Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:47 am

First topic message reminder :

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

When Socrates and his friends were talking of voters, they were talking of land owners. In today’s terms, that means, ---- taxpayer. The core of democracy.

There are two types of citizens. The taxpayer and the taxtaker.

Once the taxpayer hands over his wealth, he loses control of where it is spent.

This is counter to the taxpayer’s wishes.

Why do taxpayers allow this situation and defer their right to spend their wealth to others?

If taxtakers had done a good job with that wealth, I do not think any would complain. That is not the case.

Should those who pay the way of our society be the ones who decide where our wealth is spent?

Since the right to do so is tied to our vote, should only taxpayers be allowed to vote on spending issues?

Regards
DL

by skwalker1964 Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Hogwash.

The issue is voting and not what we will do when manufacturing puts us out of work.

I do not care what happens in 100 years in this O P.

The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
No free rides IOW.

You argue like an idiot. No taxation without representation meant they were paying and not getting a say. That doesn't mean you can only get a say if you pay. The two propositions are entirely separate.

If you just keep repeating the same nonsense I'll have to ask to have the thread locked.

by skwalker1964 Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:37 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
And will not have a say if we do not pay.
Governments cannot exist if not paid for.

Regards
DL

Nobody has argued that government should be free of charge. You seem incapable of following a logical thread.

If I pay for my family to dine out with me and I pay, the meal gets paid for, but they still get a say in what they eat.

by **astradt1** Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:02 pm

Lets put this issue in to some perspective...For only tax payers to be allowed to vote means that everyone's tax details will have to be made accessible to the public....so that they could make challenges...

The HMRC will not even allow the benefits agencies know who pays what when it come to eligibility for Child Benefits.......

Now can any right minded individual see the rich and famous agreeing to that?

Why it would mean that some of the rich would have to start paying tax!!!

It isn't going to happen no matter how much some think it a good idea......

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:07 pm

There are two things which are absolutely certain. Death, and Taxes.

by Shirina Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:57 pm

No free rides IOW.

Fortunately, our society has deemed it to be immoral to tax those who are barely able to keep themselves from homelessness and starvation. Fortunately our society has decided that those who benefit the most from our civilization pays the most in taxes, those that benefit the least pay less or none at all.

You seem to think I would dismantle the safety net and nowhere do I indicate such foolishness.

You, personally, may not. However, that doesn't mean it still wouldn't happen. I know from first-hand experience how difficult it is to get ANY kind of government assistance in America. In fact, it is so difficult that, even though I spend about 75% of my time in severe pain (enough to make me non-functional) and even though I have several doctors verifying this fact, I have been denied SSI (supplemental income), disability benefits, Medicaid (government health care), and food stamps (I can only get food stamps for 3 months before I am required to enter into a work program.) I am well educated enough that finding a job would not be a problem for me (only 9% of the US population has my level of education) which means I wouldn't even NEED these programs if I could work at all. It takes years - literally half a decade - to fight for disability benefits. And when I say fight, I mean it. You are forced to hire a lawyer in order to receive disability, and YOU have to pay the lawyer fees. Meanwhile, if you can't work due to disability, YOU have to figure out how to survive for 4-5 years with NO income WHILE paying a lawyer. Yeah ... and that's WITH voting rights.

And then there's crap like this:

GOP plan cuts social programs to protect Pentagon

Moving to protect the Pentagon, Republicans controlling the House are pressing cuts to food stamps, health care and pensions for federal workers as an alternative to an automatic 10 percent cut to the military come January.

The automatic spending cuts, totaling $98 billion next year in a new estimate, are punishment for the failure of last year's deficit-reduction "supercommittee" to strike a deal. Lawmakers in both parties want to avoid the automatic cuts, but Democrats are strongly opposed to the GOP approach, which slices more than $300 billion from domestic programs over the coming decade while preventing the Pentagon from absorbing a $55 billion blow to its budget next year.

