You're argument against the wealthy holds no water and is completely illogical, as they have a stake, and pay the majority of the taxes as is.

 

Bulls***. This accurately describes our current plutarchy:

If the system was running as it was originally intended to design, I wouldn't have a problem with them having a say in this country's future. But the system isn't running as intended, it's being abused, and the politicians are helping them abuse it...the very politicians they will vote for.

Well a lot of conservatives blame the housing crash on them.

 

Then go talk to the conservatives that do that. I'm not doing that here, and I never suggested it.

Then go talk to the conservatives that do that. I'm not doing that here, and I never suggested it.

 

My bad. We need to break some bread tofu and make amends.

As I said to him, I repeat to you. I never said anything of the sort...nothing even close.

 

Way to go with the typical hyperbolic bulls*** I expect from you, though. Try to have a conversation with someone, and this is the kind of retardation I deal with in response.

 

You're saying a lot of really dumb things like "people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote," "people on welfare don't work," "welfare is just Democrats buying votes and they want people to be on welfare perpetually"

Bulls***. This accurately describes our current plutarchy:

 

There is a big difference when talking about those who pay the most taxes vs those that pay almost none, while collecting free money from the government.

 

This isn't about the fact that I think they could be paying even more in taxes, it's just based on the fact they're already paying the majority of them.

 

You conveniently ignore this...so more power to you. Keep using that logic and reason...utopia is right around the corner.

My bad. We need to break some bread tofu and make amends.

 

Will you will try to convert me to some wackado religion again?

Will you will try to convert me to some wackado religion again?

You will see the light one day my brother.

You're saying a lot of really dumb things like "people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote," "people on welfare don't work," "welfare is just Democrats buying votes and they want people to be on welfare perpetually"

 

I openly admitted some of what I'm saying is harsh and even absurd. I just think we need higher standards in this country.

 

...and people on welfare don't work, otherwise they can't collect welfare.

There is a big difference when talking about those who pay the most taxes vs those that pay almost none, while collecting free money from the government.

 

Go back a few pages. The actual tax rate on the poor is still significant when all taxes are taken into account, though we obviously still have a progressive taxation system.

 

This isn't about the fact that I think they could be paying even more in taxes, it's just based on the fact they're already paying the majority of them.

 

Because they control a majority of the wealth and income and have taken something like 90% of the gains in the past few decades. The wealth of the bottom 50% has actually decreased in that time period. Hard to get out of poverty when the wealthy control government and keep getting trickle-up policies enacted.

 

You conveniently ignore this...so more power to you. Keep using that logic and reason...

 

I'm not ignoring anything. Even if I accept all of your premises, I still don't come to the conclusion that accepting welfare should come with giving up your right to vote.

 

utopia is right around the corner.

Not sure how "people on welfare should be allowed to vote" is a utopian position...

I openly admitted some of what I'm saying is harsh and even absurd. I just think we need higher standards in this country.

 

Voting standards shouldn't be much above "has a pulse" since everyone deserves a say in their own government. Again, completely different from advocating for a more informed electorate.

 

...and people on welfare don't work, otherwise they can't collect welfare.

Not true.

 

Also are you specifically referring to welfare or social programs more broadly?

* I'm not ignoring anything. Even if I accept all of your premises, I still don't come to the conclusion that accepting welfare should come with giving up your right to vote.

 

** Not sure how "people on welfare should be allowed to vote" is a utopian position...

 

* It's ok for us to disagree on this, you know. I know my feelings on this are pretty absurd, but I think the way the system is currently very good at keeping people down, their vote is corrupted. I don't necessarily believe my "fix" is a good one either, but I'm tired about talking about peoples "right to vote", when most of them are content being uneducated dolts about politics, yet they want to exercise this "right" to vote, despite having no idea what they're voting for. It bothers me.

 

** It's not, I was just being an ass.

Voting standards shouldn't be much above "has a pulse" since everyone deserves a say in their own government. Again, completely different from advocating for a more informed electorate.

 

 

Not true.

 

Also are you specifically referring to welfare or social programs more broadly?

 

I'm only referring to welfare in specific.

Well as mike said, not sure how many people on welfare vote, anyway. It's only a few million total.

 

A study found significantly lower civic participation rates among welfare recipients

 

The welfare system has recently undergone dramatic changes aimed at altering financial

dependency upon the state, marital status, and fertility of recipients (Rogers-Dillon and

Skrentny 1999; Haney and March 2003; Hays 2003). But how are these programs

affecting the citizenship of recipients? Contrary to assertions that any assistance from

the welfare state uniformly diminishes civic participation, our research indicates that the

effects of government assistance depend on the type of government program. Specifi-

cally, those involved with stigmatizing and discretionary welfare programs were signifi-

cantly less likely to vote than nonrecipients. On the other hand, there were no differences

in voting for those who received other forms of government assistance compared with

nonrecipients. Moreover, this research shows that these effects on political participation

extend beyond those that could be accounted for by poverty and lower levels of education. The statistically significant differences in the voting rates between those involved in

different welfare state tiers imply differential consequences on voti

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Again, completely different from advocating for a more informed electorate.

 

This is what I'm pretty much advocating for, so you're right in that regard.

 

It truly bothers me that people don't care. There are no words to properly explain how much this bothers me, either.

 

It bothers me more than BigSqwert, who is supposed to be a very peaceful person who tried to attack me when we met.

I've posted surveys of what people imagine the federal budget to be recently. People think it can be cut back easily because they imagine huge percentages are foreign aid and food and housing assistance.

 

Even with that, we still had strong majorities calling for at least some tax increases as part of the deal to balance the budget.

I've posted surveys of what people imagine the federal budget to be recently. People think it can be cut back easily because they imagine huge percentages are foreign aid and food and housing assistance.

 

Even with that, we still had strong majorities calling for at least some tax increases as part of the deal to balance the budget.

 

If we are going to cut, we need to start by cutting 3 f***ing wars.

 

End of discussion.

It bothers me more than BigSqwert, who is supposed to be a very peaceful person who tried to attack me when we met.

 

With compliments! Why did you leave that part out?!

With compliments! Why did you leave that part out?!

 

Well, you were very nice in the attack.

If we are going to cut, we need to start by cutting 3 f***ing wars.

 

End of discussion.

 

And here is a crazy idea, maybe we should make things so that the economy isn't dependent on government spending? If this economy is really propped up to the point where a couple of percentage points of GDP is going to unravel the economy over the next 10 years, we were in really big trouble before this deal ever got made.

And here is a crazy idea, maybe we should make things so that the economy isn't dependent on government spending?

Aside from the usual "Less regulation" canard, feel free to offer suggestions about how to achieve that.

Aside from the usual "Less regulation" canard, feel free to offer suggestions about how to achieve that.

 

Just judging by your response, you have been already hearing what you want to hear, which make this another one of those exercises in futility.

Just judging by your response, you have been already hearing what you want to hear, which make this another one of those exercises in futility.

And judging by your response, all you've got is "Less regulation".

And judging by your response, all you've got is "Less regulation".

 

If you got that, then you haven't actually understood a damned thing I have said for years.

Then the Republicans shouldn't have forced this bigger screwup. And they shouldn't force the next round of budget cuts in September.

Are the Senate Dems going to do their job for the first time in three years and actually produce a budget?

Are the Senate Dems going to do their job for the first time in three years and actually produce a budget?

I doubt it.

 

Serious question...is that part of their job? Do senates typically produce their own budgets? The President always submits one, then the House takes it up as the place where revenue related bills must originate, but the Senate doesn't have budgetary rulemaking authority on its own does it?