Somebody had too much coffee .... On Jul 20, 12:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Venus. :-) > > On Jul 20, 1:50 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > rigs, > > > Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us are? Tell me, > > exactly what planet are you on right now? > > > On Jul 20, 1:47 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
