• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Millionaires: 1,400 Paid No U.S. Income Taxes In 2009

TurtleDude said:
I wonder which party would be most upset if to vote you had to have paid federal income tax?
Click to expand...

Are you back to advocating that very policy be put into place?
 
winston53660 said:
Meh more self aggrandizing BS.
Click to expand...

sorry if the truth upsets you. I find it disgusting that those who don't pay their share of the load constantly whine those who do need to pay even more.
 
haymarket said:
Are you back to advocating that very policy be put into place?
Click to expand...

I think the country would be better off if those who had to pay more taxes had more votes. Then politicians couldn't win elections by promising the many, the wealth of the few
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry if the truth upsets you. I find it disgusting that those who don't pay their share of the load constantly whine those who do need to pay even more.
Click to expand...


What ever floats your boat tinker bell.

But the truth is

1. you are nothing special.
2. I highly doubt you ever went to law school.
3. I highly doubt you are rich.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea you can...because Fannie and Freddie are around....
Click to expand...

You can buy a house on 30k a year, without Fannie and Freddie or are you assuming that all people making that much are sub prime borrowers?

PeteEU said:
As for being a "decent income"... totally depends on where you are. 30 k is nothing in New York and LA... but plenty in rural Texas or the backroads of Mississippi. In general 30k is not decent... that is if you want healthcare insurance as well as a roof over your head and food on the table.
Click to expand...

You can live in neither of those places and do pretty well.
It's all about expectations.
You don't spend it wisely and you won't do well.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the country would be better off if those who had to pay more taxes had more votes. Then politicians couldn't win elections by promising the many, the wealth of the few
Click to expand...

You would give additional votes to those who pay higher taxes? And this would directly and intentionally and blatantly violate the sacred principle of one person - one vote.

So in your ideology, you directly equate ones right as a citizen with ones ability to pay a specific tax to a certain level of government?
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the country would be better off if those who had to pay more taxes had more votes. Then politicians couldn't win elections by promising the many, the wealth of the few
Click to expand...

You are anti-American.
 
haymarket said:
You would give additional votes to those who pay higher taxes? And this would directly and intentionally and blatantly violate the sacred principle of one person - one vote.

So in your ideology, you directly equate ones right as a citizen with ones ability to pay a specific tax to a certain level of government?
Click to expand...


one person one vote is hardly sacred-except to those who pander to the masses. It sure isn't sacred in corporate america-you one one share and I own 100 you think you get as many votes? or better yet if you don't have any shares at all?
 
TurtleDude said:
one person one vote is hardly sacred-except to those who pander to the masses. It sure isn't sacred in corporate america-you one one share and I own 100 you think you get as many votes? or better yet if you don't have any shares at all?
Click to expand...

Actually the US Supreme Court says it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

As to corporate America - our government is not yet that of corporate America.... that nightmare scenario may indeed be a wet dream of ALEC supporters and those on the far right, but it is not now our governmental framework. So your comparison is irrelevant and totally without any intellectual foundation of any kind.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I laugh at such claims from people such as you
Click to expand...

Turtle, you can laugh all you want and that is your right. But when you espouse such views as you do, - in this case connecting voting to paying taxes or giving people votes on the basis of how much taxes they do pay - why is it surprising that people find those views to be anti-American. Laughing does not make those conclusions go away.
 
haymarket said:
Actually the US Supreme Court says it is.

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to corporate America - our government is not yet that of corporate America.... that nightmare scenario may indeed be a wet dream of ALEC supporters and those on the far right, but it is not now our governmental framework. So your comparison is irrelevant and totally without any intellectual foundation of any kind.
Click to expand...

another appeal to authority

because something is the current law doesn't make it "right"

you rant all the time about the USSC case that gave corporations rights you are upset with.

a government that allows the many to vote away the wealth of the public treasury is going to ultimately collapse
 
haymarket said:
Turtle, you can laugh all you want and that is your right. But when you espouse such views as you do, - in this case connecting voting to paying taxes or giving people votes on the basis of how much taxes they do pay - why is it surprising that people find those views to be anti-American. Laughing does not make those conclusions go away.
Click to expand...

you love a system that allows leftwingers to buy the votes of the many with the money of the rich
 
TurtleDude said:
you love a system that allows leftwingers to buy the votes of the many with the money of the rich
Click to expand...

Turtle , you are running circles in much like the proverbial dog chasing it tail and the debate will go nowhere if you persist. Your statement above does not even make any sense. Its just over the top hyperbole intended for some sort of shock value. That may have worked the first 1,000 times you employed such shock tactics, but now they barely merit a yawn since we have heard your beliefs seemingly forever. It is not your beliefs which make the debate. It is your support for them and you provide none.

because something is the current law doesn't make it "right"
Click to expand...

I do not know what your views of "right" have anything to do with my statement that one man - one vote was a sacred American principle. I am dealing with the reality of the way things actually are in America.


One man - one vote is indeed a sacred principle in the USA. You may hate it. You may hate the US governmental system. You may have complete contempt for America, its government, its people and its representative systems but that changes nothing that one man one vote is a sacred principle of our system.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Turtle , you are running circles in much like the proverbial dog chasing it tail and the debate will go nowhere if you persist.

One man - one vote is indeed a sacred principle in the USA. You may hate it. You may hate the US governmental system. You may have complete contempt for America, its government, its people and its representative systems but that changes nothing that one man one vote is a sacred principle of our system.
Click to expand...

its not sacred-it wasn't something the founders supported. Its a prophylactic against worse systems. most intelligent people realize that society would be better off if some people didn't vote but the problem is we have no way of properly screening that. So the least harmful alternative is allowing everyone to vote even though more people know who the last two finalists on American idol was rather than their two senators.

political realities is why we have everyone able to vote and a progressive income tax-not some sacred holiness you appeal to
 
TurtleDude said:
its not sacred-it wasn't something the founders supported. Its a prophylactic against worse systems. most intelligent people realize that society would be better off if some people didn't vote but the problem is we have no way of properly screening that. So the least harmful alternative is allowing everyone to vote even though more people know who the last two finalists on American idol was rather than their two senators.

political realities is why we have everyone able to vote and a progressive income tax-not some sacred holiness you appeal to
Click to expand...

How does anything you just wrote change that one person one vote is the law of the land and according to the US Supreme Court - fully in keeping with the US Constitution?

Who are these "most intelligent people" you allude to but do not mention by name or with examples?

Present them and their views if you can... if they exist ... if they are anything more than a fiction you are creating to attempt to give a tiny bit of support to some extremist anti-democratic viewpoints.

LETS SEE EM.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
What ever floats your boat tinker bell.

But the truth is

1. you are nothing special.
2. I highly doubt you ever went to law school.
3. I highly doubt you are rich.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
haymarket said:
Turtle , you are running circles in much like the proverbial dog chasing it tail and the debate will go nowhere if you persist. Your statement above does not even make any sense. Its just over the top hyperbole intended for some sort of shock value. That may have worked the first 1,000 times you employed such shock tactics, but now they barely merit a yawn since we have heard your beliefs seemingly forever. It is not your beliefs which make the debate. It is your support for them and you provide none.


I do not know what your views of "right" have anything to do with my statement that one man - one vote was a sacred American principle. I am dealing with the reality of the way things actually are in America.


One man - one vote is indeed a sacred principle in the USA. You may hate it. You may hate the US governmental system. You may have complete contempt for America, its government, its people and its representative systems but that changes nothing that one man one vote is a sacred principle of our system.
Click to expand...

One person one vote: exception to the rule. electoral college on Presidential elections. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote, just saying.
 
mike2810 said:
One person one vote: exception to the rule. electoral college on Presidential elections. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote, just saying.
Click to expand...

yes indeed... we all know that. And you bring up a great reason to get rid of the damn thing.

sadly Turtle is using the idea of connecting how much you pay in taxes to how many votes he believes one should get. He seems to want a corporate shareholder voting system for America.

#109 from Turtle

one person one vote is hardly sacred-except to those who pander to the masses. It sure isn't sacred in corporate america-you one one share and I own 100 you think you get as many votes? or better yet if you don't have any shares at all?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt such a anti-American scheme is being floated in the circles of ALEC in New Orleans this very week.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
yes indeed... we all know that. And you bring up a great reason to get rid of the damn thing.

sadly Turtle is using the idea of connecting how much you pay in taxes to how many votes he believes one should get. He seems to want a corporate shareholder voting system for America.

#109 from Turtle



I have no doubt such a anti-American scheme is being floated in the circles of ALEC in New Orleans this very week.
Click to expand...

Your position is confusing

is it anti American even though it was the rule when this country was founded? Or is it anti american because the suffrage was extended? or is it anti American because if you don't like it it is so?
 
TurtleDude said:
Your position is confusing

is it anti American even though it was the rule when this country was founded? Or is it anti american because the suffrage was extended? or is it anti American because if you don't like it it is so?
Click to expand...

Your position is anti-American because you would give in to the wet dream of ALEC and allow corporate principles to subvert, ravish and rape American democratic values and procedures. Your position does not appear to actually recognize what political, economic and social conditions are in 21st century America as it exists today. Telling me about the Founders is irrelevant unless its a history lesson as to the way it was back in 1787 when we were a nation of 4 million farmers and small merchants in a small backwater isolated nation.
 
haymarket said:
Your position is anti-American because you would give in to the wet dream of ALEC and allow corporate principles to subvert, ravish and rape American democratic values and procedures. Your position does not appear to actually recognize what political, economic and social conditions are in 21st century America as it exists today. Telling me about the Founders is irrelevant unless its a history lesson as to the way it was back in 1787 when we were a nation of 4 million farmers and small merchants in a small backwater isolated nation.
Click to expand...

sorry dude but i really don't think you are able to speak for America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom