Running the government "like a corporation"

Watermark said:
People who earned a lot of income would still have the majority of vote until they were barely paying a few percentage points of their taxes. Wealth is extremely concentrated in America.

And anyway, the wealthy people already have humongous amounts of power due to their wealth, why shouldn't those who are most powerless in our system at least be given the meager benefit of a goddamn equal vote? The rich don't need MORE power, they already have it, due to their wealth.
Click to expand...


Again with "The Rich" I see. Waterhead, I can recommend some good books that will explain the difference between a taxpayer and a wealthy person, if you like. Try "US History- 3rd Grade Edition." ...it has nice pictures too!

I don't understand why you keep harping about "rich people" and thinking my plan has anything to do with giving them power. My plan doesn't "give" anyone a damn thing, that is what is so beautifully capitalistic about it! Those who paid the most taxes, would have the most votes. Now for some reason, you assume that is wealthy people, but most wealthy people don't earn an income and don't pay federal income taxes. You do have some people who earn income and are in a high tax bracket, and as such, they would be entitled to more votes because they contributed more to the tax revenues. Why shouldn't their political voice in government be proportional to what they have contributed? How is that unfair in any way?

Wouldn't this solve the bickering over who needs to be taxed more? Wouldn't it end the whole "Tax The Rich" scheme the liberals have been pulling? Wouldn't it end all of the "paying their fair share" arguments? I am certain it would, because suddenly, there would be no advantage to taxing the rich and giving them more power. Democrats would be fighting to reduce the taxes for the wealthy, and increase taxes for their core constituent groups who aren't paying anything now. And Bravo for them if they did! I would love to see all the Pinheads come together and pool their collective resources to pay enough federal income taxes to control the political debate on universal healthcare! I would be cheering for them the whole way, and I am sure they could do it, with the help of their Hollywood connections and all.

...Ooo almost forgot, you asked me a question: why shouldn't those who are most powerless in our system at least be given the meager benefit of a goddamn equal vote?

What is "fair" about that? Does First National Bank of Wherever, go outside and grab a bum off the street and bring him in the board room to decide bank policy? The Mickey-D's where you work... do they just hand out food and paychecks to anyone who comes by who is poor? Would they ask them how much they should pay you, or how much to charge for hamburgers? Why should this be how we operate our government?

Seems to me, that is why we are trillions in debt now. Your willy-nilly mindset, that we can just keep making people happy endlessly by throwing tax dollars at their every whim. It is this mindset that is currently in charge of deciding what to do with all of our money. I would rather have the people who contributed the most, to have the largest voice in what to do with it. I think that solves the problems, because right now you have a majority of those who don't contribute a thing, making the decisions and choices they shouldn't be entitled to make about other people's money.
 
Beefy said:
If you're serious about this then you're anti-democratic. If you're serious, then you are neo fascist.

Consolidating money and power, dollar for dollar, is no different from any other form of totalitarian government. The end is the same, only the means are different.

Congratulations. You've made the impossible possible, you've made ib1retard right.
Click to expand...


What? You have some fundamental disconnect between "wealthy" and "taxpayer" too??? Have you been checked to see if you have Water on the brain?

:readit:Please note:
MY PLAN IS NOT BASED ON WEALTH!
IT IS BASED ON INCOME TAX!​

Please explain how, giving people who pay 95% of the revenues, 95% of the say in how it is spent, is anti-democratic in ANY way? Please explain how a system to allow EVERY man and woman of legal age, the opportunity to vote at least once (if not more), is in any way, neo-fascist?

If you feel the "Wealthy" have too much power, you could just lower their tax rates! Problem solved! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Um, Dixie you moron, if the wealthy HAVE too much power why the fuck would they lower their taxes to the point where they'd surrender that power? They wouldn't.
 
Did you miss the big red letters up above? Why you keep talking about "the rich?"

They just got their taxes cut, and under my proposal, that would have meant a reduction in their power, not an increase. I haven't proposed that rich people congregate in washington and assume seats in congress moron. We would still elect representatives, have elections and campaigns, conventions and fanfare, the whole bit. The only difference would be, those who paid taxes would have more votes than those who didn't pay taxes. It has nothing to do with "wealthy" being "given" power. It has to do with people who paid the money should get the say in how to spend it.

Now, I know you love to hurl your little insults at me and my intellect, and I wish I could personally take credit for this brilliance, but it is not my idea. It is the thoughts of Walter E. Williams, professor of Economics at George Mason University.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/tax.html

Just a hunch here, I think he is marginally smarter than you.
 
Watermark said:
The government isn't supposed to act like a corporation. It has entirely different goals. What you'd be doing is merely ensuring a situation in which 99% of us become slaves.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's into that sort of thing. He thinks it's enlightenment for the ruling class to finally assume their role as totalitarian brain of the new collective human body.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It stupid, ok, dixie? It's elitist. Nobody thinks is a good idea but new world order fascist-o-crats like yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that you don't think it's a good idea, because it would bust up your little entitlement gravy train and force you to have to actually get a job so you could pay taxes and vote. The reason we are in such major debt now, is sorry ass punks like you, who sponge off the wealthy because you think you are somehow entitled to their money.

Isn't it interesting, no one can articulate why this would be unfair, how it would be unconstitutional, or why it wouldn't work to reduce our national debt. All you can do is throw out a bunch of names and false outrage, and cling to a system that has given us multi-trillion-dollar debt.

If nothing else, it exposed the absolute fraud in the author of this thread's assertion we should be running the government like a corporation. None of you are the least bit interested in seeing the country run like a corporation or reducing the national debt. Most of you think like Waterhead, that it's government's job to make everybody happy and not generate positive revenue. It is precisely this way of thinking which has put us where we are, so why would a pinhead point out the national debt and post a smart-ass thread about government being run like a corporation? Political opportunism, that's why!

You have all been exposed for the frauds and phonies you are!
 
"If nothing else, it exposed the absolute fraud in the author of this thread's assertion we should be running the government like a corporation. "

Where did I "assert" that?

You're such an ignorant fuck. That was what people in the Bush admin were putting out there back in 2001. That's what I was referring to. Should have known you wouldn't even be aware of that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Exactly. He's into that sort of thing. He thinks it's enlightenment for the ruling class to finally assume their role as totalitarian brain of the new collective human body.
Click to expand...

No, i just think if you are paying for something, you should the say in how it is done. Your refusal to accept this very basic, fair, and simple idea, is a testament to how much of a FASCIST you really are. And to think, that's the label you have the audacity to try and pin on me? Pftt!
 
Onceler said:
"If nothing else, it exposed the absolute fraud in the author of this thread's assertion we should be running the government like a corporation. "

Where did I "assert" that?

You're such an ignorant fuck. That was what people in the Bush admin were putting out there back in 2001. That's what I was referring to. Should have known you wouldn't even be aware of that.
Click to expand...

You asserted it by your choice of title for this thread, moron! You also asserted that you think our national debt is a problem worthy of pointing out with a sarcastic statement about running the country like a corporation, which you no more believe in than the man in the moon.

You don't care about fixing the problem of the national debt, you can't even comprehend the difference between the wealthy and those who pay tax! I've had to point it out in this thread, over and over, repeatedly... and no sooner than I post it in 96pt bold type, some liberal comes along and posts some comment about my plan to give rich people more votes! You're not listening, you're not paying attention, and you're so hell bent on continuing your little charade on the American people, you can't even be intellectually honest. You have to misrepresent things I say, and try to turn what I say into abstracts you can attack.
 
Dixie said:
You asserted it by your choice of title for this thread, moron! You also asserted that you think our national debt is a problem worthy of pointing out with a sarcastic statement about running the country like a corporation, which you no more believe in than the man in the moon.

You don't care about fixing the problem of the national debt, you can't even comprehend the difference between the wealthy and those who pay tax! I've had to point it out in this thread, over and over, repeatedly... and no sooner than I post it in 96pt bold type, some liberal comes along and posts some comment about my plan to give rich people more votes! You're not listening, you're not paying attention, and you're so hell bent on continuing your little charade on the American people, you can't even be intellectually honest. You have to misrepresent things I say, and try to turn what I say into abstracts you can attack.
Click to expand...

Who is the moron?

My thread title referenced the Bush admin's stance in 2001, which any casual observer of politics would know. I don't play down to your ignorance & stupidity.

And yeah - the fact that Bush took a $120 billion plus surplus and turned it into a massive deficit is noteworthy, in light of that fact. I care a great deal about fixing the problem of our national debt; the fact that I don't support your idea to subvert the will & ideas of our founding fathers and grant more power to fewer people does not mean "I don't care about fixing the problem." Your idea would be laughed off the national stage; it is, as I said, antithesis to the principles that America is base upon. It's absurd.

You're pathetic. You can't even read, and you throw lies & distortions out there casually & with incredible frequency....
 
uscitizen said:
Amazing how dixie can be as far out of it as he is and still not believe in a hollow earth.
Click to expand...

Please explain how it is "far out" to believe those who are paying for things should have the most say in how their money is being spent? Does someone else tell you how to spend your money? Do you allow strangers to make your financial decisions and choices? Why should the taxpayers be doing this? Why should they operate on this flawed idiotic concept?

No, what I am proposing is fair and reasonable, and not "far out" at all, that is only your perception because of how "far out" you've become.
 
"You have to misrepresent things I say, and try to turn what I say into abstracts you can attack."

The ultimate irony, when you put the words of others into MY mouth just a couple of sentences before that.

You're despicable. You shouldn't lecture anyone about "intellectual honesty." You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass; you are a liar through & through.
 
Dixie said:
Please explain how it is "far out" to believe those who are paying for things should have the most say in how their money is being spent? Does someone else tell you how to spend your money? Do you allow strangers to make your financial decisions and choices? Why should the taxpayers be doing this? Why should they operate on this flawed idiotic concept?

No, what I am proposing is fair and reasonable, and not "far out" at all, that is only your perception because of how "far out" you've become.
Click to expand...

Letting someone else tell you how to spend your money is what has got us into this mess we are in. You deserve a widescreen TV a Gas guzzler will get you women, etc
Yes most people let strangers make their finiancial decisions and choices. 401k's and retirement funds ring a bell. Yes in many of them you have some say, but others make the final decisions in most of them. Of course you personally know all the people involved in making your 401K decisions.

And I am sure you personally knew George Bush from your ode to him ;)

dixie you are a mess and I do wish you would get professional help.
 
Onceler said:
Who is the moron?

My thread title referenced the Bush admin's stance in 2001, which any casual observer of politics would know. I don't play down to your ignorance & stupidity.

And yeah - the fact that Bush took a $120 billion plus surplus and turned it into a massive deficit is noteworthy, in light of that fact. I care a great deal about fixing the problem of our national debt; the fact that I don't support your idea to subvert the will & ideas of our founding fathers and grant more power to fewer people does not mean "I don't care about fixing the problem." Your idea would be laughed off the national stage; it is, as I said, antithesis to the principles that America is base upon. It's absurd.

You're pathetic. You can't even read, and you throw lies & distortions out there casually & with incredible frequency....
Click to expand...

Your thread title was a sarcastic attempt to criticize the national debt with a concept you simply don't believe in. It doesn't matter what the Bush administration says, Congress is who dictates the budget and determines how much more debt we are going to assume.

Now you want to climb up on your pony and act like you are a Founding Father all of a sudden... you look funny up there... like Yankee Doodle! I'll tell you what the Founding Fathers would laugh at... A US Income Tax... specifically, one that taxes some people nearly half of what they make, while others who are working, pay no tax at all! They would start rolling in the floor laughing when you suggested that the ones who didn't work or pay any taxes at all, should have equal say in how the money is to be spent!

As I said earlier, I can see someone like Ben Franklin, suggesting my idea, IFFFFFF the Founding Fathers had even remotely considered imposing Federal Income Tax on the people! So you can get down off your pony now, and put away that feather in your hat you call macaroni, because you've been exposed for the fraud you are.
 
The Whiskey tax was a form of income tax , since it was an income source used for barter.
And payment was required in money not barter.
 
uscitizen said:
Letting someone else tell you how to spend your money is what has got us into this mess we are in. You deserve a widescreen TV a Gas guzzler will get you women, etc
Yes most people let strangers make their finiancial decisions and choices. 401k's and retirement funds ring a bell. Yes in many of them you have some say, but others make the final decisions in most of them. Of course you personally know all the people involved in making your 401K decisions.

And I am sure you personally knew George Bush from your ode to him ;)

dixie you are a mess and I do wish you would get professional help.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely NO case in which you surrender your rights to determine how your money is spent, except with Federal Income Tax! For the single vote YOU get, there are 1.6 votes from people who didn't pay a dime of tax, who get to determine how to spend your money. I think it amounts to 'taxation without representation' myself. If you didn't put money into the kitty, what fucking "right" do you have in determining how it is spent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top