Given the violent and brutal behavior of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America what do you see as a common human bond with these savages?
On Jul 20, 12:21�pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote: > How about gay marriage? �No tax implication there. > > I think the point you are making, and it is a good one, is that > federal politicians have so interwoven social and financial matters > for so long, that we assume they cannot be seperated. �The reality is > that they have done it to divide us and to strengthen their positions > and to deflect from their failures. �I am tired of their act!! > > On Jul 20, 11:12�am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Richard, > > > I understand you are just "stirring the pot". Good to stimulate > > discussion and thinking. But what social issue would not have an > > economic impact on SOMEONE? And how and who would determine a > > particular issue was strictly a "social issue"? > > > Thank you for the link. > > > On Jul 20, 12:03�pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I believe all US citizens should be eligible to vote. �I would not > > > prefer to take that right away nor do I think it should be. �However, > > > as you pointed out, all people vote for their personal financial > > > advantage. �Maybe the answer is that each citizen gets one vote on > > > social issues with no financial impact, but that tax issues and > > > spending issues are weighted toward an individual contribution to > > > society as measured by taxes paid. �Just stirring the pot ...... > > > > BTW, attached is a link to the "Fair Tax". �Read it with an open mind > > > and think specifically about the capacity to control the politicians. > > > The two groups most opposed to the proposal are long-term politicians > > > and PACs. �As you often point out, all you have to do is follow the > > > money to understand why they are opposed. > > > >http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer > > > > On Jul 20, 10:46�am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Richard, > > > > > I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems > > > > with it. > > > > So, a college student working part time while going to school would > > > > not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- > > > > mom. > > > > > And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will > > > > increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless > > > > war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry > > > > sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting & dying. Increase minimum > > > > wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. > > > > Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will > > > > increase the cost of doing business. > > > > > Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- > > > > term self interest. > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:24�am, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess > > > > > if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If > > > > > they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My > > > > > real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones > > > > > who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that > > > > > raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future > > > > > generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the > > > > > one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers > > > > > feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even > > > > > with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest > > > > > risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst > > > > > fears at the present. > > > > > > On Jul 20, 8:47�am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > > Ok,you have a right to your opinion. > > > > > > > Who gets to define "temporarily"? > > > > > > Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? > > > > > > The disabled would get no vote? > > > > > > How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? �Does he > > > > > > "contribute to the economy" enough to "deserve" a vote? Take note > > > > > > you > > > > > > said "contribute to the economy" as the deciding factor NOT > > > > > > "contribute to the safety or stability". > > > > > > How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:25�am, RichardForbes <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and > > > > > > > effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem > > > > > > > reasonable > > > > > > > to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. �That would be > > > > > > > strong > > > > > > > incentive to get of their butts and get a job. > > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 8:15�am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the > > > > > > > > nic of > > > > > > > > The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I > > > > > > > > quote his > > > > > > > > words" "if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the > > > > > > > > votes > > > > > > > > of someone who pays 10K" End quote. > > > > > > > > > Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear > > > > > > > > but am > > > > > > > > most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away > > > > > > > > folks, > > > > > > > > what do you think? > > > > > > > > Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
