the people having any government process of prohibiting them - bankrupted the nation.

As privileges of their offices, the nobility and the clergy were exempted from taxes. And so the burden to pay for these wars that the people had no say in were put on those same people.

And that led to the violence of the French Revolution and to the Reign of Terror.

No, history has proven that

1) When power is limited only to a few, those few abuse their power
2) Democratic resolution of conflicts lead more to peaceful resolution of conflicts
3) Disenfranchisement of people in the political process invariably lead to violence as it leads to government without the consent of the governed

So the Founding Fathers were wrong.

no your wrong, your not smarter then the founders, and what they said, government should never put into the hands of one, it is tyranny, and its getting more every day, rights violated, government expanded and outside the constitution, loose fiscal policy, ...the end is already in sight.

 

[samsmart]

no your wrong, your not smarter then the founders, and what they said, government should never put into the hands of one, it is tyranny, and its getting more every day, rights violated, government expanded and outside the constitution, loose fiscal policy, ...the end is already in sight.

We don't have loose fiscal policy because we have too much democracy.

Rather, we have loose fiscal policy because we don't have enough democracy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't be a wuss, take it all the way. I say only those who have BLOOD on the line get to vote. I say only those of us who have served during wartime get to vote. Serving for a few years during peacetime in order to pay for your college doesn't count. Perhaps let cops working in dangerous areas vote also. If you haven't been shot at or woken up by mortar fire then you don't get to vote. You don't get to have a say in what laws those of us who have put it on the line have to follow.

Oh, but that would disqualify most Americans and nearly all of the rich. Never mind.

:roll:

sounds like STARSHIP TROOPERS

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

we need to have taxation for representation. THose who are sucking on the public tit have no incentive to rein in government spending and wasting our tax dollars.

 

[Master PO]

We don't have loose fiscal policy because we have too much democracy.

Rather, we have loose fiscal policy because we don't have enough democracy.

are you kidding?

we have loose fiscal policy, because government has expanded, and has created a welfare state, a nanny state, applying free stuff to the people, which under republican this could not be created by the federal government because it is limited.

more than half of our federal spending is entitlements.......the redistribution of wealth, and also since government has expanded outside the constitution, it has also engaged in the war state, which is also hurting america fiscally.

limited goverment is what makes america better, and maintains freedom.

 

[samsmart]

are you kidding?

we have loose fiscal policy, because government has expanded, and has created a welfare state, a nanny state, applying free stuff to the people, which under republican this could not be created by the federal government because it is limited.

more than half of our federal spending is entitlements.......the redistribution of wealth, and also since government has expanded outside the constitution, it has also engaged in the war state, which is also hurting america fiscally.

limited goverment is what makes america better, and maintains freedom.

You're forgetting, though, that entitlements aren't the only things that our government is paying for.

What about our bloated military budget? U.S. military spending is 40% of global arms spending. It is 6-7 times the military spending of China. The U.S. spends more money on its military than the next 20 countries COMBINED.

And that doesn't even go into the corruption of government contracts - both defense and otherwise - and how those businesses pay lobbyists to pay Representatives and Senators to dole them out.

And the people can't do anything about it.

Why?

Because lack of processes of direct democracy that limits what our representatives can do.

And eliminating what little process of democracy we have will make such issue worse rather than better.

 

[Donahue]

I'm saying that the Founding Fathers were wrong in that there is less corruption in a representative government.

In fact, representatives who can make government policy without the democratic consent of the people is the very definition of corruption, as well as tyranny.

And it is democratic processes that reduce corruption.

Those are not the definitions to either words.

 

[Donahue]

The corruption we have is rooted in wealth disparity. Those with virtually unlimited wealth have corrupted the government to legislate their profits. If we are going to allow unlimited wealth than we need to completely eliminate that wealth from gaining access to those who run the government. Granting corporations the rights of citizenship was essentially a coup de gras to a government that represents the people.

Legislate their profits? What the heck does that even mean?

 

[Donahue]

How do you guys not get that the amendments and two hundred years of supreme court cases are binding? You can't just pretend that they don't exist or don't matter. And if you were to suddenly find them gone, you'd lose a lot more liberty than you think.

I think there's a difference between a poll tax, designed to alienate a specific group of people, and the far broader proposal though. I don't think it is a particularly good idea, of course, but I don't think the two are the same thing. All in all, I think we should consider raising the voting age to 30 or so.

 

[Master PO]

You're forgetting, though, that entitlements aren't the only things that our government is paying for.

What about our bloated military budget? U.S. military spending is 40% of global arms spending. It is 6-7 times the military spending of China. The U.S. spends more money on its military than the next 20 countries COMBINED.

And that doesn't even go into the corruption of government contracts - both defense and otherwise - and how those businesses pay lobbyists to pay Representatives and Senators to dole them out.

And the people can't do anything about it.

Why?

Because lack of processes of direct democracy that limits what our representatives can do.

And eliminating what little process of democracy we have will make such issue worse rather than better.

you missed where i stated the warfare state....so i had include that already.

1.8 trillion on entitlements
1.4 on operations of government and -->military
360 billion interest on the national debt.

with legislative control of senators... warfare state corporations cannot lobby senators...because the states direct their vote.

if you are wondering why our government is spending so much on waste......WELL only the "house can appropriate money".......the senate cannot make any spending happen unless the "people's house" approves it........so your representatives of the people that you advocate for more OF are approving all this spending!

you act as though the people cannot be corrupt, .............. any 1 ,few many, the people can be corrupted, they are not immune.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This subject always cracks me up; seeing as how we haven't always excised income tax on our populous.

Let's go back in time and undo the results of all those many elections, then. LOL

 

[Goshin]

Almost nobody pays NO taxes.

Besides income tax, there are SS/medicare taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. There are also "value added" taxes on business that show up in higher prices on innumerable products that we all buy. There are Fed taxes and State taxes and local taxes and regulatory costs and fees and fines and blah blah ad nauseum...

Almost everyone pays some kind of tax, unless they are utterly dependent on gov charity, or else homeless.

 

[Superfly]

So my husband, who is a 100% disabled vet, shouldn't be able to vote, because he doesn't pay Federal income tax? He put his life on the line for his country, and became disabled in the process, but because he doesn't pay taxes, he shouldn't have a say in what happens to his country?

 

[TurtleDude]

Almost nobody pays NO taxes.

Besides income tax, there are SS/medicare taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. There are also "value added" taxes on business that show up in higher prices on innumerable products that we all buy. There are Fed taxes and State taxes and local taxes and regulatory costs and fees and fines and blah blah ad nauseum...

Almost everyone pays some kind of tax, unless they are utterly dependent on gov charity, or else homeless.

state taxes are a separate issue from federal taxes. that is why it is so dishonest for some lefties to claim that the federal income tax rate has to be more progressive to make the wealthy's overall tax rate more progressive because some state taxes are flat fees or flat rates and that makes their overall rate less progressive (even though for the very rich its income taxes or taxes on investments that make up most of their taxes-while for poor people they only tend to pay gasoline and sales taxes-often with money given to them by the government)

but the real fact is-a ton of americans are using more in government services than what they pay in taxes-and that is the problem because these people often demand others pay even more taxes so these people can have more stuff

 

[TurtleDude]

So my husband, who is a 100% disabled vet, shouldn't be able to vote, because he doesn't pay Federal income tax? He put his life on the line for his country, and became disabled in the process, but because he doesn't pay taxes, he shouldn't have a say in what happens to his country?

just about everyone I know believes disabled vets have paid enough. I have no use for many income redistribution programs but those injured while serving their country clearly should be taken care of by the country they served.

 

[Napoleon]

you should read the document itself, ........our constitution .....rights are endowed, by a higher being not government, and they are unalienable...unalienable is the correct word. our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with its BOR cannot be .......AMENDED....OR ...ABOLISHED.!

The founding father's may have believed that we are divinely entitled to those rights but to say that they are unalienable in practical terms is incredibly naive. They're just words on paper and they're only as true as the powers that be make them. The United States has fallen into the age old political abyss that considers the security of the State to supersede the rights of the individual. It happened during WWII, it happened under McCarthyism, and its happening now. You think your rights are unalienable? Tell that to the soldier who disappears you into a military brig or a CIA facility in eastern Europe for a few years because someone called you an enemy combatant.

 

[Blue_State]

For those who are dependants of the government, why not enact government service for a period of 2 weeks or 1 weekend or whatever? Just something to give back.