patrick.net

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

It's all irrelevant anyway. With the onset of electronic voting, the software engineers will be deciding our elections from here on out...
Who else is capable of deciphering binary code to determine if 'corruption' is embedded..

If you believe Uncle Harry....

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

Romney paid over 3 mil in fed tax in 2010, so he would be eligible to vote in 2010-2011, or however the logistics work out for that approach.

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

xrpb11a says

If you believe Uncle Harry....

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

Reid vs Romney: A Mormon catfight!

xrpb11a says

How so?

Like this:

Single, no deductions, 1 exemption
$7.86 hr, 35 hrs/wk, 40 wks/yr = $11,000 gross income
Standard deduction =-$5800
Personal Exemption = -$3700

Taxable Income = $1500, taxes owed(10%) = $150
Earned Income Tax Credit = -$202.
Total Federal Income Tax = -$52.

Payroll Taxes, employee portion = $11,000 * (.042+.0145) = $621.50

Net Taxes, Employee portion, $569.50.

Payroll Taxes, Employer portion = $11,000 * (.062+.0145) = $841.50.

Total net taxes paid to Federal Govt. = $1411, 12.8% of income, slightly less than % Mitt Romney paid.

QED.

xrpb11a says

No.

I am referring to "Federal Income Tax".

I am not referring to "Payroll Tax".

leoj707 says

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

At the state and local level you seem to let just about any kind of tax allow for voting. Why the inconsistency with federal taxes?

It seems like you are arguing, not that to get the vote one must pay taxes, but to get the vote one must pay a tax selected by you as "approved" to allow the vote.

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.

I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

leoj707 says

xrpb11a says

No.

I am referring to "Federal Income Tax".

I am not referring to "Payroll Tax".

leoj707 says

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

At the state and local level you seem to let just about any kind of tax allow for voting. Why the inconsistency with federal taxes?

It seems like you are arguing, not that to get the vote one must pay taxes, but to get the vote one must pay a tax selected by you as "approved" to allow the vote.

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

xrpb11a says

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.
I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

david1 says

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

Anyone, could file and pay just $1, or 1¢ for that matter.

leoj707 says

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

If the Ryan plan passes Romney will at least have to pay tax on his Presidential Salary.

CaptainShuddup says

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

You're damn right I'd complain. It would be a total waste money, since there is no illegal immigrant voting problem.

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

What the hell is special about income tax as opposed to any other form of money going to the federal government? That's just bullshit.

Illegal aliens and dead people will not be able to vote, as they are now.

People with no income will not pay federal income tax, thus would not be eligible for voting for federal offices.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.

I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

leoj707 says

david1 says

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

Anyone, could file and pay just $1, or 1¢ for that matter.

Well, he paid over 3 million in federal income taxes in 2010, so he's used to paying taxes....

david1 says

leoj707 says

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

If the Ryan plan passes Romney will at least have to pay tax on his Presidential Salary.

If that were the case, democrats would not be objecting to voter ID laws.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314905/illegal-immigrants-illegal-votes-hans-von-spakovsky

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-foster/democrats-benefit-from-illegal-immigrants-voting_b_1418523.html

for starters....

rooemoore says

CaptainShuddup says

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

You're damn right I'd complain. It would be a total waste money, since there is no illegal immigrant voting problem.

I may be wrong, but I think "income tax" goes directly to funding government operations, whereas all other taxes are targeted to specific projects...ie social security, workers comp, etc..etc..

bob2356 says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

What the hell is special about income tax as opposed to any other form of money going to the federal government? That's just bullshit.

xrpb11a says

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

Plenty of foreign corporations pay US Federal Tax .. but they should no vote in our election..

Foreigners are subjects of foreign governments.. they too should NOT vote in our election. The US constitution is pretty clear on who can vote.. US Citizens ONLY!

Pure stupidity to hinge voting rights on if YOU pay US Tax...

I agree.
I rescind my comment about corporations having voting rights due to paying US taxes.

thomaswong.1986 says

xrpb11a says

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

Plenty of foreign corporations pay US Federal Tax .. but they should no vote in our election..

Foreigners are subjects of foreign governments.. they too should NOT vote in our election. The US constitution is pretty clear on who can vote.. US Citizens ONLY!

Pure stupidity to hinge voting rights on if YOU pay US Tax...

I like the idea of a federal sales tax to replace income tax.

If that came about, I would go back to supporting "citizens with photo ID" as eligible candidates to vote.

leoj707 says

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

xrpb11a says

If it takes you more than 10 weeks to mozy down to your local DMV and have your picture taken, you can't be taken as a serious voter in the first place.

That's not really the point.

It's just a fact that if people who don't have a license have to make it to the DMV in the next 10 weeks to be able to vote, some significant number of them will not get it done, even though they would have gotten the much easier task of going to the polls and voting on election day done.

A costly solution, but for one time only:

At each polling station have set up a photo ID service desk. For this election only given the short time involved.

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

marcus says

xrpb11a says

If it takes you more than 10 weeks to mozy down to your local DMV and have your picture taken, you can't be taken as a serious voter in the first place.

That's not really the point.

It's just a fact that if people who don't have a license have to make it to the DMV in the next 10 weeks to be able to vote, some significant number of them will not get it done, even though they would have gotten the much easier task of going to the polls and voting on election day done.

xrpb11a says

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

You are missing the whole point of the law:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8

The video can be interpreted several ways..

* restricting voter eligibility will help the republicans. ( preferred interpretation of democrats )

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Pick your poison.

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

You are missing the whole point of the law:

xrpb11a says

The video can be interpreted several ways..

* restricting voter eligibility will help the republicans. ( preferred interpretation of democrats )

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Pick your poison.

Well, I guess we have to go with the former since, as the Republicans defending the law against the ACLU stated this:

“There have been no investigations of prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” according to official state papers sent to the court.

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

rooemoore says

Well, I guess we have to go with the former since, as the Republicans defending the law against the ACLU stated this:

“There have been no investigations of prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” according to official state papers sent to the court.

xrpb11a says

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Really ?

So in other words, republicans are all retards that have no interest in facts ?

I guess you could be right, if you were to put it that way. But tell me this. Do you think those who pushed for the laws did it out of sincere belief that there is a problem with that type of fraud (impersonating a registered voter other than themself) ?

I remember back when one out of 5 or so things you said actually sounded halfway intelligent (under your previous identity Wrtthfk or whatever it was).

PPete says

So lets get out the propaganda that it's because of vote rigging.

It's more like lets be awake and prevent it this time.

If you were awake in 2004, you understand there was probably some funny business in Ohio.

marcus says

(under your previous identity Wrtthfk or whatever it was).

lol.

marcus says

xrpb11a says

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Really ?

So in other words, republicans are all retards that have no interest in facts ?

I guess you could be right, if you were to put it that way. But tell me this. Do you think those who pushed for the laws did it out of sincere belief that there is a problem with that type of fraud (impersonating a registered voter other than themself) ?

No. They are pursuing this to win the election by any and all means, same as the democrats. Welcome to politics circa 2012..

I remember back when one out of 5 or so things you said actually sounded halfway intelligent (under your previous identity Wrtthfk or whatever it was).

LOL....wasn't me, but thanks for the backhanded complement....

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

If this is possible in Florida, why not PA??

marcus says

Really ?

So in other words, republicans are all retards that have no interest in facts ?

xrpb11a says

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

I thought we were talking about voter fraud. (not jury duty fraud) The Bush justice dept. spent 5 years and millions of dollars looking for it and guess what they found? Nada! (pun intended)

There has been tons of research done by both sides of the political spectrum looking into this and, to date nothing significant has been found. The thing is, illegal aliens don't vote. They are trying to keep as low a profile as possible. If they do vote illegally in any significant #s, (>.001%), BELIEVE ME it would be the lead story on FOX or MSNBC (depending on who they voted for) for weeks. In Penn. the republicans spent a lot of time looking for it in Philly and Pittsburg but never found it.

The reason they can pass this law is because most enfranchised citizens look at it and say "Big deal. Everyone has a govt. issued picture ID. Seems like a logical law." If they understood what was really happening I think most would say it is wrong.

In most states jury duty lists are generated by driver license registration lists and voter registration lists.

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

I thought we were talking about voter fraud. (not jury duty fraud)

The link below states otherwise...

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

I thought we were talking about voter fraud. (not jury duty fraud) The Bush justice dept. spent 5 years and millions of dollars looking for it and guess what they found? Nada! (pun intended)

There has been tons of research done by both sides of the political spectrum looking into this and, to date nothing significant has been found.

People have become so partisan (and limited to the two strongest factions) that they can only see this issue in Democrat vs Republican terms. In 1993 Jimmy Carter published a book (Turning Point) recounting his start in politics in the 1960s, including an election where he had to challenge vote fraud in order to win. Carter's challenge showed that significant numbers of deceased persons had voted, in alphabetical order, in precincts that went for his opponent. After taking office, Carter sponsored legislation to say that nobody could vote who had been dead for more than a few months. As he recounted the story years ago to Jay Leno, "There was debate." People would say things like, "My daddy really cared about this election, and I know how he intended to vote." The French complain that dead people vote in Corsica. From Chicago to Texas, people have been talking about ballot stuffing for half a century. I have never heard of illegal aliens voting, and it seems very unlikely to me, but there is a long history of vote fraud around the world.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be an opportunity to make sure everyone has free and fair access to ID. I would suggest to Democrats that it should be tied in to requiring and funding paper ballots in all federal elections, and saying everyone should have a right to a free copy of their documents if they need those in order to vote, e.g. birth certificate and Social Security card. Campaign volunteers can drive the elderly.

It's been a national issue since the 2000 election. If the Democrats could get Obamneycare through, why couldn't they do this?

xrpb11a says

The link below states otherwise...

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

A Heritage Foundation sponsored study from 7 years ago that has been dismissed as misleading and inaccurate by both parties?

The Republicans, (in this case) have alleged voter fraud. It is their onus to prove it. They haven't. I have no problem with a reasonable approach (as you suggested above). Of course, then the real purpose of the law would be mitigated.

I didn't see the "misleading and inaccurate"" statements by both parties. If that's the case, then I need a new 'counterpoint'...

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

The link below states otherwise...

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

A Heritage Foundation sponsored study from 7 years ago that has been dismissed as misleading and inaccurate by both parties?

xrpb11a says

I didn't see the "misleading and inaccurate"" statements by both parties. If that's the case, then I need a new 'counterpoint'.

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/06-11-07%20Former%20Voting%20Section%20Staff%20Letter.pdf

dems and pubs signed this. enjoy reading it.