Would you vote for the compromise?

haymarket said:

Please provide the factual evidence to support that claim.

And then take the factual evidence that I have provided from the census on income distribution and take the information that others have provided on income groups voting for political parties and tell all of us why this scheme to disenfranchise scores of millions of voters would not adversely impact African Americans and Hispanics more than whites and impact Democrats more than Republicans.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

You seem to love to present what you believe are facts and then offer nothing in support except your own opinion to support them.

You do understand the idea of proportionality don't you?

As for fascism and the efforts of the far right to take any mention of it off the table less it embarrass some of their own positions, this is worth reading

 Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Click to expand...

So for medicare look on page 449, you can see the complete table but it seems whites use these services over 10x as much. this why the way comes directly from reporting by the government. So this is proof right here for one entitement. To think the rest follow a different pattern takes a leap of faith.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/supplement09.pdf

cpwill said:

with respect, that's not the premise at all; the center of the argument is (to simplify it) that with power, comes responsibility. if you are going to be making decisions about what the government shall do with the rest of us (and indeed, given our position, much of the world); then the consequences (for good or ill) should fall on you as well. if you want to have an expansive welfare state, fine, but you should be required to help pay for it if you are going to force others to do so as well. creating incentives for Americans to use the vote as a means to get free stuff from others using the coercive power of the state is bad for stability, bad for our economy, bad for democracy, and simple bad governance. so let us realign the incentive structure that surrounds the vote to give everyone who exercises it "skin in the game" as far as producing good governance at the cheapest price is concerned.

Click to expand...

But what the premise ignores is that everyone does have skin in the game. All people pay sales tax, for instance, and most people also pay property taxes. So the premise focuses on income tax but ignores other taxes, primarily consumption taxes, that the poor provide.

Also, the premise ignores tax breaks, especially to businesses, and corporate welfare provided to government contracts, especially no-bid contracts.

samsmart said:

But what the premise ignores is that everyone does have skin in the game. All people pay sales tax, for instance, and most people also pay property taxes. So the premise focuses on income tax but ignores other taxes, primarily consumption taxes, that the poor provide.

Also, the premise ignores tax breaks, especially to businesses, and corporate welfare provided to government contracts, especially no-bid contracts.

Click to expand...

Sale tax and property taxes are not federal taxes they are state and local taxes. We are talking about the federal government here.

samsmart said:

But what the premise ignores is that everyone does have skin in the game. All people pay sales tax, for instance, and most people also pay property taxes. So the premise focuses on income tax but ignores other taxes, primarily consumption taxes, that the poor provide.

Also, the premise ignores tax breaks, especially to businesses, and corporate welfare provided to government contracts, especially no-bid contracts.

Click to expand...

is sales tax a major issue in elections? do politicians run on jacking up sales taxes in federal elections? How about property taxes?

you confuse the political importance of federal tax rates and the appeal to voters on that issue with state issues of property and sales taxes.

hallam said:

You again fail to actually represent my position. I have never said that there are no other ways to support the government. I have said that this is a legitimate way to define support and that we can discuss this compromise with this definition. You have still failed to show why this compromise is wrong since the government currently arbitrarily sets voting limitations. Plus you can't claim fascism by correlation alone of one policy.

/sarcasm....The German set voting limitations......oh no anyone who does limits voting become a Nazis.

You have no counter argument that is why you appeal to this. You can only claim correlation and have failed at ever level to describe why this is wrong. No, you entire argument is based off emotion or else you would have come with more meat. You accept current voting limitations currently. You accept limitation on prisoners and age which are completely arbitrary. Therefore, I can only rationally conclude that you are way you say. If anyone who limits voting rights are fascist, then we are all fascist, including you, because the US government currently limits voting rights of its citizens.

You have producing nothing but fallacies here. You have even talked bad about yourself. I would call you a Nazi too but Godwin's law is not an appropriate response to any conversation.

Click to expand...

