- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,014
- Reaction score
- 5,743
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote and understand what I am saying?
Towhich...
AlbqOwl said:This is such a difficult question when it is evaluated objectively and outside of partisan propaganda, political correctness police action, and other emotion-charged responses.
I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who pay no federal taxes would have ability to vote for people who pledge to raise taxes on everybody else.
I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are little or not at all affected by increases in property taxes have ability to vote on initiatives that will raise those taxes for property owners.
And I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are supported by the rest of us have ability to vote for those who pledge to keep the gravy train going for those who are supported and thereby increase the burden on those of us who are footing that bill.
It is the righteous sense that those who pay the bills should be the ones to vote on how much of those bills they are willing to pay.
And that righteous sense is made very difficult weighed against the concept of one citizen, one vote.
Yours was an "us -v- them" argument based strictly on financial aspects where the right to vote isn't just a matter of figures on a ledger. There are many other issues that are impacted one way or another by one casting his/her vote as they see fit. Not all of them are monetary in nature. Thus, I stand by my comment (less the personal jab):
Objective Voice said:Just because one finds him or herself in a financial bind doesn't mean they stop being a U.S. citizen and should no longer be allowed to participate in the political process.
But I still think you should rethink then adjust...