The measure contains cuts supplied by six different House committees and includes changes to the food stamp program that would remove almost 2 million recipients through tighter enforcement of eligibility rules and would cut back a 2009 benefit increase, costing a family of four $57 a month.

Fully 25 percent of the cuts come from programs that benefit the poor, while cuts to President Barack Obama's health care plan affect those with modest incomes.

LINK

This is PRECISELY why even those who pay no income tax need the right to vote. Otherwise, people like myself who are physically incapable of working would find their benefits siphoned away year after year by Republicans who would rather spend tax payer money on more bombs, weapons, and hardware to a) keep the military industrial complex happy and b) to keep up a tradition of non-stop warfare around the globe. Without the poor vote, Republicans and the extreme right would have a very good chance of winning election after election. In THIS country, at least, such a monopoly on power would mean an eventual shift toward a theocracy bolstered by corporate fascism and a policy of Social Darwinism.

For your reading pleasure:

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

One of the 14 points of fascism. America flirts dangerously with the other 13 points, as well, and the ONLY thing that keeps this nation from sliding into a fascistic state ruled by a monied aristocracy/theocracy is the "one man, one vote" system that EVERYONE can participate in.

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:32 pm

skwalker1964 wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Hogwash.

The issue is voting and not what we will do when manufacturing puts us out of work.

I do not care what happens in 100 years in this O P.

The U S went to war for no taxation without representation.
That means no representation unless it is paid for.
No free rides IOW.

You argue like an idiot. No taxation without representation meant they were paying and not getting a say. That doesn't mean you can only get a say if you pay. The two propositions are entirely separate.

If you just keep repeating the same nonsense I'll have to ask to have the thread locked.

It is you who is producing nonsense. Your threat might sway a child but not an adult. Grow up. Not surprising that your immature mind would tend to use threats instead of arguments.

Take your foolish logic to infinity. The best way to test all concepts.

If no one paid for the government, would it exist? No it would not.

No representation without taxation.

If we ever have more taxtakers than taxpayers then the government would fail.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:35 pm

skwalker1964 wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
And will not have a say if we do not pay.
Governments cannot exist if not paid for.

Regards
DL

Nobody has argued that government should be free of charge. You seem incapable of following a logical thread.

If I pay for my family to dine out with me and I pay, the meal gets paid for, but they still get a say in what they eat.

Exactly. You as the payer chooses.

Not the guy at the table next to you whose meal you also have to pay for.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:39 pm

astradt1 wrote:Lets put this issue in to some perspective...For only tax payers to be allowed to vote means that everyone's tax details will have to be made accessible to the public....so that they could make challenges...

The HMRC will not even allow the benefits agencies know who pays what when it come to eligibility for Child Benefits.......

Now can any right minded individual see the rich and famous agreeing to that?

Why it would mean that some of the rich would have to start paying tax!!!

It isn't going to happen no matter how much some think it a good idea......

That good idea would come to pass if the rich were stopped from bribing the poor to vote for them and the actual taxpayers, in the middle of our demographic pyramid, did not have their vote nullified by the taxtakers.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:44 pm

Shirina wrote:
No free rides IOW.
Fortunately, our society has deemed it to be immoral to tax those who are barely able to keep themselves from homelessness and starvation. Fortunately our society has decided that those who benefit the most from our civilization pays the most in taxes, those that benefit the least pay less or none at all.

Where have you been?

What are VAT's if not a way to have those of less income, even the poorest of us, to pay more as a % of income than the rich?

Those regressive taxes must go and in our present system, the rich will not let that happen.
They like getting richer while the rest get poorer.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:33 pm

".... the rich will not let that happen.
They like getting richer while the rest get poorer."

Here endeth the Statement of the Bloody Obvious.

by tlttf Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:33 pm

Surely you've already got your wish GIM, guaranteed that the majority of the 30% that can be bothered to go and vote will be the working man/woman and the non-worker simply stays in bed?

by skwalker1964 Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Take your foolish logic to infinity. The best way to test all concepts.

If no one paid for the government, would it exist? No it would not.

Classic 'straw man' argument. No one has said that no one should pay for government.

No representation without taxation.

This has already been variously debunked. Repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

If we ever have more taxtakers than taxpayers then the government would fail.
Regards
DL

Nonsense. It's about the amount of tax paid, not the number of people paying it - and even then, there are other revenue streams for government. Tax isn't everything.

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:19 pm

This kind of discussion might profitably begin with a look at the Organisation which calls itself "The Taxpayers Alliance".

Great stuff! That's us, right? We're all Taxpayers, aren't we?

Err, no, you'll find it difficult to join, because the Taxpayers Alliance is financed by big business to provide a lobbying group designed to influence Parliamentarians against making decisions to the detriment of said big business.

Whoever might suffer as a consequence.

by Greatest I am Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:46 pm

tlttf wrote:Surely you've already got your wish GIM, guaranteed that the majority of the 30% that can be bothered to go and vote will be the working man/woman and the non-worker simply stays in bed?

And allow the better qualified to vote. That I like.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:53 pm

Where we live, a Polling Station is open from 07.00 until 22.00 which surely suggests that anyone but a Vampire could somehow find a window of opportunity.

by Guest Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:15 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
And allow the better qualified to vote. That I like.

There are no “better qualified to vote.” There is no superlative; in a representative democracy, a republic, which we claim and are and which y’all are despite y’all’s claim, We the People are qualified to vote.

And as for that “allow” remark, bring that garbage over here, presume to allow me to vote, and after the fur settles, tell me how that works out for you. I doubt that you’ll be saying, “That I like.”

Power to the People.

“This Is My Country”, Curtis Mayfield
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/z_esbRoOeR0

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:43 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
And allow the better qualified to vote. That I like.

There are no “better qualified to vote.” There is no superlative; in a representative democracy, a republic, which we claim and are and which y’all are despite y’all’s claim, We the People are qualified to vote.

And as for that “allow” remark, bring that garbage over here, presume to allow me to vote, and after the fur settles, tell me how that works out for you. I doubt that you’ll be saying, “That I like.”

Power to the People.

“This Is My Country”, Curtis Mayfield
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/z_esbRoOeR0

If not for the taxpayer paying for the systems then you would not have anything to vote for.

If you don't care that your vote is negated by someone who just wants more dole then enjoy your vote.

No representation without taxation should be your battle cry to weed out the taxtakers and make your vote mean something.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:52 pm

If you don't care that your vote is negated by someone who just wants more dole then enjoy your vote.

And where does THAT end? When does Pandora's Box get closed? Because, even as a taxpayer, I can get angry if my vote is negated by those who would rather see our tax dollars spent on more bombs and bullets instead of roads and schools. We ALL run the risk of having our votes negated regardless of whether we pay taxes or not, no matter what our own personal agendas are.

I really don't know why you're surgically picking on the subject of welfare when there are a million other voting issues out there that can end up negated due to an opposing majority. Do you have something against the poor, sick, disabled, and elderly that you have this burning desire to make them powerless? Are you a rabid right-winger in disguise? One has to wonder ya know ...

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:42 pm

A lot of votes are also negated by Geography. If an elector in England lives in pleasant rural surroundings or the leafy suburbs, he or she may prefer a Socialist candidate but will never see one sent to Parliament because the locality supports entrenched Establishment.

Conversely, the Centre Right finds it difficult to maintain a presence in the gritty industrial towns of the North.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:12 pm

Shirina wrote:
If you don't care that your vote is negated by someone who just wants more dole then enjoy your vote.
And where does THAT end? When does Pandora's Box get closed? Because, even as a taxpayer, I can get angry if my vote is negated by those who would rather see our tax dollars spent on more bombs and bullets instead of roads and schools. We ALL run the risk of having our votes negated regardless of whether we pay taxes or not, no matter what our own personal agendas are.

I really don't know why you're surgically picking on the subject of welfare when there are a million other voting issues out there that can end up negated due to an opposing majority. Do you have something against the poor, sick, disabled, and elderly that you have this burning desire to make them powerless? Are you a rabid right-winger in disguise? One has to wonder ya know ...

I do not pick on anyone in particular except for taxtakers as compared to taxpayers.

No taxation = no representation.

Taxtakers do not support the system and should not have the same rights as those who actually pay for it.
Those who provide the wealth should decide where that wealth goes.

We are doing well as shown in this stats clip but we could do better.

video cut

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:14 pm

oftenwrong wrote:A lot of votes are also negated by Geography. If an elector in England lives in pleasant rural surroundings or the leafy suburbs, he or she may prefer a Socialist candidate but will never see one sent to Parliament because the locality supports entrenched Establishment.

Conversely, the Centre Right finds it difficult to maintain a presence in the gritty industrial towns of the North.

Seems that all the right wings, be they political or religious are dying.

I do not mind.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:26 pm

Right Wing dying. Possibly. But taking an unconscionable time in doing so.

by Guest Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:43 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
And as for that “allow” remark, bring that garbage over here, presume to allow me to vote, and after the fur settles, tell me how that works out for you. I doubt that you’ll be saying, “That I like.”

Power to the People.

Greatest I am wrote:
No representation without taxation should be your battle cry to weed out the taxtakers and make your vote mean something.

I’ve several battle cries.

Power to the People - John Lennon
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/_IeD7gpvgpY

All Power To The People - Bobby Seale
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ZSASsmWsQ5w

The Ballot or the Bullet - Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CRNciryImqg

I’ve also a message for you: “You touch my vote, my hands touch you.”

Power to the People.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:13 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Right Wing dying. Possibly. But taking an unconscionable time in doing so.

The tenacity of poor ideas.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:13 pm

Don't Mess. Awesome.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:14 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
And as for that “allow” remark, bring that garbage over here, presume to allow me to vote, and after the fur settles, tell me how that works out for you. I doubt that you’ll be saying, “That I like.”

Power to the People.
Greatest I am wrote:
No representation without taxation should be your battle cry to weed out the taxtakers and make your vote mean something.

I’ve several battle cries.

Power to the People - John Lennon
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/_IeD7gpvgpY

All Power To The People - Bobby Seale
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ZSASsmWsQ5w

The Ballot or the Bullet - Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CRNciryImqg

I’ve also a message for you: “You touch my vote, my hands touch you.”

Power to the People.

People pay for services. They do not expect a free lunch.

Regards
DL

by Shirina Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:36 pm

Taxtakers do not support the system and should not have the same rights as those who actually pay for it.

Oh really? And what other rights should be taken away? Perhaps the right to a trial ought to go, as well, because the poor and disabled aren't paying taxes to support the court system. Oh, and bye-bye police protection as well as fire service. Don't forget, too - seeya public education. Now you get to be poor, disabled AND ignorant. Note I used Pandora's Box as a metaphor because the very MOMENT you give the wealthy that kind of political power is the MOMENT rights begin disappearing like snow under the sun.

By the way, you really ought to busy yourself inventing a time machine. That way you can travel back to a more primitive time when the aristocracy and the nobility ruled you completely. Hey, they have all the wealth, right? So they SHOULD make the rules - like, for instance, prima nocta. Now, now, don't protest as a fat lord carries your new wife away. The lord has the wealth, remember? So he makes the rules.

by Jsmythe Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:58 pm

To add, 'All' should vote............'For less taxes!'

by skwalker1964 Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:19 am

Jsmythe wrote:To add, 'All' should vote............'For less taxes!'

That would suit the wealthy very nicely.

by Shirina Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:27 am

I sometimes think many people don't even know what taxes do and what they are used for.

by Jsmythe Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:41 am

You'll have to forgive my little desperate humour .
Apologies.

My view and I'm sure yours too (plural),;is that Taxes and these current drastic Cuts do Not equate to a reasonable system at all. Plain to see how illogical this is when we know so well that the small businesses being affected ,employ more people than any other section in society. More jobs pay more taxes by the just the sheer number.

