Running the government "like a corporation"

AssHatZombie said:
Its funny how you talk so much smack, considering i've repeatedly humiliated you whenever you've even tried to take me on. I guess talking behind my back like a little girl is all you have left. Congratulations on your cowardice.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on your virginity.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But who will they run to when the governments fails and they want to get bailed out?
Click to expand...

See... your hate-filled and pessimistic mind have caused you to assume your own falsehoods and think I posted something Fascist. I never said that rich people should be given complete control of our country to do as they please, and rule with an iron fist... that would be Fascism. I know that is the label you keep wanting to stick on me, but the darn thing just doesn't want to stick!

People would still have to be elected, our representatives would still have to listen to their constituents, it really wouldn't be much different than now, as a political process goes. The only difference would be, the people who are funding this little charade we call a 'budget' would actually have a say in it.

Now it's just a hunch, but I think, if we removed the people who have no vested interest and no monetary investment in our tax revenues, and replaced them with people who did have a vested interest and investment, and who also know a great deal about money and how to make it, invest it, and spend it, we would see a great reduction in our national debt... just a hunch, there.
 
AssHat I can only assume that you're taking a break to wipe the tears from your eyes, so just get back to me whenever you can stop crying. Take your time.
 
Watermark said:
An intelligence test would make a lot more sense than a money test. There are plenty of dumb rich people who got where they were by luck or their parents.
Click to expand...


Again, I never suggested votes based on "wealth." Read carefully, Waterhead! TAXES!! Not WEALTH! Unless you worked to earn an income, you would not be paying any taxes, therefore... no votes!
 
Dixie said:
Again, I never suggested votes based on "wealth." Read carefully, Waterhead! TAXES!! Not WEALTH! Unless you worked to earn an income, you would not be paying any taxes, therefore... no votes!
Click to expand...

Government by intelligence would be run a lot better than government by wealth. Unfortunately there would be no conservatives.
 
Watermark said:
Government by intelligence would be run a lot better than government by wealth. Unfortunately there would be no conservatives.
Click to expand...

I can never tell if you really believe the bs you spew.

There are intelligent people of every political stripe, they balance each other out. Any truly intelligent person also should understand that, which is why I hold onto the hope that you are trolling.
 
Epicurus said:
I can never tell if you really believe the bs you spew.

There are intelligent people of every political stripe, they balance each other out. Any truly intelligent person also should understand that, which is why I hold onto the hope that you are trolling.
Click to expand...

Shush Epi, I'm Dix-baiting.
 
Watermark said:
Government by intelligence would be run a lot better than government by wealth. Unfortunately there would be no conservatives.
Click to expand...


I agree, which is precisely why my idea would work. The financial intelligence of this country would be running the government, not some bunch of hair-brain liberals who can't balance their checkbooks. I also agree it shouldn't simply be based on wealth, but rather taxes paid, which isn't the same thing as wealth.

Explain why it is not "fair" in your estimation?
 
Dixie said:
I agree, which is precisely why my idea would work. The financial intelligence of this country would be running the government, not some bunch of hair-brain liberals who can't balance their checkbooks. I also agree it shouldn't simply be based on wealth, but rather taxes paid, which isn't the same thing as wealth.

Explain why it is not "fair" in your estimation?
Click to expand...

Owning property in Mommasville, Alabama, isn't quite as difficult as owning property in San Francisco. I guess disenfranchising urbanites is part of your goal, though.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Owning property in Mommasville, Alabama, isn't quite as difficult as owning property in San Francisco. I guess disenfranchising urbanites is part of your goal, though.
Click to expand...

I don't care where you own land, that was someone elses idea. My plan is based solely on votes for amount of taxes paid. Everything else works as it always has, no change in how we do things, other than, the people who are paying 98% of the federal tax, get 98% of the voice in Washington. It sounds about as fucking fair as it gets, if you ask me.
 
Dixie said:
I don't care where you own land, that was someone elses idea. My plan is based solely on votes for amount of taxes paid. Everything else works as it always has, no change in how we do things, other than, the people who are paying 98% of the federal tax, get 98% of the voice in Washington. It sounds about as fucking fair as it gets, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

You are truly the dumbest person in Alabama (and by logical extension, the US). You really think a government run by people with the most wealth is better than universal suffrage?
 
ib1yysguy said:
You are truly the dumbest person in Alabama (and by logical extension, the US). You really think a government run by people with the most wealth is better than universal suffrage?
Click to expand...

AGAINnnnnnnnn.... NOT WEALTH!


Is that fucking big enough for you to read and comprehend???????

I'm getting really fucking tired of correcting this inaccurate claim! I NEVER said votes or government run by WEALTH! I said, votes bases on TAXESSSSSS! Can you get that through your little narrow pinhead? Or do we need to have a debate over the VAST FUCKING difference between those who are WEALTHY and those who PAY TAX????
 
The irony on this thread is unbelievable. Dixie sounds like the kind of chardonnay-sipping elitist that he so often condemns.

Again, Dix - the philisophy you are endorsing is basically the one that we had a revolution to separate from.

Fool.
 
Onceler said:
The irony on this thread is unbelievable. Dixie sounds like the kind of chardonnay-sipping elitist that he so often condemns.

Again, Dix - the philisophy you are endorsing is basically the one that we had a revolution to separate from.

Fool.
Click to expand...

No, we had a revolution to separate us from the King of England, as in... they had a KING, a RULER, an EMPEROR, and he was mandating unreal taxation on the people, much like an out of control special-interest-laden congress of today, actually.

It's not the philosophy I am endorsing, I would hope we all live by the philosophy of making the choice of how to spend money we earn. It's pretty basic... I mean, who has access to your checking account? The guy next door? No, because he is not entitled to decide how to spend your hard earned money. My idea is just an extension of that simple principle. The decisions in government on how to spend the money, would be made by those speaking for who made and earned the money. I've yet to hear an argument why this wouldn't be fair or wouldn't work to reduce our national debt. It is in tune with your "run government like a corporation" line, so what's the beef?
 
Dixie said:
No, we had a revolution to separate us from the King of England, as in... they had a KING, a RULER, an EMPEROR, and he was mandating unreal taxation on the people, much like an out of control special-interest-laden congress of today, actually.

It's not the philosophy I am endorsing, I would hope we all live by the philosophy of making the choice of how to spend money we earn. It's pretty basic... I mean, who has access to your checking account? The guy next door? No, because he is not entitled to decide how to spend your hard earned money. My idea is just an extension of that simple principle. The decisions in government on how to spend the money, would be made by those speaking for who made and earned the money. I've yet to hear an argument why this wouldn't be fair or wouldn't work to reduce our national debt. It is in tune with your "run government like a corporation" line, so what's the beef?
Click to expand...

IF THE RICH RULED AMERICA EVERYTHING WOULD BE GOOD AND THEY WOULDN'T BE SO READY TO DO (insert liberal idea here) THAT COMMON AMERICANS SEEM TO LOVE SO MUCH! IT WOULD BE FAIR IF THE POOR COULDN'T VOTE!
 
Watermark said:
So if I gave up my vote could I choose not to pay taxes?

I assure you, no one in the US would ever pay taxes again.
Click to expand...

No, you would still have to pay what you owe in taxes, if you owe anything. Most of the McDonald's workers I know, get it all back at the end of the year. But if you had a tax liability, you would still have to pay it. Your voting is up to you, as always.
 
"No, we had a revolution to separate us from the King of England, as in... they had a KING, a RULER, an EMPEROR, and he was mandating unreal taxation on the people, much like an out of control special-interest-laden congress of today, actually. "

The people who started America had a lot to say about aristocracy, also, and about the will of ALL the people not being subverted by the interests of a few.

You're really an idiot on this one; not that this is unusual, but I have to say, on this topic, it surprises me. This is about as anti-American in spirit as I have seen you. You generally at least seem to understand what principles the country was founded on; here, you're like a lost puppy. It's like you're not really familiar with America at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top