Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
A Conflict of Interest?
Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all, can we justify those who do not pay taxes to be able to vote on how much the taxpaying citizen’s pay for the services of government that we all benefit from? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html ) Furthermore, aren’t those who receive government assistance in a conflict of interest if they are able to vote for whatever politician is willing to increase the amount of their federally/state funded checks? Also, for the purpose of this thread, let’s throw in businesses and corporations that receive funds/subsidies/assistance/bailouts from the government. Should they be able to donate money in the name of their business or run campaign ads? Since both people and business owners who receive welfare/money/assistance from the federal government have a vested interest in voting for politicians, who redistribute money, and thus redistribute liberty, from the taxpayer to those who don’t pay taxes or businesses that get assistance/bailouts, shouldn’t they lose the privilege to vote or the liberty to donate money and speak on that politicians behalf? Can’t the taxpayer be compensated for his loss of liberty by also taking away the privilege to vote from the welfare recipiant or the right of a business that receives bailouts/subsidies to donate money or run ads?
Well I think it’s perfectly fine to deny the vote to those who are dependent on the government. I think that James Madison and the rest of the founding fathers were right on two counts when they debated whether “freeholders” (property owners), should be the only ones to vote. For one, allowing the dependent to vote will create a false corrupt constituency of those who are voting property away from one class of citizens and giving non-existent liberties and privileges to themselves. Second, it creates a class of politician who achieves power by corrupting his own constituency. In other words, they will not vote on the guy who is best able to determine the functions of government in accordance to his constituency to defend everyone’s unalienable rights, but vote on the guy that promises more assistance, thus taking rights from one and giving government sponsored extra privileges to another. Thus, running for political office would be less of the former in order to see who can out do his competition in the latter. It makes perfect since to deny the privilege of suffrage to those who are dependent on the American taxpayer. The ballot box should not be used as a tool to steal the property of others. In fact, if it was anyone other than the government, they would be thrown in jail!
I know there will be some of you who claim that we all pay sales and numerous other taxes, however, I find this dishonest as the majority of people who pay no taxes at all receive more back in the form of a tax rebate/tax credits than they pay in sales taxes and others.
Some will also say "what about federal employees?" Thats a fair enough question. To that I say that the average federal employee shouldent get any higher pay than the average American working citizen.
-Benjamin Franklin- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q[/ame]
Back in the 2008 election, a woman by the name of Peggy Joseph became a YouTube sensation when she commented on the newly elected President Obama by saying, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him he’s gonna help me.” Likewise, in the economically destroyed city of Detroit, people were standing in line to apply for $3,000 each in stimulus money to help pay for their mortgages. Ken Rogulski of WJR News was on scene. The Transcript goes as follows:
Rogulski: Why are you here?
Woman #1: To get some money.
Rogulski: What kind of money?
Woman #1: Obama money.
Rogulski: Where's it coming from?
Woman #1: Obama.
Rogulski: And where did Obama get it?
Woman #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
Woman #2: And we love him.
Woman #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
Women: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
............................................................. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Wealth Creators vs Wealth Spreaders
.....................................................................
Before comenting on the constitutionality of it all understand that the constitution only says that the vote cannot be denied on the ACCOUNT of race or sex. It says nothing about dependency!
Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all, can we justify those who do not pay taxes to be able to vote on how much the taxpaying citizen’s pay for the services of government that we all benefit from? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html ) Furthermore, aren’t those who receive government assistance in a conflict of interest if they are able to vote for whatever politician is willing to increase the amount of their federally/state funded checks? Also, for the purpose of this thread, let’s throw in businesses and corporations that receive funds/subsidies/assistance/bailouts from the government. Should they be able to donate money in the name of their business or run campaign ads? Since both people and business owners who receive welfare/money/assistance from the federal government have a vested interest in voting for politicians, who redistribute money, and thus redistribute liberty, from the taxpayer to those who don’t pay taxes or businesses that get assistance/bailouts, shouldn’t they lose the privilege to vote or the liberty to donate money and speak on that politicians behalf? Can’t the taxpayer be compensated for his loss of liberty by also taking away the privilege to vote from the welfare recipiant or the right of a business that receives bailouts/subsidies to donate money or run ads?
Well I think it’s perfectly fine to deny the vote to those who are dependent on the government. I think that James Madison and the rest of the founding fathers were right on two counts when they debated whether “freeholders” (property owners), should be the only ones to vote. For one, allowing the dependent to vote will create a false corrupt constituency of those who are voting property away from one class of citizens and giving non-existent liberties and privileges to themselves. Second, it creates a class of politician who achieves power by corrupting his own constituency. In other words, they will not vote on the guy who is best able to determine the functions of government in accordance to his constituency to defend everyone’s unalienable rights, but vote on the guy that promises more assistance, thus taking rights from one and giving government sponsored extra privileges to another. Thus, running for political office would be less of the former in order to see who can out do his competition in the latter. It makes perfect since to deny the privilege of suffrage to those who are dependent on the American taxpayer. The ballot box should not be used as a tool to steal the property of others. In fact, if it was anyone other than the government, they would be thrown in jail!
I know there will be some of you who claim that we all pay sales and numerous other taxes, however, I find this dishonest as the majority of people who pay no taxes at all receive more back in the form of a tax rebate/tax credits than they pay in sales taxes and others.
Some will also say "what about federal employees?" Thats a fair enough question. To that I say that the average federal employee shouldent get any higher pay than the average American working citizen.
-Benjamin Franklin- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q[/ame]
Back in the 2008 election, a woman by the name of Peggy Joseph became a YouTube sensation when she commented on the newly elected President Obama by saying, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him he’s gonna help me.” Likewise, in the economically destroyed city of Detroit, people were standing in line to apply for $3,000 each in stimulus money to help pay for their mortgages. Ken Rogulski of WJR News was on scene. The Transcript goes as follows:
Rogulski: Why are you here?
Woman #1: To get some money.
Rogulski: What kind of money?
Woman #1: Obama money.
Rogulski: Where's it coming from?
Woman #1: Obama.
Rogulski: And where did Obama get it?
Woman #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
Woman #2: And we love him.
Woman #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
Women: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
............................................................. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Wealth Creators vs Wealth Spreaders
.....................................................................
Before comenting on the constitutionality of it all understand that the constitution only says that the vote cannot be denied on the ACCOUNT of race or sex. It says nothing about dependency!
Last edited:
