Vote Kerry for laziness, tax hikes

[IllustriousPotentate]

John Kerry claims that, if elected President, he will curb job losses, provide inexpensive health care, etc. etc.

Why hasn't he been doing this already? Congress authors legislation, NOT THE PRESIDENT. If he is so concerned about these issues, why hasn't he authored a single piece of legislation to correct them?

If he was against the war in Iraq, why did he approve the the bill authorizing use of force? If he's for the war in Iraq, why did he vote against the financial backing of it? That's like putting firefighters into a burning building and cutting the water off.

The Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy in the sense that the wealthy got more out of them. But then, the wealthy also pay more taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of the taxes in this country. Any equal, across the board tax cut would subsequently result in the top 1% receiving 37% of the monies from the tax cut. And you don't roll back tax cuts or repeal them. You raise the taxes back to pre-cut levels. Yes, raise taxes. So if you vote Kerry to get the tax cuts "rolled back", you are essentially agreeing to pay to see other, more wealthier people pay as well. It's like paying a mugger $5 dollars to witness him mug $50 off someone else.

Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

[lunchbxpat]

raising taxes is not really a bad thing. this way, federal programs, like social security and medicare, get more money instead of fizzling out and not being available to my generation or my children's generation. also, who are you talking about when you say "those who don't pay taxes"? the poverty-stricken? farmers who don't make enough per year to pay taxes? they shouldn't have a voice in trying to improve the condition of life for themselves?

[BWS]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

Do you realize that a good percentage of citizens do not pay taxes because their deductions and exemptions exhaust their taxable income? No, probably not. That is a very superficial argument. Typical.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Why do we have to have social security and medicare? Get rid of them! Keep those that are already dependent or have put money into those programs on there, but why should I have to be told by the federal government that I have to put money into a government savings account or into a government medical plan when private investments and private medical plans are so much more efficient? Why shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?

And yes, any of those who don't pay taxes should not be able to vote.
If Person A pays $100,000 in taxes/yr. and Person B. pays none, it is almost criminal to think that Person B has just as much say so as Person A as to how that $100,000 is used! That's like a person that owns no stock or never purchases from say, Compusplice Inc. having an equal say as someone who owns stock and purchases regularly, over how Compusplice Inc. is run!

I don't care how or why they are poor. People are in the condition they are in because of the decisions they make or by decisions they passively allowed others to make for them.

[IllustriousPotentate]

And yes, I do realize that a lot of people don't pay taxes because of exemptions and tax credits. They, like the crack ho on welfare, pay no taxes, and should have no say over how tax income is used. But they can make a choice, take the tax credit or vote, it's up to them. People think that money that is listed under federal income tax on their paycheck stub is what they contribute. However, many get that money back in the spring of each year.

[lunchbxpat]

well, unfortunately, we can't all be rich and able to retire and live a life of luxury by the age of 40. that's how life works. not everyone can afford to pay for every single medical bill they recieve, especially if something serious happens to them. that's how life works. sure, ideally we don't need medicare or social security, because we're all rich and can cover every expense we come across. but that's a fuckin fantasy, so pull your head out of your ass and see that this world ain't perfect.

[BWS]

At 3/22/04 01:24 PM, BWS wrote: That is a very superficial argument. Typical.

*stands behind opinion*

Are you kidding, or are you being sarcastic...im seriously asking.

[IllustriousPotentate]

No, everybody can't because everybody doesn't make the right decisions. People paid for their health care and retirement before Medicaid and Social Security, they can do it now. Yes, you might have to work hard to do so. You may have to even work two jobs.

But it is your responibility to do so. Not the government, not society. If you decide that you want to be sedentary and not work, not get an education, what have you, it's your own damn fault if you die from lack of health care.

Our country did not get to be the wealthiest in the world by being a welfare state. You can not be a free individual and rely on the government or society to provide your basic needs. Doing so is socialism; communism.

So you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that as long as you live in a free, capitalistic society, there are going to be poor people and rich people, and any use of the government as a crutch for those who make bad decisions merely cures the symptom, not the disease and makes all of our liberties vulnerable.

[beaucoup-yeux]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: John Kerry claims that, if elected President, he will curb job losses, provide inexpensive health care, etc. etc.

Why hasn't he been doing this already? Congress authors legislation, NOT THE PRESIDENT. If he is so concerned about these issues, why hasn't he authored a single piece of legislation to correct them?

It's not that he hasn't, its that congress also has to PASS the legislation.

If he was against the war in Iraq, why did he approve the the bill authorizing use of force? If he's for the war in Iraq, why did he vote against the financial backing of it? That's like putting firefighters into a burning building and cutting the water off.

There were 2 bills for iraq funding. He voted for one that actually was purely funding, not one with all kinds of shit attatched to it.

The Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy in the sense that the wealthy got more out of them. But then, the wealthy also pay more taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of the taxes in this country. Any equal, across the board tax cut would subsequently result in the top 1% receiving 37% of the monies from the tax cut. And you don't roll back tax cuts or repeal them. You raise the taxes back to pre-cut levels. Yes, raise taxes. So if you vote Kerry to get the tax cuts "rolled back", you are essentially agreeing to pay to see other, more wealthier people pay as well. It's like paying a mugger $5 dollars to witness him mug $50 off someone else.

These tax cuts seem to be that top 1% mugging the bottom 99%

Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

Your metaphors make little sense. Still, they cintribute no money due to the taxes on thier paychecks that they never see.

A vot for kerry is a vote for laziness makes no sense. And the tax hikes may suck, but i would rather pay an extra $500 so that kids can go to school and get fed.

[Emperor-Constantine]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

Are you a fucking retard? The purpose of voting is to form an aggregate opinion as to whom should be elected. Following your theory, a great majority of citizens would be stripped of this right. Its in the silly document that we call a Bill of Rights. Instead, how about we just let black men who are 37 and single vote...and only if they drive domestic vehicles.

[lunchbxpat]

hey, i have an idea, and it's just as good as illustrious'. how about noone pays taxes at all, they just work to make enough money so that they can pay for their medical expenses and set up a retirement fund. after they get home from their two jobs, it is their place to educate their kids, and teach them how to live on their own. daycare and public schools are too much of a crutch for our uneducated 6 year olds. handicapped people should have to build their own ramps if they want to get somewhere. it's probably their own fault that they're handicapped anyway. any government job (president, mailman, etc.) will be volunteer work, since they shouldn't depend on the government to pay their salaries. government workers can't be dependent on government money, it's too expensive.

we should shoot the elderly, too, since americans waste too much time taking care of them when they should be working three jobs to support their families.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/22/04 01:57 PM, Allison80 wrote: Instead, how about we just let black men who are 37 and single vote...and only if they drive domestic vehicles.

Makes as much sense as what this crack-pot is advocating.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/22/04 01:56 PM, kada wrote: It's not that he hasn't, its that congress also has to PASS the legislation.

It doesn't matter if Congress passed the legislation. If he had authored a bill, it would show that he cares about the job cuts. But he has not authored a bill to be passed or to show that he cares about jobs.

There were 2 bills for iraq funding. He voted for one that actually was purely funding, not one with all kinds of shit attatched to it.

Wrong. There was only 1 funding bill, the $87 billion dollar bill. He voted against it. He even says so himself! He only voted for authorization !

These tax cuts seem to be that top 1% mugging the bottom 99%

How?!? How are the rich stealing from the poor when it is the poor already stealing from the rich? How can you feasibly possibly believe that someone retaining more of the money they earned is stealing from somebody that didn't earn a dime! At most, the top 1% are merely guitly of stealing back what was already theirs!

Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

Still, they cintribute no money due to the taxes on thier paychecks that they never see.

I was referring to those wage-earning individuals that think they pay taxes because on their paycheck stub it lists "federal income tax withheld: $XXX.XX", but do not actually pay tax because they recieve the whole of it back in a tax refund through credits and exemptions.

A vot for kerry is a vote for laziness makes no sense. And the tax hikes may suck, but i would rather pay an extra $500 so that kids can go to school and get fed.:

It makes plenty of sense. If he is too lazy to author legislation about jobs and the economy in Congress, how the hell is he gonna do it as President, which position doesn't even have the ability to author legislation?!?

Fine, if you wish to pay higher taxes to feed poor people, fine. You should have every right to do so. But people who do not pay taxes should not be able to. Given the ability, those who pay no taxes would funnel all of the tax money towards them. It's a vicious cycle when any group has the ability to vote money out of others' pockets and into their own!

Sure, it's morally right to support and help the downtrodden. But since when do we legislate and mandate morality??

Government is necessary to some extent. Taxes are necessary to some extent. But any government that steals what has been rightfully earned by some and give it to those that do not earn it is tyrannical.

Oh, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights is anyone guaranteed the right to vote.

And I have yet to hear a good reason why I should be forced to invest in social security and medicare when I could invest that money so much better in the private sector.

Oh, and lunchbxpat, where have I advocated doing away with public education? And yes, retirement plans and medical insurance and plans are affordable, especially if one does not have to pay into Social Security and Medicare. And I'm not against anyone earning a salary from the government. If you work for the government, you are entitled to a salary. A postman delivers letters for the government; he earns the money the government pays him. A welfare recepient does nothing for the government; he doesn't earn the money he receives, it is a handout. I am not against goverment paying wages. I am against government handing out money .

[Emperor-Constantine]

At 3/22/04 02:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Oh, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights is anyone guaranteed the right to vote.

It has crazy little tidbits that people call amendments. Here is an example of one:

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Oh, one more thing. Making up parodial, sarcastic scenarios and criticizing them is not criticizing my position. Criticize my opinion, not a sarcastic hyperbole you come up with.

[Emperor-Constantine]

At 3/22/04 02:50 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Oh, one more thing. Making up parodial, sarcastic scenarios and criticizing them is not criticizing my position. Criticize my opinion, not a sarcastic hyperbole you come up with.

Did you read the part where I said:

The purpose of voting is to form an aggregate opinion as to whom should be elected. Following your theory, a great majority of citizens would be stripped of this right.

Do you understand what implications your theory has?

Im a Republican, but I would never vote for such an ignorant piece of legislation.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Amendment XXVI is not in the Bill of Rights, dumbass.

You are referring to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a subsection of the Constitution, namely Amendments 1 thru 10.

Yes, the Constitution protects the right to vote. However, you did not state that the right to vote is protected in the Constitution. You said, and I quote:

At 3/22/04 01:57 PM, Allison80 wrote:
Its in the silly document that we call a Bill of Rights.:

If you had said the right to vote was in the Constitution, you would be right. If you had said the right to vote was in an amendment, you would be right. But you said it was in the Bill of Rights. However, nowhere in Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, is the right to vote even mentioned. Such ignorance of the basics of American civics does not give you a good impression in this debate.

[Emperor-Constantine]

At 3/22/04 03:02 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

If you had said the right to vote was in the Constitution, you would be right.

This is the Constitution.

Such ignorance of the basics of American civics does not give you a good impression in this debate.

First of all, its arbitrary. Your theory is still absurd. You probably know little to nothing about the US Tax Code. Your opinion is very superficial, and would result in a very bad outcome because many of the factions would become irrelivent variables.

Do you think that youve just somehow proved me wrong by saying what you have, and then implying that I know nothing because of it? You have a lot to learn. You are the type of person that makes Republicans look like uneducated retards.

[IllustriousPotentate]

While it is true that the voter rolls would be shortened significantly by my suggestion, it would nowhere be the significant majority.

And I realize the implications. However, its a small price to pay to live in a free country rather than a socialist one.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Of course, the right to vote is in The Constitution. I know what is in the Constitution. But the terms "Bill of Rights" and "Constitution" are not the same term. The Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution. The right to vote is in the subset of the Constitution that is not the Bill of Rights, there for your statement is incorrect. While your misstatement does not make your whole argument invalid, it does lessen your credibility, a somewhat useful tactic in a debate. However, your attempt at lessening my credibility is not as effective, because you cannot point to an inaccurate statement on my part.

And my theory may be radical, it might even be absurd, but many people thought Galileo and the Wright Bros. absurd.

And where did you get that I was a Republican? You don't have to be a Republican to be against Kerry. I'm Libertarian.

[BWS]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

People are grouped catagorically and thus define what is reffered to as factions. These competing views and opinions are ultimately good for our country because the aggregate opinion results in a vote one way or another. By disengaging the right to vote, from people who pay taxes, you deconstruct this model. Without competing views and opinions, the government serves a defined group rather than the majority average. This in turn makes the government unstable, and would likely result in an eventual coup de'tat...or an attempt, which obviously isnt good.

Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used.

You assume that they do not contribute to the economy, but they in fact do. Its foolish to assume that people who do not pay taxes should therefore have no say as to what the government does. There are many reasons that people do not pay taxes, and low income isnt always why. Also, many people qualify for enough deductions and exemptions to wipe out their taxable income. That does not imply that they do not work, or that they are not an asset to the economy. Your opinion is very short sighted in this sense.

Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

That is a bad analogy. People contribute to the economy by doing more than simply paying taxes. Your idea would cause much more negative outcomes than you probably expect. The negative externalities of this model would affect the economy in more ways than one, and would have an astounding differential with respect to costs and benefits.

Overall, this would be a terrible idea.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: John Kerry claims that, if elected President, he will curb job losses, provide inexpensive health care, etc. etc.

Why hasn't he been doing this already? Congress authors legislation, NOT THE PRESIDENT. If he is so concerned about these issues, why hasn't he authored a single piece of legislation to correct them?

You mentioned job losses and inexpensive health care. Now, I don't mind some Kerry bashing - I don't really like the guy either, but stop talking out of your ass for a second here. He has authored legislation to correst problems such as these.

Bill S. 2795, authored exclusively by John Kerry
Bill co-authored by John Kerry to address nation's nursing shortage
Mentions a bill sponsored by John Kerry to insure more children
John Kerry leading efforts to include healthcare provisions in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill
Bill introduced by Kerry which would streamline and reform medicare system

John Kerry sponsoring a bill that would try to limit companies from outsourcing
s-1454 Kerry cosponsored this bill which would provide assistance to people who have lost jobs as a result of terrorist actions
John Kerry sponsoring a bill which eventually passed, and encourages small business growth

I could go on for hours, but I have to go to class. Next time, before you spout off bullshit, do a google for it. Here's a hint of terms to search for:
"John Kerry" bill education jobs .gov

[TheWakingDeath]

At 3/22/04 02:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

It doesn't matter if Congress passed the legislation. If he had authored a bill, it would show that he cares about the job cuts. But he has not authored a bill to be passed or to show that he cares about jobs.

ok, so who HAS authored a bill that shows he cares about the recent job cuts.
what would this bill say, and what would it take to show you, satisfactorily, that he cares about job cuts

Wrong. There was only 1 funding bill, the $87 billion dollar bill. He voted against it. He even says so himself! He only voted for authorization !

well, what the fuck is wrong with that. Do you think with the deficit at the time that we could afford to plug $87 into such a war? That’s part of the reason why there are so many poor is bush’s mishandling of the economy

How?!? How are the rich stealing from the poor when it is the poor already stealing from the rich? How can you feasibly possibly believe that someone retaining more of the money they earned is stealing from somebody that didn't earn a dime! At most, the top 1% are merely guitly of stealing back what was already theirs!

the rich don't steal from the poor. they downsize employees when they can't support enough workers while maintaining the same bloated six-figure+ yearly salaries. The top 1% make their money by stepping on the heads of others, over charging on their products, and putting a choke hold on the job market by destroying competition and then "downsizing"

Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

I was referring to those wage-earning individuals that think they pay taxes because on their paycheck stub it lists "federal income tax withheld: $XXX.XX", but do not actually pay tax because they recieve the whole of it back in a tax refund through credits and exemptions.

well, 1st off, they don't get ALL those taxes back.
secondly, if you really think the majority of the population should be removed from the voting pool just because they can't afford to pay as much in taxes, then i will echo what has already been said here, "get your head out of your ass." you're stuck in this mantra of "if you're poor you're directly responsible and no economic misfortunes or medical calamities had any contribution to your state." this is the most delusional thing i have ever heard a conservative utter, and they says it, oh, all the time. it's just unrealistic to assume all poor people are lazy and got themselves to being poor by their own laziness. the only conclusion i can come to is that you've never experienced a misfortune in which the outcome was completely beyond your control and you ended up being really screwed, and nobody gave you the slightest bit of sympathy

It makes plenty of sense. If he is too lazy to author legislation about jobs and the economy in Congress, how the hell is he gonna do it as President, which position doesn't even have the ability to author legislation?!?

Of course, it’s not enough for you that he SPONSORED several bills in congress that helped jobs and the econmy. Or that in the state of Massachusetts he helped raise minimum wage and proposed tax cuts to small businesses. The truth is there hasn’t been a whole hell of a lot of legislation on the is issue in the past few years. We’ve been focusing on sodomy laws, and the war and terror and tax cuts for billionaires, etc.

Fine, if you wish to pay higher taxes to feed poor people, fine. You should have every right to do so. But people who do not pay taxes should not be able to. Given the ability, those who pay no taxes would funnel all of the tax money towards them. It's a vicious cycle when any group has the ability to vote money out of others' pockets and into their own!

No, given the choice, a lot of people would funnel the money into helping others. I know I would, and I’m not on welfare, I don’t use medicare, etc. in fact very little of the tax system is spent on me, or, indeed, on a lot of the people on this board who are calling you a complete idiot.

[awkward-silence]

At 3/22/04 03:10 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

And I realize the implications. However, its a small price to pay to live in a free country rather than a socialist one.

What's wrong with socialism? What is wrong with a system that allows everyone the right to live, and promotes brotherhood? Medicaid and Social Securty are socialist programs set up to help garauntee everyone the right to life.
It isn't that people make the wrong choices in life that makes them poor, especially after retirement. In a society such as ours (where 20% of the population has 50% of the wealth.[Source the last publicly released Gini coefficient]), the bottom rung of society are unboubtedly oppressed. Read Marx sometime, or 1984, Brave New World, The Jungle, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Aaron Burr. It isn't hard to see.

[Zalbun]

At 3/22/04 01:34 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Why do we have to have social security and medicare?

Because of the Great Depression Dipshit

Get rid of them! Keep those that are already dependent or have put money into those programs on there, but why should I have to be told by the federal government that I have to put money into a government savings account or into a government medical plan when private investments and private medical plans are so much more efficient?

It's not like you cant have any private plans as well.

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?

You do

And yes, any of those who don't pay taxes should not be able to vote.

EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PAYS TAXES!!! EVEN THE UNEMPLYED STILL PAY TAXES ON SALES! EVEN IF SOMEONE ELSE BUYS FOOD FOR THEM THEY ARE ESSENTIALL GiVING THEM MONEY TO PAY THOSE TAXES.

If Person A pays $100,000 in taxes/yr. and Person B. pays none, it is almost criminal

Criminal? Wtf? Not only is there a niftly little thing called Freedom of speach, but im pretty sure there is no law limiting freedom of THOUGHT

to think that Person B has just as much say so as Person A as to how that $100,000 is used!

Not when Person A wants to spend that money to go wage a war for Haliburton and Person B wants to help people

That's like a person that owns no stock or never purchases from say, Compusplice Inc. having an equal say as someone who owns stock and purchases regularly, over how Compusplice Inc. is run!

No it is not. Democracy is a government for the people. Private Corporations are corporations for the CEO's

I don't care how or why they are poor. People are in the condition they are in because of the decisions they make or by decisions they passively allowed others to make for them.

a) Ah yes because some refugee from the Sudan has to escape to the US facing certain death in their homeland, It is their fault they need money right?

