patrick.net

Here is a translation of your juvenile response: I know you are but what am I?

Liberals are not a scapegoat. A scapegoat is an animal, person or group that bears the blame for the errors of others. Others are not causing the errors. Liberals are causing the errors all by themselves (well, with some assistance from the Republicans).

In case you haven't noticed, liberals are the ones who are "leading" our country towards socialism, collectivism, big bloated centralized government, involuntary servitude and the like. Things you seem to be okay with. Normal human beings do not rationally give up their freedom.

Honest Abe says

Here is a translation of your juvenile response: I know you are but what am I?

Time after time you've posted on this forum, dissing on the rest of us. Your message has been pretty much, "I know you are, but what am I?" So why are you pissed when someone says it to you?

Who's pissed? I'm just astounded by your foolish perception that providing for every one's material welfare and health care, protecting everyone's self-esteem, correcting all social and political disadvantages, the elimination all class distinctions and the leveling of every concievable "playing field" is governments REAL job.

If government actually accomplishes what you desire, we will all awaken to a communist existence some day. An existence where we are all EQUALLY impoverished. Just say "NO" to a "1984" type existence. Instead, fight for freedom and liberty for all.

I do not have a hard stance on this idea, at least in the exact form that it is presented here. I would, however, point out that many who like to stress that everyone should be allowed to vote would, in fact, probably agree with the current limitations that are already in place. E.g.: Felons cannot vote. Children cannot vote. Etc. So obviously "everyone" cannot vote.

I personally feel that a system that weights the value of a person's vote has some merit to it. E.g., good arguments might be made for age, military service, taxpayer status, and education level (or even IQ). Of course, some may suggest this is "racist" or worse, but it's really just a matter of what is measured, and what weights are assigned (as opposed to the current can vote/can't vote system).

Then, of course, there is the very real concern of the integrity of the voting/counting system itself.

what is the reason for removing a felons vote?

Bap33 says

what is the reason for removing a felons vote?

To punish them forever.

While I do think that right to vote is taken for granted too often, I still feel it's value is great enough that one who has served his time should be granted that right again.

I would like to see some type of voting rule that kept those who rely on wealth transfers for income from voting (while on the take + 1 full year after stopping). That would help avoid votes-for-welfare, wouldn't it? And I do not just mean low-income welfare takers. I mean farmers and gov workers and teachers too .... if your wealth comes from a taxpayer base it would be a little bit safer to disallow you to vote ... wouldn't it? Maybe the votes can be valued out based on voter's income source? Just tossing ideas out.

Bap33 says

Just tossing ideas out

No offense, but this is happy talk. Our voting system is fine, except I worry about fraud.

What about people who want taxes lowered ? It's somewhat subjective. That is, it's a good thing if taxes are too high, and a bad thing if taxes are too low ( see laffer curve). But people don't know where the correct optimal level is (relative to govt needs, the defiicit, and economic growth).

And yet lowering taxes is ALWAYS popular. When someone votes for lower taxes, they are voting for more money in their pocket. Gosh, is there some way that we can say that if taxes are already as low as we can afford for them to be, that then voting for a tax decrease is illegal ?

we could ... right after all forms of welfare that are funded by forced wealth transfers are ended.

marcus - that was embarrassing. From where did you glean this monumentally delusional point of view on taxes? And how does your type resolve themselves with the uncomfortable idea that we became the most powerful and productive nation in the history of mankind without any income tax whatsoever? It doesn't matter what you may personally "feel" - you simply cannot defend such a phenomenally inane statement as "taxes are already as low as we can afford them to be" in the face of this fact, nor with even the most basic knowledge of human history.

I am, however, not surprised to hear this sadness from you after your mindless defense of 'Nomograph' yesterday.

I said that people don't know what the optimal level is. That doesn't mean that there isn't an optimal level.

And the last sentence was meant to be facetious (AND please note and comprehend the word "IF" ). My point being that you can't outlaw people voting for taxes being higher because of self interest anymore than you can outlaw people voting for taxes to be lower for reasons of self interest.

Some might say that lower taxes are always in our self interest. But that is like saying having lower bills is always good. So ?

I at least did try to comprehend ( and I am capable of comprehending ) what you were saying about the Federal Reserve. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, and that you therefore chose to totally misrepresent what I said above. Maybe consider reading it again.

Don't worry about my (or anyone's) feelings; state your case.

And on that point, thanks for an intelligent response.

By the way, just out of curiosity, when exactly by your reckoning did we become the most powerful country ? What decade or so do you think most people put that ?

I have to admit that I don't have the statistics at hand to know when that happened, or if in fact it ever did. I assume it via common sense, though possibly you can convince me otherwise. If I were to guess, though, I'd say around the start of the 20th century.

...which was just after the industrial revolution, before the income tax, and before centrally orchestrated monetary inflation, just to be clear. Of course, we remained such a power after these things transpired as well, but on this, I would maintain the following two important points:

1) Central control of the money supply does not necessarily inhibit economic "growth". As per Keynes, it can in fact fuel it. I merely assert that much of the fruit of this productivity is under the control of the money makers, and not the producers.

2) After the institution of the income tax, taxes were still lower in the United States than in most other nations. This is no longer true, and neither is our per capita DP.

Homograph - Here's an interesting question that ought to take some real thinking:

Which president do you think most closely resembles Adolf Hitler:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Barack Obama

(Of course, I left others off there that you might place higher, and therefore it's not really a fair question! ...I suppose you can name anyone you'd like. :) )

Glenn ? Can we get a little help here ?

Let's not forget that in Hitler's fascist regime run amok he did use the word "socialist" in it's name. And we all know what Obama is. So there. I said it.

Yours Truly, Glenn ( great american conservative intellect)

It would be unamerican, and I don't advocate it, but of the silly ideas thrown around here about who should be disallowed from voting, the IQ limit is the most intriguing one. Say only the top 25%. (No I am not saying that necessarily includes me). Maybe even make it the top 40%.

Obviously a wrong and absurd idea. And yet I would find it reassuring, especially if the economy were to get much worse.

Yes, I'm out of my league. E.g., your penetrating sarcasm and wit are several levels beyond my capacity to absorb - in fact, I would even propose that I'm not really even aware of them! I'm the type that would read a question of the form "which answer most closely resembles [something]" and fail to come up with the clever "none".

Nomo, I get paid through fee for service, like PGE, not tax based in any way. Just so you know. lol. Most water/sewer/garbage employees are not paid by taxation, but rather for a service. The lack of competition requires the depts to operate as a non-profit type of deal. But, if I did work in a public funded area I would stand by my point - at least I think I would.

Hitler ..... not a big fan. He was smarter than Lord Barry ..... or the media of his time did an even better job of production than today's poop-grinders do for Lord Barry. Did Hitler have a DeadFish working for him publicly?

We have a lot of ignorant racists in this country, but we also already have sufficient diversity ( and even pride in our diversity, at least in the blue states ) such that a racist type of fascism like Hitler's could never happen here.

The corporatist type of fascism though, that Mussolini practiced and that Hitler claimed to be ( to obtain power ), that was the direction that many liberals felt and said we were heading under Bush. Maybe some of the wacky things that Glenn Beck and other like minded entertainers say is more or less payback for that.