Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 77

Thread: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

  1. #61
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Excluding net tax-consumers from voting does nothing to undermine the integrity of representative governance.
    Sure it does. It means that people who need every dollar to get by, and are thus exempt from taxes, can't vote.

    Once the net tax-consumers (Re: Dumb People)
    Or old people, or disabled people, or students, or those temporarily on unemployment...

    are excluded from voting the special interests and politicians will have to trick the net tax-payers (Re: Less Dumb People) into supporting their agendas.
    It always saddens me when people have such little faith in their countrymen. Surprisingly enough, most social-net programs were voted in with the approval of net tax-payers.

    An informed citizenry is the best guard against bad government and special interests; net tax-consumers dilute the intelligence of the American voting bloc, therefore they should be excluded from voting.
    I disagree. People who are net tax-consumers can be just as intelligent. You're just trying to rig the voting pool to favor your policies and it's revolting.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  2. #62
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    I completely agree, and would further assert things like, "only land owners shall vote on land tax issues."

    Of course, I would also disenfranchise anyone from federal elections who did not have a high school diploma or the equivalent.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  3. #63
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    I think interfering with the willing transfer of private funds should be a crime.

    To be honest, I'd rather be represented by businessmen than environmentalists, union thugs, minority agitators or ACORN.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  4. #64
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Clever but not analogous. This would force people into voting for a specific candidate or agenda, whereas my requirement would not. That's an important distinction.
    OK, OK. You don't have to agree with me on the issues. You just have to be a college professor to vote. Now you aren't being forced into any agenda, and it's completely fair. Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Because self-sufficient individuals are usually more intelligent than people who are reliant upon the government.
    And college professors are usually more intelligent than non-professors. So why is your distinction better than mine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    It has nothing to do with their salary. A person could pay $1,000 in taxes for a year and still vote so long as they accepted no more than $1,000 in taxes for that same year.



    Well, gee, then we better stop discussing it...



    A calculator.
    How do you propose to measure how much of the federal highway budget I personally use? How do you propose to measure what fraction of our military budget goes to protecting me personally?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Sure it does. It means that people who need every dollar to get by, and are thus exempt from taxes, can't vote.
    No, net tax-consumers would be excluded from voting. That means if you pay zero dollars in tax money you are not a net tax-consumer.

    Or old people, or disabled people, or students, or those temporarily on unemployment...
    I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.

    It always saddens me when people have such little faith in their countrymen.
    Sell it to Hollywood.

    Surprisingly enough, most social-net programs were voted in with the approval of net tax-payers.
    No they weren't. There is no referendum on Federal legislation.

    I disagree. People who are net tax-consumers can be just as intelligent.
    Exception to the rule.

    You're just trying to rig the voting pool to favor your policies and it's revolting.
    You're doing the exact same thing...it's quite revolting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK, OK. You don't have to agree with me on the issues. You just have to be a college professor to vote. Now you aren't being forced into any agenda, and it's completely fair. Right?

    And college professors are usually more intelligent than non-professors. So why is your distinction better than mine?
    The relative intelligence of the voting bloc is only one consideration. The issue of civic duty is another, which cannot be accounted for in your analogy.

    I think participation in the political process should be predicated upon one's contribution to the system itself. Net tax-payers are contributing to the system which means they have a right to participate in the process.

    Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.

    How do you propose to measure how much of the federal highway budget I personally use? How do you propose to measure what fraction of our military budget goes to protecting me personally?
    That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.

  6. #66
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.
    Why? If your motive is civic duty, why should the fact that they are disabled matter? They're still consuming more than they're paying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Exception to the rule.
    No it's not. At best, there is a very WEAK correlation between being a net taxpayer and intelligence. Being able to make a lot of money doesn't show how smart you are, it just shows that you're skilled at making a lot of money. I would bet that the average nurse is every bit as intelligent as the average CEO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    The relative intelligence of the voting bloc is only one consideration. The issue of civic duty is another, which cannot be accounted for in your analogy.
    Ah, now the argument is changing. OK, let's talk about civic duty. Is paying money the only way people can contribute to society? Are teachers, nurses, soldiers, and scientists not contributing to society if they don't have a six-figure paycheck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.
    The government does more than just spend money. It establishes policies on a huge range of issues, from foreign policy (which affects the poor disproportionately), to abortion (which affects the poor disproportionately), to law and order (which affects the poor disproportionately). Why do you need a six-figure salary to have an opinion on any of those issues?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.
    In other words, it's OK if they're a burden on the system, as long as they don't receive money from government programs which you don't like.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #67
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    No, net tax-consumers would be excluded from voting. That means if you pay zero dollars in tax money you are not a net tax-consumer.
    Another problem here is how you calculate it. Is it done by the month of the election, the year, the term?


    I wouldn't be adverse to certain exemptions; the disabled, for instance.
    Why should they be treated any differently?

    No they weren't. There is no referendum on Federal legislation.
    Let me rephrase. The majority of net tax payers voted in politicians that would either vote these programs in or continue to keep these programs running.

    Exception to the rule.
    And what are you basing this on, that net tax-producers are just as intelligent? I mean the rich include people like Paris Hilton who inherited their money, and people like Michael Vick who made their money based on their physical attributes not their mental acuity. You also have people who might be students or might be disabled or retired who take in more money but take the time to research the issues.

    You're doing the exact same thing...it's quite revolting.
    How am I doing the same thing by saying the franchise should be given to all non-felon adults over the age of 18. I'm not trying to limit anyone from voting, I'm trying to make sure everyone has a say in THEIR country.

    Net tax-consumers, on the other hand, are living off of societal largess, which means they are not contributing to the system, which means they have no right to participate in the political process via voting. Why should they have a say in the political process when they are nothing more than a burden upon the system? They contribute nothing yet they incur all the benefits. I don't think that's fair or sensible.
    I disagree, you seem to see the system as only the economy, and we are much more complex of a system than that. Many other things matter than their economic contributions.


    That's not what I meant. I'm talking about individuals receiving money directly from the government in the form of welfare. The indirect benefits they incur from the military or highways cannot be quantified.
    Just welfare, or programs like disability and social security too? Medicare?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why? If your motive is civic duty, why should the fact that they are disabled matter? They're still consuming more than they're paying.
    Because they're largely incapable of contributing anything since they're, you know, disabled and whatnot. Can't really fault them for failing in their civic duty if they're mentally and physically handicapped.

    In fact, I'm much more pragmatic than you might think. I would be willing to compromise on many different issues that you and I disagree on. For instance, I think children, the insane, and the severely disabled should receive free health care at the expense of tax payers, since they are incapable of providing it for themselves; with the caveat that parents and guardians MUST provide it for them in if they are able.

    I realize this is ideologically inconsistent and I readily admit it but, unlike many people at this forum, I don't really care if someone labels me as inconsistent or hypocritical or whatever. I'm fine with making reasonable compromises, so long as we can be honest about what it is we're doing.

    No it's not. At best, there is a very WEAK correlation between being a net taxpayer and intelligence. Being able to make a lot of money doesn't show how smart you are, it just shows that you're skilled at making a lot of money. I would bet that the average nurse is every bit as intelligent as the average CEO.
    Once again, it has nothing to do with how much money you make. I know people who make less than $20 K a year that would still be eligible to vote simply because they don't accept government money.

    Self-sufficient does not necessarily mean wealthy, which is my contention, i.e., that self-sufficient individuals are typically more intelligent and dutiful than people who are dependent upon the government.

    Ah, now the argument is changing.
    No, just expanding. I've thought about this topic for quite a while.

    OK, let's talk about civic duty. Is paying money the only way people can contribute to society?
    No, but it is one of the few ways you can contribute to the maintenance and operation of our political system. I'm not excluding net tax-consumers from participating in society, just the political process, which is something they don't contribute to.

    Are teachers, nurses, soldiers, and scientists not contributing to society if they don't have a six-figure paycheck?
    I would also have an exemption for members of the military, since they're contributing to the political system, but I would put a statute of limitations on how long they were exempt. Being in the military is no excuse for sucking at the government teat for the rest of your life.

    The government does more than just spend money. It establishes policies on a huge range of issues, from foreign policy (which affects the poor disproportionately), to abortion (which affects the poor disproportionately), to law and order (which affects the poor disproportionately).
    The government implements all of these policies by spending money. Without money there is no policy, no government.

    Why do you need a six-figure salary to have an opinion on any of those issues?
    You don't.

    In other words, it's OK if they're a burden on the system, as long as they don't receive money from government programs which you don't like.
    Well, if you can think of a way to quantify those things Id be happy to hear it, but until then we're stuck with simple addition and subtraction...

  9. #69
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    WRONG.

    Elitism is lame.

    Every American who is 18 gets to vote. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the country and move to Russia.
    People on welfare that do not contribute to the welfare of the rest of the country should not have the right to vote more free stuff for themselves at the expense of those that do contribute to the welfare of the country.... I would call that representation without taxation.... and that is just as bad as the other way around.

  10. #70
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    People on welfare that do not contribute to the welfare of the rest of the country should not have the right to vote more free stuff for themselves at the expense of those that do contribute to the welfare of the country.... I would call that representation without taxation.... and that is just as bad as the other way around.
    Are they still affected by the government's decisions?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •