# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Time to turn our attention to the next war...

## Pete Hanlin

...no, I don't mean against Syria or N. Korea- I refer to the war over the fiscal budget that will be waged in Congress.

Over the past few months, there have been nay-sayers regarding the administration's plan for Iraq.  The media and Congress have fretted that victory would not be won, and in the opening days of the war were only too quick to openly question the results.

Well, guess what- like him or not, President Bush's administration administered this war rather well by nearly any standard.

Now, there will be many of the same detractors to the President's stimulus package (aka, tax relief).  Liberals will make divisive claims that tax relief "only benefits the wealthy" (actually, tax relief benefits those who pay taxes- and the more you make, the more income tax you usually pay).  "Moderate" Republicans will urge for "moderate tax relief" (would the honorable Senator from Maine please refrain from posturing).  There will be calls for "compromise" on the President's plan.

My opinion is this- just as you cannot wage war on a foreign power by consensus, you cannot wage war on this economy with a plan that is designed to mollify the many facets of Congress.  Bush proved that his admin can effectively manage a war, allow it to have a go at the economy.  If you aren't happy with the results, vote him out in 19 months or so.  Urge your representatives to vote for the budget proposed by the admin, and don't be taken in by the fear tactics of the media and Congressional nay-sayers.

If the stimulus package doesn't work, hold the admin responsible, if it isn't given a chance to work, hold those who refuse it the opportunity responsible.

Whew, thanks- I feel much better now!

----------


## chip anderson

Maybe Bush will get smart and leave it up to Tommy Franks to change Congress's mind.

Chip :Cool:

----------


## shanbaum

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> Well, guess what- like him or not, President Bush's administration administered this war rather well by nearly any standard.


Squeeze me? What's gone "rather well" is the execution of the tactic employed by this administration to achieve two objectives (so far as I can tell - the objectives, as  expressed by this tongue-tied administration, have moved around a bit over time): one, eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's current and future "weapons of mass destruction", and two, relieve the Iraqi people from suffering a brutal and repressive regime.

The tactic - invasion and conquest - certainly went "rather well".
 Whether that tactic will achieve either or both of the objectives is still _way_ up in the air.  This morning I hear that "administration sources" are suggesting that the WMD's may have been transported to Syria, or to terrorist groups (_that's_ why we can't find them), which if true, means that the invasion to save us from these weapons may have caused their dispersal, making them that much harder to find.

And while we've destroyed one government, it remains to be seen how well we'll do at creating a democratic replacement.  Being a conservative, I'm suspicious of the government's ability to do much of anything right, and I'm sceptical of our ability to successfully engage in "nation building".





> Now, there will be many of the same detractors to the President's stimulus package (aka, tax relief).


Since the days of President Kennedy's advocacy of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, tax cuts and fiscal stimulus have been equated in the popular mind.  And since the days of David Stockman, it has been Republican ideology that tax cuts are always Good, all the time.  Whatever the problem, tax cuts are the solution.

In the first place, in and of themselves, tax cuts are not stimulative.  What's stimulative (in the short term) is the government borrowing money _and spending it_ to increase the level of economic activity.  It doesn't matter whether the money is spent by the public sector, or by the private sector; what matters is that the money gets spent.  (By the way, "spent" is an unfortunate term, because money doesn't get "spent" in the sense of "exhausted".  It just moves around at a certain amplitude and velocity - the product of which is the level of economic activity).

If stimulus results from borrowing, why not just borrow like hell?  The answer is, borrowing has its own (longer-term) depressive effect, which is two-fold:  one component is the upward pressure that government borrowing has on interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses to invest in their own growth.  The second is upward pressure on inflation, which undermines the significance of the unit of measure itself (dollars).

The problem that every well-regarded economist has with Dubya's tax scheme is that they are looking down the road towards that time, beginning in around 2010, when our nation's demographics will begin an inexorable (at least for about 15 years) shift towards an increasing burden on those of working age to support the elderly - in short, there's going to be a big bill coming due.  The sensible thing to do is prepare for that by _saving_, so that we'll be able to borrow more cheaply when we need to do so.  

You're a Biblical kind of guy, Pete - recall Joseph in Egypt (but please, let's not attack) - there are two-_times_-seven lean years coming.  What'cha gonna do?

The administration's characterization of this proposal as "stimulus" is a ruse - when the "problem" was reversed (remember the Spring of 2000?), the solution was - tax cuts ("the American people know how to spend their own money").  The other day, I actually read where some GOP congressman said something to the effect that "there's no more important thing to do in wartime than to cut taxes".  One could go on _ad infinitum_...

Of course, the real reason Republicans support tax cuts is that they believe that this will starve government of its fuel supply, which is the _real_ point - to impede the growth of government, because that can't be done in an honest and straightforward manner, because - _there's something wrong with the government_, and no-one has the courage to do what's necessary to fix it, and there are way too many powerful interests that do quite well off the way things are, thank you very much...

Wish _I_ felt better...

----------


## chm2023

Bravo Shanbaum!  I suspect Bush 2 is very aware that his father lost his second term bid due to the economy, but (again!) he reads it wrong.  The ironic thing is that what his father did (raise taxes), along with Clinton's tax increase in his first term, were exactly the right thing to do.  What did in Bush 1 was that "no new taxes" foolishness.  Always admired Bush 1 for doing the right thing knowing it would alienate the far right.  Of course, it was Bush 1 who coined the wonderfully on-target phrase "voodoo economics" to describe the Reagan plan to cut taxes and accelerate defense spending at the same time;  we all remember "trickle down", David Stockman etc.  (Great line I read, Bush's proposal is "mist down")  Think this is all academic, looks like the Congress will pass about half of what Bush proposes.

----------


## Darris Chambless

"Being a conservative, I'm suspicious of the government's ability to do much of anything right, and I'm sceptical of our ability to successfully engage in "nation building"."

Conservative???

Give me a minute...I'm still trying to let that soak in...it's just not soaking in. :D

Darris C.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Shanbaum,

All of your observations are as likely to be correct or incorrect as my own.  My point regarding the proposed budget remains the same...

The point being, we should choose _one_ plan for our economic strategy.  Either go with the full tax cut proposed by the Admin (and hold them accountable for the results), or go with whatever the Democrats and quasi-Republicans would propose (actually, it isn't quite clear exactly what they would really propose... all that is clear is that they are opposed to Bush's plan).  All I am suggesting is that the usual _"Let's compromise and do something between what I want and what you want"_ is not likely to result in a positive outcome.

That, too, is just an opinion- however.

As for what has gone "rather well" regarding our activity in Iraq- if you have to ask, it is obvious that our views of the situation must be somewhat close to being totally diametric.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> The point being, we should choose _one_ plan for our economic strategy.


I see, so this administration is _so_ clever, and their "plan" so _completely_ well thought out, well, there's just no point in talking about it - it just can't be improved upon.

I have an idea - why not just dispense with the pretense of representative government altogether?  

Think of the time and money all those silly congressmen could save - the administration could just mail ballots (preferably with one choice on them - "Yes") to the GOP congressmen, and they could return their approval at their leisure.

As for the Democrats - why waste the postage?

I hope the geniuses designing Iraq's new government take your point into consideration - those people certainly don't have time for a lot of half-baked approaches that reek of design-by-committee.  I know - what they need is a _strong_ authority figure - maybe we can find one guy who'll provide all the solutions, and who won't be afraid to impose them, no matter what his misguided wobbly-kneed opponents might say...

Shoot.  Where's Saddam when we need him?

----------


## Steve Machol

In principle I am all in favor of tax cuts.  However tax cuts without the necessary spending cuts to eliminate deficit spending is intellectually dishonest.  It simply robs from the future to pay for the now.  And the theory that tax cuts will stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit has never been proven to work. 

I'd have a lot more respect for the President's proposal if he had the courage to also propose the spending cuts necessary to eliminate the deficit.  However the reality is no politician (Republican or Democrat) will do this - particulary with an election year coming up soon.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Steve Machol said:* 
> In principle I am all in favor of tax cuts.  However tax cuts without the necessary spending cuts to eliminate deficit spending is intellectually dishonest.  It simply robs from the future to pay for the now.  And the theory that tax cuts will stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit has never been proven to work. 
> 
> I'd have a lot more respect for the President's proposal if he had the courage to also propose the spending cuts necessary to eliminate the deficit.  However the reality is no politician (Republican or Democrat) will do this - particulary with an election year coming up soon.



At the risk of repeating myself: to the extent that the effect of cutting taxes and spending equally can be predicted, it can only be predicted to be nil.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello Robert,

While I agree with your analogy for the most part there are two points I would like to make.

1) You being a conservative still isn't sinking in.

2) Tax cuts will work, do work and have a pretty good track record of working to stimulte the economy at least since JFK. Will they cure what ails this country? No but they will help stabilize it and at present we gotta do something. Increasing taxes or leaving them as is won't do anything other than what we have presently. Cutting taxes can aid in creating expansion in businesses making them strong enough to withstand the heavy hits on the horizon or creating new businesses (stability)

You did make a very salient point :

"The problem that every well-regarded economist has with Dubya's tax scheme is that they are looking down the road towards that time, beginning in around 2010, when our nation's demographics will begin an inexorable (at least for about 15 years) shift towards an increasing burden on those of working age to support the elderly - in short, there's going to be a big bill coming due. The sensible thing to do is prepare for that by saving, so that we'll be able to borrow more cheaply when we need to do so."

If these folks were actually "well-regarded economists" and truly wanted to offer up a solution they would have been more forth coming with the idea (and truth) that Social Security was never meant to be the Governement funded retirement plan that so many have fashioned it to be. Social Security was designed as supplimental but has since run amok. I know that you know this and I am not trying to be patronizing in anyway to you but moreso putting it in front of others that may be reading. This is the actual reason for the problems we face.

"The sensible thing to do is prepare for that by saving, so that we'll be able to borrow more cheaply when we need to do so."

I could not agree with you more than I do right now, BUT on a personal basis regarding saving. Remember I don't trust the governement either and they never save regardless of who's in control or in office, they spend. The problem being that you can't save money by spending it. Excessive spending is the problem not tax cuts. Taking a projected surplus and saving it will still not solve the problem either because the number of soon to be retirees is going to far outnumber the working base to a point that (and you're right again) we are in for a whole lot of famine (financially) in the near future because of a system that has become a monetary vacuum and has been for some time.

"What'cha gonna do?"

The sad reality is that it is too late to do much of anything. In my opinion President Bush gave a wake up call (all be it entirely to sedate and it fell onj so many deaf ears) in the idea of privatizing a small portion of SS. What's the best fix? 20 years ago the best fix would have been fiscal responsibility, curbed spending and sticking to saving money for future uses and borrowing (but this is the governement we're talking about ;) What's the best fix today? Too late. There is going to be entirely too much financial drain on us all in another 7 to 10 years (but you'll be one of the drainers by then correct? :) Again my opinion but the best course of action is for each person to start saving their own money starting 15 years ago, but since many didn't the best solution is to start saving on an individual basis now and keep your fingers crossed or say a little prayer. Governement borrowing and or spending is a dangerous proposition in and of itself because of its lack of fiscal responsibility in borrowing and spending in the past.

Take care and good points. I enjoyed reading them.

Darris C.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> There is going to be entirely too much financial drain on us all in another 7 to 10 years (but you'll be one of the drainers by then correct? :)



YAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Well, I'll be getting close, anyway... of course, there may be enough of us by then to lower the SS retirement age...

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I have an idea - why not just dispense with the pretense of representative government altogether?
Either you are deliberately missing my point for the sake of continuing an argument, or you simply are not able to understand what I am saying.

Since we have met and I know that you are extremely intelligent, I will assume that you are feigning ignorance for the sake of continuing a discussion.

As you are well aware, I am not proposing that we do away with our current representative republic form of government.  I am suggesting that there are times when consensus does not provide the best solution to a problem.  Put another way, there are times when you have to choose one approach to a problem or another- and an attempt to find a "compromise" will not produce a satisfactory result.  That the Founding Fathers understood this is evident from some of the eventual unanimous votes on the hotly debated issues of their time.

For example- if I want to go from my home to my office, I can either choose the Howard Frankland Bridge or the Courtney Campbell Causeway to cross Tampa Bay.  If, however, in an attempt to "compromise" I choose neither distinct course, the result will be either a headlong crash into the railing on the Rt. 60 exit, or I will drive aimlessly around South Tampa all day without ever getting to St. Petersburg.  Sometimes, you must commit to one course of action or another.

Moving to a political example, compromise was attempted with the concept of slavery in the United States.  Eventually, it became clear that everyone was going to have to choose one or the other viewpoint.  Although slavery was by no means the main impetus for the Civil War, it was a concept that illustrated the differences between the two sides.

It is not that difficult to predict what will happen with this year's budget.  The administration will propose stimulating the economy with tax cuts.  The loyal opposition will posture and suggest that there should be minimal cuts- and only for the disadvantaged (who don't pay significant taxes anyway, but we're not arguing plausibility at this point).  The result will be a tax cut of mediocre size which will simply drain the Federal income without really providing much in the way of stimulus to the economy.

You can argue that even a huge tax cut won't work, you can argue that a tax INCREASE would be the best course of action.  However, there can be little doubt that a "middle of the road" approach will work very well.

As for the Democrats - why waste the postage?
Actually, your words carry more wisdom than you intend.  Its a very good point.  WHY waste time with the Democrats?  For one reason or another, it so happens that Republicans have been granted control of both sides of Congress and the White House.  If there was ever an opportunity to execute a decisive course of action on the budget, here it is.  Other than filibustering in the Senate, the Democrats can do very little to impact the final budget if the administration could win the support of every Republican legislator.  One of the reasons Republicans like myself voted for this particular candidate in the primaries was his reputation as someone who could make things happen by winning others over to his own viewpoint.  Well, don't think that a large portion of my grade to this admin won't be based on how he works with party majorities in Congress.

Anyway, this is all wasted rhetoric, and I knew that before I began.  Truth is, all eight or nine factions of Congress will wrangle and scheme and the end result will be a tax cut between 400-600 billion.   On the road to that outcome, deals will be made and extra spending will have to be inserted here and there to grease the gears of Congress.  The result will be some sort of compromise that will likely neither stimulate the economy nor our minds.

----------


## chm2023

Re tax cuts:  the US has by far the lowest rate of taxation in the industrialized world and a relatively modest marginal rate.  With taxes as low as they are now, cutting them further is not a big enough carrot to stimulate investment etc.  If memory serves, the Reagan cuts took the marginal rate from 70 plus percent down to 28.   Big drop, and while short term it was effective, this supply side thinking has pretty much fallen out of favor due to fallout from the resulting ballooning debt and widening economic gap.  Six trillion in debt, a looming twenty five trillion in transfer payments, unknown cost of Iraqi and terrorist wars--the answer is to cut taxes?  (How is this a plan?  Bush has had a strong economy scenario, a recessionary scenario and now a slow growth economy--the answer to each was to cut taxes.  This is not a plan, this is ideology.)

Happy Easter and Passover to all!!

----------


## Darris Chambless

DEBT

CUTTING TAXES DOES NOT CREATE DEBT! I don't know how much simpler or louder I can say that in written text :) Regardless of how low the tax rate in the USA is cutting taxes puts money back in the private sectors pocket to use (spend) as they will. When the private sector has more money to spend in this economy the economy is then directly stimulated. When the governement spends money it creates four or more levels of (tax payer paid) administration and or beaurocracy before a single dime is spent (hence the $500.00 hammer analogy) So where does the money go in each scenario and why would the government need more money to create a bigger vaccuum?

We can all hope and wish that "When the right guy gets into office..." everything will be hunky and or dory. The only problem with that is that every office; House, Senate and Presidential administration will have to be filled with "...the right guy..." all at the same time otherwise you will continue to have what we have now. Would anyone like to see if they can figure up what the odds of this happening would be so that I can switch over to an on-line casino and place my bet on the sure thing?

To clarify what I mean by the "right guy" This would be a guy that when in office sits down opens his wallet, sees $10.00 in it and thinks "I need $5.00 of gas in my car to make it through the week and $5.00 for tolls to and from work for the week as well." and stays within that budget. What we get are guys and gals that open their wallet, see a $10.00 bill in it and think "I'm gonna go to lunch today, get the car washed, then get the oil changed, have my tires rotated, get one of those little pine tree air fresheners, buy a plastic cow from a street vender for the kids, then I'll go borrow the money I need to pay for all of that plus my gas and tolls for the next week and...Oh, look! I still have $10.00 in my wallet. What shall I spend that on?" 

These same guys and gals would also be the first to say that after having lived this way and racking up debt for years would then blame their debt on their employer and pay cuts. Debt is debt, income is income. Two completely different animals. If you stop spending, debt will not increase. If income deminishes, debt does not increase. If you reduce debt by cutting out unecessary spending and then channel those prebudgetted funds to other areas debt begins to decrease.

Pete,

"Either you are deliberately missing my point for the sake of continuing an argument,..."

This is Robert you're talking about :D I agree he is an intelligent man but also very disagreable (he's old after all and awaiting the day he can be a drain on the nations finances :D

Ya'll take care,

Darris C.

----------


## Steve Machol

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> CUTTING TAXES DOES NOT CREATE DEBT! I don't know how much simpler or louder I can say that in written text :)


Was there anyone making the argument that it does?  Certainly not me.

However what does create debt is SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN YOU TAKE IN.  (Simple and loud enough? ;) )

Cutting taxes without having the courage to also cut spending is fiscally irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.  My sympathies on this issue are for lower taxes. After all we are all aware of the rampant waste and graft in governmwent spending programs.  

However I think the bigger threat to the future is the rising deficit.  As long as our leaders keep ducking this issue, we are putting our children's future at risk.

----------


## Darris Chambless

> *Steve Machol said:* 
> Was there anyone making the argument that it does?  Certainly not me.
> 
> Howdy Steve 
> 
> this was directed more toward no one in general just because the tax cut issue was being demonized in a manner that could lead to the belief that tax cuts were the cause of all that does and will ail the US in the near future. :) 
> 
> However what does create debt is SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN YOU TAKE IN.  (Simple and loud enough? ;) )
> 
> ...


The deficit is in direct relation with governement spending. The sad part is because of the juggernought our government has become our children will probably fair okay due to the fact it's what they will have "cut their teeth on" so to speak as being the way things are. They will adapt but unfortunately you are correct that we are putting our childrens future at risk by having a governement that operates in this manner. I don't feel it's necessary for long term but something that Robert eluded to (seemingly as a bad thing but it's not) is starving the government of money. Presently it's necessary in order to bring more control back to "the people" in my opinion. We hold the purse strings not the government and they need to know that. 

One should never fall into the trap of calling it "government spending" it's called "government waste." 

Take care,

Darris C

----------


## Steve Machol

Just a note Darris that you should check your color combination with the default style set that 95% of OptiBoarders are using - Arizona Desert Sky.   :Eek:

----------


## chm2023

Voter turnout was what, 48% in the last election.  People get the government they deserve.  If things are so rotten, ask yourself what you're doing to fix it.  I'm afraid most of us won't like the answer to that question.

----------


## jjconcepts

being that our government may be more of a socialist rather than a democracy, as a pure democracy is unrealistic, a low voter turnout is to be expected. the turnout sems to be relative to the isuues that need to be addressed. be it 2-3-or 5 parties addressing these issues, the turnout will be that of 1. people whith time on their hands 2. people with difinitive interest in the issues at hand 3. habitual voters..   or some mix thereof.. 

I believe that change is made by the few. I am one of those who don't feel a strong urge to vote when the choices are best of two good choices, or best of two evils... rather - I voted 2 times  - when the choice seemed to me to be  "good vs bad" if you will

in the end  -  the media, polling, and general conversations may lead into an ongoing modification of government policies more than the circus every 4 years....


or something like that..


-joe-

----------


## Judy Canty

jj, yours is the attitude that troubles me the most.  I have never missed an opportunity to vote, even when stationed overseas with my husband.  I believe that there are people out there who are just waiting for me not to vote, because they know that they will.  And that gives their agenda, their beliefs a better chance of being implemented than mine.  Life is filled with choices and most of them are between unpleasant and more unpleasant people, places and things.  Witholding your vote does nothing more in my mind than strengthen one over the other.  It's not a solution, it's an abdication.  But then that's your choice to make.

----------


## jjconcepts

I abmire your conviction as well as that of anyone so dedicated to any belief.. or cause.. for me there is more of an idea that when both or all choices at hand are acceptable to me,I am not a party person. perhaps it is best for those who DO have reasons to chose one way or the other not to have their voice watered down by those who find either choice acceptable. 

call it a common courtesy perhaps. one that I would expect when it comes time for myself to vote when I feel I dissaprove of a choice.


for example, when going out to eat with friends. A few resturaunts to choose from.. all I want is chicken.. all the resturaunts have good chicken.  far be it from me to vote on where to eat, when someone in the crowd prefers a specific side served or a particular price or ambiance.  if my vote swings us to where that person does not wat to eat.. what good was done, when all i wanted was some good chicken?

democracy has it's limits..   when educated voters are involved, tle limits are lowered and the sky is the limit..  vote, but if you do so, vote wisely.  and I am assuming you do.. 

(please don't contaminate the system with party line votes)

-joe

----------


## Pete Hanlin

democracy has it's limits...
A very true statement- that's why it is fortunate that we have a representative republic in the U.S.!

Yours is an interesting take on the matter.  I believe what you are saying is that people who have no particular preference shouldn't vote (which, using this logic, would make perfect sense, since such people are most likely to be swayed by the marketing campaigns of each party rather than by firm convictions on issues).

Like Judy, I try to vote in every election that I'm eligible to vote in (and I would suspect that in many national elections, our votes probably cancel each other's out, but that's okay ;) ).  I do my best to be an educated voter by watching the debates (which are usually of very limited use), reading editorials (ditto), and researching the voting or political history of each candidate (bingo).  Over the past 17-18 years, this has resulted in votes for two Democrats (William Casey and Al Gore in his Senate run).

Anyway, just to add my own twist to the voting issue, I really feel that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.  In other words, if you pay no taxes, you shouldn't have a vote in who will represent you in determining how tax dollars are spent- just a thought.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> Anyway, just to add my own twist to the voting issue, I really feel that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.  In other words, if you pay no taxes, you shouldn't have a vote in who will represent you in determining how tax dollars are spent- just a thought.


Why not take it a step further, and apportion votes according to the _amount_ each person pays in taxes?  The more you pay, the bigger your say?

----------


## JennyP

> *shanbaum said:* 
> Why not take it a step further, and apportion votes according to the _amount_ each person pays in taxes?  The more you pay, the bigger your say?


;) Do I detect  a "tongue in cheek" here??

BTW: Was it hard to break into the "Old Disagreeable Guy" market (listed as your occupation?) I bet you trained through an apprenticeship, right? Do you have to go to O. D. G. CE classes to keep your skills sharp, and have you been asked to teach some? Is there anything comparable for females? I would love to be able to say," Well, I am a registered member of the  _____________, and you willl just have to put up with my narrow-minded, fussy, forgetful self, because I am tenured!" 
Personally, I am looking at applying for membership to the Red Hat Society, because I feel a strong urge to go buy boxes and boxes of moth balls, and my sweater collection is outgrowing my closets....

----------


## chm2023

People who pay no taxes:  students;  most retired people;  poor people.  If the retired population didn't vote, in most precincts you could vote by a show of hands.  Students not voting--not a good way to develop good citizenship among the young.  The poor not voting--the problem here should be self-evident.  

And really, any clown can pay taxes, it's hardly a sacrament!!!

----------


## Judy Canty

Pete, if you really want to see how well that concept works, just take a look at the District of Columbia.  They vote in national elections and their local elections and they pay taxes, however, they have NO voting representation in Congress.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Red,

Does that work better?

It's not my fault that everyone does not use Pete's Bumblebee as a screen color :)

Anyway,

Everyone should vote that has the right to do so. Everyone should get an equal voice (although it does bother me that those living on wellfare seem to be growing in numbers AND have the same vote I do) It is the only way to keep it fare BUT it isn't perfect. It is kind of ironic if you think about it; that those that pay the majority of the taxes (The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.09% of income tax) actually own the government, so to speak, and yet the other 50% get just as much say, through their vote, as anyone else. So even in this the successful get dictated to as to what they do with their money by people that don't pay any income tax in the first place. 

So my point is not that if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to vote but rather if you want to vote you need to be paying taxes as a criteria to do so. If you pay no taxes then it will cost you X number of dollars (say 13% of yearly income) to cast your vote at the polling place. I think that would be fare, after all I already paid in more than 13% so I think it's only fair that others should tow that financial line as well. As Chad said "If you're going to help row the boat then you get to have a say in which direction it goes." That's positive thinking wouldn't you agree? :D 

If you elect not to vote then you have no voice and no say, period.

Take care folks,

Darris C.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Pete, if you really want to see how well that concept works, just take a look at the District of Columbia. They vote in national elections and their local elections and they pay taxes, however, they have NO voting representation in Congress.
Actually, that is the reverse of what I'm proposing.  If you pay taxes, you should be represented (no taxation without representation).  Conversely, however, if you do not contribute to the funding of your local, state, or national government, you really shouldn't have a say in how that body operates, IMHO.

That isn't to say you shouldn't have a right to complain about the way things are, protest, lobby, etc.  I'm just saying the country is like a company (now there's a Republican for you- corporatizing everything).  Only stockholders should get a vote.  Long ago, I believe only landowners were able to vote.  That would probably be impractical, since there are people who pay huge tax burdens who choose to rent apartments...

