 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
First, many politicians on both "sides" engage in this disgusting tactic, but the recent Bush ads - from alleged conservatives no less - have stuck in my mind. Bush is accusing Kerry of voting against body armor for US troops, expanded health care for them, etc... The image is of a senator who doesn't support the troops. Much of this was a result of Kerry's vote against $87 billion to cover the costs of the ongoing invasion/occupation of Iraq, but Kerry is being attacked for past votes against various defense contracts/weapons...
But change the issue and we can easily see a Democrat accusing a primary or election opponent of voting against "our children" for voting against a huge bill that happened to contain school lunches or drug education funding. And the way it works in Washington, politicians seeking our money to buy votes or campaign donations from people will get their pork barrel appropriations into a larger piece of legislation to ensure they get what they want. So tax dollars go to special interests under the guise of funding health care or education and if anyone votes against it, future opponents point to that "no" vote to accuse the person trying to show some fiscal restraint of voting against all that is good with the world.
The result is a political class who can't afford to vote against looting the treasury...
Solutions: 
Line item veto - allowing the President to strike individual appropriations from spending measures - would help and it would slow the bi-partisan looting of our money but wouldn't necessarily help reduce partisan looting.
Requiring the House and Senate to pass spending measures as individual pieces of legislation instead of amassing dozens of measures into one bill. That would alleviate the need for the line item veto.
Of course, abiding by the enumerated powers within the Constitution would eliminate the vast majority of spending, but that ain't going to happen (not that my other suggestions will get passed either). 
An informed electorate intent on fiscal restraint. 
Allowing only people who pay a minimum of $2000 - $3000 in income taxes every year to vote. Consider that the worst cars to buy are usually former rent-a-cars and you'll understand why private property is better than "communal" property in the long run and you'll understand why it is destructive to let people who pay no income taxes (or actually get "credits", i.e., welfare for working) vote on how much other people pay in taxes...
There is one thing worse than a drunken sailor in a bar, a drunken sailor in a bar with your wallet.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Imran - quote:
Jesus Christ! Do you know how ****ing long it'd take to pass the yearly budget then? Totally unworkable. |
Why? Right now each bill gets voted on, each amendment to each bill gets voted on, and each bill that gets a  is often thrown together into one massive bill which gets voted on. The difference is the Prez doesn't get to pick the massive bill apart and veto the individual measures. If anything, this will reduce the time Congress spends passing legislation since they'll know their special interest nonsense will have to stand by itself for all to see and the Prez will be able to veto their specialised legislation. Maybe you can explain why it's unworkable instead of offering up an unsupported assertion...
quote:
If it does, you'll find a bevy of new Amendments or a new Constitutional Convention . |
Well, that is the process the Framers gave us.
quote:
By that logic, you don't ask people who aren't on welfare what individual welfare payments should be. You don't ask people who aren't scientists what the yearly science budget should be. That's a silly argument. |
Read Loinburger's post, he understands logic. Geez, Imran 
Ramo - quote:
The state is not a computer. The rich doesn't own it. Well, they do, but they shouldn't. |
You don't have to be rich to pay $2000-$3000 in income taxes, but I have no claim of "ownership" over the state if I don't pay the taxes it needs to function. The "state" is a piece of property, that's why we don't let foreigners vote on how it operates. They have their state and we have ours - that's called property.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
It's the same principle, you don't ask people with no income taxes what the income tax rate should be... |
So why set a minimum $2,000-3,000 benchmark?
And what about people who pay sales taxes? Don't they have a say?
Or how about people who do unpaid work, such as a housewife or someone who is retired?
Or how about someone who has worked and paid taxes for 20 years, but gets laid off, can't find work and doesn't pay income tax for a couple of years. Do they get to vote?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
OB - quote:
They aren't autonomous by legal bla bla terms until they reach 18. There are many bla bla bla acceptions to the word 'person', and you know it. |
"Legal"? So one group of people decided another group of people shouldn'e be allowed to vote in violation of your 1 person = 1 vote? That happens to be what I advocate...
quote:
Fine then. It's a cooperative that you join by citizenship; therefore no one can ever have more than a single vote. |
Not by citizenship, by ownership. And that means "owners", not non-owners, i.e., people who don't finance the state don't get to use the state to "tax" the people who do finance the state. You want a say, pony up the ante...
Tingkai - quote:
So why set a minimum $2,000-3,000 benchmark? |
Why not? Call it the price of admission into the owner's club.
quote:
And what about people who pay sales taxes? Don't they have a say? |
Yup, they have a say in those rates.
quote:
Or how about people who do unpaid work, such as a housewife or someone who is retired? |
Doesn't matter to me if they're paid or not, it's whether they pay taxes or not.
quote:
Or how about someone who has worked and paid taxes for 20 years, but gets laid off, can't find work and doesn't pay income tax for a couple of years. Do they get to vote? |
That's right, once they stop paying income taxes they stop getting a say in what the rates should be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
kuygk
 Attachment: cccval.jpg
This has been downloaded 112 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You want a say, pony up the ante...
|
So the people who don't pay taxes, don't get a say in the laws that affect their lives.
Interesting theory.
And if your neighbour buys a stereo and cranks up the music at 3am, you don't have a say because you didn't pay for it.
Interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
If Bush really gives a toss about growing US defence expenditure...
... Why doesn't he donate - say a quarter - of the $200 million he's going to splurge on getting re-elected?
And his argument is so crass. Sure, Kerry didn't vote for the expenditure - but it's Bush who sent the troops into harms way, NOT Kerry.
Personally I agree with ousting Saddam after the shameful aftermath of '91 - I just wish a jackass wasn't in charge of the operation.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-03-2004 10:37
|
