Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I Propose a new amendment to the Constitution
Topic Started: Feb 24 2012, 10:04 PM (1,481 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 26 2012, 06:55 AM
Stoney
Feb 25 2012, 08:29 PM
tomdrobin
Feb 25 2012, 11:00 AM
Why don't we just have an amendment that welfare recipients only get 3/5 of a vote.
Sound familiar?
Absolutely not. I don't know of any time in history that any people had only 3/5 of a vote. This is apparently another fact that you would embrace that's not true.
I was referring to the 3/5 compromise, whereby the southern slave holders got to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person in the census to increase their congressional representation. I only believe and use the facts. Just the facts man. Can't say that for the Fox loonies though.
Here, tom, read.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 26 2012, 07:01 AM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 06:56 AM
And what's your fact got to do with voting? 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with voting.
And, who in the hell said it did? Certainly not me. I just proposed that welfare loafers get 3/5 of a vote. This was after someone else suggested limiting voting rights for example to white males who own property. Perhaps we should require some knowledge of politics and history to be able to vote. I doubt that would help though, as we have people who know better but still believe crap that isn't true because is fits their biased view of the world.
Sure you did. We're glad to have helped you with a history lesson.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Another take...

Many Americans don’t pay income tax. Is this a bad thing?
Quote:
 
Last week, the Heritage Foundation published commentary on the number of Americans who pay income tax, and decried the fact that 49.5 percent of Americans are “not represented on a taxable return.” The Daily Mail then picked up the statistics and announced that “HALF of Americans don’t pay income tax despite crippling government debt.”

To its credit, the body of the Heritage post began with a reference to the “the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance.” The emphasis of the piece, however, and thus, the emphasis of the other news outlets and pundits who have picked up on the statistic, is that too few people pay taxes.

The increase in reliance on government assistance is the problem here, not a lack of people who pay income tax.

Yet, it has become something of a right-wing talking point to claim that a declining number of taxpayers among some income groups is a nefarious development in American history.

The emphasis on the lack of taxpayers is getting the whole issue backward. The problem is the increase of income from government transfer payments. There is nothing bad whatsoever about fewer people paying income taxes.

The Conservative obsession with getting people to pay more in taxes comes from a preoccupation with class warfare in which it is assumed that if middle-class and wealthy people are paying too much in taxes (which they are), then the solution is to punish low-income people by making them pay more in taxes. It’s allegedly not “fair” if everyone is not being extorted by the state in a similar fashion.

The just solution, however, is to greatly decrease the tax burden of those paying taxes now. In a recent NPR interview, Ron Paul nicely summed up what is actually “fair”:
Quote:
 
MR. SIEGEL: This week’s release of Mitt Romney’s taxes and President Obama’s advocacy of a millionaire’s tax raise questions about fairness in funding the government. The first question: Do you believe that income derived from dividends interest or capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from a salary or commissions?

REP. PAUL: Well, I’d like to have everybody taxed at the same rate, and of course, my goal is to get as close to zero as possible, because there was a time in our history when we didn’t have income taxes. But when government takes it upon themselves to do so much, you have to have a tax code. But if you’re going to be the policemen of the world and run all these wars, you have to have a tax code. But as far as what the rates should be, I think it should be as low as possible for – for everybody.
It’s a safe bet that Siegel’s underlying assumption behind the question is that in order to make taxes fair, then anyone who is paying a tax bill that is too “low” should therefore have his taxes raised.

The opposite is true, as noted by Paul...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
Of course that would be the result of people voting based on the taxes they pay, less taxes. Greedy people are happy to have others pay their way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 06:56 AM
tomdrobin
Feb 26 2012, 06:55 AM
Stoney
Feb 25 2012, 08:29 PM
tomdrobin
Feb 25 2012, 11:00 AM
Why don't we just have an amendment that welfare recipients only get 3/5 of a vote.
Sound familiar?
Absolutely not. I don't know of any time in history that any people had only 3/5 of a vote. This is apparently another fact that you would embrace that's not true.
I was referring to the 3/5 compromise, whereby the southern slave holders got to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person in the census to increase their congressional representation. I only believe and use the facts. Just the facts man. Can't say that for the Fox loonies though.
And what's your fact got to do with voting? 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with voting.
It certainly increased the "value" of slave owners' votes. But of course, to some that has nothing to do with voting. eek
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Feb 26 2012, 10:41 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 06:56 AM
tomdrobin
Feb 26 2012, 06:55 AM
Stoney
Feb 25 2012, 08:29 PM
tomdrobin
Feb 25 2012, 11:00 AM
Why don't we just have an amendment that welfare recipients only get 3/5 of a vote.
Sound familiar?
Absolutely not. I don't know of any time in history that any people had only 3/5 of a vote. This is apparently another fact that you would embrace that's not true.
I was referring to the 3/5 compromise, whereby the southern slave holders got to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person in the census to increase their congressional representation. I only believe and use the facts. Just the facts man. Can't say that for the Fox loonies though.
And what's your fact got to do with voting? 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with voting.
It certainly increased the "value" of slave owners' votes. But of course, to some that has nothing to do with voting. eek
"Why don't we just have an amendment that welfare recipients only get 3/5 of a vote."

Do you see any reference or inference towards representation of do you see a reference to "3/5 of a vote."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
Glad you see the fact that he was referring to voting, not representation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 11:03 PM
Glad you see the fact that he was referring to voting, not representation.
The reference to voting was already explained above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
3/5s compromise was about representation, not voting. And it decreased the amount of representation for slave owning states had the slaves been counted as 1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis