Should those that pay no taxes be allowed a vote?

[head of joaquin]

Obama is creating more and more of the poor. How much is enough?

So presidents "create" wealth and poverty, meaning Bush creating the most poverty in history since the Depression.

Good point!

 

[Rocketman]

So presidents "create" wealth and poverty, meaning Bush creating the most poverty in history since the Depression.

Good point!

Unemployment, food stamps, and disability have all grown under Obama, so again you are proven to be the board liar.

 

[head of joaquin]

Unemployment, food stamps, and disability have all grown under Obama, so again you are proven to be the board liar.

The largest recession since the Great Depression resulting in the loss of over $1T in wealth among Americans.

Thank you George.

 

[Fenton]

So presidents "create" wealth and poverty, meaning Bush creating the most poverty in history since the Depression.

Good point!

How do you figure ?

 

[Rocketman]

The largest recession since the Great Depression resulting in the loss of over $1T in wealth among Americans.

Thank you George.

Thank you Barry Hussein!

 

[the makeout hobo]

Unemployment, food stamps, and disability have all grown under Obama, so again you are proven to be the board liar.

Do you disagree with those programs expanding during a recession? Because that's what' shappened. MOre people need those programs, because of the sorry state the economy has been in.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Do you disagree with those programs expanding during a recession? Because that's what' shappened. MOre people need those programs, because of the sorry state the economy has been in.

I know you're not asking me, but the federal government should not do need-based social programming at all. There are there are some things that the federal government should not be doing (at any time) and which states, counties, cities, communities, churches, businesses, or other associations of people can address on their own.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I know you're not asking me, but the federal government should not do need-based social programming at all. There are there are some things that the federal government should not be doing (at any time) and which states, counties, cities, communities, churches, businesses, or other associations of people can address on their own.

What should happen if a community is unable to adequately provide for the needs of its members?

 

[Neomalthusian]

What should happen if a community is unable to adequately provide for the needs of its members?

:shrug: Then it might go the way of other failed communities. There could be countless reasons why a community would fail to make itself a desirable place to live. It is unwise to imagine a bad scenario, or even be faced with a real one, and then immediately assume that something much larger has to save it. People should know what's at stake if they mismanage their lives, families, communities and/or states such that it motivates them to act wisely.

The impulse to create a god out of our federal government must be resisted. Success AND failure (painful as the latter can be) are both necessary to be able to learn and adapt. A network of fail-safes encourages reckless imprudence.

 

[the makeout hobo]

:shrug: Then it might go the way of other failed communities. There could be countless reasons why a community would fail to make itself a desirable place to live. It is unwise to imagine a bad scenario, or even be faced with a real one, and then immediately assume that something much larger has to save it. People should know what's at stake if they mismanage their lives, families, communities and/or states such that it motivates them to act wisely.

The impulse to create a god out of our federal government must be resisted. Success AND failure (painful as the latter can be) are both necessary to be able to learn and adapt. A network of fail-safes encourages reckless imprudence.

The problem that I have with your post, and with a lot of libertarians in general, is an idea that if something goes wrong, it must necessarily always be the fault of the people involved, and they should be left to suffer without any ****s given by their greater community. This is why I refer to so many libertarians as Social Darwinists.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The problem that I have with your post, and with a lot of libertarians in general, is an idea that if something goes wrong, it must necessarily always be the fault of the people involved,

That's not true. It doesn't matter whose fault a bad situation is, unless a crime or civil wrongdoing has occurred, in which case it's up to our justice system to sort out who was really at fault. Maybe there are also natural disasters against which we want to implement a sort of social insurance. There may be other exceptions, but as a generality, having a vast network of fail-safes as an attempt to eradicate suffering creates moral hazards all over the place.

This is why I refer to so many libertarians as Social Darwinists.

And I refer to people who whip out the term "Social Darwinism" as people who like to assign a pejorative-sounding name to cause and effect.

 

[Dpetty]

The problem that I have with your post, and with a lot of libertarians in general, is an idea that if something goes wrong, it must necessarily always be the fault of the people involved, and they should be left to suffer without any ****s given by their greater community. This is why I refer to so many libertarians as Social Darwinists.

The federal government is not the greater community.

 

[Rocketman]

Do you disagree with those programs expanding during a recession? Because that's what' shappened. MOre people need those programs, because of the sorry state the economy has been in.

I do disagree, we are simply enabling people to do nothing when they could be doing something. If there were no jobs here we would not be seeing as many immigrants in our hotels and restaurants that have trouble speaking English.

Unemployment should never exceed 26 weeks..

 

[blaxshep]

Do you disagree with those programs expanding during a recession? Because that's what' shappened. MOre people need those programs, because of the sorry state the economy has been in.

More people need those programs, because of the sorry state the economy which is a drag on the economy which forces more people into the programs which puts a drag on the economy with forces more people into programs which eventually leads to thhe Liberal democrat utpoia of complete dependance.

Good thing we can carry endless debt and print more money forever without consequence.....

 

[blaxshep]

The problem that I have with your post, and with a lot of libertarians in general, is an idea that if something goes wrong, it must necessarily always be the fault of the people involved, and they should be left to suffer without any ****s given by their greater community. This is why I refer to so many libertarians as Social Darwinists.

Survival of the fittest, that is a fundimental law of nature.

 

[Rocketman]

Survival of the fittest, that is a fundimental law of nature.

And it works for all species on the planet except Liberals, and now look where we are headed

 

[Master PO]

The problem that I have with your post, and with a lot of libertarians in general, is an idea that if something goes wrong, it must necessarily always be the fault of the people involved, and they should be left to suffer without any ****s given by their greater community. This is why I refer to so many libertarians as Social Darwinists.

under libertarianism, you have freedom to be the best you can be, by being free you exercise that freedom to choose, make you own decisions, it is not for anyone else to protect you, when you make the wrong decisions, if people wish do help you voluntary that is fine.

but people should not be mandated and forced to help other people, because its taking away my freedom, by applying that force.........so freedom is the issue.

 

[betteramerica]

the idea that we should take the right to vote away from those who make so little money that they pay no federal income taxes / retired people is preposterous ; so much so that it is unworthy of debate.

however, since you asked, the majority of them still pay for social security and Medicare, so removing their right to vote would amount to taxation without representation.

if voter suppression is your best path to victory, you're doing something wrong.

Yes I agree with you, just wanted to hear you out. Thanks.

 

[the makeout hobo]

under libertarianism, you have freedom to be the best you can be, by being free you exercise that freedom to choose, make you own decisions, it is not for anyone else to protect you, when you make the wrong decisions, if people wish do help you voluntary that is fine.

but people should not be mandated and forced to help other people, because its taking away my freedom, by applying that force.........so freedom is the issue.

But by taking away my freedom to murder you and eat your still-beating heart, you're taking away my freedom too. So freedom is the issue. We as a society have decided that society works better if we limit the amount of brutal murders, Mr. Tasty Heart. Similarly, some of us think that society functions better if there are safeguards to limit the amount of people who fall into crippling poverty. I could give you a list of reasons why that makes society work better for everyone. If freedom was the only issue, we'd be in an anarchy.

By the way, why do you have a Nazi as your avatar?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Survival of the fittest, that is a fundimental law of nature.

Good thing we're in society, not nature. If we were in nature, I could kill people for annoying me, but we've decided that certain values are worth protecting. I'm glad that libertarians aren't in charge with that attitude.

 

[haymarket]

This thread is merely indicative of the type of rightist elitism that so prevails extremist political ideology in this era we live in. The idea that one needs to purchase the right to vote runs contrary to our Constitution and our cherished beliefs that all people are created equal and have equal rights under the law.

What it tells us is that some on the right are admitting that they can never foist their nightmare vision upon the rest of us in anything approaching a democratic manner where they need the support of the people. They realize their extremist ideology is foreign to most Americans and they have not the chance of the proverbial snowball in hell to achieve their dreams through normal electoral processes. So the way to nirvana for them is to deprive scores of millions of the right to vote.

Its disgusting and repugnant to any true patriot.

 

[Master PO]

But by taking away my freedom to murder you and eat your still-beating heart, you're taking away my freedom too. So freedom is the issue. We as a society have decided that society works better if we limit the amount of brutal murders, Mr. Tasty Heart. Similarly, some of us think that society functions better if there are safeguards to limit the amount of people who fall into crippling poverty. I could give you a list of reasons why that makes society work better for everyone. If freedom was the only issue, we'd be in an anarchy.

By the way, why do you have a Nazi as your avatar?

you don't have freedom to MURDER! because you are infringing on another persons rights. libertarianism is you can pretty much do as you want, as long as you don't violate the rights of other people.

as the ancient Greeks say........" without law their can be no freedom"

anarchy..... is only a "temporary" transition between types of governments.......

 

[the makeout hobo]

you don't have freedom to MURDER! because you are infringing on another persons rights. libertarianism is you can pretty much do as you want, as long as you don't violate the rights of other people.

Listen, Mr. Tasty-heart. First you say "freedom is the issue", then you talk about how we're talking about libertarianism. Make up your mind. We both agree that society needs laws to function, I agree we need laws to have freedom, I just think we need a bit more laws than you do, to make sure we have freedom from our fellow citizens, and because I think we as a community, sometimes need to act together.

Why is your avatar a Nazi?

 

[Master PO]

Listen, Mr. Tasty-heart. First you say "freedom is the issue", then you talk about how we're talking about libertarianism. Make up your mind. We both agree that society needs laws to function, I agree we need laws to have freedom, I just think we need a bit more laws than you do, to make sure we have freedom from our fellow citizens, and because I think we as a community, sometimes need to act together.

Why is your avatar a Nazi?

freedom is at the heart of the issue, with as little government as possible to maintain those freedoms...that is why federal government power is supposed to be limited.

but society has no authority, to make people do anything as long as they are not breaking the law.

just because you would like something done, of want government to preform an action, does not make it legal, that is why the federal government and states have a constitutions.

 

[274ina]

right, and since the rich pay no taxes. no votes.

we all pay min. of 17% starting with FICA, then we pay MORE Fed taxes......

the rich pay ZERO to 15%.

RICH paying ZERO taxes in USA

income...........# of fillings paying zero
$100-200k........686,000 people
$200-500K........86,000
$500-1 mil.......18,800
1-.1.5...........5,500
1.5 – 2..........2,500
2-5 mil..........4,000
5-10 mil.........1,200
$10,000,000+......917