From: Alan Baker on 7 Feb 2010 00:53 In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message > >> news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad... > >> > > >> > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com.. > >> >> >. > >> >> > >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama was a > >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who > >> >> > > can't > >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a > >> >> > > prerequisite > >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think > >> >> > > about > >> >> > > this. Do you defend him? > >> >> > >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact > >> >> > socialist > >> >> > policies. > >> >> > >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or > >> >> > write". > >> >> > That > >> >> > is stupid. > >> >> > >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It will > >> >> > never > >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that > >> >> > elections > >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes based > >> >> > on > >> >> > how > >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous year's > >> >> > tax > >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never happen. > >> >> > >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are > >> >> > looking > >> >> > for. > >> >> > >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for more > >> >> than those cast by people who don't? > >> >> > >> >> - - - > >> >> > >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes > >> >> since > >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how to > >> >> use > >> >> it. > >> >> What is wrong with that? > >> > > >> > What do you mean by "weight"? > >> > > >> > - - - > >> > > >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one > >> > vote. > >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in > >> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would > >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for > >> > it. > >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes. > >> > >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in > >> income > >> taxes you get two votes. > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK? > > Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement. There > is no willingness on the part of the taxed. I am suggesting that the people > who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government decide how > that government works. What is so hard to understand about that? It used > to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner. Why? Well because > it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding our > affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome. The further we get > away that and the further away we get from the politically astute deciding > elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots. I think you got a bit far if you say that only those who own land (or pay tax) "have a stake in the outcome". We all have a stake. That having been said, I think there is something to be said for the idea that there deserves to be some link between taxation and representation. If you ask certain individuals to pay more of society's costs, they should perhaps get additional say in how that money is spent. I think the chance of it coming to pass is perishingly small, but there is a problem in our society with the spending beast that we're going to need to address somehow, someway. I know that here in Canada, in ways large and small, the return we're getting for the money we're spending seems to be less and less. Visiting my high school in 2003, I was appalled by the state of its facilities. A once well-funded music program was become unable to provide students with instruments that they could use for their own for the year. When I went there, only first year music students shared, and after that, you were each assigned your own instrument for the year. In 2003, it was only grade 12 students who had an instrument that each could take home every night to practice. The auditorium had entire rows of seats in the balcony that were taped off... ...because there wasn't enough money available to maintain them. This year, a large number of Toronto high schools have been forced to close their swimming pools, and stories of parents being forced to do fundraisers for what used to be considered essential items that were to be provided by the school... ....and yet, the spending is up! Where is the money going? I don't know how we achieve it, but we have got to start running our society more efficiently. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: assimilate on 7 Feb 2010 01:12 On 6-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in > > income > > taxes you get two votes. > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK? buying votes is for politicians -- bill-o
From: William Clark on 7 Feb 2010 07:53 In article <dRsbn.63920$Fe4.57340(a)newsfe21.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 6-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in > > > income > > > taxes you get two votes. > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK? > > buying votes is for politicians And now for rich corporations and special interest groups.
From: William Clark on 7 Feb 2010 07:57 In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message > >> news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad... > >> > > >> > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com.. > >> >> >. > >> >> > >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama was a > >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who > >> >> > > can't > >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a > >> >> > > prerequisite > >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think > >> >> > > about > >> >> > > this. Do you defend him? > >> >> > >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact > >> >> > socialist > >> >> > policies. > >> >> > >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or > >> >> > write". > >> >> > That > >> >> > is stupid. > >> >> > >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It will > >> >> > never > >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that > >> >> > elections > >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes based > >> >> > on > >> >> > how > >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous year's > >> >> > tax > >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never happen. > >> >> > >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are > >> >> > looking > >> >> > for. > >> >> > >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for more > >> >> than those cast by people who don't? > >> >> > >> >> - - - > >> >> > >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes > >> >> since > >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how to > >> >> use > >> >> it. > >> >> What is wrong with that? > >> > > >> > What do you mean by "weight"? > >> > > >> > - - - > >> > > >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one > >> > vote. > >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in > >> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would > >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for > >> > it. > >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes. > >> > >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in > >> income > >> taxes you get two votes. > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK? > > Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement. There > is no willingness on the part of the taxed. I am suggesting that the people > who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government decide how > that government works. What is so hard to understand about that? It used > to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner. Why? Well because > it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding our > affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome. The further we get > away that and the further away we get from the politically astute deciding > elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots. Your level of taxation is no measure of your contribution. Plenty of wealthy people pay far less in tax than many middle class salary earners, since they have the means to pay to set up tax shelters and other avoidance devices. How about you let people vote by their actual contribution to society? Then an inner city teacher who works their butt off gets more say than the wastrel son of a billionaire who just sits on his rear all day and plays the odd game of polo? So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check, just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
From: William Clark on 7 Feb 2010 08:03
In article <alangbaker-35AE26.20434306022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message > > > news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad... > > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.. > > > > . > > > > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> > > > >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.. > > > >> . > > > >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> > > > >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com. > > > >> >.. > > > >> > > > >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama was a > > > >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who > > > >> > > can't > > > >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a > > > >> > > prerequisite > > > >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think > > > >> > > about > > > >> > > this. Do you defend him? > > > >> > > > >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact > > > >> > socialist > > > >> > policies. > > > >> > > > >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or > > > >> > write". > > > >> > That > > > >> > is stupid. > > > >> > > > >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It will > > > >> > never > > > >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that > > > >> > elections > > > >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes based > > > >> > on > > > >> > how > > > >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous year's > > > >> > tax > > > >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never happen. > > > >> > > > >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are > > > >> > looking > > > >> > for. > > > >> > > > >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for more > > > >> than those cast by people who don't? > > > >> > > > >> - - - > > > >> > > > >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes > > > >> since > > > >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how to > > > >> use > > > >> it. > > > >> What is wrong with that? > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "weight"? > > > > > > > > - - - > > > > > > > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one > > > > vote. > > > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in > > > > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would > > > > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for > > > > it. > > > > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes. > > > > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in > > > income > > > taxes you get two votes. > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK? > > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could > produce a better society? Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and the consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large sections of the population. We all know where it ended up. > > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one particular > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to pay > for it. You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b) all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts are not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and leads to change. > > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of a > sixth, we usually call that a mugging... But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will call that "democracy"? I don't think so. > > When 5 million vote to do it to a million of their fellow citizens, it's > suddenly "democracy"! Yes, but you know that is not how it works. |