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

[Dr.Who]

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.

Actually I was being satirical. The others are no doubt very frustrated. I am sure they could be convinced of the benefit to all of us in having each person have a vote. My satire was meant to point out the ridiculousness of applying that Marxist slogan to income taxes but not applying it to voting.

My belief is that the slogan is not appropriate when applied to either income taxes or voting. Each person in a fair system would pay the same percentage and have the same voting power regardless of ability or need.

I was hoping some liberals would come on and disagree with me strongly. Wchis is why I could not make the satire too obvious.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

I guess it was neither a good plan nor a wise one. Did these companies act illegally in harming him? Then this is the role of government to punish the wrongdoers and demand compensation. If the gov can do a good job of this, their only legitimate role, then all will be will. If not then they have no business taking on more responsibilities that they cannot handle and will just muck up. Or were the companies victims too?

Alas, unless he is a government employee exempt from paying social security he still has that. And if he had listened to just about anyone when it comes to retirement planning then he has something he saved up for himself. If not then there are always continuation of work, grown children, relatives, friends, church, community, charity, and welfare, preferably in that order.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

Except that Marx was coercive (which makes the plan evil) and those that lived that way in Paul's writing volunteered to do so with the right to stop doing so whenever they wanted to.

 

[Dr.Who]

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

What most people probably don't know is that Marx said that slogan would only work when resources were not scarce. Those who try to apply it to scarce resources, like money, are applying it in a way that is specifically never going to work. But we all already know that socialism and communism don't work. I even think most of the socialist and communists know it won't work, but hey, it's a great gravy train.

 

[Pandora]

What most people probably don't know is that Marx said that slogan would only work when resources were not scarce. Those who try to apply it to scarce resources, like money, are applying it in a way that is specifically never going to work. But we all already know that socialism and communism don't work. I even think most of the socialist and communists know it won't work, but hey, it's a great gravy train.

People are strang, they want things that others dont have.

I play this video game and there are things that used to be rare, hardly anone had them and people would pay tons for them. they did nothing it was just that not to many had them. so the game thought we will make it so everyone can have them, now that they are not rare, you see them laying on the ground, who cares anyone can have it and then they go after some other rare item that is totally useless and no one else has.

everyone wants to be the first, people slept in line for days to get the first iphones. 3 weeks later when they were cheaper I walked in the store and got one in less than 3 minutes.

human nature seems to be that people will always want something others dont have and people will aways want it first.

its sad but you cant stop human nature. and as long as humans are humans socialism will not work

 

[Libsmasher]

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.

Joe the Assembly Line worker is a fool. Unless his brain was COMPLETELY fosilized with liberal-left propaganda, he should have been aware for, oh, the last 30 years that all smokestack industries would leave for foreign countries, and planned accordingly.

 

[Andy]

INVESTED INTEREST
I'm more into just not allowing anyone who doesn't have an invested interest in the US, to vote. If you don't run a business or have property in the US, or serve the US in military service, then I don't think you should be able to vote.

Although I get the idea that only those who pay taxes should be voting on what happens to those tax dollars.

But as long as people who don't have anything to lose, people with no property, no business that can fail, are able to vote for people who will steal stuff from others and give it to them, regardless of if they pay taxes, it will merely be for the first politician to promise them something.

Even if they know the policies they support will have drastic negative consequences, they don't care, they have nothing to lose.

EVERYONE PAYS TAXES
The other problem is, I think everyone pays taxes. There is not one person who does not pay taxes, and taxes on taxes, and some more taxes on that. We have so many taxes, we don't even know what taxes we pay.

For example, even IF we have deductions on our 'income tax', we still pay FICO, and that's nothing more than a tax. Your social security tax goes straight to the general budget and is spent. You pay medicare and medicaid. Even then, your not done. You pay $1 of tax on every gallon of gas you buy. Then, on the remaining $2.50, part of that cost is transportation, which has an environmental fee, that is passed right on to you. Then of the remaining $2.00, the company that made the gas has a massive capital gains tax, that is passed right on it you. Then you have imported oil tariffs, that are passed right on to you.

That's just gasoline! No one knows that the US has had sugar subsidies that artificially inflates the cost of sugar. That's the reason half the industry uses high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar. If not for the government inflated price, corn syrup would be more expensive. Who pays this indirect "tax"? All of us do! With higher costing food that uses, or would use sugar!

Or how about this one... there is a 3% federal excise tax on phones. It's a temporary tax on phone service, both land line, and cell phone, that is to pay for the war! Yeah... the war... the Spanish-American war. That's right, in 1898, Teddy Roosevelt enacted a "Temporary" "Luxury" tax on telephones, because "only the rich can afford phones". For the last 107+ years, our benevolent congress has vote each and every year, to continue the temporary tax to pay for the Spanish-American war.

Point being, we are paying so many taxes, we don't even know what taxes we pay. Every tax on the rich, is passed onto us when they raise their incomes, causing stagnate wages. Every capital gains tax is passed onto us by reduced benefits or reduction in new jobs. Every minimum wage increase is passed onto us by higher inflation as the cost of producing goods increases.

Liberalism is just so.... stupid.

 

[Bunz]

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.

Creating two seperate classes of citizens is un-American in principal. I would forsee horrible fraud and potential violence if this policy were put into practice. The Constitution lays out quite clearly the requirements for voting in America. I would be curious as to your feelings of the opposite end of this, by making voting compulsory. I understand the thinking here, but limiting the very basis of democracy in America is a huge step backwards.

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.

Well on a national level, we already have an elite ruling class, it is Congress.
Limiting those who vote in congressional elections, guts the influence of the poppulous. Wealthy people will have thier influence on elected officials regardless. It shouldnt come at further expense to Americans.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

The Constitution lays out quite clearly the requirements for voting in America.

And pray tell, where in the Constitution are those "requirements" for voting contained?

In case you missed it, there is NO Constitutional "right" to vote. You are ALLOWED to vote by your State, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[top gun]

America is for all it's citizens. It's not about how much you have... it's about being born an American.

Think how greedy and corrupt a this country would be if only the well off could vote. It's not even imaginable but we got a small taste of it before organized labor and how the regular American worker was to a great extent treated terribly.

The problem with spending is completely across Party lines and has a lot to do with the way our government was set up in the first place. Representatives can't get re-elected if they don't bring money back to their home Districts or States. That's just the way it is. But we're almost in such a terrible spot under this last 8 years of Republican "Borrow & Spend" that it might actually help everyone to be able to think of the big picture.

The big things have to be funded... the military... Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid things like this. These are only really debatable as far as size & dollar amounts... not if or if not.

The United States gives away a lot money to the rest of the world... an unbelievable amount. As much as I like to help people in need I think sometimes there are economic times here at home when we have to bring the lion's share of that money back in house and work on our own financial problems here at home.

If the government reduced it's foreign aid I really believe churches & charities would focus in on the most needy and there would still be some needed help probably focused to the most needy and most desperate situations.

So it all really boils down to HOW we spend our money and where.

 

[Pandora]

Creating two seperate classes of citizens is un-American in principal. I would forsee horrible fraud and potential violence if this policy were put into practice. The Constitution lays out quite clearly the requirements for voting in America. I would be curious as to your feelings of the opposite end of this, by making voting compulsory. I understand the thinking here, but limiting the very basis of democracy in America is a huge step backwards.


Well on a national level, we already have an elite ruling class, it is Congress.
Limiting those who vote in congressional elections, guts the influence of the poppulous. Wealthy people will have thier influence on elected officials regardless. It shouldnt come at further expense to Americans.

Two seperate classes of citizens is very un-American I agree. The human beings who have not yet been born or are born via botched abortions are not treated the same as other Americans. and that is very very UN American indeed!

The first voters were land owners only, Men and White men at that. No women could vote. Where are you reading about the constitutional requirements?

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

America is for all it's citizens. It's not about how much you have... it's about being born an American.

Think how greedy and corrupt a this country would be if only the well off could vote.

You mean the way it was done for the first 100 years of our nation? In fact, when our nation was brand new, in Virginia for instance, only White, Male, Land Owning, Educated, Protestants could vote, everyone else was prevented from doing so, because they were too STUPID to be allowed to participate in something so critical.

It's not even imaginable but we got a small taste of it before organized labor and how the regular American worker was to a great extent treated terribly.

Ah yes, "organized labor", the BANE of the American "free enterprise system". It's you vaunted "organized labor" that killed our steel industry, our automotive industry, and every other industry that it's touched. Why do you think so many businesses closed up shop and headed overseas? Because it's STUPID to pay some under-educated moron $35 an hour to tighten lugnuts on an assembly line when you can pay someone $10 an hour, and get a better job, and more production out of them.

The problem with spending is completely across Party lines and has a lot to do with the way our government was set up in the first place. Representatives can't get re-elected if they don't bring money back to their home Districts or States. That's just the way it is. But we're almost in such a terrible spot under this last 8 years of Republican "Borrow & Spend" that it might actually help everyone to be able to think of the big picture.

Again, your glaring IGNORANCE of our history is abundently clear. Originally they didn't bring money back home to their districts, because there 1) was no money for them TO bring back, and 2) they understood that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DO SO. Do us all a favor and take a basic history class on post revolution colonial America before you convince everyone that you're a blithering IDIOT!

The big things have to be funded... the military...

Agreed.

Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid things like this. These are only really debatable as far as size & dollar amounts... not if or if not.

WRONG! They are totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL expendatures, and should be done away with IMMEDIATELY unless or until a constitutional amendment is passed authorizing them.

The United States gives away a lot money to the rest of the world... an unbelievable amount. As much as I like to help people in need I think sometimes there are economic times here at home when we have to bring the lion's share of that money back in house and work on our own financial problems here at home.

If the government reduced it's foreign aid I really believe churches & charities would focus in on the most needy and there would still be some needed help probably focused to the most needy and most desperate situations.

So it all really boils down to HOW we spend our money and where.[/COLOR]

We need to eliminate ALL of our "foreign aid", because it too is totally unconstitutonal. What it really boils down to is not "how we spend our money and where", it's how we eliminate ALL spending that is not specifically authorized by the constitution. THAT will cure ALL of our financial problems. If YOU want to help other people, whether here at home or "the poor starving kids in Africa", feel free to send as much of YOUR money as you wish, but you do NOT have the right to take MY money and give it to anyone else.

 

[Bunz]

And pray tell, where in the Constitution are those "requirements" for voting contained?

I will admit the word "requirements" was not the proper one at that moment. The Constitution does lay out the general guidelines of who gets to vote.

The 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments establishes universal suffrage for Americans over 18.

In case you missed it, there is NO Constitutional "right" to vote. You are ALLOWED to vote by your State, nothing more, nothing less.

Huh?
The 14th amendment deals with this quite clearly.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The states fall under the feds here.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Obviously the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments make the references to males 21 years or older obsolete, but it says very clearly that US citizens have the right to vote, and it cannot be taken away short of conviction of a crime(felony).

This notion that people should be denied the right to vote by not holding an arbitrary level of wealth, or a close following of the issues, is unconstitutional

 

[Bunz]

Two seperate classes of citizens is very un-American I agree. The human beings who have not yet been born or are born via botched abortions are not treated the same as other Americans. and that is very very UN American indeed!

Ill save most of the abortion discussion for other threads. Youd have to ask 100 lawyers and get no straight answers, but I am not sure how the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the born. Someone who is unborn is not exactly a citizen. But I am not a lawyer.

The first voters were land owners only, Men and White men at that. No women could vote. Where are you reading about the constitutional requirements?

I dont disagree, with the truth behind the statement. I disagree with any notion that the practice of the time was correct. Especially at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Bunz]

You mean the way it was done for the first 100 years of our nation? In fact, when our nation was brand new, in Virginia for instance, only White, Male, Land Owning, Educated, Protestants could vote, everyone else was prevented from doing so, because they were too STUPID to be allowed to participate in something so critical.

They also seceded from the union, participated in combat against the United States. One would wonder if you would be able to vote in those days.

WRONG! They are totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL expendatures, and should be done away with IMMEDIATELY unless or until a constitutional amendment is passed authorizing them.

General Welfare Clause.

We need to eliminate ALL of our "foreign aid", because it too is totally unconstitutonal. What it really boils down to is not "how we spend our money and where", it's how we eliminate ALL spending that is not specifically authorized by the constitution. THAT will cure ALL of our financial problems. If YOU want to help other people, whether here at home or "the poor starving kids in Africa", feel free to send as much of YOUR money as you wish, but you do NOT have the right to take MY money and give it to anyone else.

Well Congress does, the 16th amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.