Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-12-30 22:52:49
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

Look at the spending increases since then. Shit, look at the spending increase just over the last few years. I'm sure you recognize the waste government has. This is because we, the taxpayers, are enabling them. Your money does not go far in Washington, it never has. If you cut the waste out, which is far greater than 20%, you'd easily be able to let people keep more of their money. This in turn will 'properly' grease the wheels of the economy, and promote expansion. Lower taxes and people will spend more, and revenues will naturally increase. Please note that I am not saying to get rid of or drop taxes all together. I did not say drop it 20%. Right now we're having a tough time just preventing a tax increase in order to fund the massive bureaucratic tumor we have in DC. History has shown that in the US that when you take a tax less approach you actually end up with a tax more result, because there is more product and services being moved through the system. Do you know how many people are priced out of homes now because they can't afford the property taxes on it? So now those homes sit unoccupied and the county receives absolutely nothing. It's the same logic with the fed. Tax people enough and they retract their spending habits, the economy slows, and people start losing their jobs. Not only that, there is an increased burden on the welfare system, and thus we end up with the massive debts we have today.



.. and more to the topic

Kmar wrote:

Not only that, it (vote selling) is going to cause even more wealth disparity. Buying and selling votes will empower the wealthy even more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-12-31 10:37:50
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5481|Cleveland, Ohio
i honestly dont know how people can say you cannot sell your vote
2010-12-31 10:48:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

Look at the spending increases since then. Shit, look at the spending increase just over the last few years. I'm sure you recognize the waste government has. This is because we, the taxpayers, are enabling them. Your money does not go far in Washington, it never has. If you cut the waste out, which is far greater than 20%, you'd easily be able to let people keep more of their money. This in turn will 'properly' grease the wheels of the economy, and promote expansion. Lower taxes and people will spend more, and revenues will naturally increase. Please note that I am not saying to get rid of or drop taxes all together. I did not say drop it 20%. Right now we're having a tough time just preventing a tax increase in order to fund the massive bureaucratic tumor we have in DC. History has shown that in the US that when you take a tax less approach you actually end up with a tax more result, because there is more product and services being moved through the system. Do you know how many people are priced out of homes now because they can't afford the property taxes on it? So now those homes sit unoccupied and the county receives absolutely nothing. It's the same logic with the fed. Tax people enough and they retract their spending habits, the economy slows, and people start losing their jobs. Not only that, there is an increased burden on the welfare system, and thus we end up with the massive debts we have today.

.. and more to the topic

Kmar wrote:

Not only that, it (vote selling) is going to cause even more wealth disparity. Buying and selling votes will empower the wealthy even more.
Again, cutting spending should come first.  Cutting spending takes a lot more time to actually get through, whereas cutting taxes is usually just an easy way to get votes among a fickle and shortsighted public.
2010-12-31 17:02:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

Shortsighted to me is simply thinking that we have to keep giving more and more money to pay off our insurmountable debt. The promises of welfare projects and continued living off of the federal teet indefinitely sells plenty of votes as well. Understanding that cutting taxes actually results in increased revenue requires long term vision imo.

turq, can you see how putting a monetary price on a vote will further empower the wealthy? When people vote in a candidate that promises to help out their constituents financially, they are promising to help out an entire social class with legislation. There is a difference between that and selling an individual vote for personal, one time profit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-01-01 09:02:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

Shortsighted to me is simply thinking that we have to keep giving more and more money to pay off our insurmountable debt. The promises of welfare projects and continued living off of the federal teet indefinitely sells plenty of votes as well. Understanding that cutting taxes actually results in increased revenue requires long term vision imo.

turq, can you see how putting a monetary price on a vote will further empower the wealthy? When people vote in a candidate that promises to help out their constituents financially, they are promising to help out an entire social class with legislation. There is a difference between that and selling an individual vote for personal, one time profit.
There is a difference, but not much of one....

But again, I'm not convinced that cutting taxes further will result in enough of a revenue gain to cover our current spending.
2011-01-02 08:12:22
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Shortsighted to me is simply thinking that we have to keep giving more and more money to pay off our insurmountable debt. The promises of welfare projects and continued living off of the federal teet indefinitely sells plenty of votes as well. Understanding that cutting taxes actually results in increased revenue requires long term vision imo.

turq, can you see how putting a monetary price on a vote will further empower the wealthy? When people vote in a candidate that promises to help out their constituents financially, they are promising to help out an entire social class with legislation. There is a difference between that and selling an individual vote for personal, one time profit.
There is a difference, but not much of one....

But again, I'm not convinced that cutting taxes further will result in enough of a revenue gain to cover our current spending.
You dont think there is much of a difference between the one time payoff of pawning  your vote to the wealthy, and spending that vote on a candidate who promises sustainable legislation that benifits the whole of society?

The net result with your idea is more wealth disparity. At least when a vote is priceless the contituents can react to politicians being bought and sold. Your plan is to expand the problem.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-01-02 10:49:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

You dont think there is much of a difference between the one time payoff of pawning  your vote to the wealthy, and spending that vote on a candidate who promises sustainable legislation that benifits the whole of society?

The net result with your idea is more wealth disparity. At least when a vote is priceless the contituents can react to politicians being bought and sold. Your plan is to expand the problem.
I don't know.  I guess the question is...  is it really sustainable to begin with?  A good example is Social Security.  In the beginning, it seemed like a good idea.  However, over time, the funds got raided, and now it's growing insolvent.  Sure, you could argue that Al Gore's "lockbox" would have prevented this problem from occurring in the first place, but now that it already has, where do we go from here?

Plus, it just seems like you can't trust the government to put a lockbox on anything really.  Yet, this doesn't stop older people from voting to protect Medicare while still voting against socialized care for the rest of us.

And as far as wealth disparity goes, I'm not sure if much of anything can be done about that besides improving education systems.  Of course, that's hard to do when suburbanites continually avoid property taxes while still using the amenities of big cities.

Essentially, the whole system itself is designed to increase wealth disparity instead of lessening it, so I don't really see how selling your vote would change things much.
2011-01-02 12:07:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

By selling your vote you guarantee the path. You've sold your right to accountabilty. You seem concerned with social security. With your suggestion I imagine the politicians could raid it once again just to payoff enough voters to ignore everything else they have been doing. Is this the way you think government should work? An endless cylce of bribing voters? I know what you are getting at, and that's not entirely what it is like now. Politicians for the most part are aware of the liabilty of taking money from a group in Washington. I previously mentioned a few consequences earlier in this topic.

I wouldn't cosider any social fund by our government sustainable. That not only includes your example of social security, it includes a federally managed medical plan. If you want sustainabilty let people create jobs without drilling them for being succesful at it every chance you get.

The system was designed to let people choose their leaders. However, many people don't care about their right to choose. They jump in a topic like this and say "what do I care, i would sell my vote". My guess is that most of those people have never voted, since they don't take it seriously enough to value it. It is pretty ironic that they don't see that if enough people did care, and if enough people paid attention to Washington then it would matter. .. more

In Las Vegas they might give you a free room for the night, but you bought the hotel. That is what selling your vote is like.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-01-02 14:18:11
BVC
Member
+325|6940

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pubic wrote:

If we were able to buy & sell votes, we would not be living in a democracy, we would be living in a corporate state.
Why? You have the right not to sell your vote.

I object to the govt buying votes using my taxes via baby bonuses and the extensive pork-barreling already in progress.
The fact that a vote-buying system incorporates a democratic process does not make it a democracy.  In fact, vote-buying hinders the democratic process - say you sell your vote, then something happens which would change your mind about a particular candidate?  Under a corporate state, you're fucked, but under a democracy you can vote them out of office.

Pork barrelling is a term used by those who disagree with a high-price policy which they disagree with, and a euphemism for corruption.  If you don't like a particular policy, encourage other voters to vote against it.
2011-01-02 15:22:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

I wouldn't cosider any social fund by our government sustainable. That not only includes your example of social security, it includes a federally managed medical plan. If you want sustainabilty let people create jobs without drilling them for being succesful at it every chance you get.
Social funds themselves aren't unsustainable on principle -- they're just unsustainable with our particular design of government.  Clearly, they are sustainable in smaller countries with parliamentary governments -- like in Canada, Australia, and Norway.  It's just that, in America, there's too much corruption and too much disparity in quality of governance between states for any national system to remain functional.

We're just too damn big really.

Kmar wrote:

The system was designed to let people choose their leaders. However, many people don't care about their right to choose. They jump in a topic like this and say "what do I care, i would sell my vote". My guess is that most of those people have never voted, since they don't take it seriously enough to value it. It is pretty ironic that they don't see that if enough people did care, and if enough people paid attention to Washington then it would matter. .. more

In Las Vegas they might give you a free room for the night, but you bought the hotel. That is what selling your vote is like.
I understand what you're saying, and you're probably correct to a degree.  I just don't see this particular government as being worth participating much in anymore.

The Bill of Rights is one of the few things I'm proud of regarding our system.  Beyond that, I could think of a handful of other countries that seem to run things better for day to day life.
2011-01-02 19:42:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

I wouldn't cosider any social fund by our government sustainable. That not only includes your example of social security, it includes a federally managed medical plan. If you want sustainabilty let people create jobs without drilling them for being succesful at it every chance you get.
Social funds themselves aren't unsustainable on principle -- they're just unsustainable with our particular design of government.  Clearly, they are sustainable in smaller countries with parliamentary governments -- like in Canada, Australia, and Norway.  It's just that, in America, there's too much corruption and too much disparity in quality of governance between states for any national system to remain functional.

