Should those that pay no taxes be allowed a vote?

[head of joaquin]

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

BAM!

But wait, uh, the point was, uh, to bash poor people, and cowtow to the rich, er.

Conservatives and their dishonest memes.

 

[samsmart]

OK, you tell me if i have it right what your saying about not having control of our representatives.

the people are electing their representatives to congress, , but those representatives are not listening to the people and are enacting things in the name of special interest or faction as Madison called it?

so in the house representatives the only democratic thread of -->republican government, the representatives of the PEOPLE .......are not listening to the people?

the member's of the senate, because NOW it is a democratic process, and elected by the PEOPLE........... are not listening to the people either.

so we have now the house and senate being lobbied by all sort of groups, with those groups lobbying for laws, money, things which benefit them and not the people...........do i have you correct up to this point?

now you explain to me, in a nation the size we are, and the people most of them not understanding the legislative process, how we are going to have the people vote directly and regularly, and know what they are voting on to control both branches of the legislature so they work in the people's interest, since people are to busy in their daily lifes.



in republican government of the founding fathers, senators CANNOT be lobbied, because it done not matter what special interest group try's to, because the senator HAS TO VOTE according to his state legislators, he is not FREE as he is today to make his own personal choice.

to lobby for 51 senators vote, you would have to lobby over 26 state legislative bodies,that would take a lot of money and time.......not a practical thing to even try to do. since legislative bodies work in the interest of the states, this special interest groups, would find it very difficult, to get what they want passed.

since legislators are NOT going to allow their senators to vote for any legislation, which diminishes the ------>states power...by the federal government more.

Yes, Representatives and Senators are not truly representative of the people, despite being democratically elected. This because Representatives and Senators are not elected in ways that are representative of all Americans. If they were, libertarians and socialists would be elected to Congress as well as Democrats and Republicans.

But because Republican and Democratic have vested interests in limiting the number of political parties that are viable, they have keep the electoral system corrupt to favor them.

This is done by gerrymandering single-member districts for Representatives, which are done by state legislatures, and by using the plurality method of voting so that whichever candidate gets the most votes - not even a majority of votes but just a plurality - represents all of that district. And because it is plurality it keeps out third parties from remaining viable.

And because single-member districts are drawn by state legislatures, it is done to favor whichever party is in power of the state legislature rather than being fair. And because such gerrymandered districts are drawn to be the most safe, it lends to more ideological races rather than moderates, which is why we have uncompromising Congresses.

And why we lean on the executive branch more to overexert it's power in order to have a functioning government.

As to processes of actual direct democracy, I am not saying that direct democracy should be used in lieu of representative democracy.

Rather, I'm saying that processes of direct democracy should be available to the governed when their representatives are using their powers to further their own interests rather than the interests of the people of the whole.

So, for the most part, direct democratic processes will institute those reforms that the representative democratic processes refuse to do because it's in the interests of those representatives to not pass the reforms. With direct democratic process, those representatives can be ignored and necessary reforms can be passed by the people.

As to the education level of the people as a whole, I would remind you that there is no education requirement for our representatives, and such requirements are not even necessary when our representatives listen mostly to lobbyists who give them campaign contributions, lobbyists funded by those wealthiest enough to hire them to pursue the interests of those wealthy individuals or businesses.

Besides, if we really wanted to limit only those educated to direct policy, we would not be a representative democracy but rather a technocracy. But our current government system is nothing like a technocracy.

And even then different groups have different interests that requires policies to be legislated in or against their favor. So that's not really an issue. Especially as information technology advances and access to knowledge is as easy as it is nowadays.

As for your point on Senators being beholden to state legislators, remember that state legislatures are divided along certain interests, and state legislators would require a Senator to vote along the lines of which ever faction controls the state legislature at the time.

That's if a candidate for Senator doesn't use outright corruption in order to get an appointment by a state legislature.

Or if a state has no Senator appointed because of obstructionism in state legislatures.

Both scenarios which occurred with such regularity that popular election of Senators was used instead - even before the adoption of the 17th amendment.

 

[obvious Child]

So we're disenfranchising the elderly and students who live in sales tax free states who don't pay property taxes, don't have jobs to pay payroll taxes and don't have other taxable income?

Seems like a relatively small group of people to get all worked up about.

 

[TurtleDude]

So we're disenfranchising the elderly and students who live in sales tax free states who don't pay property taxes, don't have jobs to pay payroll taxes and don't have other taxable income?

Seems like a relatively small group of people to get all worked up about.

true enough that is why I would prefer everyone gets one vote and for every additional thousand dollars of FIT you get another vote

 

[iguanaman]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period. We have finally reached the tipping point in America where those that have no financial stake in our government outnumber those that do. More than 200 years ago both the Founding Fathers and philosophers predicted the day when American democracy would end precisely the moment this unbalance was reached.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. (Alexis de Tocqueville)

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property – if effect, the Constitution protected the people FROM the government. To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending the money of others, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long. John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (Founding Fathers) De Tocqueville elaborated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Voting was not a universal right under the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers. As one way of restraining excessive taxing and spending, the voting franchise was limited originally to white, male property owners because the Founders wanted the voters to have a vested interest in stability and property rights. (Original Right To Vote) It is actually a very recent phenomenon, since 1971, that most over 18 can vote. There is no original “fundamental” right to vote, it is a right that has grown and changed with the times. Unfortunately legitimate expansions of the franchise (women, people of color, youth) were adopted without reflection on other legitimate reasons to limit the franchise.

Democrats have created a very successful party today by playing modern-day Robin Hood and using taxes to promise those not working or productive a way to live the American dream without the muss and fuss of the actual work. The resentment over this divide is growing, but unfortunately the productive side of American is now outnumbered by those living off of the work of others. We have reached that tipping point that both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville predicted would spell the end to democracy in the United States.

We need to Amend the Constitution to require that to vote you must have some direct investment in the country. I would accept paying federal taxes as a threshold, but I just throw that out there as the start of the conversation.

Pay No Taxes, Get No Vote

Why ***** foot around? Lets bring slavery and indentured servitude back too while we are at it. Nothing has changed in 250 years.

 

[blaxshep]

Why ***** foot around? Lets bring slavery and indentured servitude back too while we are at it. Nothing has changed in 250 years.

Wage slavery is still slavery so you are right nothing has changed.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Why ***** foot around? Lets bring slavery and indentured servitude back too while we are at it. Nothing has changed in 250 years.

There are also still Indians living on their reservations. We need to give our troops that came back from Iraq and Afghanistan something to do.

 

[lemieux]

The founding fathers only allowed white land owners to vote because they only wanted white land owners to be in the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wage slavery is still slavery so you are right nothing has changed.

LOL-still pretending adults don't have the intelligence to contract

Its sort of hard to be a libertarian and support government control of wages

 

[TurtleDude]

The founding fathers only allowed white land owners to vote because they only wanted white land owners to be in the government.

was it only white land owners

 

[jwzg]

The OP gave a rational opinion backed, albeit loosely, by what he deemed to be the intent of the founding fathers. Some responded eloquently with disagreements with valid reasons, and some responded with false dichotomies and hyperbole. Thanks for the former and for the latter, either figure out how to argue without logical fallacies or focus on your day jobs.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[Muddy Creek]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period. We have finally reached the tipping point in America where those that have no financial stake in our government outnumber those that do. More than 200 years ago both the Founding Fathers and philosophers predicted the day when American democracy would end precisely the moment this unbalance was reached.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. (Alexis de Tocqueville)

The Founding Fathers set about to create a government that first of all would ensure liberty and then protect person and property – if effect, the Constitution protected the people FROM the government. To ensure against the momentary passions of a democratic majority, including spending the money of others, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a governmental system in which most things cannot be done in a hurry and there are many checks and balances on what can be accomplished. Even so, Benjamin Franklin and other Founders thought it was unlikely the American experiment would last very long. John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts very long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” (Founding Fathers) De Tocqueville elaborated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Voting was not a universal right under the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers. As one way of restraining excessive taxing and spending, the voting franchise was limited originally to white, male property owners because the Founders wanted the voters to have a vested interest in stability and property rights. (Original Right To Vote) It is actually a very recent phenomenon, since 1971, that most over 18 can vote. There is no original “fundamental” right to vote, it is a right that has grown and changed with the times. Unfortunately legitimate expansions of the franchise (women, people of color, youth) were adopted without reflection on other legitimate reasons to limit the franchise.

Democrats have created a very successful party today by playing modern-day Robin Hood and using taxes to promise those not working or productive a way to live the American dream without the muss and fuss of the actual work. The resentment over this divide is growing, but unfortunately the productive side of American is now outnumbered by those living off of the work of others. We have reached that tipping point that both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Tocqueville predicted would spell the end to democracy in the United States.

We need to Amend the Constitution to require that to vote you must have some direct investment in the country. I would accept paying federal taxes as a threshold, but I just throw that out there as the start of the conversation.

Pay No Taxes, Get No Vote

Well, then, what are you going to do with the rich who create unemployment taking jobs overseas and creating the poor? And the working poor pay federal taxes out of their checks each week. I don't think the mentally incompetent vote, but how are you going to justify telling the Veteran who is homeless he can't vote?

 

[haymarket]

true enough that is why I would prefer everyone gets one vote and for every additional thousand dollars of FIT you get another vote

And how would your suggestion benefit you personally at election time?

 

[TurtleDude]

And how would your suggestion benefit you personally at election time?

it would benefit the nation by preventing the masses from voting themselves the contents of the public treasury

 

[haymarket]

it would benefit the nation by preventing the masses from voting themselves the contents of the public treasury

You failed to answer the question regarding your proposal to give unlimited extra votes to people based on their amount of federal income tax paid:

I would prefer everyone gets one vote and for every additional thousand dollars of FIT you get another vote

how would your suggestion benefit you personally at election time?

 

[TurtleDude]

You failed to answer the question regarding your proposal to give unlimited extra votes to people based on their amount of federal income tax paid:

how would your suggestion benefit you personally at election time?

where did you conjur up UNLIMITED

anything that prevents the masses from voting themselves the wealth of others benefits net tax payers

 

[haymarket]

where did you conjur up UNLIMITED

anything that prevents the masses from voting themselves the wealth of others benefits net tax payers

Your proposal was indeed without limits and only based on tax paid which is not limited by law.

Why are you dodging an honest answer to the question posed by the very scheme you yourself advocate?

How would your suggestion benefit you personally at election time?

Forget about the mass of people that you yourself do not speak for nor represent in any legal manner. Tell us how many more votes you yourself would be empowering to yourself with this scheme of yours.

It has all the trappings of a ruthless and baldfaced power grab to both benefit yourself and subvert and water down the voting power of people whom you perceive as your political enemies or opponents.

So tell us clear and without dodging, bobbing and weaving, prevaricating or avoiding, how would the Turtle Dude scheme benefit Turtle Dude when Turtle Dude casts his ballot(s) at election time?

 

[head of joaquin]

it would benefit the nation by preventing the masses from voting themselves the contents of the public treasury

Gvien that the current debt is virtually all related to Bush's unfunded wars and his deregulation and bail out of banks (and various major corporations like AIG), this scarcely seems like a big problem.

But that's what conservative discourse is really all about -- asserting pseudoproblems and then arguing they should be "solved" with the same failed conserative policies that cause our real problems.

Totally predictiable tea party memes.

 

[blaxshep]

Gvien that the current debt is virtually all related to Bush's unfunded wars and his deregulation and bail out of banks (and various major corporations like AIG), this scarcely seems like a big problem.

But that's what conservative discourse is really all about -- asserting pseudoproblems and then arguing they should be "solved" with the same failed conserative policies that cause our real problems.

Totally predictiable tea party memes.

Your post makes no sense given that it is the liberal position that we can sustain an unlimited debt without consequence.

If that is true then why do you care about unfunded wars, deregulation or bail outs? Since we can sustain unlimited debt aren't all of these points pseudoproblems?

 

[TurtleDude]

Gvien that the current debt is virtually all related to Bush's unfunded wars and his deregulation and bail out of banks (and various major corporations like AIG), this scarcely seems like a big problem.

But that's what conservative discourse is really all about -- asserting pseudoproblems and then arguing they should be "solved" with the same failed conserative policies that cause our real problems.

Totally predictiable tea party memes.

given that your first assumption is idiotic, the rest of your rant is equally stupid

 

[jwzg]

Your post makes no sense given that it is the liberal position that we can sustain an unlimited debt without consequence.

If that is true then why do you care about unfunded wars, deregulation or bail outs? Since we can sustain unlimited debt aren't all of these points pseudoproblems?

I think we have a winner.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

 

[Born Free]

Gvien that the current debt is virtually all related to Bush's unfunded wars and his deregulation and bail out of banks (and various major corporations like AIG), this scarcely seems like a big problem.

But that's what conservative discourse is really all about -- asserting pseudoproblems and then arguing they should be "solved" with the same failed conserative policies that cause our real problems.

Totally predictiable tea party memes.

You never stop amazing me. Debt to a liberal means nothing, Liberal = tax, borrow, spend, and give free stuff and you talk about Bush. I mean Obama is going to increase the national debt over 10 trillion in just 8 yrs, even with a tax increase. And talk about unfunded wars, when are we going to get the hell out of Afghanistan?

 

[Tennyson]

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.

Are you saying there is an amendment that grants the right to vote in a presidential election? Are there Supreme Court cases as well?

 

[Objective Voice]

No one who does not pay federal taxes should have the right to vote – period.

This is a foolish and bias position to take. Your voting right begins at age 18. If you're a college student working a low-wage, part-time job chances are you're not going to pay any federal income taxes. Should the student's right to vote be voided just because most of his/her time is divided between his studies, his attempt to feed and house himself while also paying for certain expenditures that apply to his schooling?

I think you might want to rethink your position on this point alittle. Not all thinks are so straight-forward.

 

[Objective Voice]

You never stop amazing me. Debt to a liberal means nothing, Liberal = tax, borrow, spend, and give free stuff and you talk about Bush. I mean Obama is going to increase the national debt over 10 trillion in just 8 yrs, even with a tax increase. And talk about unfunded wars, when are we going to get the hell out of Afghanistan?

The "free stuff" you're referring to (obviously) is Medicaid, unemployment compensation and other federal programs viewed as "give-a-ways" (i.e., those free cell phones that had been highly critisized until it was shown that the program had been in existance long before Obama won the Presidency the first time). Yet, the conservative mind-set never stops to consider the large-scale corporate welfare that goes on even when an industry has shown itself to be profitable for years, or the added unfunded liabilities such as the Medicare prescription drug program or the continual corporate bailouts that taxpayers pay the price for when these captain's of industry screw up taking the economy with them.

Look, I don't like those who come to the government constantly with their hand out whether as individuals - poor or rich - or corporate giants! Both are a drain on our national economy and hamper economic growth and prosperity. But you can't continue to saintify corporate welfare or tax breaks for the wealth and lament such as noble while condemning assistance to the poor or the unemployed as the sole drain on the economy. Both aspects can have a negative impact on economic growth when done irrationally and irresponsibly. So, the question becomes "How do Congressional and state legislators reach a balanced and reasonable approach to fix our nation's economic problems?"

After all, they caused the problems; they're responsible for fixing them. But WE, THE PEOPLE need to speak up about it.