B) That is like say it is the innocent bystanders fault they were shot because when the assasin shot to the lef tof the target, the bystander should have moved or had someone move them.

Some situations you just cant get out of.

Again see: The Great Depression.

This is definitely a stretch but is essentaily Kerry's New Deal to Bush's Hebert Hoover "Chicken in every pot" plan.

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/22/04 01:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

So you support a dictatorship of the poor by the rich? This is fine.

I thinkk people who dont watch the news, or read a newspaper or at least go to a news WEBSITE once a day shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[CountPoopoo]

If you're so pissed about person B getting as much voice then stop paying you're taxes and shut up.
What you are asking for is a violation of one of our deepest american beliefs. All men are born equal (and women as a matter of fact).

You said that kerry changed his mind about Iraq? He did, he had his reasons. He didn't know it was going to go as it goes now.

And what about bush, he changed his mind about a billion times:
# Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
# Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
# Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
# Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
# Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
# Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
# Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
# Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
# Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
# Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
# Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
# Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
# Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
# Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
# Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
# Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
# Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
# Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

[RedSkunk]

I think libertarians shouldn't be allowed to vote, judging from this one.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

At 3/22/04 02:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

How?!? How are the rich stealing from the poor when it is the poor already stealing from the rich? How can you feasibly possibly believe that someone retaining more of the money they earned is stealing from somebody that didn't earn a dime! At most, the top 1% are merely guitly of stealing back what was already theirs!

I agree with you totally, not only is it morally right to return the money to those people who are most productive, it's good for the economy.

Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.

I disagree, it's dangerous to start making arbitrary restrictions on who can and cannot vote. The key is to make sure that certain things cannot be changed, even if the majority of the population would like them changed. Something like a constitution.

Fine, if you wish to pay higher taxes to feed poor people, fine. You should have every right to do so. But people who do not pay taxes should not be able to. Given the ability, those who pay no taxes would funnel all of the tax money towards them. It's a vicious cycle when any group has the ability to vote money out of others' pockets and into their own!

I think that the constitution needs to be edited to make this kind of behavior impossible.

Sure, it's morally right to support and help the downtrodden. But since when do we legislate and mandate morality??

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. You need to spend some time thinking about this. By saying that it is morally right to support and help the downtrodden, you highlight the main flaw in the libertarian party, most libertarians have no idea WHY their policies are correct. It seems that you have accepted a moral code that is incompatible with your political beliefs. I'd read "Atlas Shrugged" if I was you.

Government is necessary to some extent. Taxes are necessary to some extent. But any government that steals what has been rightfully earned by some and give it to those that do not earn it is tyrannical.

Totally correct.

Oh, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights is anyone guaranteed the right to vote.

I guess you're right on that one.

And I have yet to hear a good reason why I should be forced to invest in social security and medicare when I could invest that money so much better in the private sector.

Because you have a duty to help everyone, regardless of what it might mean to you. Self destruction is the only moral code.

[lunchbxpat]

At 3/22/04 02:50 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Oh, one more thing. Making up parodial, sarcastic scenarios and criticizing them is not criticizing my position. Criticize my opinion, not a sarcastic hyperbole you come up with.

it's a way of criticizing your opinion. parody is always a criticism. and making up comparitive scenarios is obviously not against the rules, since you started the thread off with something about a 3 year old with a credit card.

anyway, what your saying is that farmers, religious workers, and stay-at-home moms' shouldn't be able to vote. not letting farmers vote is a horrible idea, being that they control most of the food that we eat. what, should we be picking and killing our own foods, hunter-gatherer style? i guess we're to dependent on food...

why shouldn't a stay-at-home mother be able to vote for a representative that's going to improve education and school conditions? their not poor, their significant others make plenty of money if they can afford to stay home, but they don't pay taxes.

what you're doing is taking american rights away from american citizens. you're afraid of socialism; well, i'm afraid of losing freedom. when you take away the voices of americans, you take away the liberty that america stands for. and not everyone votes for financial reasons. there are other issues involved in an election.