Well, if I have misrepresented you position, that is YOUR fault. You have only discussed ONE way to support the government... and then used it to present an argument around how to distribute rights. So, if you didn't use a false premise to support your position, you used your own misrepresentation to support your position. Either way, your position has no logic behind it. It don't have to prove why your position is false since you have failed to prove why your position is logical. I have no intention of debating an illogical position. Deal with reality, hallam. If you argree that there are other ways to contribute to society than monetarily, demonstrate why those ways should be igmored. And remember... a proof is not equivilent to an opinion.

So, once you present a position that is NOT based on a logical fallacy, perhaps we will have something to discuss.

hallam said:

It seems this is true when the claim fascism as well.

Click to expand...

Nah... when conservatives start proposing fascist policies, it means that they are out of intelligent arguments.

cpwill said:

with respect, that's not the premise at all; the center of the argument is (to simplify it) that with power, comes responsibility. if you are going to be making decisions about what the government shall do with the rest of us (and indeed, given our position, much of the world); then the consequences (for good or ill) should fall on you as well. if you want to have an expansive welfare state, fine, but you should be required to help pay for it if you are going to force others to do so as well. creating incentives for Americans to use the vote as a means to get free stuff from others using the coercive power of the state is bad for stability, bad for our economy, bad for democracy, and simple bad governance. so let us realign the incentive structure that surrounds the vote to give everyone who exercises it "skin in the game" as far as producing good governance at the cheapest price is concerned.

Click to expand...

You are falling into the same pattern, cpwill. There are other ways to contribute to society other than monetarily.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Well, if I have misrepresented you position, that is YOUR fault. You have only discussed ONE way to support the government... and then used it to present an argument around how to distribute rights. So, if you didn't use a false premise to support your position, you used your own misrepresentation to support your position. Either way, your position has no logic behind it. It don't have to prove why your position is false since you have failed to prove why your position is logical. I have no intention of debating an illogical position. Deal with reality, hallam. If you argree that there are other ways to contribute to society than monetarily, demonstrate why those ways should be igmored. And remember... a proof is not equivilent to an opinion.

So, once you present a position that is NOT based on a logical fallacy, perhaps we will have something to discuss.

Click to expand...

I have been very clear there there may be other ways to support the government. That there are other ways to support the government does not limit us here when discussing this way to support the government. You think this conversation is limited, it isn't. You are wrong. We can dissect support and discuss them individually. Your confusion here is that we can't. The fact that you havent' even suggested other ways to support the government is telling. Your further confusion is that just because there are other ways to support the government makes this definition wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because there are other ways to support the government doesn't negate adding this definition.

Now you are relying on shifting the burden fallacy so that you don't actually have to present a counter argument. You have completely failed on all counts. You have further failed to understand what fascism is or means. So I am glad you have stopped debating me because your arguments are illogical, fallacious silliness that have no merit and doesn't stand up to review. Instead of you actually debating me, which you haven't by the way, you have have just called this fascist erroneously and produced excuse after excuse as to why current arbitrary limits on voting are okay but this limit on voting is not. You have stated citizenship equals the right to vote. Well guess what, it doesn't. We limit rights on voting all the time. This is just one more that say if you are taxed you get representation, if you are not, you don't get representation at the same level. No citizen has their rights stripped from them anyway as all citizens still get to vote.

The fact is you don't have a logical counter argument. You only have an emotional one.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are falling into the same pattern, cpwill. There are other ways to contribute to society other than monetarily.

Click to expand...

I agree. and there are more ways to take from society than merely using government services. but the issue is tax policy (and tax policy permeates almost every domestic political decisions which normally revolve around funding this versus that)

hallam said:

So for medicare look on page 449, you can see the complete table but it seems whites use these services over 10x as much. this why the way comes directly from reporting by the government. So this is proof right here for one entitement. To think the rest follow a different pattern takes a leap of faith.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/supplement09.pdf

Click to expand...

Sorry but I could find no page 449. But the page number itself leads me to conclude that this is a massive report the size of a telephone book. And this is what you could find? Perhaps you could do the most simple and direct thing and sicne you know where your evidence is simply reproduce it in your next post?