To the OP question; Everyone should vote,imo because many have either been forced to redundancy,or lost their jobs by cutbacks. Quite a few can not go back to work,simply because their wages would not meet their basic living requirements as being on benefits. It is a tough one but there are simple answers and better ways.

by Guest Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:18 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
I’ve several battle cries.

Power to the People - John Lennon
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/_IeD7gpvgpY

All Power To The People - Bobby Seale
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ZSASsmWsQ5w

The Ballot or the Bullet - Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CRNciryImqg

I’ve also a message for you: “You touch my vote, my hands touch you.”

Power to the People.

Greatest I am wrote:
People pay for services. They do not expect a free lunch.

I posted Friday, 1 March 2013 at 21:43, you posted Friday, 1 March 2013 at 22:14, thirty-one minutes later.

John Lennon’s “Power to the People” is three minutes twenty-seven seconds in length, Bobby Seale’s brief lecture from “All Power to the People” is two minutes forty-six seconds in length, and Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” is fifty-three minutes thirty-seven seconds in length, a composite total length of fifty-nine minutes fifty seconds.

Get back to me after you’ve listened to and digested my battle cries.

by skwalker1964 Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:11 am

Jsmythe wrote:You'll have to forgive my little desperate humour .
Apologies.

My view and I'm sure yours too (plural),;is that Taxes and these current drastic Cuts do Not equate to a reasonable system at all. Plain to see how illogical this is when we know so well that the small businesses being affected ,employ more people than any other section in society. More jobs pay more taxes by the just the sheer number.

To the OP question; Everyone should vote,imo because many have either been forced to redundancy,or lost their jobs by cutbacks. Quite a few can not go back to work,simply because their wages would not meet their basic living requirements as being on benefits. It is a tough one but there are simple answers and better ways.

Subtle humour is often lost on the internet Smile

Plus the author of this thread says many things that ought to be jokes but aren't, so the barometer is a little 'off'! lol

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:30 am

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

I'm surprised, and also a little sad that nowhere in this thread has anyone remarked upon the great number of Electors who disenfranchise themselves, by choosing not to bother.

Governments can be "elected" with 40% of the votes cast. How is that a true Representation of The People?

Perhaps a tax rebate - or a free line on The Lottery - for exercising your Right to vote might provoke some response.

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:07 pm

Shirina wrote:
Taxtakers do not support the system and should not have the same rights as those who actually pay for it.
Oh really? And what other rights should be taken away? Perhaps the right to a trial ought to go, as well, because the poor and disabled aren't paying taxes to support the court system. Oh, and bye-bye police protection as well as fire service. Don't forget, too - seeya public education. Now you get to be poor, disabled AND ignorant. Note I used Pandora's Box as a metaphor because the very MOMENT you give the wealthy that kind of political power is the MOMENT rights begin disappearing like snow under the sun.

By the way, you really ought to busy yourself inventing a time machine. That way you can travel back to a more primitive time when the aristocracy and the nobility ruled you completely. Hey, they have all the wealth, right? So they SHOULD make the rules - like, for instance, prima nocta. Now, now, don't protest as a fat lord carries your new wife away. The lord has the wealth, remember? So he makes the rules.

Spoken like someone who is deluded into thinking our oligarchies are democracies.

I do not need a time machine. The aristocracy and nobility are still and have always ruled.

You ignore the right for those with the money to decide where it goes when their vote is negated by those who have made the dole their life's work.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:10 pm

Jsmythe wrote:To add, 'All' should vote............'For less taxes!'

I have no problem with fair taxation. VAT's and other user taxes are harder on the poor than the rich and those should be scrapped.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:15 pm

Jsmythe wrote:You'll have to forgive my little desperate humour .
Apologies.

My view and I'm sure yours too (plural),;is that Taxes and these current drastic Cuts do Not equate to a reasonable system at all. Plain to see how illogical this is when we know so well that the small businesses being affected ,employ more people than any other section in society. More jobs pay more taxes by the just the sheer number.

