If the federal government dissolved...

[BugI02]

That's another major problem.

People shouldn't be so invested in federal politics, they should be more invested in local politics.
Another reason why full franchise democracy is ruining us.

Selling your soul in state politics nets at best millions

Selling your soul in national politics nets hundreds of millions

Do the math

 

[BugI02]

I'm afraid that once given away you can't get it back.
Example, try getting women's voting rights back.
Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't have the right to vote, it's just an example.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the difference between 'only property owners can vote' and the feudal system where the lords owned the property and told everyone else to do what made things best for the lords

I could see only tax-payers voting, though. If you contribute little or nothing to society perhaps you should have little or no say in how it proceeds

 

[BugI02]

We seriously need to stop electing career politicians. Dropping some term limits in would save a lot of headaches, even 20 or 30 year career politician limits would eliminate a ton of shenanigans we are putting up with these days. If Nancy knew she had to move back to her 'home town' eventually, maybe she would care that it's streets are an open sewer.

OG, it might be possible to implement this in a simpler manner. Congress is only in session for 3 months per year. If it can't get done in that years session it doesn't get done until maybe next year. Congressional salaries are reduced 75% and the rest of the year the politicians have to live off their real jobs

Couple that with dispersing the bureaucracies about the country as Trump wanted to do
and DC becomes a mere shadow of its current size and importance, as it should be

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the difference between 'only property owners can vote' and the feudal system where the lords owned the property and told everyone else to do what made things best for the lords

I could see only tax-payers voting, though. If you contribute little or nothing to society perhaps you should have little or no say in how it proceeds

Makes sense, tax dollars being the only way anyone contributes to society. Why not one dollar/one vote? Elon Musk is contributing so much more than you, it's only fair he gets more votes. What politics in this nation really needs is a more direct connection between money and power.

In this disenfranchisement scheme, who counts as a taxpayer? Illegals pay taxes. Just income tax or does sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc count?

 

[Ingomike]

and the rest of the year the politicians have to live off their real jobs

And if they want a retirement they should get it from the private sector…

 

[BugI02]

Makes sense, tax dollars being the only way anyone contributes to society. [please do list all the people who contribute to society but don't make a living simultaneously] Why not one dollar/one vote? Elon Musk is contributing so much more than you, it's only fair he gets more votes. What politics in this nation really needs is a more direct connection between money and power. [Straw man, debating an argument I'm not making - with a dose of added reductio to boot!]

In this disenfranchisement scheme, who counts as a taxpayer? Illegals pay taxes. Just income tax or does sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc count?

Just income tax, and the required skin in the game is to actually pay something. If you don't make enough to pay taxes then you don't need to have a say in how tax money gets spent. It is the only logical way to put limits on the free **** army from voting itself more free ****

Or, we can just wait for the aftermath of our own future Hugo Chavez

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just income tax, and the required skin in the game is to actually pay something. If you don't make enough to pay taxes then you don't need to have a say in how tax money gets spent. It is the only logical way to put limits on the free **** army from voting itself more free ****

Or, we can just wait for the aftermath of our own future Hugo Chavez

Sure. Because the only impact the government has is how tax money is spent. And the tax payer never votes themselves free stuff. Certainly no subsidies to various companies, farms, etc. Just those dang poors.

 

[churchmouse]

OG, it might be possible to implement this in a simpler manner. Congress is only in session for 3 months per year. If it can't get done in that years session it doesn't get done until maybe next year. Congressional salaries are reduced 75% and the rest of the year the politicians have to live off their real jobs

Couple that with dispersing the bureaucracies about the country as Trump wanted to do
and DC becomes a mere shadow of its current size and importance, as it should be

The salary is not the large hits for a lot of these turds and means nothing to them overall.

Real jobs. How many up there have any idea what that is.

As to reducing the tumor that sucks the very life out of this country......Yes, I am all for that. And reduce taxes as the tumor shrinks.

 

[churchmouse]

Sure. Because the only impact the government has is how tax money is spent. And the tax payer never votes themselves free stuff. Certainly no subsidies to various companies, farms, etc. Just those dang poors.

This would be part of the reduction in size.

 

[Ingomike]

Sure. Because the only impact the government has is how tax money is spent. And the tax payer never votes themselves free stuff. Certainly no subsidies to various companies, farms, etc. Just those dang poors.

Because we can never implement a plan to reduce spending because we couldn’t gore enough oxes at one time to make a difference.

 

[Leadeye]

Relative to Starship Troopers, if it's trying to chew my leg off I'm treating it like an enemy.

I don't need to know anything more than that.

Agree, the book was way better than the movie.

 

[BugI02]

Sure. Because the only impact the government has is how tax money is spent. And the tax payer never votes themselves free stuff. Certainly no subsidies to various companies, farms, etc. Just those dang poors.

But ... but ... you are for legalization because the 'War on Drugs' is a failure

How's that 'War on Poverty' going? Time to give up on it yet?

 

[Twangbanger]

But ... but ... you are for legalization because the 'War on Drugs' is a failure

How's that 'War on Poverty' going? Time to give up on it yet?

Tch, tch...you think the purpose of wars is to win

 

[Twangbanger]

I think only gun owners should vote.

I posted here.

 

[ancjr]

Only originalists should vote.

It doesn't matter. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But ... but ... you are for legalization because the 'War on Drugs' is a failure

How's that 'War on Poverty' going? Time to give up on it yet?

I'm unclear on how the "War on Poverty" equates to disenfranchising your fellow citizens based on income tax returns. That's not just moving the goal posts, that's breaking out tennis rackets and insisting we were playing a different game the entire time.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Because we can never implement a plan to reduce spending because we couldn’t gore enough oxes at one time to make a difference.

The context was not reduced spending. The context was if you don't pay income taxes you shouldn't be able to vote because you'll vote yourself free stuff. The absurdity of that is that people paying lots of taxes are consistently voting themselves lots of free stuff. You guys will simultaneously complain about politicians getting rich in politics but also blame the poors for gov't spending. The poors aren't buying congressmen because, well, you know, they are poor. The poors didn't get the city to give them tens of millions of dollars for a playground for millionaires to give each other concussions in.

So if you're going to argue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on using the vote to influence were tax money goes, let's be somewhat honest about it.

 

[Ingomike]

The poors aren't buying congressmen because, well, you know, they are poor.

There are many currencies, the poor, as you call them, are buying congressmen with their votes as they have so many more than the rich…

And while I love NFL football, I recognize that it is an opiate for the masses. I believe I read that the time of lowest crime and ER visits is the super bowl.

I never said anyone shouldn’t be allowed to vote. But we do need to shore up soon just who can, and limit it to citizens.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I never said anyone shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

You didn't, but that's the conversation you jumped in to when you quoted my post.

 

[BugI02]

Sure. Because the only impact the government has is how tax money is spent. And the tax payer never votes themselves free stuff. Certainly no subsidies to various companies, farms, etc. Just those dang poors.

I'm unclear on how the "War on Poverty" equates to disenfranchising your fellow citizens based on income tax returns. That's not just moving the goal posts, that's breaking out tennis rackets and insisting we were playing a different game the entire time.

Uhhh ... YOU brought up the 'dang poor' and proffered the false equivalence that because corporations receive subsidies and taxpayers sometimes vote in favor of legislation that will benefit them, that somehow that justifies people who are a net drain on the economy having just as much say in how it is conducted as people who are a net asset to it

The subject, after all, was alternatives to the original concept of only property owners could vote which itself descended from the landed aristocracy keeping control of how government was conducted

I am pointing out that you are inconsistent. A primary reason you give to support abandonment of the war on drugs is that it has manifestly failed, but when challenged to give up the war on poverty - which has similarly failed, and in a more spectacular and expensive way - you cannot