From: Frank Ketchum on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> 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.

Geez dude. Ok let's try again. In your example, the middle class salary
earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
MORE in TAXES. That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.

> 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?

Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse yet
because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
what isn't. Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
constituency.

The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't pay
income tax. Try to understand the difference between wealth and income and
taxes.



> 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: Howard Brazee on
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 20:35:36 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
<nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:

>So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for more
>than those cast by people who don't?

Nah, let's try something new and different.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: John B. on
On Feb 7, 12:11 am, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49666345-f3a9-46d0-b070-e951f5593b28(a)v5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 10:27 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John B." <johnb...(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.
>
> So, if a I win a $100,000 Pick-6 at the racetrack, I can cast two or
> three votes instead of one? Or, conversely, if I take a spill while
> skiing in the Swiss Alps and break my arm, and am thus unable to
> return to my high-paying job as a neurosurgeon, the number of votes I
> can cast is reduced?
>
> But we're getting off the track. I wanted to know what Republicans
> thought of what the Republican Tom Tancredo said. And what I've gotten
> so far is three conservatives telling me they're not Republicans. So,
> I expanded my cohort to include conservatives and libertarians. Still
> nothing. So, I'll expand it even further to include anybody who voted
> for John McCain in 2008.
>
> - - -
>
> Sure.  If you win money in some way the government will take a large chunk
> of it so why not have more say in what is done with it than someone who
> doesn't pay any taxes?  If you were a neurosurgeon and then couldn't be one
> anymore you no longer contribute at the same taxation level.  More taxes =
> more votes.  What is the problem here?
>
> I am a libertarian and I did tell you what I thought.  What exactly are you
> looking for other than trying to set a trap?

I'm simply trying to determine whether Tancredo's comments represent
mainstream conservative thought. How is that a trap?
From: William Clark on
In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
"Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > 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.co
> >> >> >> >m..
> >> >> >> >.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > 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.
>
> Geez dude. Ok let's try again. In your example, the middle class salary
> earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
> MORE in TAXES. That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.
>
> > 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?
>
> Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse yet
> because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
> what isn't. Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
> constituency.
>
> The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't pay
> income tax. Try to understand the difference between wealth and income and
> taxes.
>
>
>
> > 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.

This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
Right.

What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
doing this.
From: BAR on
In article <5766a505-e9d9-4800-9aa3-a020f2f56916
@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> I'm simply trying to determine whether Tancredo's comments represent
> mainstream conservative thought. How is that a trap?
>

You did set a trap and you know it.

If you were genuinely interested in how widespread the view was held you
would not have localized the question to just Republicans.

Try answering this question John: Do Democrats enjoy beating their wives
and children?