The leap of faith you mention would be the one you take in making the assumption that what applies to one applies to all. Which makes no difference in the end anyways as your ally Turtle has already concede the point.

Turtle has already publicly admitted in his post #220 that his scheme would disenfranchise Democrats far more than it would Republicans. i said all along that this was NOT about taxes but was a Machiavellian plan to install the Republican party in power for the foreseeable future. And Turtle confirmed that.

Case closed.

samsmart said:

But what the premise ignores is that everyone does have skin in the game. All people pay sales tax, for instance, and most people also pay property taxes. So the premise focuses on income tax but ignores other taxes, primarily consumption taxes, that the poor provide.

Click to expand...

1. the magic of witholding combined with tax 'returns' at the end of the year wipes out much of the natural connection between peoples' vote and their costs
2. sales tax = state taxes. i would love to see the national government move to a Fairtax-esque system, mind you, but what we are talking about here is federal policy
3. those who are least likely to be net tax payers (myself a year and more back, for example, i think this is the first year i will be a net taxpayer) are also those most likely to rent, and thus will be the demogaphic least likely to pay property taxes
4. property taxes = local taxes and state taxes. see point #2
5. the one you miss, but i'm not sure if it should be included, is the payroll tax, which is regressive and which all legal employees pay. now, nominally those are "contributions" to a particular program, but i think we all know that they are counted as part of the general revenue, and we might as well consider them as such.

Also, the premise ignores tax breaks, especially to businesses, and corporate welfare provided to government contracts, especially no-bid contracts.

Click to expand...

i would love to see simplification of the tax code to limit deductions to child, education, and health. as i recall; in my plan those who wished to vote had to give up all tax breaks and deductions.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are falling into the same pattern, cpwill. There are other ways to contribute to society other than monetarily.

Click to expand...

agreed. i think we all would say that most cops probably contribute more to society than would be reflected by their pay, and ditto for enlisted members of our military, firemen, charity organizers, and so forth.

but we aren't talking about 'contributing to society'; we are talking about "what shall our government do"; and the need there is to structure the decision-making so that those who will be determining that question are also those most likely to be seeking to make informed and responsible decisions. you are attempting (not on purpose, i think) a strawman diversion here.

haymarket said:

Sorry but I could find no page 449. But the page number itself leads me to conclude that this is a massive report the size of a telephone book. And this is what you could find? Perhaps you could do the most simple and direct thing and sicne you know where your evidence is simply reproduce it in your next post?

The leap of faith you mention would be the one you take in making the assumption that what applies to one applies to all. Which makes no difference in the end anyways as your ally Turtle has already concede the point.

Turtle has already publicly admitted in his post #220 that his scheme would disenfranchise Democrats far more than it would Republicans. i said all along that this was NOT about taxes but was a Machiavellian plan to install the Republican party in power for the foreseeable future. And Turtle confirmed that.

Case closed.

Click to expand...

only because dems are far more likely to be net tax consumers. the GOP caters to those who produce wealth, the dems cater to those who want it redistributed and those who pander to them.

taxing the rich more is a scheme that buys the dems votes-which is why its the dems who are pushing for more taxes on people who already pay most of the taxes. some uber rich dems support it too-for reasons dealing with gaining power.

haymarket said:

Sorry but I could find no page 449. But the page number itself leads me to conclude that this is a massive report the size of a telephone book. And this is what you could find? Perhaps you could do the most simple and direct thing and sicne you know where your evidence is simply reproduce it in your next post?

The leap of faith you mention would be the one you take in making the assumption that what applies to one applies to all. Which makes no difference in the end anyways as your ally Turtle has already concede the point.

Turtle has already publicly admitted in his post #220 that his scheme would disenfranchise Democrats far more than it would Republicans. i said all along that this was NOT about taxes but was a Machiavellian plan to install the Republican party in power for the foreseeable future. And Turtle confirmed that.

Case closed.

Click to expand...

You are not serious. In a 551 page document, you couldn't find page 449? Seriously?

TacticalEvilDan said:

Please read this entire post before voting in the poll. If you vote before reading the entire post, know that you are an idiot.

Turtledude thinks that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you are not a net taxpayer (in other words, someone who pays more in taxes than they get back when they file their returns). He doesn't think it's fair that those who are not net taxpayers are permitted to vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies, since they're not feeling the bite of paying the taxes that fund those goodies.

I completely disagree with his position, but this got me to thinking. What if someone were to propose the following compromise:





And now, the question I put to all of you!

If you were given the choice between voting FOR this compromise, or voting AGAINST this compromise, which would you choose?

This is a simple yes/no, with the obligatory nonsense option. You can explain your vote after you cast it, but this thread is not for the discussion of any option other than the compromise as described above.

Click to expand...

The compromise is needlessly complicated. While I could agree with the sentiment of Turtledude, I think that it is best to accept as consequence of our system that everyone gets 1 vote regardless of social/economic standing. It's just a lot easier that way, and we have to think of the functionality of that which we want to establish.

hallam said:

You are not serious. In a 551 page document, you couldn't find page 449? Seriously?

Click to expand...

just reproduce your evidence here and it will be examined... as if it mattered since it changes nothing.... Turtle has already conceded the main admission in this thread .... his scheme would impact Democrats the most and it is a blatant power grab aimed to destroy the democratic right of people to partake in their election of leaders by ruthlessly and arrogantly stacking the deck in favor of the Republican Party.

That admission means more than every other post made here by you and other supporters. It is what I told you and it has come to pass as truth.

the rest is pretty trivial.

haymarket said:

just reproduce your evidence here and it will be examined... as if it mattered .... Turtle has already conceded the main admission in this thread .... his scheme would impact Democrats the most and it is a blatant power grab aimed to destroy the democratic right of people to partake in their election of leaders by ruthlessly and arrogantly stacking the deck in favor of the Republican Party.

That admission means more than every other post made here by you and other supporters. It is what I told you and it has come to pass as truth.

the rest is pretty trivial.

Click to expand...

what I conceded is that those who suckle on the public teat the most are dem voters. YOu act as if its a big secret that I don't have much use for the policies of the dems when it comes to taxes and economic policies and I want to see them lose elections. I want Obama to be a one term president.

You conceded that those who are most likely to be net tax consumers are dem voters.

TurtleDude said:

what I conceded is that those who suckle on the public teat the most are dem voters. YOu act as if its a big secret that I don't have much use for the policies of the dems when it comes to taxes and economic policies and I want to see them lose elections. I want Obama to be a one term president.

You conceded that those who are most likely to be net tax consumers are dem voters.

Click to expand...

Since the entire concept of "net tax consumers" is pure BS of the worst odor invented by right wing extremists to further the plan to disenfranchise tens of millions of their opposition, it matters not to me what label you place upon it as it means nothing to me of the pejorative nature that it means to you.

All that matters is that you and the extreme right wing have concocted this absurd classification as a weapon to use against the right of the people to vote as citizens in a representative democracy.

You should be ashamed. But at least you have been exposed for all to see what your true motives are.

haymarket said:

Since the entire concept of "net tax consumers" is pure BS of the worst odor invented by right wing extremists to further the plan to disenfranchise tens of millions of their opposition, it matters not to me what label you place upon it as it means nothing to me of the pejorative nature that it means to you.

All that matters is that you and the extreme right wing have concocted this absurd classification as a weapon to use against the right of the people to vote as citizens in a representative democracy.

You should be ashamed. But at least you have been exposed for all to see what your true motives are.

Click to expand...

more drama queen nonsense. "extreme right wing" means anyone who doesn't buy into the "from each according to their ability crap"?

When you libs support a tax method that prevents the many from being bought with the wealth of the most taxed group then you won't ever hear me suggesting that those who don't pay shouldn't play. but right now you think its fine for say 51% of the country to vote for those who promise them the wealth of the other 49%.

TurtleDude said:

more drama queen nonsense. "extreme right wing" means anyone who doesn't buy into the "from each according to their ability crap"?

When you libs support a tax method that prevents the many from being bought with the wealth of the most taxed group then you won't ever hear me suggesting that those who don't pay shouldn't play. but right now you think its fine for say 51% of the country to vote for those who promise them the wealth of the other 49%.

Click to expand...

In this case "extreme right wing" refers to folks like you who invent crap categories in a blatant attempt to destroy the right to vote of millions of American citizens.

hallam said:

I have been very clear there there may be other ways to support the government.

Click to expand...

No you haven't. You have consistently dismissed that point.

That there are other ways to support the government does not limit us here when discussing this way to support the government. You think this conversation is limited, it isn't. You are wrong. We can dissect support and discuss them individually. Your confusion here is that we can't. The fact that you havent' even suggested other ways to support the government is telling. Your further confusion is that just because there are other ways to support the government makes this definition wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because there are other ways to support the government doesn't negate adding this definition.

Click to expand...

This conversation is only limited because of your presentation. I'm not the one presenting only one option. That's you. This is your logical fallacy of the false premise. And yes, since contrabution is not limited to only tax, your definition is incorrect. It is too narrow as we are discussing a broader issue. The definition is only part of the whole. It mirrors what you are doing in the debate. You are narrowing the definition because the other parts don't support your argument... you are trying to disenfranchise certain members of the population because they don't support your polices. You feign that it's about equity, but it's all about eliminating competition.

Now you are relying on shifting the burden fallacy so that you don't actually have to present a counter argument. You have completely failed on all counts. You have further failed to understand what fascism is or means. So I am glad you have stopped debating me because your arguments are illogical, fallacious silliness that have no merit and doesn't stand up to review. Instead of you actually debating me, which you haven't by the way, you have have just called this fascist erroneously and produced excuse after excuse as to why current arbitrary limits on voting are okay but this limit on voting is not. You have stated citizenship equals the right to vote. Well guess what, it doesn't. We limit rights on voting all the time. This is just one more that say if you are taxed you get representation, if you are not, you don't get representation at the same level. No citizen has their rights stripped from them anyway as all citizens still get to vote.

Click to expand...

You have failed to present any kind of logical argument at all. Thus far, everything you've presented has been based on a false premise. An illogical beginning means that anything that stems from it is invalid or at least is not proven because of it. The only other thing you've attempted, completely unsuccessfully btw, is to project the lack of logic and failures of your position onto me. What you fail to understand... along with the fact that your entire position is based on a false premise, is that when you limit voting on an arbitrary factor based on elitism, you head towards fascism. This is what you are proposing, and it is completely silly to pretent that no one's rights are being taken away. That's just dishonest.

The fact is you don't have a logical counter argument. You only have an emotional one.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The fact is that you don't have a logical argument to begin with. When you do, I'll be happy to debate it. Until that happens, I'll just keep pointing out how your position has no logic behind it.

haymarket said:

In this case "extreme right wing" refers to folks like you who invent crap categories in a blatant attempt to destroy the right to vote of millions of American citizens.

Click to expand...

why are you so against a flat tax or making everyone contriubte to the income tax revenue?

cpwill said:

agreed. i think we all would say that most cops probably contribute more to society than would be reflected by their pay, and ditto for enlisted members of our military, firemen, charity organizers, and so forth.

but we aren't talking about 'contributing to society'; we are talking about "what shall our government do"; and the need there is to structure the decision-making so that those who will be determining that question are also those most likely to be seeking to make informed and responsible decisions. you are attempting (not on purpose, i think) a strawman diversion here.

Click to expand...

And who do you believe are those who are most likely to make informed and responsible decisions?

People contribute to society in many different ways. I refuse to allow one narrow definition to decide what or what is not a contribution to America and its people.

TurtleDude said:

more drama queen nonsense. "extreme right wing" means anyone who doesn't buy into the "from each according to their ability crap"?

When you libs support a tax method that prevents the many from being bought with the wealth of the most taxed group then you won't ever hear me suggesting that those who don't pay shouldn't play. but right now you think its fine for say 51% of the country to vote for those who promise them the wealth of the other 49%.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that you are presenting an extreme position out of anger and lack of fairness?