So, no matter what religion, race, sex, or even age- for that matter- you are, if you pay taxes to the United States Federal Government you should have a vote regarding who will represent you in the executive and legislative branches of that government.

The poor not voting--the problem here should be self-evident. 
I must be a horrible person, because the problem with that particular scenario is not self-evident to me.  Are you suggesting that the poor would be less well-provided for if they were denied the opportunity to vote?

And really, any clown can pay taxes, it's hardly a sacrament!!!
That's exactly the point.  Anyone _can_ pay taxes, and- therefore- anyone can vote.  Its a completely non-discriminatory way of determining eligibility.  You are correct, paying taxes _isn't_ a sacrament (i.e., a religious observance), but it _IS_ the primary way in which most of us actually participate in the operation of our country.   The U.S. Army is paid for by U.S. citizens through taxes.  The Federal Highway system is paid for by Federal taxes.   Unfortunately, a lot of other ancillary items are also paid for with Federal taxes...

If it weren't for the "clowns" that pay taxes, how would we take care of seniors, student loans, and all the other things I would assume you would agree are valuable?  The "clown" who gets up and goes to a job every day keeps this country going.  Its that same "clown" who saves her/his money to retire someday.  The same "clown" who gives more back to the government than s/he takes out.  These are the people who give this country the means to do this, that, and the other thing- and these are the people who earn the right to be represented when their money is spent!

Most seniors who have saved for retirement do pay taxes.  Students who apply themselves will hopefully be paying lots of taxes in the future if they are successful.

----------


## Judy Canty

Poll taxes, (and that is what you are talking about) used for years in the South to deny the vote to low-income citizens, primarily African-American, are illegal.  The Constitution grants ALL citizens the RIGHT to vote.  Paying for the priviledge of voting is not just abhorrent, it is a huge step backwards in time.

----------


## shanbaum

Pete, Darris, I am surprised, amazed, and disappointed to read that you apparently believe that democratic government should be of, by, and for the people who pay for it.

Grim.

On the off chance that it might inspire you to reconsider, as a fellow Strict Constructionist, I refer you to Section 1 of the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

_
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax._

----------


## chm2023

Exactly what I was thinking Judy!  It's a subtler way of keeping the lower income people, lower income.  This notion of tying the right to vote to income (which is what you are doing if you tie it to paying taxes) is so anti-American!  It's ironic in the face of what we are trying to do in Iraq, that we still don't have a good grasp of the tenets of our own sytem of gov't.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Judy, Robert and chm,

Have any of you forgotten the means by which so many thing "Constitutional" have been changed for the "betterment of the Nation."? Anyone here know of any explotations of "The Elastic Clause" or the necessity of its being?

Judy and Robert, look at the time in which the polling tax was being implimented and the actual reason why it was made illegal. At that point in history you had people living off the land that tended to their own needs via working and supporting themselves by living off the land. The government didn't own anything nor did it have the power to do many of the things it does (technically unConstitutional in many cases, btw) today. The money that was being made by these folks was what they needed in order to get supplies that they could not make themselves or they traded for what they needed. Plus at that time levying taxes was a slightly different problem in and of itself since you barely had a mail system let alone a tax collection system. You are comparing apples to oranges.

These people needed to have representation because their situation rendered them incapable of having the means by which to be allowed to vote. I agree that it was a bad idea...*at the time* and did take away the rights of people that were stuck, but people today are not "stuck." The people of today that would not be represented would typically be those living off the benefits of the governement in the first place. In otherwords they are not "living off the land" they are living off the governement and in turn living off of you and Me and our tax dollars. I believe in "My house my rules." and "If you don't pay you don't say." 

If I'm the one paying for the land and maintaining it there is no reason why someone living on it for free should be allowed to tell me how or what to do with it. They should be thankful that I had the means to purchase the land and then give them a place to live and money for food, utilities and necessities for living, not only for them but for their families as well. If they don't want to do this or don't like the idea that I make the rules then they have all the freedoms that I do to go out, work and purchase their own property through their own hard work and discipline. When this is done they will be made to pay taxes like the rest of us working folks and can go vote to their hearts content.

If it sounds harsh its because seeing the forest through the trees may be difficult for some to do. The reality is that the farther we sink into a welfare state the more the government becomes exactly what the opposition sees as the problem with "equal representation" based on taxes paid. Once the majority becomes dependant on the government you have the same problem only without any possibility of reversing the situation. People will in escence be "stuck" and without any means (other than what the government gives them) with which to change it. Governement will have all the power. Then one can hope and pray that someone like Hitler or Saddam doesn't get elected into power.

"Grim"? You bet it is! But also necessary. If you want to keep the country from falling into an abbys of financial shortfall the best thing that can be done right now is to start moving the able bodied off the welfare rolls in order to shore up SS in the near future. How do you do this? By sending the money back to those that paid it in in the first place and let them invest and expand creating more jobs, which creates more tax payers and generates more money (which a polling tax would do in the immediate future, not to mention would get some people motivated)

Now for the downside, the government would simply end up generating income tax reports for those on government assistance showing that they paid a tax that they would then get right back anyway.

Judy,

"Paying for the priviledge of voting is not just abhorrent, it is a huge step backwards in time."

I disagree with this completely. It's neither abhorent nor a step backward. I believe it was ahead of its time when it was implimented and didn't fit the times due to the circumstances thereof. If you weren't making an income, you couldn't be taxed and if you were then told you could not vote because you didn't pay taxes, well...? That's unfair as well as unethical. Todays recipients have an income, they just don't pay taxes on it because it's tax dollars handed out by the very government we all feel is less than apt at doing much of anything correctly. 

"Pete, Darris, I am surprised, amazed, and disappointed to read that you apparently believe that democratic government should be of, by, and for the people who pay for it."

Oh come one Robert! You're neither surprised nor amazed. Not to mention the truth of the matter is that those that pay for government own it. You paid for your car and therefore you own it; or would you rather that I be allowed to tell you that you must go down to the tire store and have then lower your car and put low profile tires on oversized chrome bat wing rims at your expense?

The crux of this is that taking money out of govenrment (tax cuts) does more for an economy than any plan espoused here, or anywhere, to the contrary. Believe what you will and when reality sets in you can be as shocked as you wish but it won't change the facts.

Take care,

Darris "Livin' in the real world" C.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> Judy and Robert, look at the time in which the polling tax was being implimented and the actual reason why it was made illegal. At that point in history you had people living off the land that tended to their own needs via working and supporting themselves by living off the land. The government didn't own anything nor did it have the power to do many of the things it does (technically unConstitutional in many cases, btw) today. The money that was being made by these folks was what they needed in order to get supplies that they could not make themselves or they traded for what they needed. Plus at that time levying taxes was a slightly different problem in and of itself since you barely had a mail system let alone a tax collection system. You are comparing apples to oranges.


I had no idea life was so harsh back in 1964, which was when the 24th Amendment was ratified.

Oh, wait - I was 12 years old at the time; I can't say for sure about the tax collection system, but I distinctly remember there being mail.

I guess it's a good thing to know what people think, even if it is, like I said, grim...

Maybe you're right; I shouldn't be surprised that there are members of the VRWC out there who believe that the right to participate in democracy derives from one's financial contribution.  

I do hope there aren't too many of you.

----------


## Judy Canty

You're kidding, I hope.  The 24th amendment outlawing poll taxes or any other tax designed to inhibit the right to vote was proposed in 1962 and passed in 1964.  We were FAR from being an agrarian society.  The poll tax was often combined with a "citizenship" test, both of which were designed to control voting priviledges and keep political power in a very limited number of hands.

Gee, we had mail back then, as well as TV, movies, cameras, shopping centers, cars, busses and airplanes, too!  I went to schools with more than 1 room, with blackboards and chalk, though I do remember mimeograph machines rather than copiers and slide rules instead of calculators or computers.  Gimme a break!

----------


## chm2023

There have been a couple of comments re the growing welfare state;  well as the agnostic commented as he walked by the church "Important, if true."

In 1980, 4.7% of the population were on welfare;
In 1990, 4.6%
In 1999 2.6%
In 2000 2.1%
2001 still being calculated but will be lower than 2000.

The % and actual number of welfare recipients is in decline.  Funding for subsidized housing has dropped dramatically, ditto Head-Start and school lunch programs.  I could go on, but you get the drift.

Sorry if this makes the message of how we are are going to hell in a welfare handbasket story less compelling!  (This is a true story:  when Reagan was running for president, he used to regale his crowds with the story of the Chicage "welfare queen"--you may remember this, this was a woman who supposedly cheated the system in an egregious fashion--drove a Mercedes, had a beach house etc.  It was a crowd pleaser!  One of RR's staff researched the story and discovered it was not true, an urban legend.  RR was advised of this, yet he continued to tell the story.  When asked why he continued to tell the tale, knowing it wasn't true, Reagan replied "Well, it could".  Why let facts get in the way of your point of view!!)

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Poll taxes, (and that is what you are talking about) used for years in the South to deny the vote to low-income citizens, primarily African-American, are illegal. The Constitution grants ALL citizens the RIGHT to vote. Paying for the priviledge of voting is not just abhorrent, it is a huge step backwards in time.
Actually, poll taxes were used in the manner you describe, but are quite different than what I was proposing.  Coincidentally, all citizens do _not_ have the right to vote.  Being convicted of certain crimes negates the right to vote for a period of time.  Additionally, the Constitution did _not_ grant the right to vote to anyone (it left that determination to the individual states).  In fact, only about 6% of the population was entitled to vote when our country's form of government was enacted.

It's ironic in the face of what we are trying to do in Iraq, that we still don't have a good grasp of the tenets of our own sytem of gov't.
Actually, the study of government is one of my hobbies, so I have a fairly good grasp on our present system of government.   The foundation of the governmental system of the United States of America was founded on Federalism.  One hallmark of Federalism is the limiting of popular democracy.  Given their writings, it is highly doubtful that the architects of this system of government envisioned sufferage for every citizen 18 and older.  In fact, in the original edition created by the Constitutional Congress, the only representatives who were even subject to popular election were the members of the House.  The Senate was to be appointed by state legislatures, and the President was appointed by Congress.  In the end, only the Judicial branch of our government was chosen to be filled by appointment, however.

The framers of our government wished to avoid a "Tyranny of the Majority," and that is what I would propose we have today.  We all (myself included) sit here and pine about the wastefulness and irresponsibility of our Federal government.  However, the Federal government can only be as responsible as the citizenry charged with electing it.  In my opinion, part of the current irresponsibility is derived from the fact that a significant portion of the electorate afforded suffrage has no responsibility for paying for the government they elect.

The fact is, ANYONE can pay taxes (to quote an earlier post).  Therefore, anyone can vote.  To suggest that limiting voting rights to taxpayers means limiting the voice of certain races is a true example of prejudice and is unfounded.  Black, white, Native American, Asians, etc. all pay taxes in America- and should all be given free rights to vote.  Poll taxes were effective in repressing African-Americans only because that segment of the population was almost exclusively poor at that time in our history.  This is not the case today.  In fact, I believe statistics would show that the majority of those who would be denied sufferage if taxpaying was a pre-requisite today would be caucasian, so we aren't talking about a policy that would repress a particular race or gender.  

Not to worry, you can all rest easy...  history shows that sufferage in a populist society never recedes- it only increases.  Every society in the history of the world has eventually succumbed to its inherent weakness.  The Romans succumbed to debauchery, and we appear to be destined to succumb to the weakness of fiscal irresponsibility.  A society cannot continually spend more than it makes, and slowly but surely we are spending more and more and making less and less.  This is truly a bipartisan problem and will continually spiral as long as those who vote fail to hold themselves- and their representatives- responsible for their fiscal actions.  

I would suggest that, if you truly want total and complete democracy, you should lobby for sufferage for EVERYONE.  I mean, isn't it discriminatory to keep 14 year olds from voting?  Why do you suppose we do?  It couldn't have anything to do with judging them on their ability to make sound, responsible decisions, could it?

Just to show that I'm not just targeting the "poor and disadvantaged" when I ponder improvements to our system of government, I would note that the following reforms would also be incredibly positive, IMHO:
1.) State governments should be responsible to raise money for projects in their own states.  Very few projects should receive any Federal money.
2.) Accordingly, a large percentage of the money currently paid to the Federal government should be collected in state taxes instead
3.) A version of the Gramm-Rudman Bill (this one with teeth and staying power) should be passed and rigidly enforced.  The government should be prohibited from spending more than it collects, unless a super-majority of 67% passes each and every exception to this rule on a case-by-case basis.  Yes, this would involve a LOT of sacrifice for _everyone_.  Before you go off on the topic of our current conflict, the ability of the government to wage war against a foreign power would have to remain intact, of course.
4.) The Federal government should maintain only agencies involved in the maintenance of the armed forces, the establishment of intra-state transportation, and the collection of duties and tariffs.  Every other Federal agency should be folded into respective bodies on a state-by-state basis.

When I sit and watch Senator Barbara Boxer (from California) wax eloquent regarding the caribou in Alaska that would be "irreparably harmed" if additional oil wells were drilled in Alaska (after, mind you, watching the Senator from Alaska make an impassioned plea to allow this drilling to occur), it becomes very obvious that the Federal government has extended its reach much farther into State's Rights than the framers of the Constitution ever imagined possible.  In this example, the lands on which the good people of Alaska wish to drill are indeed "Federal Lands," but an agreement was reached over 30 years ago to allow drilling there (oh, and BTW, those caribou are doing just fine on other reclaimed drill sites).

See you at the polls, everyone!  This tax-paying clown is there every time the doors are open...  :)

The % and actual number of welfare recipients is in decline. 
As I recall, that is a correct statement.  I would point out that you don't have to receive welfare to be exempt from paying taxes.   I believe the first year I was required to pay federal taxes (that I didn't receive as a refund at the conclusion of the year) was when I was 17.  Please explain to me why I could pay taxes but was not able to vote?  Is that not truly taxation without representation?

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello folks,

Let's see if I can explain this in a manner that will make a very noteworthy point. Ah yes, I've got it...

Robert and Judy,

You are to be commended on your knowledge of 1964 and the ratification of the 24th Amendment. You are both so far ahead of the masses I can tell you and I agree with what you've both said in your responses to me. Yes, there was a mail system, electricity, indoor plumbing even television and airconditioning. There was icecream and cars that ran on gas and airplanes in the air. The IRS and tax collection and of course the 24th Amendment. (Sound of applause to you both) And there was much rejoicing and merriment.

Here's the problem...I was talking about the times in which polling taxes were being implimented. This would be days gone by or in more common lingo "The past" or prior to 1964 and the 24th Amendment.

Here's Websters definition of the past:

past    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pst)
adj. 
1) No longer current; gone by; over: His youth is past. 
2) Having existed or occurred in an earlier time; bygone: past events; in years past. 

3) Earlier than the present time; ago: 40 years past. 
4) Just gone by or elapsed: in the past few days. 
5) Having served formerly in a given capacity, especially an official one: a past president; a past inmate of a cell. 

Grammar. Of, relating to, or being a verb tense or form used to express an action or condition prior to the time it is expressed. n.

In fact here's my subject paragraph:

"Judy and Robert, look at the time in which the polling tax was being implimented and the actual reason why it was made illegal. At that point in history you had people living off the land that tended to their own needs via working and supporting themselves by living off the land. The government didn't own anything nor did it have the power to do many of the things it does (technically unConstitutional in many cases, btw) today. The money that was being made by these folks was what they needed in order to get supplies that they could not make themselves or they traded for what they needed. Plus at that time levying taxes was a slightly different problem in and of itself since you barely had a mail system let alone a tax collection system. You are comparing apples to oranges."

Since I make referrence to this many times and even emphasise it at least once with bold type I figured those as intelligent as yourselves would pick up on it, but alas I'm mistaken.

One of the longest recorded uses of the polling tax was in the years 1889 to 1910 which was "in the past" and before 1964 and the 24th Amendment. Prior to all this including the Colonies inception Britain used this practice in the late 1300's. I believe I recall polling taxes being implimented shortly after Blacks were freed and allowed to vote to keep them from voting and became a sufferage issue in and of itself. As I said this was wrong and unjust at the time because these people had no means by which to pay any taxes let alone poll taxes.  

To further make my point; back then (historically speaking now) there were still operating forts (one of which is not too far from here where my great grandmother was born) called Fort McKavett as well as the fort located right here in good ole San Angelo, Texas called Fort Concho. Now these folks received their mail via express riders and messengers, they didn't have electricity at the time and indoor plumbing was unheard of (keeping in mind this wasn't but 100 years ago) Most people still grew their own food and supported themselves and didn't work 9 to 5 jobs that garnered a paycheck to be taxed because those jobs didn't exist yet. So I stand by what I said and must say I have no idea what you're talking about but I agree with your information. It is true and I hope anyone reading remembers it for posterity sake because it is good information. 

What I'm talking about was the implimentation of polling taxes in the past when they were being used legally and your talking about the 24th Amendment that made them illegal in 1964. We're not on the same page here kids. But at any rate I'm not surprised. 

chm2023

"There have been a couple of comments re the growing welfare state; well as the agnostic commented as he walked by the church "Important, if true."

In 1980, 4.7% of the population were on welfare;
In 1990, 4.6%
In 1999 2.6%
In 2000 2.1%
2001 still being calculated but will be lower than 2000."

And the overall population has decreased or increased? Just curious because 2.1% of say 10,000 is 210 people but 2.1% of 100,000 is 2100 people. Also if this is decreasing numbers wise then doesn't it stand to reason that the most significant drops are in that gray area where the "Contract With America" came to be and people were in escence told they couldn't stay on welfare forever?

"The % and actual number of welfare recipients is in decline. Funding for subsidized housing has dropped dramatically, ditto Head-Start and school lunch programs. I could go on, but you get the drift."

How many people currently live in subsidized housing? Perhaps these declines are in accordance with the numbers of people already in this type of housing (in other words its saturated but still growing only the numbers of the new recipients are being reported hence showing a decline) School lunches? I'll have to look into that because the number of lunches being subsidized here still seems to be quite high, in fact my sister-in-law works in food service at a school in Austin and she goes in during the summer for all the kids that come to the schools for breakfast and lunches on this program. I'm curious. 

As to Head Start I just watch a program not more than a week ago on PBS about this program as well as The Job Corps. Both were working on allocating even more money for these programs but were going to get the same funding they had been getting which is what they were complaining about and the reason they were on PBS in the first place (even though the programs have failed)

"Sorry if this makes the message of how we are are going to hell in a welfare handbasket story less compelling! (This is a true story: when Reagan was running for president, he used to regale his crowds with the story of the Chicage "welfare queen"--you may remember this, this was a woman who supposedly cheated the system in an egregious fashion--drove a Mercedes, had a beach house etc. It was a crowd pleaser! One of RR's staff researched the story and discovered it was not true, an urban legend. RR was advised of this, yet he continued to tell the story. When asked why he continued to tell the tale, knowing it wasn't true, Reagan replied "Well, it could". Why let facts get in the way of your point of view!!)"

It really doesn't make it less compeling. In all honesty it makes for good debate when the right questions are asked.

As to Ronald Reagans story...I have his example right here in my home town. Yup the person he spoke of lived right here in SA Texas and I believe still does. This lady drove a 4 door Mercedes (Dark metalic green, her favorite color she told me.) with dark Limo tinted windows and $500.00 a piece crome rims. Her two boys wore nothing but name brand everything (predominantly Nike and Tommy) including the styles of the day. The wore lots of gold and diamonds (real or fake I know not) The mother always had her hair done and never had a hair out of place (I knew her hair dresser) and always wore the latest fashions as well. We did their glasses and once we picked them out of the Medicaid selection her forms were filled out by the ladies at the front desk to be submitted for payment.

We also had another lady that would come in and buy expensive frames on impulse with money she borrowed from friends and try to get the lenses done through Medicaid. She too drove a Mercedes four door (Creme color) not more than about 4 years old at the time. Circumstances beyond her control created her situation but her habbits didn't change as far as spending was concerned. So I would not only agree with "Well, it could" but can also prove that it did happen. I too could go on but I think you get the drift also. 

"Why let facts get in the way of your point of view!!)"

I concur ;)

Take care to all,

Darris C.

----------


## shanbaum

Sorry, Darris, I just thought you were misusing the term "implement" (or, as you seem to prefer to spell it, "impliment").  Your original post was, as usual, borderline opaque; for instance, you seem to assert that a poll tax is somehow appropriate (or is it inappropriate?) to a less developed society than today's, though you never really explain why you think that's true (at least not in such a way that I, with my admittedly meager powers of comprehension, can understand it).  You seem to be saying something like: "in the past, people didn't have the means to pay taxes, so the poll tax was wrong, so it was made illegal."

Or maybe you were saying the opposite, I'm not sure.

I think I _can_ discern in your post the notion that today, responsible people all pay taxes, and since only responsible people should be allowed to vote, only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

While one _might_ be able to successfully argue that only responsible people should be allowed to vote, you seem to assume that there's a strong correlation between responsibilty and paying taxes.  I'm convinced that there are plenty of irresponsible idiots who pay taxes, and plenty of responsible, intelligent people who don't.  (Examples of the latter: me, in those years in which I've started businesses; and a substantial percentage of members of the armed services, who don't get paid much).

And in any case, the idea that government is "owned" by the taxpayers is something of an innovation in political philosophy, so far as I'm aware.  Comparing government to owning a car, or working a field, is some genuinely out-of-the-box thinking.  My congratulations.

----------


## Judy Canty

Perhaps then you should consider the costs of disenfranchisement.  The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The American Civil War, The Russian Revolution, The Chinese Revolution, The Cuban Revolution are among a vast history of other coflicts which arise from placing power and control in the hands of a select group.  Darris, you can espouse these beliefs because you can afford to.  You have nothing to lose.  Perhaps if you were laid off from  work and were living on your savings and then lost your vote because you had no taxable income, your views might be a bit different.   In addition, nowhere in your post do you enlighten me concerning what legal purpose was addressed by a poll tax, assuming that it would have been deemed legal at some point before it was declared illegal by the 24th Amendment.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Perhaps my obviously unpopular view regarding sufferage is simply a result of an obvious misunderstanding of the Federal Government's role in our lives.  My perception is the Federal Government exists to ensure adequate land, air, and naval forces to defend me, adequate infrastructure to provide me the ability to travel from state to state, and to oversee the import of products into my country- and that's pretty much it.  I mean, this surely seemed to be the perception of the Founding Fathers, but perhaps they were all misguided, which would explain why only 6% of the population needed to have a vote back in the 18th century.

So, let's have a better look...

Hmmm, I notice that the Federal Government as it actually exists seems to be involved in so much more of my life than the obviously outdated and irrelevent duties granted it by the Constitution and Founding Fathers.  For example, it dictates that my employer and I place a significant portion of my income into a retirement fund that earns little, if any, interest (Social Security).  It is supervises the education of me and my children.  It regulates the supplies of food, drugs, and products that I purchase.  It ensures that I contribute a portion of my income to people who are in need by redistributing taxes which I am required to pay through socially appealing, if mismanaged, programs.  You might say that the Federal Government takes care of me from the time I am born, through my days as a worker, my life as a retiree, and my moral responsibility to help others along the way.

Wow, I guess everyone should have a vote.  After all, any institution that enforces its will upon so many aspects of the lives of each and every citizen _should_ be chosen by everyone!  I humbly withdraw my observation, and thank you all for demonstrating the true nature of our government.  I thought I understood it, but alas- I was in the dark.   I can also understand how a government that attempts to accomplish so many lofty objectives finds itself unable to live within its means.  

Now I will go back to my labors, happily pay whatever is required from me, and thank God above for the provision of such an all-encompassing and wondrous institution.  Let's see... I'll just need to make sure that I'm not in any of the Federal buildings I paid for when I say that prayer, because belief in a diety must never be allowed to intrude upon the sanctity of government (I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution, but the Judicial branch of the government it established has declared this to be true, so I should believe it).

Thanks again, everyone!  :D

----------


## Judy Canty

The US Constitution was crafted by the Founding Fathers to try to satisfy the contentious representatives of 13 contentious individual states.  I'm pretty sure from my readings that they realized that this would be a "living" document and as such be open to interpretation, arguement and change so long as the Union existed.  This is evidenced by the almost immediate ratification of the first 10 amendments.  Much like keeping a family functioning together, there have to be basic rules and then those rules need to be interpreted and enforced as different situations arise.  Some of those interpretations and decisions are going to make folks very happy and some will not.  Like raising kids, we all make the best decision that we can at the time and with the best intentions.

 I'll go to work every day and pay my taxes like most everyone else I know.  But I know that those taxes have helped provide a standard of living that is second to none.  My children are educated in a public school system that is one of the best in the country, including my daughter's ivy-league education at public school prices (Go Tribe!), and I helped keep that system in place.  I sleep pretty soundly at night, even here in the DC area where the media would have everyone believe crime is rampant.  I attend the church of MY choice.  I don't have to attend one either, that's another choice I have.  No one can prevent me from living in the neighborhood of my choice, or deny me public transportation or an education or a job because of my ethnic background, gender or creed.  I have the right to and the privilege of voting, not because I pay taxes but because I'm a citizen.

----------


## chip anderson

I have it from very reliable sources that the next war will be within a decade and it will be with all of Asia, including China and probabaly all of Islam.   Tell your sons and daughters to prepare.

Chip

----------


## shanbaum

> *Pete Hanlin said:* 
> Thanks again, everyone!  :D


No worries, Pete, and welcome to the 21st century.

----------

