Great idea to Save the Country

[Grizalltheway]

I would go for something like that. What I've thought of in the past is doing it on a pro-rated basis. Kind of like stockholders in a company. If you pay 100,000 in Federal taxes, you get 100,000 votes. If you pay $1,000, you get $1,000 votes.

It makes sense. If you contribute more you should get more say. And it'd create some interesting potential. People might actually support having their taxes raised so they could get more say.

But, to me, there's no way it's fair to have somebody who isn't paying any taxes get as much say in the direction of the country as someone who is paying $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more.

We have a serious problem right now because we have a very large proportion of the population that has no skin in the game or little skin in the game getting just as much say in terms of their vote as other people who have a LOT of skin in the game. It's very easy to vote for politicians who are going to establish all these wonderful programs when you're not the one paying for it. If you're not paying for it, you should not have a say.

Life's a journey and everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

Spot on. When conks bleat about the entitlement mentality in America, how come they never mention the fucks who were born on third base and think they hit a triple?

[Cap'n Cat]

Looks like Republicans would lose even if there was a voting test.



http://www.happyplace.com/19076/electio ... -for-obama

Says it all. Where's Georgia? Gotta be number 11 on the red side.

[JohnStOnge]

Says it all. Where's Georgia? Gotta be number 11 on the red side.

No, it doesn't say it all. Breaking things down by State like that can be very deceptive. For example: Mississippi and Louisiana are 1 and 2 in percent Black population among States and Blacks voted by 93% to 6% for Obama. But Mississippi and Louisiana both voted majority for Romney.

We have direct information on how people voted by educational attainment level from exit polling. And it was pretty consistent with the historical pattern. The typical historical pattern is that likelihood of voting Republican goes up as educational attainment level goes up with a twist at the top whereby those with post grad education vote majority Democrat. Here is how it went this time:

Did not Finish High School: Obama 64%, Romney 35%
Graduated High School: Obama 51%, Romney 48%
Some College: Obama 49%, Romney 48%
College Graduate: 47%, Romney 51%
Post Grad: 55%, Romney 42%

I used to have an article linked about how, among post grads, the majority of males tend to vote Republican and the majority of females tend to vote Democrat. I'll have to check when I get to my own computer if the link still works. I suspect that one factor in seeing an advantage for Obama among Post Grads is that the majority of post grads are female. Women working in the Education Establishment, etc. But I don't know at this point.

In any event, though you may take comfort in the majority of Post Grads having voted for Obama, it is also clear that the majority of the least educated also voted for him. And it is the least educated that would be most likely to be eliminated by any kind of reasonable test to determine whether or not someone knows enough about how the United States is supposed to work in order to function as a citizen.

[JohnStOnge]

Tell ya what, Cap. If you really believe doing what I propose would hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, let's go ahead and agree to push for doing it.

What do you say? You're confident it'll help the Democrats, right?

[Grizalltheway]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

[Chizzang]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

Ppfffft....
You just made me spit out my garlic and sun dried tomato hummus on Indian Naan bread
with Chicken Tandoori

You know it's Indian Diwali Festival of lights today - man the food has been awesome today
Interesting to note: The brown people here in the Seattle area are very intelligent

[Baldy]

I'm tired of people acting like voting is some kind of sacred, unquestionable right. Just showing up at the precinct to vote is not doing your civic duty no matter what the touchy-feely "the more voters the better" people say.

It is a sacred and unquestionable right. The second statement you made doesn't change the first. EVERYONE who is legally in this country DOES have the right to vote. They also have the right to be lazy and uncaring. Some of you people really need to take a moment to think about this.

Ugh...

Actually, voting is a privilege, not a right.

[JohnStOnge]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

Well, would Obama be in the White House right now if it weren't for getting overwhelming majority votes from minority ethnic groups? You know, without even running the numbers I am confident in saying that if even 15% (as opposed to 6%) of Blacks and 35% (as opposed to 27%) of Hispanics voted for Romney Romney would've won the popular vote. Why should I not blame the "darkies" for voting to continue the path to sending this country down the rat hole originated by FDR? Wouldn't be happening if they, and especially the Blacks, weren't mindlessly pressing the button for "Democrat" no matter what like a bunch of automatons.

The zombie vote. Each time the Democrats invade the inner cities in swing states and scour the underside of every rock to drag out a bunch of people who have no idea as to what's going and and would not be voting if somebody wasn't dragging them out. Not to mention taking advantage their successful effort to maintain bloated voter rolls so they can stack the deck a little more through a little voter fraud.

[JohnStOnge]

... everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

You saying that doesn't make it true. Besides, what I actually wrote was no skin or little skin. We have created a system whereby the majority of the people in this country have no concept or appreciation for how much it costs to sustain the programs they clamor for because they are not bearing any substantial portion of the cost of it. If two people are going to buy a car together it's pretty easy for one of them to say they want a $100,000 model if they have no feel for it and their "share" is going to be 10 bucks. When I have time I will look up some numbers I ran showing that in inflation adjusted terms, while government spending went up, the total Federal household tax liabilities (not just income tax...all Federal taxes) went DOWN in inflation adjusted terms for the majority of the population during 1970 through 2005 (latest year for which I've been able to find the breakdowns I need at the CBO site). That's true both in terms of the percent of Federal tax liability and in absolute terms. Why WOULD they have a reason to object to the dramatic increase in spending (in inflation adjusted terms) that transpired over the period when what they're contributing towards spending is going DOWN. Meanwhile the tax liabilities for a small percentage of people at the top went way UP in both percent contributed and absolute terms. And of course we borrowed a lot. We have a serious issue with people being isolated from "feeling" the problem because "the rich" are going to pay for everything.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

Yes they "deserve" more say because they contribute more to the system. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's their money however they got it as long as they didn't steal it. And you can't assume they stole it just because they're wealthy. I can't believe you people can't see the problem of having half or more of the society basically function as a bunch of parasites in position to vote themselves benefits while making somebody else pay for it. On its face it's obvious that that's a problem. Take your egalitarian blinders off.

[Baldy]

Life's a journey and everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

Spot on. When conks bleat about the entitlement mentality in America, how come they never mention the fucks who were born on third base and think they hit a triple?

1. Those people are EXTREMELY rare.
2. Of the few that are out there, most are Donks.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

Well, would Obama be in the White House right now if it weren't for getting overwhelming majority votes from minority ethnic groups? You know, without even running the numbers I am confident in saying that if even 15% (as opposed to 6%) of Blacks and 35% (as opposed to 27%) of Hispanics voted for Romney Romney would've won the popular vote. Why should I not blame the "darkies" for voting to continue the path to sending this country down the rat hole originated by FDR? Wouldn't be happening if they, and especially the Blacks, weren't mindlessly pressing the button for "Democrat" no matter what like a bunch of automatons.

The zombie vote. Each time the Democrats invade the inner cities in swing states and scour the underside of every rock to drag out a bunch of people who have no idea as to what's going and and would not be voting if somebody wasn't dragging them out. Not to mention taking advantage their successful effort to maintain bloated voter rolls so they can stack the deck a little more through a little voter fraud.

Agree!

If Herman Cain was the Republican candidate running against a 'white' Dem it wouldn't have mattered. Blacks vote Dem come hell or high water for the 'entitlements'....period. Anyone can try to spin this anyway they want but this is the truth.

[houndawg]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

Well, would Obama be in the White House right now if it weren't for getting overwhelming majority votes from minority ethnic groups? You know, without even running the numbers I am confident in saying that if even 15% (as opposed to 6%) of Blacks and 35% (as opposed to 27%) of Hispanics voted for Romney Romney would've won the popular vote. Why should I not blame the "darkies" for voting to continue the path to sending this country down the rat hole originated by FDR? Wouldn't be happening if they, and especially the Blacks, weren't mindlessly pressing the button for "Democrat" no matter what like a bunch of automatons.

The zombie vote. Each time the Democrats invade the inner cities in swing states and scour the underside of every rock to drag out a bunch of people who have no idea as to what's going and and would not be voting if somebody wasn't dragging them out. Not to mention taking advantage their successful effort to maintain bloated voter rolls so they can stack the deck a little more through a little voter fraud.

Typical loser talk, John.

[kalm]

... everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

You saying that doesn't make it true. Besides, what I actually wrote was no skin or little skin. We have created a system whereby the majority of the people in this country have no concept or appreciation for how much it costs to sustain the programs they clamor for because they are not bearing any substantial portion of the cost of it. If two people are going to buy a car together it's pretty easy for one of them to say they want a $100,000 model if they have no feel for it and their "share" is going to be 10 bucks. When I have time I will look up some numbers I ran showing that in inflation adjusted terms, while government spending went up, the total Federal household tax liabilities (not just income tax...all Federal taxes) went DOWN in inflation adjusted terms for the majority of the population during 1970 through 2005 (latest year for which I've been able to find the breakdowns I need at the CBO site). That's true both in terms of the percent of Federal tax liability and in absolute terms. Why WOULD they have a reason to object to the dramatic increase in spending (in inflation adjusted terms) that transpired over the period when what they're contributing towards spending is going DOWN. Meanwhile the tax liabilities for a small percentage of people at the top went way UP in both percent contributed and absolute terms. And of course we borrowed a lot. We have a serious issue with people being isolated from "feeling" the problem because "the rich" are going to pay for everything.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

Yes they "deserve" more say because they contribute more to the system. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's their money however they got it as long as they didn't steal it. And you can't assume they stole it just because they're wealthy. I can't believe you people can't see the problem of having half or more of the society basically function as a bunch of parasites in position to vote themselves benefits while making somebody else pay for it. On its face it's obvious that that's a problem. Take your egalitarian blinders off.

I'll repeat John, regardless of taxes, everyone who is living has skin in the game and you know it. Then again, your semi-sociopathic regard for 47% of the folk...er... I mean parasites around you might suggest otherwise.

In another thread, Z and BlueHen86 talked about the poor at least paying some increase in taxes, even if it's just a few hundred bucks. I actually don't mind that idea.

As for the tax burden going down over those 35 years, some of that's wage related, and but just out of curiosity, which party has been responsible for cutting those taxes? BTW, what has happened to productivity over that same time frame?

And what about the corporate share of the tax burden? What has happened to that? Gawdamm parasitic corporations.

The majority of people work hard and would love to make enough to pay more in taxes. This parasitic condition you speak of is symbiotic. Without the parasites, the host (being the wealthy) would die.

[89Hen]

It is a sacred and unquestionable right. The second statement you made doesn't change the first. EVERYONE who is legally in this country DOES have the right to vote. They also have the right to be lazy and uncaring. Some of you people really need to take a moment to think about this.

Ugh...

Actually, voting is a privilege, not a right.

Some argue that.

[Pwns]

Looks like Republicans would lose even if there was a voting test.



http://www.happyplace.com/19076/electio ... -for-obama

Textbook example of the ecological fallacy.

This poll showed Romney has a 12 point lead over Obama in college graduates.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/colle ... how-84507/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mrklean]

Christ JSO, is there anything you WON'T blame on the darkies?

Well, would Obama be in the White House right now if it weren't for getting overwhelming majority votes from minority ethnic groups? You know, without even running the numbers I am confident in saying that if even 15% (as opposed to 6%) of Blacks and 35% (as opposed to 27%) of Hispanics voted for Romney Romney would've won the popular vote. Why should I not blame the "darkies" for voting to continue the path to sending this country down the rat hole originated by FDR? Wouldn't be happening if they, and especially the Blacks, weren't mindlessly pressing the button for "Democrat" no matter what like a bunch of automatons.

The zombie vote. Each time the Democrats invade the inner cities in swing states and scour the underside of every rock to drag out a bunch of people who have no idea as to what's going and and would not be voting if somebody wasn't dragging them out. Not to mention taking advantage their successful effort to maintain bloated voter rolls so they can stack the deck a little more through a little voter fraud.

Its thinking like this..........
Lets blame the black and brown people card.

[Grizalltheway]

You saying that doesn't make it true. Besides, what I actually wrote was no skin or little skin. We have created a system whereby the majority of the people in this country have no concept or appreciation for how much it costs to sustain the programs they clamor for because they are not bearing any substantial portion of the cost of it. If two people are going to buy a car together it's pretty easy for one of them to say they want a $100,000 model if they have no feel for it and their "share" is going to be 10 bucks. When I have time I will look up some numbers I ran showing that in inflation adjusted terms, while government spending went up, the total Federal household tax liabilities (not just income tax...all Federal taxes) went DOWN in inflation adjusted terms for the majority of the population during 1970 through 2005 (latest year for which I've been able to find the breakdowns I need at the CBO site). That's true both in terms of the percent of Federal tax liability and in absolute terms. Why WOULD they have a reason to object to the dramatic increase in spending (in inflation adjusted terms) that transpired over the period when what they're contributing towards spending is going DOWN. Meanwhile the tax liabilities for a small percentage of people at the top went way UP in both percent contributed and absolute terms. And of course we borrowed a lot. We have a serious issue with people being isolated from "feeling" the problem because "the rich" are going to pay for everything.



Yes they "deserve" more say because they contribute more to the system. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's their money however they got it as long as they didn't steal it. And you can't assume they stole it just because they're wealthy. I can't believe you people can't see the problem of having half or more of the society basically function as a bunch of parasites in position to vote themselves benefits while making somebody else pay for it. On its face it's obvious that that's a problem. Take your egalitarian blinders off.

