Representation Without Taxation

posted at 2:45 pm on April 9, 2010 by Doctor Zero

A correspondent recently raised the question of reforming the American electoral system so that only those who pay income tax are allowed to vote.  It’s a provocative notion, even though it Ain’t Gonna Happen… at least, not on this side of a systemic breakdown that puts everything on the table.

Let’s explore the idea as a thought experiment.  If taxation without representation was an outrage that sparked the Revolution, why is representation without taxation acceptable?   It’s logical to suggest that only those who pay for government benefits should have a vote in selecting our representatives.  Allowing net tax consumers to vote seems like an inherently dangerous practice, given their numbers – we’ve reached the point where 47% of American households pay no income tax – and their strong motivation to support politicians who promise endlessly increasing benefits.  When politicians loaded with vast public funds to purchase votes meet up with a population eager to sell its votes for benefits, a grim marketplace will inevitably develop.

This is a formula not only guaranteed, but designed, to produce an unsustainable entitlement state.  The high-rolling politician secures victory by defeating the productive, and creating a dependency class large enough to smother taxpayer revolts at the ballot box.  Restricting the vote to those who pay into the system would break this fiscal short circuit.  It would also tend to cut down on voter fraud, since the IRS puts a great deal of effort into tracking people who owe taxes.

Americans are understandably queasy about removing anyone’s voting rights.  The Left has long wanted to extend the franchise, to include constituencies with a reliable appetite for increased government spending, such as convicted felons and illegal immigrants.  If a damaged, desperate future America placed restrictions upon voting, the effort to repeal them would begin immediately, in a blaze of savage intensity… which would continue into a state of permanent civic unrest.  It wouldn’t be hard to keep the dependency class whipped into a violent frenzy with daily reminders of the nation’s outrageous refusal to let them vote.

Beyond the ethical and political considerations, there’s another deep flaw behind the theory of requiring taxation for representation: it wouldn’t solve our problem.  It’s not welfare, as conventionally understood, that is killing us.  How much of that 47% who don’t pay income taxes are living in desperate poverty?  The truth is that middle-class entitlements are the unsustainable tumor which fills the beds of Hospice America.

Social Security, Medicare, and now ObamaCare will swell to consume the entire federal budget, along with much of the wealth produced by the entire planet, within the next two decades.  That’s the fearful nature of the deficit tornado spinning over Washington D.C.  Charity for the destitute is not unsustainable, even when it’s pumped through the corrupt and wasteful digestive system of the federal government.

ObamaCare isn’t a system of health-care vouchers for the poor, financed by a tax on the middle and upper classes.  It’s a complete takeover of the insurance industry, designed to ensnare both the middle and lower classes, with the ultimate goal of directly controlling fifteen percent of our economy.  The old system of tax-and-spend welfare isn’t good enough for the Left any more, and the public long ago soured on it anyway.  Both liberals and conservatives have always understood that massive entitlements for the middle class, such as the left-wing Holy Grail of socialized medicine, were the endgame.  They only disagree in their perception of which game would be ending.

Our method of selecting representatives is less important than the rules they live under, after they’re elected.  What is the wise choice between a Constitutionally-limited hereditary monarchy, and a democratically-elected Congress with effectively unlimited taxation, spending, and regulatory powers?  Our reverence for the Republic is only returned in full when our democratically elected representatives exercise limited powers, within the boundaries of laws they cannot break, or redefine to serve their ambitions.

The way our politicians reach Congress and the White House is important.  What they do after they get there is even more important.  The illusion that we can control them with the threat of future elections should have died forever in the squalid back-alley birth of ObamaCare.  Its birthing cries drowned out the objections of sixty percent majorities, and shattered the eardrums of business managers, from Caterpillar to AT&T.  Insulation from electoral consequence is purchased daily in that grim marketplace I mentioned earlier, where votes and piles of taxpayer money change hands.

Representation without taxation is not our fatal problem.  People from every income group should accept the responsibility to vote wisely, and insist on absolute fidelity to the Constitution – that mighty covenant between free men and the lawful republic they defied the guns of empire to raise.  Our legislators and President are meant to be the guardians of our freedom, not the engineers of our lives… or merchants who trade entitlements for power.  The thick web of puppet strings which spread from our titanic State reach deep into the 53% who still pay taxes.  Ignorance and ideology led us to this moment, not just the selfish votes of our permanent dependency class.  The government needs to shrink, not the electorate.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

To expand eligibility further… If you’re in jail, even if you own land, your franchise is suspended until released back into society. Homemakers are already enfranchised either by virtue of owning property or filing jointly with wage-earning spouse.

Another notion regards those with net receiveable – they could vote if they work off the bennnies using just the minimum wage rate. To whit, a $7,250 net receive from Feds, would require working off 1000 hrs (equal to about 20 hrs/week for a year) in the community to get the vote back. For one, communities could capitalize on that to do landscaping, trash pickup and other beautification projects etc that would otherwise go to unionized workers.

AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Hell YES it is a good…make that GREAT idea.

Witout such an idea our Republic is doomed.

Justrand on April 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Imagine government as an obese aunt, who pulls your head into her bosom and wraps her fat arms around your head.

Now, don’t you feel secure?

disa on April 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

And yes, I’ve been jabbering about this to my hubby for the last few weeks – no voting if you aren’t a taxpayer.

Incentives and disincentives are the way forward.

disa on April 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM

One Dollar of Tax, One Vote.

That would give me about 25,000 votes. I’m in…

patch on April 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Right to vote?

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about having a “right” to vote?

There is no such thing.

Dave R. on April 9, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Actually, there is:

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Emphasis mine.

rukiddingme on April 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

The donks would do well to keep that in mind as they get out the vote. The illegal undocumented aliens noncitizens have NO right to vote. Period. Barring another constitutional amendment.

AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM

This is pretty stupid really, and was summed up in the first paragraph or the long boring article . ‘it isn’t going to happen’. This idea has been discussed and written about for years on forums and by the “intellectuals”, (do a quick Google search), and usually boils down to this same back and forth of weird sarcastic poorly thought out and/or angry ideas, (Sure looks like it is great for traffic though!). But, is putting this garbage out for the purpose of generating traffic really something that is good? Does it inform us of anything? Does it put forward and advance conservative or libertarians philosophy? Is it fresh and entertaining? Fun? Really what is the point? It’s been done, lots.

not to just be all negative and not contribute to the back and forth I say for example, what if my dad worked hard all his life, was super rich, set me up for life, and I never had to work or pay taxes? Should I be automatically not able to vote? Or would it depend on my political view, or philosophical view on life? Or someone’s measure on if I was “contributing” to society? Or would it depend on; my intelligence, my friends, my connections, my education? It could be any one of those or a combination of those things, but none of those things will assure I will be a conservative, a capitalist, a libertarian or whatever. I know plenty of tax payers that what to redistribute the wealth. The whole idea is worthless side idea that may be fun to talk about esp. when we see what is happening to our country, but what would make a real difference is to be educated in all the Right stuff

jywill on April 9, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Rather than worrying about 1 vote per tax dollar or such, allow an extra vote for tax-paying above a certain level of tax…say about twice the average entitlement amount ( ie twice the average which the non-tax-paying 47% receive). AND allow an extra vote for stable marriage, for service to the country, for various extra things.
Nevil S. Norway writing under the name Nevil Shute wrote about one such scheme in a novel, called ‘In the Wet’. In the story, Australia adopted a multiple vote system….and it changed the political process. In the story…but I think it would in North America.

rgn on April 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Section 1.
The right of citizens who pay an income tax to the federal government of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Citizens who pay no federal income tax or anyone who is not a legal resident of the United States shall never be given the right to vote in any federal, state or local election of any kind.

~~~~

I believe the Constitution has a method within it describing how the above changes can be made the Law of the Land. They are called amendments. I suggest we start there. Yes I am serious.

Also, I’d like to put in a clause stating that you have to be smarter than the ballot in order to vote (think Bush, Gore and Florida). My hunch, though, is that if you are paying income tax you are smart enough to get and hold a job which means you are probably smart enough to read a ballot. Still, if the physical ballot is smarter than you, you have no business voting.

Bubba Redneck on April 10, 2010 at 2:27 AM

That 47% that pay no taxes?

Simple solution: Absolute minimum 5% income tax, no exemptions for anything. Indexed to government spending of 2007 and every 1% government increases its budget that minimum goes up by 0.1%. In no case does it go below 5%.

If you want to help the poor, cut the size of government to cut its spending.

But in no way should individuals who earn anything be expempt from paying taxes as that is a responsibility of all citizens in our coming to be in more perfect Union with each other. That requires fiscal buy-in from every income earning citizen. And it is a moderate rate far below the ‘soak the rich’ rate of the current system… the rich can’t pay for it all, so it is time for the poor and the middle class to pick up the slack and get some skin in the game.

ajacksonian on April 10, 2010 at 6:34 AM

The obvious solution to the question is a national sales tax or VAT. A tax on consumption guarantees that everyone contributes to the system, since every living person consumes economic goods.

year_of_the_dingo on April 10, 2010 at 7:56 AM

Three Republicans To Watch In 2012
NEW ORLEANS — Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty all skipped this year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference. They once stood alone as the three frontrunners for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, but two others stepped up this week and solidified their spots at least alongside them at the top of the ladder.

Rick Perry, still relatively unknown nationally for someone who governed Texas for the last 10 years, and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, delivered presidential candidate-esque speeches on the first two days of the conference. With delegates from 14 southern states on hand, their appearances could help lay a foundation for a national bid — if they do indeed decide to run.

__________________________
Stop trying to pick our candidates for us! We all see how that worked out last time.
Huckabee, Pawlenty, Romney PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOSERS!!!

PERRY / PALIN PERRY / BACHMAN WINNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF OUR BUSINESS LAME STREAM!!!!!!!!

patriotparty1 on April 10, 2010 at 9:58 AM

No, this is not a good idea at all.

I see the fairness question as legitimate, in the sense of the danger of persons who have no stake in the system swaying elections that eventually result in them helping themselves to more and more of the property of others – but the solution proposed is based on some assumptions that should be questioned.

Persons who pay other federal or state taxes would be taxed without representation.

The practical effects on persons of property with a clear stake in “the system” who do not earn income is another example of unintended and somewhat absurd result tying suffrage to payment of income taxes.

Federal income tax is relatively new, and it’s original purpose and scope ought to be First revisited. Only the wealthy were to pay; and the purpose was not only revenue generation. The vast majority of the electorate was always meant to be exempt. and the creep of income tax into the middle class purse may only demonstrate a need to revisit the tax structure or the power of government to tax, not the need to tax the earned incomes of all.

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Oh, and the worst mistake this country ever made in election of representation was enacting popular elections of Senators. Senators chiefly accountable to their legislatures had more interest in checking federal powers that usurped the power of the states. Popular election has tended to increase the influence of political parties at a national level.

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

I also left out that popular election of Senators also limited their original purpose of protecting property rights from the tyranny of the masses, who would be more likely to vote themselves largess from the pockets of others.

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Federal income tax is relatively new, and it’s original purpose and scope ought to be First revisited. Only the wealthy were to pay; and the purpose was not only revenue generation. The vast majority of the electorate was always meant to be exempt. and the creep of income tax into the middle class purse may only demonstrate a need to revisit the tax structure or the power of government to tax, not the need to tax the earned incomes of all.

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Cradle-to-grave public assistance for the able-bodied is “relatively new,” too, and I think the unstated point of this discussion is that our spending on these programs would never have bankrupted the nation had those who are so unmotivated that they will nether work nor perform valuable public service not been allowed to decide how much of our money they were entitled to.

It wasn’t a flip remark by Marie Antoinette that started the French Revolution – it was the enormous financial deficit that had been allowed to grow to insupportable preportions that, in turn, required Louis XVI to take the extraordinary step of calling the Estates-General to request additional tax revenue.

And at least he asked.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM

The obvious solution to the question is a national sales tax or VAT. A tax on consumption guarantees that everyone contributes to the system, since every living person consumes economic goods.

year_of_the_dingo on April 10, 2010 at 7:56 AM

The reality is that we will never get rid of the income tax. It gives too much power to Big Brother and brother ain’t about to give it up .

CWforFreedom on April 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I agree, the Senate ought represent the interests of the home State’s Governor and legislature, not the popular will of the people which is represented by the House of Represenatives. We also need to completely overhaul the tax system to a flat, not fair (it’d only end up being tweaked to a monstrosity that is today’s version) tax.

We need a constitutional convention to cancel rollback the voting of Senators by the people. And as a check on future abuses, stipulate that voters need to be landowners and/or taxpayers to maintain skin in the finances of the federal govt. What the States decide to do WRT State & Local elections is their purfview. I’m mainly concerned with the federal level.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I’ve brought this up before in various places and been routinely laughed at or accused of “hating the poor”.

One question. Do we allocate Rep. seats based on the number of citizens or the number of voting citizens? I think, if we make the point that “the districts will not change”, that would take a lot of wind out of the oppositions’ sails.

After all, there has to be *somebody* in every district who’s legally making a buck… right?

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM

One question. Do we allocate Rep. seats based on the number of citizens or the number of voting citizens?

acat on April 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM

For all the sturm and drang about the current census, the original census counted landowners, slaves, freemen, aliens, women and children. Representation was allocated on total population, not voting citizens, hence the 3/5 rule to minimize the political strength of some States that had a greater slave population than the voting population.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM

What needs to happen is more people need to become successful enough to have a larger stake in the future of our country. That said, everyone should pay at least something to the federal government even if it’s only a very small amount so we all have a stake.

dnlchisholm on April 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM

CWforFreedom on April 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM
—–
One of the little caveats to Doc Zero’s writing applies here.

Doc wrote “Ain’t Gonna Happen… at least, not on this side of a systemic breakdown that puts everything on the table.”

The systemic breakdown that puts everything on the table (at, I expect, a rather massive “human” cost) could happen.

I’ve read a number of posts by people who use the words “Cloward-Piven strategy” and who believe the current administration is trying to push the system into the kind of systemic breakdown Doc Zero mentioned, with the belief that the Administration will be best positioned to come out on top.

I’m convinced this position is not viable – having the armed forces on Day 1 does not guarantee success – especially since Americans tend to be raised on the idea of personal liberty and independence.

That said, yeah, following a total breakdown (or even a near-total breakdown, for that matter…) anything (including Emperor Norton) becomes possible.