To the OP question; Everyone should vote,imo because many have either been forced to redundancy,or lost their jobs by cutbacks. Quite a few can not go back to work,simply because their wages would not meet their basic living requirements as being on benefits. It is a tough one but there are simple answers and better ways.

This speaks to minimum wages and economists cannot agree as to if raising the minimum is healthy or not for the society.

I think raising it would be good as it should not be possible for the governments idea of a minimum income should not exceed those of industry as that encourages some to stay on the dole instead of getting back in the work force.

Getting back to work should give a raise in pay, not a loss.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:20 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

I'm surprised, and also a little sad that nowhere in this thread has anyone remarked upon the great number of Electors who disenfranchise themselves, by choosing not to bother.

Governments can be "elected" with 40% of the votes cast. How is that a true Representation of The People?

Perhaps a tax rebate - or a free line on The Lottery - for exercising your Right to vote might provoke some response.

I agree that encouragement and incentives to participate in the vote should be available.
I also tie the vote to those who actually pay for governments and not those who just feed on it.

No taxation = no representation through the vote.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:56 pm

QUOTE: "I agree that encouragement and incentives to participate in the vote should be available. I also tie the vote to those who actually pay for governments and not those who just feed on it.

No taxation = no representation through the vote."

Even if that disenfranchises valuable members of the Community who work abroad, and may not therefore be liable to pay UK tax?

by Shirina Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:06 pm

Spoken like someone who is deluded into thinking our oligarchies are democracies.

Apparently you rarely read any of my posts. Yet here's the issue: YOU want to just go ahead and pull out ALL of the stops. It's essentially saying, "Hey, our democracies aren't perfect, so screw it. Let's abolish democracy altogether and submit what little power we have to those with the money. Kneel!" I mean, for crying out loud, Americans, at least, live in a representative democracy. That means we vote for the people who will represent us in congress - and congress makes the laws. So yeah, you can strip the poor, sick, and disabled of their right to vote. That way, odds are good that well-monied Americans will vote for politicians that only care about the interests of the monied classes. Do you know what happens when THAT happens? Here, I'll show you ...

GOP plan cuts social programs to protect Pentagon

Moving to protect the Pentagon, Republicans controlling the House are pressing cuts to food stamps, health care and pensions for federal workers as an alternative to an automatic 10 percent cut to the military come January.

Lawmakers in both parties want to avoid the automatic cuts, but Democrats are strongly opposed to the GOP approach, which slices more than $300 billion from domestic programs over the coming decade while preventing the Pentagon from absorbing a $55 billion blow to its budget next year.

Fully 25 percent of the cuts come from programs that benefit the poor, while cuts to President Barack Obama's health care plan affect those with modest incomes. A cut to the Social Services Block Grants, which Republicans say duplicates other programs, would hit programs like Meals on Wheels for the elderly, child care and child abuse prevention.

LINK

Yeah, stuff like THAT happens. Fortunately this bill didn't pass. Do you know why? It's because enough people in Congress understood that a bill like this would slam the poor, elderly, and people of modest means. If that demographic had not been able to vote, chances are good that a bill like this would have passed with flying colors, there would be more homeless people, and the military would have received a big, fat pay raise. We're not really talking about oligarchy here, or even plutocracy. We're talking about something completely new: Corporate fascism led by the military industrial complex. I've already made mention of a Citibank internal memo that described themselves as the "managerial aristocracy" that hates the "one man, one vote" system because that is the ONLY time when the poorest beggar wields the same power as the richest tycoon. Apparently universal suffrage bothers them for SOME reason or they wouldn't be complaining about it amongst themselves. And here you are, wanting to strip that away - let's just hand the wealthy exactly what they want. Well who really cares, right? Because they ALWAYS get what they want. That's why they're wealthy!

But let's go a step further because I just don't think you "get it." In America, the bottom 47% of people - including those that work for low wages - do not pay any income tax. A lot of them vote Democrat. Stripping them of the vote would mean Democrats would have almost NO chance of winning an election. Ever. It would entrench the Republicans in power essentially forever. America would end up a one party system just like communism.

Yet that's not the real scary part. HAVE you bothered to read any of my posts? Have you bothered to read any of Rock's posts regarding Romney and Mormonism? Your nonsensical idea would almost certainly end up turning this nation into a crackpot theocracy with some lunatic pulpit-pounder sitting in many power positions in this nation. Go look at my blog and read all about the members of the Republican party who tried to redefine rape or who believe the female reproductive system shuts down during a rape. How about the lunatic who thinks we should ship the poor and disabled off to Siberia? The one who thinks we should kill our disobedient children as per Levitucus and Deuteronomy? What about the bill in Louisiana that tried to force every girl in high school to submit to pregnancy tests or be expelled? What about the TWO Republican politicians that claimed slavery was a good thing for the blacks in this country? Or the several Republican-controlled state legislatures that tried to amend anti-bullying bills to allow bullies to bully as long as they're bulling for their religions, or those who wish to strip Islam of its 1st Amendment rights, or the Republicans who believe gun ownership should be required by law, or even the Texas Republican who wanted to abolish the ability for police to make routine traffic stops. Oh, I could go on and on and on ... and on ... and on and on ... and on and on ad infinitum ad nauseum.

And THESE are the kinds of people you would be handing power to. Most of these crackpots didn't get elected and most of those bills never passed. Unfortunately, some lunatic fringe bills DID pass. However, without the Democratic party, chances are good that ALL of those bills would have passed, and perhaps also the 600, yeah count 'em, 600 various anti-abortion bills introduced by various state legislatures across the country. I have said over and over again that the right to vote isn't just about welfare and turning all power over to the Republican party simply based on welfare would be an unmitigated disaster - not just for Americans, but for the entire world.

I honestly thought about posting link after link after link in order to open your eyes to what the wealthy in this country are doing - everything from the $26 trillion they have squirreled away in offshore tax havens to how they subsidize wages with welfare to the documented instances of price gouging to the non-stop banking fraud cases (there was one every month for 6 months last year and no one went to jail). Yeah, they would just LOVE to consolidate their power so they can take your money even more easily. And all of this goes on even with everyone having the right to vote. Imagine what will happen if the poorest half of the country no longer has a say so in how the country is run?

Yet I decided not to post any links unless you specifically ask for them. It's really not worth my time. I have no more patience - NONE - for people who think money should be the deciding factor of every goddamned decision made. I'm tired of it. Why don't we mine asteroids for ore and raw materials? It costs too much. Why aren't we producing new and more exotic energy sources? It costs too much. Why aren't we rebuilding our roads and bridges network? It costs too much. Why aren't we feeding the world's hungry? It costs too much. Yeah, this is another list I could continue to write ad infinitum. It costs too much. Well, we're done, and I do mean DONE, as a species if everything we do individually and collectively is restrained by cost. If money is the God that rules us, then we HAVE no future. We'll just happily consume ourselves into extinction. And here you are, wanting to make it worse.

All I have left to say is open those eyes of yours and stop seeing the world through the misguided idea that having money should somehow grant you special rights. That's just plain and simple bullshit. The majority of our problems in our society stem from how we insert money into EVERYTHING! Who is allowed to vote doesn't need you clouding the issue with yet more craptastic theories about money.

by Greatest I am Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:24 pm

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "I agree that encouragement and incentives to participate in the vote should be available. I also tie the vote to those who actually pay for governments and not those who just feed on it.

No taxation = no representation through the vote."

Even if that disenfranchises valuable members of the Community who work abroad, and may not therefore be liable to pay UK tax?

How does he give value to the community if he is not there nor contributing to it?

Short answer though is that if whatever he has contributed is recognized by those who make the final rules then yes, he would vote. If not recognized then he would not have earned it.

Regards
DL

by Sponsored content