I'll repeat John, regardless of taxes, everyone who is living has skin in the game and you know it. Then again, your semi-sociopathic regard for 47% of the folk...er... I mean parasites around you might suggest otherwise.

In another thread, Z and BlueHen86 talked about the poor at least paying some increase in taxes, even if it's just a few hundred bucks. I actually don't mind that idea.

As for the tax burden going down over those 35 years, some of that's wage related, and but just out of curiosity, which party has been responsible for cutting those taxes? BTW, what has happened to productivity over that same time frame?

And what about the corporate share of the tax burden? What has happened to that? Gawdamm parasitic corporations.

The majority of people work hard and would love to make enough to pay more in taxes. This parasitic condition you speak of is symbiotic. Without the parasites, the host (being the wealthy) would die.

Yeah JSO, where's the love for the people helping to make the Walton family the new Rockefellers?

[Ibanez]

... everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

You saying that doesn't make it true. Besides, what I actually wrote was no skin or little skin. We have created a system whereby the majority of the people in this country have no concept or appreciation for how much it costs to sustain the programs they clamor for because they are not bearing any substantial portion of the cost of it. If two people are going to buy a car together it's pretty easy for one of them to say they want a $100,000 model if they have no feel for it and their "share" is going to be 10 bucks. When I have time I will look up some numbers I ran showing that in inflation adjusted terms, while government spending went up, the total Federal household tax liabilities (not just income tax...all Federal taxes) went DOWN in inflation adjusted terms for the majority of the population during 1970 through 2005 (latest year for which I've been able to find the breakdowns I need at the CBO site). That's true both in terms of the percent of Federal tax liability and in absolute terms. Why WOULD they have a reason to object to the dramatic increase in spending (in inflation adjusted terms) that transpired over the period when what they're contributing towards spending is going DOWN. Meanwhile the tax liabilities for a small percentage of people at the top went way UP in both percent contributed and absolute terms. And of course we borrowed a lot. We have a serious issue with people being isolated from "feeling" the problem because "the rich" are going to pay for everything.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

Yes they "deserve" more say because they contribute more to the system. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's their money however they got it as long as they didn't steal it. And you can't assume they stole it just because they're wealthy. I can't believe you people can't see the problem of having half or more of the society basically function as a bunch of parasites in position to vote themselves benefits while making somebody else pay for it. On its face it's obvious that that's a problem. Take your egalitarian blinders off.

Get real! You're sore because minorities were included and invited to vote? Jeez. Why don't we do you a favor and only let white, male property owners vote.

[mrklean]

You saying that doesn't make it true. Besides, what I actually wrote was no skin or little skin. We have created a system whereby the majority of the people in this country have no concept or appreciation for how much it costs to sustain the programs they clamor for because they are not bearing any substantial portion of the cost of it. If two people are going to buy a car together it's pretty easy for one of them to say they want a $100,000 model if they have no feel for it and their "share" is going to be 10 bucks. When I have time I will look up some numbers I ran showing that in inflation adjusted terms, while government spending went up, the total Federal household tax liabilities (not just income tax...all Federal taxes) went DOWN in inflation adjusted terms for the majority of the population during 1970 through 2005 (latest year for which I've been able to find the breakdowns I need at the CBO site). That's true both in terms of the percent of Federal tax liability and in absolute terms. Why WOULD they have a reason to object to the dramatic increase in spending (in inflation adjusted terms) that transpired over the period when what they're contributing towards spending is going DOWN. Meanwhile the tax liabilities for a small percentage of people at the top went way UP in both percent contributed and absolute terms. And of course we borrowed a lot. We have a serious issue with people being isolated from "feeling" the problem because "the rich" are going to pay for everything.



Yes they "deserve" more say because they contribute more to the system. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's their money however they got it as long as they didn't steal it. And you can't assume they stole it just because they're wealthy. I can't believe you people can't see the problem of having half or more of the society basically function as a bunch of parasites in position to vote themselves benefits while making somebody else pay for it. On its face it's obvious that that's a problem. Take your egalitarian blinders off.

Get real! You're sore because minorities were included and invited to vote? Jeez. Why don't we do you a favor and only let white, male property owners vote.

Don't give him any ideas.....lol

[UNI88]

From the Chicago Tribune

In 2014 election, heed voter message missed in 2010
By Charles M. Madigan
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 8981.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The latest election, then, presents important lessons: Bitterness (along with hatred) is not the best fuel for a presidential campaign and we all need to stop thinking that midterm elections measure the pulse of the nation. They measure the pulse of the people who vote, which is a different animal when there is no presidential contest at the top of the ticket.

What a mistake the Republicans made.
...
When I think back to my childhood in a town in Pennsylvania that was solidly Republican (except for my family, I suspect, and a few others) I recall an America that was full of Jews, Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans of every description, Russians, Italians and everything else. True, there were few blacks and few Latinos, but to think the arrival of voting power for those "minorities" is something new is to ignore the entire 20th century.
...
So don't pretend this America was ever some kind of white man's utopia. That only lasted until the people who ran things began importing cheap labor from all over the world to help with manifest destiny.

Who put Franklin Roosevelt in the White House and kept him there until he died? It was a huge coalition that was more like vegetable soup than plain broth.

[AZGrizFan]

Looks like Republicans would lose even if there was a voting test.



http://www.happyplace.com/19076/electio ... -for-obama

Says it all. Where's Georgia? Gotta be number 11 on the red side.

"States" don't vote. People do. And all those "educated" ones didn't vote for Obama.

[Skjellyfetti]

People do. And all those "educated" ones didn't vote for Obama.

Obama won the most educated voters by 13 points.

[AZGrizFan]

People do. And all those "educated" ones didn't vote for Obama.

Obama won the most educated voters by 13 points.

Thanks for not disappointing...

[JohnStOnge]

Typical loser talk, John.

Not really. If you've been familiar with me from another message board I used to frequent before it began to stifle political discussion by kicking people like Capn Cat and D1B off, I have always said that whether Republicans win or lose. It's part of the background. To win, Republicans have to do well enough to overcome the fact that the Democrats do have that "Zombie Vote" advantage. It's part of the game. Democrats start with an advantage in the "Zombie Vote" factor and in the voter fraud factor. And I'll still be saying that the next time a Republican wins the White House.

Take the well publicized phenomenon whereby 19,605 votes were cast in 59 Philadelphia precincts and Romney got 0 of them. If you want to believe that you can have a population, regardless of race or anything else, such that such a thing can happen when people are engaged, have some rudimentary understanding of what's going on around them. and think for themselves then go ahead. But you sure as heck can't blame somebody like me for thinking otherwise.

Of course there's also the possibility of voter fraud. But it's not realistic to think that you're going to have 19,605 people from an identifiable geographic units within a single geographic area be engaged in what's going on in the world and thinking for themselves and have not a single vote cast for one of the two major candidates. Frankly, it's not even realistic to think that not even one person would accidentally vote for Romney when they meant to vote for Obama. But that's another story.

And, yes, I know there were precincts in Utah were no votes were cast for Obama. But they were precincts in low population areas where he won by votes like 14-0 and 17-0. That kind of thing does not stretch credibility in terms of the probability that someone, somehow (intentionally or otherwise) would vote the other way.

[JohnStOnge]

"States" don't vote. People do. And all those "educated" ones didn't vote for Obama.

You are correct. Let's agree up front that the majority of post grads voted for the Democrat as they usually do in national elections. It is nevertheless deceptive to break things down by State and percent characteristic.

As an example look at the lists below of the top 10 and bottom 10 States in terms of per capita personal income. If you look at those lists you might think people with higher incomes tend to vote Democrat and those with lower incomes tend to vote Republican. But you would be wrong. The consistent historical trend indicated in exit polls is in the opposite direction. There was an unusual twist at the top in 2008 whereby those with incomes of >$200,000 per year voted majority for the the Democrat. But that is the only time that has happened in all my years of looking at exit polls. I suspect it had to do with the financial crisis and some of those rich folks kind of getting into a panic. This year the display of exit poll results at the CNN site kind of suck in that they don't provide as much detail and don't answer as many questions as has been the case in previous years. But it's still evident that likelihood of voting Republican went up as income went up.

Top 10 States in terms of per capita personal income (2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States) ranked in descending order from highest per capita personal income to lowest. Blue Obama, Red Romney:

Connecticut
New Jersey
Massachusetts
New York
Wyoming
Maryland
Virginia
Alaska
California
New Hampshire

Bottom 10 States in terms of per capita personal income (2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States) ranked in ascending order from lowest per capita personal income to highest. Blue Obama, Red Romney:

Mississippi
West Virginia
Utah
Kentucky
Arkansas
South Carolina
Idaho
New Mexico
Alabama
Arizona