We're just too damn big really.
Exactly what I've been saying for years. It's not a symptom of our government style in particular. But rather the size of government. It becomes harder and harder to keep it under control as it grows in size.

Kmar wrote:

The system was designed to let people choose their leaders. However, many people don't care about their right to choose. They jump in a topic like this and say "what do I care, i would sell my vote". My guess is that most of those people have never voted, since they don't take it seriously enough to value it. It is pretty ironic that they don't see that if enough people did care, and if enough people paid attention to Washington then it would matter. .. more

In Las Vegas they might give you a free room for the night, but you bought the hotel. That is what selling your vote is like.
I understand what you're saying, and you're probably correct to a degree.  I just don't see this particular government as being worth participating much in anymore.

The Bill of Rights is one of the few things I'm proud of regarding our system.  Beyond that, I could think of a handful of other countries that seem to run things better for day to day life.
Which ones that govern over 300 million people could do a better job? Consider what we just said about size. We do pretty well for what we are dealing with. If we left the power with the states on all matters beyond national defense and human rights we'd be doing a lot better.

The Bill of Rights is far from an original idea. I believe the English had theirs almost a hundred years prior. It was the likely inspiration for ours.

One large Federally administered program that I am proud of is the National Parks department. Their work is under-appreciated. .. and they don't do it by running up crazy amounts of debt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-01-02 20:15:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

Which ones that govern over 300 million people could do a better job? Consider what we just said about size. We do pretty well for what we are dealing with. If we left the power with the states on all matters beyond national defense and human rights we'd be doing a lot better.
I disagree.  Some states would be doing better.  Others would be doing much worse.  See, I understand the concept behind letting states compete in their policies and how that affects where people and businesses choose to go.  The only problem is that this decentralized method of governance comes with a high cost to quality of life.

Essentially, the poor that get stuck in badly run states suffer when there is no federal government to set standards.  It's kind of like what happened back during segregation.  Northern states still had their own versions of segregation, but in general, blacks in the North fared better than blacks in the South.  It wasn't until federal intervention that improvements across the board were implemented.

Before intervention, the states' rights approach allowed for a wide disparity of quality of life -- especially for minorities.

Nowadays, it's less about race and more about class.  Some states do a good job with providing for the poor, while others are terrible at it.  Education systems are where we often see the most disparity between states.  If we took an even more decentralized approach, the better run states would likely improve, but the badly run ones would get even worse.

Kmar wrote:

The Bill of Rights is far from an original idea. I believe the English had theirs almost a hundred years prior. It was the likely inspiration for ours.

One large Federally administered program that I am proud of is the National Parks department. Their work is under-appreciated. .. and they don't do it by running up crazy amounts of debt.
Fair points...

In summary, I think we agree that the sheer size of our country makes many things impractical for our federal government to engage in, but at the same time, I would suggest that our size itself is a problem.  Yes, our system handles a population our size better than any other, but our size itself hinders us from ever achieving the things that can be done in smaller countries like Canada in terms of social systems.

There are advantages to living in a larger country, but for the needs of the average person, living in a smaller country is often a better arrangement.
2011-01-02 20:35:31
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

I absolutely agree that some states would be doing better and some would be doing worse. In fact, thats my point. Why should crap states remain under the economic umbrella of the US when year after year the elect the same worthless politicians? Consider it competitive peer pressure to encourage better government.

You brought up segregation. That is why I said when it comes to human rights, nationally, there need to be one standard. As far as education.. right now the federal government hands out money to the schools that improve the most. I think this is a good idea on the state level, and actually, some sates are already doing this. There has been a marked improvement in my home state because of this. It helps to force the spotlight on poorly performing schools while rewarding those who excel.

Living in the US when the states retain their sovereignty would be like living in your mentioned smaller countries. We would still remain intact as a Nation, with the benefits of National security and free commerce/travel, but we wouldn't be under the thumb of men who are only worried about their particular region.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-01-02 21:29:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6649|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:

I absolutely agree that some states would be doing better and some would be doing worse. In fact, thats my point. Why should crap states remain under the economic umbrella of the US when year after year the elect the same worthless politicians? Consider it competitive peer pressure to encourage better government.
My argument would be to kick them out.  I know that's not going to happen, but I'm just saying...
2011-01-02 21:42:53
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6845|132 and Bush

We do have an exclusion policy in a sense. For example, some states have mutual recognition when it comes to certain laws. Real Estate and Gun law is an example of this type of sharing relating to licensing and what laws apply where. I really don't see a need to completely kick out a state if they abide by the very basic laws we require federally. I just don't think we should have these massive projects that everyone can dip in to, if everyone is not contributing to the progress of the nation. That ideology supports, and even promotes weakness with regards to passing progressive legislation on the state level.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard