From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[Dr.Who]

The voting system we have in this country is not based on this simple statement. Perhaps it is time to change that. some people have much more ability than their neighbors and yet they only have one vote. These people should be required to use their greater abilities for the benefit of all. These people are wiser, smarter, and more capable of making good decisions so they should play a greater role in the electing of our government officials. Meanwhile there are some who are not as wise, or smart, or capable. They would make bad voting choices because they are in need of the tools to cast a good vote. Clearly those who do not have the ability to vote wisely should have their vote given to someone who can.

Innately our politicians recognize this fact and they act on their knowledge that this is the way it should be. When people come to talk to their congressmen the politician always gives more time to the rich people who have proven that they are able. The rich have more influence over our elected officials. They can donate more money to political campaigns, they can introduce the politician to others who also are more able, and they can trade favors. Our politicans would not do this if they did not subscribe to the view that from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If they held onto to some silly notion that all men were created equal, that each man should cast just one vote, that the laws should be applied with equal protection for all. No we are lucky that our congressmen know that while all are equal some are more equal.

 

[karrma]

Sounds like spread the wealth to me if you think of taxes.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sounds like spread the wealth to me if you think of taxes.

Taxes can be used for all sorts of things. They can be used to accomplish things that are written into our constitution and benefit every single citizen equally or they can be used to support things that were never intended by the writers of the constitution, that are anathama to the ideals this country were founded on, and only benefit a few people at the expense of a few others who were coerced into paying taxes.

When the gov takes the hard earned honestly earned property of one group of people and gives it to another group of people that undermines the concept of equal protection under the law.

When it takes the property from hard earned honestly earned property of one group of people and gives it to another group who have not worked hard that undermines the value of being productive.

When it takes the property from hard earned honestly earned property of one group of people and gives it to people who are demanding the cash selfishly that undermines the value of honesty.

If you want a nation in which equal protection under the law, hard work and productivity, and honesty are decreasing qualities then by all means vote for Sen. Obama. If you want a nation that respects the constitution as written and the values just listed then vote against Sen. Obama.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want a nation in which equal protection under the law, hard work and productivity, and honesty are decreasing qualities then by all means vote for Sen. Obama. If you want a nation that respects the constitution as written and the values just listed then vote against Sen. Obama.

I find the nickname Senator Government to be most appropriate... If he should win, he could become President Government.

 

[Dr.Who]

About thirty people have seen this thread. does no one agree with me that voting should be granted to each according to his ability and witheld from each according to his need?

 

[GenSeneca]

Once upon a time only tax payers got to vote... since it was THEIR money, they had the say in how it was used. I think we should go back to that system... People who DON'T pay taxes shouldn't be able to DEMAND money and beneifts from those that do pay.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Sure, and let's get rid of "one man, one vote" and allot votes based on income taxes. The more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get, if you don't pay any income taxes, YOU DON'T VOTE!

That'll get those "poor" lazy, good-for-nothing, worthless, sacks-of-spit off their dead lazy butts and get 'em working, or not, but then who would care.

 

[Pandora]

Sure, and let's get rid of "one man, one vote" and allot votes based on income taxes. The more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get, if you don't pay any income taxes, YOU DON'T VOTE!

That'll get those "poor" lazy, good-for-nothing, worthless, sacks-of-spit off their dead lazy butts and get 'em working, or not, but then who would care.

I would not get to vote but I think its a great idea. I could vote if I turned down the Earned Income Credit and to be able to vote against someone like Obama it would be worth turning that down.

 

[Stalin]

Let us consider the case of Joe the Assembly Line worker

Joe worked for Universal Motors for 35 years, assembling the Snazmobile.

Last July, the plant closed down and was moved to Thailand.

Joe was laid off, but he wisely had commissioned a good penson plan and he reckoned that he could survive on that.

One week ago, Joe learned that his pension had disappeared when RipOff finance has taken over his pension plan and invested it in Lehman Brothers.

Now, Joe is to lose his vote in the proposed Voter Tax Payer Amendment.

I don't think so comrades.

 

[karrma]

I really could not tell if you were serious or satirical with this quote related to voting, so put the quote in a different reference, taxes.

I was hoping it was satirical, but looking at the rest of the threads, you are serious. Wow!!!!!

With a logical analysis of your writings, I saw no logic in them. Maybe the vote should be given only to those that can think logically?

Sorry, but no one has responded yet to my first post on this forum, on an issue question. Addressing that may sway my vote. All the chest beating is just that.

 

[foggedinn]

I'm suprised that of all the politically aware people that post here, no one has mentioned that the thread title is a direct quote from the communist manifesto.

 

[Pandora]

Most people probably know that and figured every one else does too ?

 

[dahermit]

The voting system we have in this country is not based on this simple statement. Perhaps it is time to change that. some people have much more ability than their neighbors and yet they only have one vote. These people should be required to use their greater abilities for the benefit of all. These people are wiser, smarter, and more capable of making good decisions so they should play a greater role in the electing of our government officials. Meanwhile there are some who are not as wise, or smart, or capable. They would make bad voting choices because they are in need of the tools to cast a good vote. Clearly those who do not have the ability to vote wisely should have their vote given to someone who can.

Innately our politicians recognize this fact and they act on their knowledge that this is the way it should be. When people come to talk to their congressmen the politician always gives more time to the rich people who have proven that they are able. The rich have more influence over our elected officials. They can donate more money to political campaigns, they can introduce the politician to others who also are more able, and they can trade favors. Our politicans would not do this if they did not subscribe to the view that from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If they held onto to some silly notion that all men were created equal, that each man should cast just one vote, that the laws should be applied with equal protection for all. No we are lucky that our congressmen know that while all are equal some are more equal.

Yes, I agree. The wealthy like professional sports heroes (OJ Simpson for example.), Paris Hilton, the no underwear queen (I forget her name), should have more influence in American politics. However, people like Marilyn VosSavant, not having as much money as those I have mentioned should have less influence. Good thinking!

 

[foggedinn]

Most people probably know that and figured every one else does too ?

Of course, we also know all about assumptions.

I hardly ever hear anyone mention that Marx almost seems to be plagerizing the Apostle Paul from the Book of the Acts.

 

[Pandora]

Of course, we also know all about assumptions.

I hardly ever hear anyone mention that Marx almost seems to be plagerizing the Apostle Paul from the Book of the Acts.

Where Marx got it wrong was using a Godly plan but taking God out of the picture. He did not understand that we can’t "make" people give. Giving is of the heart, if you give with a cheerful heart you are rewarded in Heaven and on earth. It feels really good to give.

But when someone robs you and gives away your stuff it sucks and only makes you bitter.

If Marx had encouraged giving from the heart instead of taking it from you and giving to who the government saw fit it may have worked.

I would even be happy with a check sheet with my taxes.

Monthly writing a check for my taxes and checking the boxes to the programs I think are important to fund. At least then I have some say