rich people wouldn't complain if there was something measurable they got in return for paying higher taxes. i propose that the amount of votes you get is proportional to the amount of income taxes you paid, subject to a maximum of 100 votes and a minumum of 1 vote for each citizen. e.g., the amount you pay from 2008 to 2011 determines how many votes you get in the 2012 election. this would also shut up the naive fools who complain rich people don't pay taxes. it's also fair -- if you pay more into the system, you should have more say as to how your money is spent.
That's true. Just go to the harlem in NYC or Carol City in Miami and you'll see why it is true... I have one cousing Who lives in NYC (in a proyect apartment almost for free) she gets 600 bucks for her baby and 400 for food, Then she goes to the grocery store and exchange those welfare goverment cupons for cash. She dont want (need) a job, and Im fucking tired to be part of the people who pay for all that crap.
First, no offense, but your user name is a complete misnomer. You're no "free thinker." You're an obvious product of the gov't school/mass media/pop culture machine. Learn to to actually read, write (ever heard of capitalization?) and critically think. The elderly people on SS you mentioned are largely retirees that paid into the system. HUGE difference between them and those who marry older sugar daddies or fake mental disease to get "crazy checks." (Those are just a couple of examples. Our country is fraught with able-bodied adults who game Federal/state programs to live off the gov't well before they turn 62/65). These are the ones who get bussed in by Jesse Jackson & Co. to steal elections from working taxpayers. I'm not in favor of farm subsidies and am more libertarian than mainstream Republican. So your example proves nothing to me. However, it's anecdotal and for every politician like that, there are likely 10 Chris "Countrywide Scandal" Dodds or Nancy Pelosis...you know, the type with $28K month rent who fly in private jets to lambast "the rich." Those are the biggest hypocrites. As for land owners vs. renters, I'd be open to a different test than pure land/property ownership. As long as someone legitimately buys or rents, perhaps they could vote as long as they receive no federal/state handouts--or at least not above a very small minimum threshold. As a side note, the brilliant--and truly free-thinking--black scholar Thomas Sowell recently wrote, "One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations' causes, with the aid of the federal government, exemplified by the Community Reinvestment Act and its sequels." If Obama's Justice Dept. was the least bit objective, this would be the first item on their agenda. But they won't even go after night stick wielding Black Panthers who intimidate voters at the polls (felony offense).
As he goes through his rainman routine in his million dollar home, he conveniently fails to recognize that the rich aren't against higher taxes, the rich are against wasteful spending that creates higher taxes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bingo, and who reads that Rag anyway? The Times is a joke. Besides, they Socialist like him have to throw their last move...as Nov is approaching and it isn't looking good for the Socialist.
First, no offense but you morons who keep blaming everything that happened on the cra and cant even understand that most of the bad loans are in affluent areas of the country are getting tiring. get you head out of right wing talk radios ass and educate yourself.
Way to avoid engaging every other issue I brought up. I'll take Sowell over you any day of the week. I doubt you could make it past the third page of one of his tomes without getting totally lost. You really should change your user name to "free loader." You and the other "yes we can" (steal your tax money) Obama cultists are in such a state of denial. It's laughable and tragic all at once.
well, its you that showed your ignorance in your first post. i simply pointed out how stupid the statement"only land owners can vote"was and how obvious it was that you are not a very deep thinker. but things like that happen when you let other people do your thinking and just parrot the party line.
You did nothing of the sort. I showed some flexibility in the idea, but the end result is the same: free-loaders who only vote for the biggest handout-giver have no place at the polls. You have no substantive argument to the contrary. Perhaps you're one of the handout junkies--it wouldn't surprise me in the least--but that's neither here nor there. You bring up red herrings. You bring up the "tea party" and talk radio. You have no real arguments. You're the kind of guy the modern gov't slavemasters love--someone who buys into class envy, sophistry, the politics of envy, etc. The type who shout "Faux News" and "tea baggers" on forums and couldn't put together a logical argument if your life depended on it. Read the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Bastiat...anything outside the OARL (Obama Approveed Reading List) and turn off MSNBC. You'd be surprised how brainwashed and non-free thinking you are. I'm done. Go pick up your "free" checks and food stamps and party hard this weekend if that's you do. Just try to stay out of the voting booth until you have a clue about this country, its Constitution and what built the wealth that's being squandered as I type.
tea party koolaide talking points all well memorized. you get an a for that. what does the constitution say about this statement: "free-loaders who only vote for the biggest handout-giver have no place at the polls." the constitution does not say people only get to vote if they vote the way your taskmaster want them to vote. if your ideas are bankrupt you lose the support of the majority. how old are you? you strike me as very immature.