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Apologies for repetitive posts. There is an unusually long lag between the time a comment is submitted and the time it appears.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 10:59 AM

What about all the other taxes people pay besides federal income tax?

State Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax….

Dr Evil on April 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Dr Evil on April 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM
—–
First, does this apply to Fed or State or Local elections?

Can, for instance, Will County, IL declare that they don’t recognize ballots for Will County offices from people who can’t produce a property tax bill with an address in the county?

Can, for instance, the Commonwealth of Virginia decide that anyone on the dole can’t vote for statewide offices?

Second, at least some of the non-Fed taxes are currently deductions, i.e. I paid $X in property taxes, and $Y in state taxes, I can deduct both from my income on the Fed form.

Note – this leads to a rather dangerous “how much skin in the game is enough?” question.

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Let me be blunt, since this is not going to pass regardless.

There are a number of Dem districts, generally urban and very poor, that are almost entirely populated by those who don’t contribute. These districts will go from thousands eligible to vote in Fed. elections to dozens. The dozens being those who are in the armed services, those who work, the Korean grocery store owners, and the representative (must live in the district, after all) him or herself.

This could get very ugly.

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Who ever said that those that pay income tax will vote conservative? I really don’t understand the view that everyone that is not a conservative is some sort of slacker on the public dime. How many very high income people are there in Hollywood? In the media? Sports? How many high income liberal democrats are there? What happens when you get your way and you realize there are far more liberal earners then conservative? This is nothing more then a conservative fantasy to attempt to rig the votes towards the conservative view. I for one hope you do not get your way because I really think you are misguided on how well it will work in your favor.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM

I would think the simpler, more fair solution would be for everyone to pay something in taxes.

If every citizen is a tax payer, I’m willing to bet they’d be a bit more concerned with how their money is spent.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Note – this leads to a rather dangerous “how much skin in the game is enough?” question.

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Exactly and I do think conservatives will quickly find out that they are not the wealthiest in the country. Pretty much every single person you see on TV makes far about the average income and just about every single one of them is liberal. So which part of that 53% do we count for voting? Only the top 10% of earners? How about top 1%. Maybe we just restrict it to only high income conservatives are allowed to vote. Yup that would be pretty much the only way this would work in the favor of the conservatives.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM

If every citizen is a tax payer, I’m willing to bet they’d be a bit more concerned with how their money is spent.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

How many people don’t buy something?
Every purchase made is taxed. Every single service or item other then food I get is taxed. Is that not paying taxes? I know, it has to be the right kind of tax. Only federal tax right? That way we can eliminate federal welfare because all those slackers can’t vote and we already know they make up every non-conservative in the country but what about state funded welfare? Lets not allow them to vote at the state or local level. In fact why don’t we restrict it to registered republicans that pay federal and state income tax but not RINOs cause we don’t want them voting. Better yet way don’t we just have a conservative test and if you pass it you can vote for only the conservative issues because we can make it illegal to have anything but conservative issues on the ballots.

It’s topics like this that make me think conservatives are as dumb as liberals think they are.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM

How about this, since we are in idea fantasyland: you get one vote for every dollar you pay in income taxes to the federal government. I’m willing to bet we see a flood of federal income tax payers, no?

tanyab on April 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM

How about a minimal “knowledge” test?

Very basic questions:

Who is the first President?

Who is the current President?

How many states are there? (BO has already failed)

you get the idea… 10 questions before you can vote.

stenwin77 on April 10, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Uh, RagTag, most people who aren’t paying any income taxes get more back from the government than they put in. So someone who paid 3000 in income taxes but got an 8000 “refund” thanks to credits probably got back all his sales tax for the year too.

Thus, when it is all said and done, he hasn’t really paid anything into the system.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 12:30 PM

elliminate Income tax completely for everyone.

jywill on April 10, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Let me be blunt, since this is not going to pass regardless.

There are a number of Dem districts, generally urban and very poor, that are almost entirely populated by those who don’t contribute. These districts will go from thousands eligible to vote in Fed. elections to dozens. The dozens being those who are in the armed services, those who work, the Korean grocery store owners, and the representative (must live in the district, after all) him or herself.

This could get very ugly.

Mew

acat on April 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Let me be equally blunt. You didn’t take my comments in their totality. Taking away the franchise without laying a way forward for enfranchisment IS ugly. All I’m saying is that for the notion of ‘no representation w/o taxation’ to be serious needs to be looked at and evaluated from all angles.

I don’t claim to cover all the angles, but I did cover your mews.

If one wants to suck at the welfare teat, then by all means do so and don’t expect to be able to influence the pols to give you a ever increasing share of the milk. On the other hand, if you want your say in politics, then wean yourself away from the teat. The fact that many have done so is a testament to will power to be self-sufficient.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, the urban poor you speak of have no incentive to change their circumstances and rely on the likes of ACORN etc to increase their share of Obamamoney.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Uh, RagTag, most people who aren’t paying any income taxes get more back from the government than they put in. So someone who paid 3000 in income taxes but got an 8000 “refund” thanks to credits probably got back all his sales tax for the year too.

Thus, when it is all said and done, he hasn’t really paid anything into the system.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 12:30 PM

How about me?
I paid $2000.00 dollars to state but only $138.00 to federal. Do I get to vote or is that not enough?

How about we only let employed people vote? We know that only conservatives are workers anyway so would that be alright?

Lets face it this whole discussion is all about only allowing conservatives to vote because conservative have fooled themselves into believing that tax payers vote conservative. At the most they feel that there would be a token liberal vote because we know liberals are just leaches on the conservatives. Say we get our little fantasy realized. What would be the agenda? No welfare of course and lets not forget to repeal any income tax. Don’t forget to disband and fire all the government workers and remove funding from all the agencies and departments. IRS gone. Education gone. Be careful though because you wouldn’t want to repeal income tax without first changing the law to allow you to vote without paying income tax.

So what will we do with the millions of unemployed once we get the power to fire them all? How about all the welfare people? Where do we put them? I know, we take all the money saved from disbanding the government and build some sort of interment camps for all those that don’t meet our ideal. That way we can have our conservative utopia of hard working non-income tax paying people that know the right way to vote.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Unfortunately, as it stands now, the urban poor you speak of have no incentive to change their circumstances and rely on the likes of ACORN etc to increase their share of Obamamoney.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM

You know that for a fact do you?

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM

“Lets face it this whole discussion is all about only allowing conservatives to vote because conservative have fooled themselves into believing that tax payers vote conservative.”

No, it’s about people having a horse in the race, so to speak, it comes to federal spending.

Since you paid some federal taxes, it’s obvious you don’t fall into the catagory we’re talking about. However, there are many people who make far more from their “tax return” than they pay in any form of state or federal taxes. Those people will naturally care less about how the government spends money since it doesn’t affect them what so ever.

I’m not even saying that people who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t be given a vote, I’m just saying that 100% tax participation would result in an electorate who paid more attention to how their money was spent.

Honestly though, your posts are so filled with hyperventilating histrionics, I’m not sure why I bother to respond.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I always say this is what happened in Venezuela… I am totally convinced that we are headed toward another civil war in this country… the true American will not abide by having his or her hard earned money confiscated for those who don’t work as hard or risked as much to gain that wealth… no matter how small or big that wealth may be…

Everyday at 3:00pm I see hundreds of hispanic kids leave school… a school where they are being told they can have anything they want….L.A. has a real unemployment of about 16%, we are chasing out business because of the tax and spend liberals who run this city, of 15 council people and the mayor there is exactly one Republican …he has no power whatsoever… So I always think where are these kids going to get jobs? And we alredy know that gangs develop when youth can’t find work or a productive way of life… This is all just going to end tragically if we don’t stop this now! We need to elect conservatives not Deno r Rep politicians like you said Doc O… I hope we can do it…

CCRWM on April 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Oh, and the worst mistake this country ever made in election of representation was enacting popular elections of Senators. Senators chiefly accountable to their legislatures had more interest in checking federal powers that usurped the power of the states. Popular election has tended to increase the influence of political parties at a national level.

SarahW on April 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Here, here. Let’s repeal the 17th amendment.

halfastro on April 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM

No, it’s about people having a horse in the race, so to speak, it comes to federal spending.
Vera on April 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM

And you would more then fine if you found out that there were more liberal tax payers then conservative right?

Liberal tax payers that increase taxes to pay for the people that don’t right?

You would be fine with that because they after all have a horse in the race right?

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Yes, I’m fine if there are more liberal tax payers than conservatives. Though obviously if the entire system were reorganized in such a way that every citizen were a tax payer, the distribution would mirror our society in general which trends a bit right.

Also, there would be incentive to hold taxes lower for everyone because the currently silent 47% of Americans would likely protest to tax increases in much the same way that the people already paying do.

Obviously, no one is going to win an election with the slogan “Taxes for everyone!” but it would ultiamtely be better for us as a society to make everyone a contributing participant.

Vera on April 10, 2010 at 1:23 PM

You know that for a fact do you?

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:00 PMAnd you know for a fact they don’t?

Meanwhile, Obummer is rolling back restrictions on welfare and rolling more of the middle class into the new ‘poor’ of 300% of the poverty line to make us more dependent on Obamamoney.

As I’ve surmised from your earlier comment at 12:56 PM that you’re spinning this whole discussion as some kind of conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise anyone not a convervative.

And like Acat, you didn’t take in the totality of my comments @
AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 9:13 PM

AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM

AH_C on April 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I’m interested in a serious discussion of the merits, not demagouging on one sob story point or another. For what it’s worth, I’ve benefitted from the largesse of the Feds and likely will this year again as one of the 47% that gets more.

But it doesn’t mean that I like the direction the Feds have taken us in recent years beginning with Bush where I get back more than I’ve paid in. For the simple fact that this is unstainable and hides the true cost of big gubmint from the likes of me.

On the flip side, as it stands now, I’ll probably pay a big chunk for 2010 as I became a 1099 on 1 Jan, by choice, for doing exactly the same job as last year, while tripling the gross income.

It may be a bad time to go solo, but I remain optimistic that some sanity will return to the business of taxation over the next few years. And when it does, I can start looking at growing my business, until then, it’ll be enough to go solo and responsible for any and all financial impacts, as long as it all come thru my hands first, rather than my boss.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM

As I’ve surmised from your earlier comment at 12:56 PM that you’re spinning this whole discussion as some kind of conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise anyone not a convervative.
AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM.

No not a conspiracy but that is exactly what I think this is. A conservative fantasy for ways to push the country towards a conservative utopia. It is a discussion on the merits of disenfranchising anyone that does not meet a certain ideal based on income or tax amount paid. Some are even advocating that one gets more votes based on what they pay in taxes or that only people that pay a certain amount of taxes get to vote. So how far is the leap to only voting if you hold the right job, live in the right place go to the right church or are the right color?

Conservatives whine about liberals and the left trying to build utopias based on leftest ideals and this is no different. The only thing I see are people blinded by their ideology talking the same talk the liberals do.

People are advocating rights based on a person’s standing in society. I see no difference between restricting rights based on race, sex or religion. The really sad part is that people who claim to be defenders of the Constitution and rights don’t see it that way.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM

There is a certain deep “irony” in the argument, on the part of some, that in order to vote one should have some “skin in the game”, that is pay taxes, in that if one is not allowed to vote does one, in a certain sense, have any “skin in the game” at all?

MB4 on April 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM

People are advocating rights based on a person’s standing in society. I see no difference between restricting rights based on race, sex or religion. The really sad part is that people who claim to be defenders of the Constitution and rights don’t see it that way.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM

One could argue some against your point but it wouldn’t be easy.

MB4 on April 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM

In fact, everyone pays tax, in the form of sales tax in those states that have it. Some pay no state tax in certain states. If you own property you pay local real-estate taxes and if you rent, you pay them indirectly. Everyone pays FICA and various medicare and unemployment insurance impositions. If you own a car, you have registration taxes, and if you buy gasoline a significant chunk goes to government.

The federal income tax is the most visible, but FICA is probably the most brutal bite from the average american’s paycheck. The total tax burden is clearly too high to foster any kind of growth.

We should be discussing the total cost of government through all taxes and not get distracted about the inevitable inequities of this or that tax program.

I question the morality of all of these skimming measures, but we are born into it and cannot see the damage that it has done.

virgo on April 10, 2010 at 1:59 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights …

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that some men are created more equal than others, that they are endowed by their Tax Accountent with certain unalienable voting Rights …

MB4 on April 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM

So how far is the leap to only voting if you hold the right job, live in the right place go to the right church or are the right color?

Conservatives whine about liberals and the left trying to build utopias based on leftest ideals and this is no different. The only thing I see are people blinded by their ideology talking the same talk the liberals do.

People are advocating rights based on a person’s standing in society. I see no difference between restricting rights based on race, sex or religion.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM

How far the leap? None at all, as in you can’t get there from here. We have “unalienable rights”: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” backed up by rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and more recently, sufferage and freedom from discrimination.

As originally envisioned by the founders, only land-owners could vote. As envisioned by the open-borders crowd, anyone can vote, as long as they get here by hook or crook. If and when amnesty gets rammed thru, who knows how many will instantly gain the franchise to vote in favor of mo Obamamoney? 100K?, 1 million? 10 million? or even as many as 30 million, as they bumrush the border?

The net effect of 20 million new voters in a base of 160 odd million is to dilute your vote with SEIU, ACORN leads the way for more gimmes.

Owning land and/or paying federal taxes seems to be a logical brake on the irrational exuberances of the masses. What and how the individual States choose to enfranchise their populations is their business. But at the Federal level it should concern States with higher ratios of net payers/land-owners, to States with a higher ration of net moochers, that their representation is diluted by freeloaders who don’t care who pays Obamamoney, as long as they are getting it. To whit California, a State that’s already broke beyond belief.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 2:19 PM

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 2:19 PM

SEIU, ACORN leads the way = SEIU, ACORN etc leading the way

States with a higher ration of net moochers = States with a higher ratio of net moochers

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Speaking of controversial systems, in Starship Troopers (and I mean the book, not the crap movies that have the mental impact of a spitwad) the only people allowed the franchise were those that served.

In other words only those willing to die for their country with an understanding of the whole before the individual were allowed to elect those that made policy. Similarly, only those that served were allowed to hold office.

Fiction yes, but probably more functional than what we are adhering to these days.

Taxation is a lower bar but certainly better than every one with a pulse gets a vote.

Opportunity Costs on April 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM

A conservative fantasy for ways to push the country towards a conservative utopia. It is a discussion on the merits of disenfranchising anyone that does not meet a certain ideal based on income or tax amount paid.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM

OK. Good principle. I’m unemployed, so I get to decide how much of your money I should get. You’re OK with that, right? If that’s a just principle for government, it ought to be a just principle for individuals, too.

Or would you rather be the one to decide how much of your money you want to give me and how much to keep for yourself? Again, if this is a just principle for individuals, it is a just principle for government.

But is worse than that, because I’m using the euphemism “give” instead of the more accurate term “take.” Politics is nothing but power, and when the government taxes you, it is taking money from you by force. If you don’t believe that, next week tell the IRS that you are a little short this year and won’t be paying income taxes this year. Maybe next time.

When people take money from others by force it is called robbery. Governments that take money from people by force without the consent of a majority of the people being taxed are also robbers. To say that the consent of the recipients of the tax money being taken should matter one whit is patently ridiculous.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 3:02 PM

As originally envisioned by the founders, only land-owners could vote.
AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 2:19 PM

So there we have it. Only the rich should vote. Do they get to vote in way s that benefit their station in life. Like lets say that only inherited wealth gets to vote? Must keep out the trailer trash that stumbled into some money.

Like I said, it’s pretty sad that people that advocate rights and freedoms are all cool with restricting them when it supports their beliefs.

As far as your “unalienable rights” speech it’s all well and good until the wealthy voters decide that maybe they should restrict the voting a little more. After all they know better because they are land owners unlike the unwashed peasants.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:10 PM

When people take money from others by force it is called robbery. Governments that take money from people by force without the consent of a majority of the people being taxed are also robbers. To say that the consent of the recipients of the tax money being taken should matter one whit is patently ridiculous.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 3:02 PM

What crap. The money taken is legally taken and if you don’t think so then file charges against the government. I am so sick of the government stealing our money whine from both sides. It is a fantasy that you can decide what taxes pay for. Just like the liberals whining about Bush stealing money for his illegal wars the conservatives whine Obama is stealing money for his slackers. Two sides of the same coin and just like the liberals conservatives can twist and turn the “facts” to support their side. Sure I think that voting should be restricted to the “right” class of people but beleive me it’s not the class the conservatives or liberals want it to be.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Had this idea too a while ago.

Here’s another one: the alternative minimum tax, meaning that everyone has to pay a minimum tax no matter how little you make. So let’s put that at 5%. Even if you make 20K/yr, you should have to pay the fed government $1000. No exceptions. So if the 50 million people who are paying zero now each had to pay $1000, that would be 50 billion in tax revenue. Works for me.

MADgirl91 on April 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM

MADgirl91 on April 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM

That’s an interesting point.

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Only the rich should vote.
RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:10 PM

I never said such. I’m all for the poor paying something in order to ensure fair representation.

The money taken is legally taken…
RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:19 PM

King George also legally took monies from the colonies.

Ragtag constructs, to say the least, of all your counter points. For all your hyperventilating histrionics, what’s your idea of the ‘right’ class?

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Everyone that has had taxes withheld at some point during the year has paid into the government, no matter if they get all of those withheld taxes back. (Not including federal fuel taxes, telecommunications, etc.)

By loaning the government interest free money for year, it has saved the government interest it would have paid elsewhere to use the same dollars. Should every citizen be required to track how many gallons of fuel they’ve purchased over the year, etc.?)

Would anyone really want to think George Soros or Bill Gates should have a few million votes vs your thousand? Not hardly. At that point we are no longer a republic that has fair representation.

It’s makes as much sense as the arguments I hear about removing the Senate.

Furthermore, nearly every consumer in the nation pays taxes in local or state sales tax whenever they purchase anything. (Let’s pretend federal consumption taxes don’t exist for a minute) Do those people get to walk in and vote for local and state candidates but not allowed to vote federal? If so, how is that tracked? More big government?

It’s silly.

ButterflyDragon on April 10, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I never said such. I’m all for the poor paying something in order to ensure fair representation.

Not to many poor own land. Who decides what “something” is. Somehow I doubt that 10% of 20K will be viewed by those paying 20% of 200k as fair. I expect they would want far more representation for their money.

King George also legally took monies from the colonies.

Your point being?

For all your hyperventilating histrionics

AH_C on April 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Nice that you add in an insult to show exactly what your position on my points is.

Why should I bother to tell you? Like you know I’m hyperventilating, I know that you will not like who I think should be able to vote. So again, why bother?

You have made your position clear. You wish to restrict voting rights to those you think deserve them based on your beliefs. I happen to think that all citizens regardless of class or political affiliation should be able to vote. I happen to beleive that equal rights are not reserved for special classes of people. King George did legally take taxes and we used it as one of the reasons to start this country. We also did away with the class system which it seems so many here want to reestablish.

Remember wealth is only relative to the next guy. The slippery slope could quickly lead to you being on the wrong side of the fence as those who are far richer decide to raise the bar.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Should only those who pay income tax vote?

Don’t give ’em any ideas on who should vote and who shouldn’t.

They’d probably think it a great idea that those who are the most dependent upon the State should be those who should be allowed to vote and not those that aren’t.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2010 at 6:30 PM

The government needs to shrink, not the electorate.

Amen!!

Khun Joe on April 10, 2010 at 8:09 PM

What crap. The money taken is legally taken and if you don’t think so then file charges against the government. I am so sick of the government stealing our money whine from both sides. It is a fantasy that you can decide what taxes pay for. Just like the liberals whining about Bush stealing money for his illegal wars the conservatives whine Obama is stealing money for his slackers. Two sides of the same coin and just like the liberals conservatives can twist and turn the “facts” to support their side. Sure I think that voting should be restricted to the “right” class of people but beleive me it’s not the class the conservatives or liberals want it to be.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Interesting. Besides changing the subject and appealing mto emotion, you admit that you would like to exclude the “wrong class” of people from voting.

Look, troll, the only “class” I would exclude from voting is the class of people who are too lazy or irresponsible to expend effort to earn the right. This distinction is based on character and behavior, not wealth, birth, or position. You can champion the so-called rights of the irresponsible all day long but it’s too late. People of your ilk have taken it too far. You can’t un-ring the bell.

There is a point in every failed relationship where the it dawns on the former victim that, despite protestations of affection and lofty values, the other person is just a leech who is using them by taking advantage of their sense of fairness and good nature. That’s where a lot of us are with you.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 8:20 PM

What crap. The money taken is legally taken and if you don’t think so then file charges against the government. I am so sick of the government stealing our money whine from both sides. It is a fantasy that you can decide what taxes pay for. Just like the liberals whining about Bush stealing money for his illegal wars the conservatives whine Obama is stealing money for his slackers. Two sides of the same coin and just like the liberals conservatives can twist and turn the “facts” to support their side. Sure I think that voting should be restricted to the “right” class of people but beleive me it’s not the class the conservatives or liberals want it to be.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Interesting. Besides changing the subject and appealing to emotion, you admit that you would like to exclude the “wrong class” of people from voting.

Look, troll, the only “class” I would exclude from voting is the class of people who are too lazy or irresponsible to expend effort to earn the right. This distinction is based on character and behavior, not wealth, birth, or position. You can champion the so-called rights of the irresponsible all day long but it’s too late. People of your ilk have taken it too far. You can’t un-ring the bell.

There is a point in every failed relationship where the it dawns on the former victim that, despite protestations of affection and lofty values, the other person is just a leech who is using them by taking advantage of their sense of fairness and good nature. That’s where a lot of us are with you.

fixed it.

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

The United States is a diseased nation. Our governmental problems are but one symptom of this, not the cause.

It is we the people who are to blame for creating this mess. Character is destiny, and the character of a nation is its culture. Ours has been in decline for many decades now.

The chickens are now coming home to roost and we’ve no one to blame but ourselves.

leereyno on April 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM

47% pay no income tax!

Your welcome.

Sincerely,
Hard Working Tax Payer

P.S. Please note that the more of my hard-earned dollars confiscated to pay for your “entitlements”, the less I feel like working.

TN Mom on April 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Look, troll,

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Again with the insults. Interesting that conservatives often accuse liberals of name calling and insults.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Look, troll,

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Maybe you could also point out where I’ve been acting like a troll.

All I have done is accuse those that advocate the removal of the right to vote from people that don’t meet their criteria, of advocating the removal of the right to vote from people that don’t meet their criteria.

How is that trolling?

Who decides who is to lazy? Who decides who is irresponsible?

Is working 20 hours a week too lazy? How about 40? Maybe 60 is too lazy for some here. What is irresponsible? The simple fact that somebody is too irresponsible to work more then 40 hours?

So define exactly what constitutes lazy and irresponsible. How do you stop the “right” people from voting a massive welfare state? How do you stop the “right” people from voting to exclude you? Oh, that’s right, they agree with you so that will never happen.

That’s the problem with restrictive rights. They can always be redefined. They also never work out the way you want.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM

The only real solution is a moral and religious people. (paraphrasing John Adams)

As has been mentioned, we get the government we deserve.

scotash on April 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM

So define exactly what constitutes lazy and irresponsible. How do you stop the “right” people from voting a massive welfare state?

You must be very young if you don’t recognize laziness and irresponsibility when you see it. And the purpose of this is not to prevent taxpayers from voting for a massive welfare state. Because that would be fair. The people who are paying the bills would decide how generous they want to be. If they want to be extremely charitable, that’s their decision. In your world, the thirty-something who never left home or became self-supporting has the “right” to tell mom and pop how much his allowance should be. Not only is that insanely unfair, it’s not good for their great big child. Being self-supporting is an indication that a person can make good decisions on important issues.

This is precisely why the writers of of Constitution originally established a property requirement for voters. The various state legislators chose the Senators; only members of the House of Representitives were popularly elected. The significance of this is seen in the constitutional requirement that all revenue bills must originate in the House. Thus, only property owners would vote for the people who would have the power to tax and spend.

Remember, there were no income taxes back then; virtually all wealth came, directly or indirectly, from land, whether it be the farmer’s fields or the merchant’s shop. The landowning requirement was a rough-and-ready way of ensuring that the power to tax would not be abused. This was not accidental.

The country is bankrupt. We absolutely cannot sustain this kind of spending without national and societal collapse. Everyone agrees on that. It is obvious that the government as now constituted is not working. The question, then, is how do we change it so that it will work? That is what I am talking about. That is concrete; that is real. In contrast, what you have offered up are nothing but platitudes. Well, you don’t diddle with fuzzy abstractions when your house is on fire; you take action to put it out. Our house is on fire. What do you suggest we do?

And this question can’t be blown off. History has shown time and again what happens when problems like these are ignored. Have you ever heard of the Gracchi? Or of Danton? Sooner or later, the societal unrest becomes intolerable to the point where people turn to a dictator in order to restore order. Then you have Caesar instead of the Roman Senate, Napoleon instead of the National Assembly. And in-between, a reign of terror.

If you are young, RagTag, this is very much your problem. I suggest that you find a way to solve it.

Venusian Visitor on April 11, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Venusian Visitor on April 11, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Excellent recap!

RagTag just drives by, sees a phrase it doesn’t like and blows it out of context — but one definition of a troll. Then when it does try to formulate an idea based on the founders, still gets it wrong.

To whit

I happen to beleive that equal rights are not reserved for special classes of people. King George did legally take taxes and we used it as one of the reasons to start this country. We also did away with the class system which it seems so many here want to reestablish.

With a crystalized grasp of history and logic like that, he outta be POTUS and nevermind the Constitutional age restriction.

Well, sooner or later we’re going to get tired of the freeloaders and use it as one of the reasons to restart the country. Hence the discussion on how to reset ourselves to be responsible voters. Hopey-Changers need not apply.

AH_C on April 11, 2010 at 6:23 AM

Look, troll,

Venusian Visitor on April 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Again with the insults. Interesting that conservatives often accuse liberals of name calling and insults.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 10:16 PM

One definition of a “troll” is someone who comes in, throws bombs, and never answers legitimate points made by others.

Need I say more? (not that it matters – trolls don’t listen anyway)

Squiggy on April 11, 2010 at 8:01 AM

Oh yeah – Hey Doc Zero?

I heard Rush Limbaugh commenting on you. He said “this guy on Hot Air, who calls himself Doctor Zero, is exactly right”. It probably was from his Monday show, but I heard on the weekend recap.

Either way – congrats. You’re in the big time now.

Squiggy on April 11, 2010 at 8:07 AM

One definition of a “troll” is someone who comes in, throws bombs, and never answers legitimate points made by others.

Need I say more? (not that it matters – trolls don’t listen anyway)

Squiggy on April 11, 2010 at 8:01 AM

Yes you need to say more.
What bombs am I throwing?
The only thing I have said is that some people here want to restrict voting rights based on their belief system. That is all I have said. For that I have been insulted time and again. Why the insults? Is it because I not being perceived as one of the “tribe”? I stated very clearly who I think should vote but you people only read what you want. You only see what you want to see. I didn’t jump on your restrict the vote bandwagon so I’m a troll, young, liberal, a hope and changy etc….

I’m accused of dropping bombs and not following through but get back insults and vague answers like the lazy are easily recognized.

Like the old saying goes, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

Again define lazy? I will bet not two people here will arrive at the same definition.

That is the problem I have pointed out but you people only read what you want to read.

I have challenged you with the possibility that the “right” people may not vote your way and would you be happy. Of course you answer yes least you be perceived as trying rig the voting towards conservative. Well I think nobody is being honest because you just know that the “right” people would vote your way so it is a silly point in the first place.

You talk of liberal slippery slopes and this is your slippery slope.

Just remember that it never works out the way you want. So as the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for.”

For the record I’m a married, late 50s, highly educated, male, republican, christian that has voted the party line my whole life. That of course is meaningless because you people won’t beleive it because you have decided that I’m a young, liberal troll that worships BO. All because I’m perceived as not being part of “your” group or should I say the “right” kind of people.

Should we restrict the vote? As I’ve said, you will not like who I think should be able to vote.
So here is my anti-constitutional, anti-American, anti-god and country, liberal, childish, BO worshiping, hope and change answer.

All citizens 18 years old or older that have registered to vote should be allowed to vote in their town of residence regardless of , race, religion, income status or political party affiliation. That is also one vote only which would put a real dent in the “snowbird” voters.

I’m sure nobody here likes that because after all I’m just some sort of young, stupid, BO loving, teat sucker that just wants you STEAL your money.

As Dennis Prager says, “You can’t pick your family but you can pick your friends.” I would not want any of you as friends.

RagTag on April 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM

What bombs am I throwing?
The only thing I have said is that some people here want to restrict voting rights based on their belief system. That is all I have said. For that I have been insulted time and again. Why the insults? Is it because I not being perceived as one of the “tribe”? I stated very clearly who I think should vote but you people only read what you want.
RagTag on April 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM

So sayeth RagTag:

I think that only people that serve in the military should get to vote because they know what it means to accept the responsibility of being a citizen.

RagTag on April 9, 2010 at 2:56 PM

That was your 1st comment and a nice allusion to Starship troopers.

But then followup by attacking some of us with gems like this:

How many people don’t buy something?
Every purchase made is taxed. Every single service or item other then food I get is taxed. Is that not paying taxes? I know, it has to be the right kind of tax. Only federal tax right? That way we can eliminate federal welfare because all those slackers can’t vote and we already know they make up every non-conservative in the country but what about state funded welfare? Lets not allow them to vote at the state or local level. In fact why don’t we restrict it to registered republicans that pay federal and state income tax but not RINOs cause we don’t want them voting. Better yet way don’t we just have a conservative test and if you pass it you can vote for only the conservative issues because we can make it illegal to have anything but conservative issues on the ballots.

It’s topics like this that make me think conservatives are as dumb as liberals think they are.

RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I for one didn’t see where someone promoted the idea that only repubs or cons should have the right to vote. But if you did, why didn’t you speak truth to their illogic?

Instead, you take my and some others’ comments out of context and project your bias against liberal rich sports stars, celebrities et al unto us. Where did we even imply that we wanted a conservatives only utopia?

Then you call us dumb. So how’s that for for being the first to insult and call us names? Classic trolling – throw bombs and then say “who/why me?”

If we thot you were emotional, immature and living in Mommy’s basement, it’s because we took you at your childish words. Then you tell us you’re “married, late 50s, highly educated, male, republican, christian that has voted the party line my whole life”. Gee, it’s hard to jibe a profile like that with your words. Yeah, they’re just words, just like no one knows if I’m just a dog or a hick pounding away on my keyboard.

But your ragtageurism bring us to mind a certain individual who’s also married, late 40s, highly edumactaed, male, democrat marxist that voted the progressive line his whole life and yet like two peas in a pod, your notions of social justices are indistinguishable. Yeah, just words, just words, but words have meaning and context.

You see the reality of our constitution darkly thru the lense of democracy when we’re actually a republic. You conflate inalienable rights from God with the privileges given us by our govt depending on class and standing in society.

Yes, class. Without classes of people, we’d have anarchy. To whit you have to be a certain age to drive, drink, vote etc. You bash us for ‘classism’ while you reserve the right to classify people (dumb, con, lib, poor, rich).

None of whom you’ve attacked said anything remotely akin to keeping the poor class down and out of politics. Just that the eligibility to vote be predicated on paying taxes — not on wealth. We’re all for enfranchising the poor; by extending some of the tax burden to them. Reasonable people can debate the merits of that without impugning motives or histronics.

It’s a fact of life and history that laws and taxes are designed to incent or disincent people to do certain things. So it stands to reason that paying taxes/owning property will incent/disincent people according. The question is what might the unintended consequences?

Your counterpoints illustrate, in the esscense, your fundamental misunderstanding of federalist vs deomocratic principles and the segregation of powers and rights inherent in each system.

A federation of states means that rules/requirements are not uniform at the local/state level vs federal. By design, there are things that the state can do that the feds should not do. To lump local/state taxes with federal taxation is like comparing apples & oranges.

What I and others were talking about is getting the feds back in their place and ensuring they stay there, a limited federal power with clearly delineated lines of responsibility. What the states and local municipalities do is entirely different.

From your own words, there’s not much difference from a certain “constitutional professor” who thinks that a system of negative rights is fundamentally flawed. The same who wants to change it to a system of redistribution of wealth and the issuance of brand new rights from a new higher power — the federal elite — by appealing to the lowest common denominator class of people — the “working poor”.

AH_C on April 11, 2010 at 2:18 PM

By all means, I think only those with enough $$ should be allowed to vote.
This will ultimately result in some version of the feudal systems of old.
Then only the rich & landed will have power & control over the poor serf class.
This will undoubtedly take care of the lazy voters who vote themselves entitlements.
Bcs if you cannot make a pile of $$ in this country, you are nothing but lazy & stupid & deserve to be disenfranchised.
Bcs if you are not smart enough to rise up & pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, your contributions are worth less than a rich or propertied man’s contributions.
Therefore I implore we bring back the title system.
Only noblemen & country gnetleman may own property & vote.
This will take care of the uneducated, unwashed rabble that is now perpetrating fraud upon the hard working individuals in this fine nation.
Let us rich & propertied individuals rise up & squash the power of the rabble rousers & peasants.
This way we can rebuid the nation after the old in which we split from.
Perhaps we can even bring back the title of King & Queen, voted in, of course, by We, the rich & propertied class.
[spoken in a nasal British twang]

Badger40 on April 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Who decides who is to lazy? Who decides who is irresponsible?
RagTag on April 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Why, the Politboro, my Dear Comrade.
They will only act in the best interest of the People.
For the rich & propertied would never vote against the best interests of those without wealth & property.
The conservative wealthy & propertied are our saviors.
They will show us the error of your selfish welfare grubbing ways.
And of course, there is no need to worry about them consolidating the wealth & property for themselves.
This would never happen bcs after all, America is the land of plenty & opportunity.
In no way would conservative property owners ever abuse their special powers of the vote.
They are happy to let other amass as much wealth as themselves.

Badger40 on April 11, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Damned right they should be the only ones who can vote.

But more importantly the Senate needs to go back to being any appointed position, rather than a popular-elected one. Things really started to go to hell after that change.

rayra on April 12, 2010 at 1:16 AM

This is a good piece. To be sure, I’ve thought of this, and I’m glad that Doctor Zero has addressed it. I’m grateful for seeing another point of view on this subject.

tartan on April 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM