Voting & Taxes Should you be required to do one to do the other?

[TheNiche]

Actually, I am glad you brought this up. The wealthy DO consume more services than the poor, both directly and indirectly. They also DEMAND more services than the poor.

What you've said is true. I can't deny that, but it is perhaps missing the point. There's a balance between what you and Marksmu are talking about, and it revolves around the word "disproportionate". But even that, by itself, is inadequate to address the whole issue.

Public schooling is fertile ground for applicable examples supporting both your and his viewpoints. On the one hand, it is a service that comprises a very large part of total government spending and that is disproportionately provided to the children of poor households, on the other hand it is incredibly beneficial to rich folks that their poor neighbors' kids understand the world well enough to adapt to it rather than undermine it with criminal behavior or pesky revolutions. But within schooling, a very large amount of funding is spent on the bottom 2% of the student population, which--let's face it--has no future and isn't capable of doing very much harm to society, even if they are cognitively functional enough to desire to. These are resources that could've been spent on the population of kids that either do have a future or that pose a realistic threat to the stability of society. And if society really wants the best bang for its buck, additional resources ought to be spent nurturing the top echelon of students. Even if those students are already destined to be paid relatively well, it's beneficial to society for them to be more capable of discovering new scientific principles or inventing new technology.

[RedScare]

Completely agree with you, Niche. The fact is, in most all of these expenses, both "sides" benefit, some more directly than others. It is only MarkFromSMU's posts, as well as lunatic fringe's post, that forced me into direct rebuttal. There are many programs that lunatic and mark support that I cannot stand, but unlike them, I recognize that in a democracy there will be programs that my taxes pay for that do not directly benefit me. Also unlike them, I am not so self-centered as to think that ONLY those programs that I agree with, or that directly benefit me should be funded. This probably explains why I am generally a happier person than they are.

One of these days when I have the time to dig through the budget, I will point out in more detail those programs that have little benefit to the poor.

[Fringe]

As for the fire department, all the fires in the ghettos they fight tend to be apartments, who are owned by landlords, who in spite of the condition of their complexes, are wealthy.

I agree with you about the slumlords but apartment fires are a very small proportion of the fire department's daily work you are seeing. It's just more high profile. And it's not the landlords setting them on fire and it's not the landlords the fire department is risking their lives to save. Fact is it's the poor that use and abuse the system on a daily basis. Just ask anyone with HFD or HPD how their work load greatly increased after the Katrina evacuees arrived.

[Jeebus]

OK, let me get this straight?

First, you assume that the only reason Obama won is because welfare mothers everywhere rushed out to the polls? Can we get some basis in fact for this claim? I voted for Obama and I pay taxes in the top 2% bracket.

Well, I have a theory as to why you and all the other people in the top 2% tax bracket voted for him, but that's neither here nor there.

What is debatable is that I'd be willing to be that the number of registered African American and Hispanic voters compared to the 2004 and the 2008 election would more than over-compensate for the eight million total vote increase from 2004 to 2008. Without the push from ACORN and other groups, all these people who had no incentive to vote before, would have continued to not vote in this election. Why else were minorities coming out of the woodwork and publicly praising Obama on how he was going to end their poverty by erasing their self-accumulated debt, pay their past-due ARM mortgages, get them a better paying job, get them free social-services, and buy them a car?

Who filled their heads with this stuff? Why would a Democrat suddenly be able to deliver this promise to them? If it wasn't the color of his skin then tell me, from one mature, educated, intelligent adult man to another, why did minorities who have never voted before, never cared to vote before, suddenly register in droves just to vote for this Democrat?

And if you say: "because he is a good speaker", you lose all credibility.

Speaking of, would I be able to vote? I just sold my small business after 8 years and am currently unemployed. I do have a trust fund though. Would a trust fund qualify folks to vote in your new America or only if they voted for McCain/Palin?

Sure, under my plan all you have to do is show that your competent enough to vote by filing an income tax return - you might not have made any money, but its a form of accountability. It says to the government, I'm here, I'm counted. If you want to live off the grid and not be counted, then you don't need to vote.

Obama might have still won under this policy, but unlike the ACORN driven voter registration fiasco, instead, you would have more accountability at the polls: One State ID, One Federal Income Tax Return, One Social Security Number. Why should someone without all three be allowed to vote!?

See, here's the heart of the matter, you want to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. Well, that's NOT how a democracy works. Poor people have basic rights in this nation. It's part of what makes this such a great country.

Why else are rules changed? Perhaps if you said someone wanted to cheat because they don't like the outcome, then you'd have something.

Now, as for your last paragraph, I just have to chuckle a bit. Do you seriously think the rich don't get special treatment? Really? You can't think of any thing that rich folks get to enjoy that poor folks don't?

Special treatment is not special when you pay for it, eg: premium health services compared to free health services. On the other hand, any treatment is special when you don't have to pay for it.

So, who's getting the special treatment? The rich who not only pay for their goods & services, but also the poor's free and reduced services? Or the poor, who simply show up and get things for free, or at a reduced rate?

[Marksmu]

I agree with you about the slumlords but apartment fires are a very small proportion of the fire department's daily work you are seeing. It's just more high profile. And it's not the landlords setting them on fire and it's not the landlords the fire department is risking their lives to save. Fact is it's the poor that use and abuse the system on a daily basis. Just ask anyone with HFD or HPD how their work load greatly increased after the Katrina evacuees arrived.

I like that. Very easy and simple solution.

When did I say that? I was merely disagreeing with your assessment that the police and fire department primarily cater to the rich. I spent over 27 years as a public servant and I know that is not the case.

I like requiring ID - and a Tax Return to vote - it would cut out the illegals who vote and dont pay taxes. That would be a great start...but its not a fix.

I understand how a "democracy" works - but there is a HUGE problem with a system that allows people to simply vote to steal from their neighbor. With the government welfare programs that currently exist there is very little incentive for lots of people to get off their butt and go looking for a job. People either think the job is below them, or the pay that they would get from the job is so low that its not worth it to them to actually have to work...they would rather just sit at home, watch tv and collect a check for doing nothing.

The big problem here is that the non paying portion of society now OUTNUMBERS the paying portion. If they want to maintain a status quo of just not working and taxing the snot out of those that are working, the only thing they have to do is get off their butt one or two days out of an entire year, and push a straight ticket Democrat button. It doesnt even take a minute for them to do.

Im not saying that people who have money didnt vote for OBAMA - clearly there were lots of them who did. I personally dont understand their motivation to do so - b/c he has clearly declared war on those who have money - but for whatever reason they did so it was their right to do it. I am merely saying that MORE of the productive members of society did NOT vote for Obama.

If you look at the distribution of voting in the US - not the States, but the County by County voting you will see there is a very clear line. Large Cities voted for Obama, and the rest of the country voted against him. The huge areas which have been hardest hit are those who are deciding the fate of the rest of us.

Also - something driving me absolute nuts is the complete and total inability for the government to make cuts. In a time where every company in the US is downsizing, and cutting costs, the Government thinks it needs to tax more and spend more, and add more employees. If there is less money in general - you need to offer less services, not more - but their answer to the downturn? Tax the rich more - they can afford it. Lets take a vote....ah yes, mroe people than rich - so the rich lose. Thats not a "fair" system - its democratic socialism.

Well, I have a theory as to why you and all the other people in the top 2% tax bracket voted for him, but that's neither here nor there.

What is debatable is that I'd be willing to be that the number of registered African American and Hispanic voters compared to the 2004 and the 2008 election would more than over-compensate for the eight million total vote increase from 2004 to 2008. Without the push from ACORN and other groups, all these people who had no incentive to vote before, would have continued to not vote in this election. Why else were minorities coming out of the woodwork and publicly praising Obama on how he was going to end their poverty by erasing their self-accumulated debt, pay their past-due ARM mortgages, get them a better paying job, get them free social-services, and buy them a car?

Who filled their heads with this stuff? Why would a Democrat suddenly be able to deliver this promise to them? If it wasn't the color of his skin then tell me, from one mature, educated, intelligent adult man to another, why did minorities who have never voted before, never cared to vote before, suddenly register in droves just to vote for this Democrat?

And if you say: "because he is a good speaker", you lose all credibility.

Sure, under my plan all you have to do is show that your competent enough to vote by filing an income tax return - you might not have made any money, but its a form of accountability. It says to the government, I'm here, I'm counted. If you want to live off the grid and not be counted, then you don't need to vote.

Obama might have still won under this policy, but unlike the ACORN driven voter registration fiasco, instead, you would have more accountability at the polls: One State ID, One Federal Income Tax Return, One Social Security Number. Why should someone without all three be allowed to vote!?

Why else are rules changed? Perhaps if you said someone wanted to cheat because they don't like the outcome, then you'd have something.

Special treatment is not special when you pay for it, eg: premium health services compared to free health services. On the other hand, any treatment is special when you don't have to pay for it.

So, who's getting the special treatment? The rich who not only pay for their goods & services, but also the poor's free and reduced services? Or the poor, who simply show up and get things for free, or at a reduced rate?

Great post Jeebus - I agree with everything you said. Something for nothing is EXTREMELY special service if you ask me.

[TheNiche]

Completely agree with you, Niche. The fact is, in most all of these expenses, both "sides" benefit, some more directly than others. It is only MarkFromSMU's posts, as well as lunatic fringe's post, that forced me into direct rebuttal. There are many programs that lunatic and mark support that I cannot stand, but unlike them, I recognize that in a democracy there will be programs that my taxes pay for that do not directly benefit me. Also unlike them, I am not so self-centered as to think that ONLY those programs that I agree with, or that directly benefit me should be funded. This probably explains why I am generally a happier person than they are.

One of these days when I have the time to dig through the budget, I will point out in more detail those programs that have little benefit to the poor.

But see, since there can be mutual benefit from disproportionate economic allocations between socioeconomic classes, then some kind of system of proportionate voting based on income actually seems more justified. If it is in the interest of earning people to spend a disproportionate amount of tax money on the poor and destitute, as we've established that it is, then they'll do it.

Leaving aside the constitutionality issue, I like Marksmu's idea, only not at all for the same reasons as he does. The premise that people who get to decide how to spend society's resources ought to be providing proportionate representation based on who is contributing those resources is really appealing. It is a classic 'no taxation without representation' argument that also mixes in certain aspects of the Platonian republic...without going overboard.

[memebag]

Leaving aside the constitutionality issue, I like Marksmu's idea, only not at all for the same reasons as he does. The premise that people who get to decide how to spend society's resources ought to be providing proportionate representation based on who is contributing those resources is really appealing. It is a classic 'no taxation without representation' argument that also mixes in certain aspects of the Platonian republic...without going overboard.

But we already have a system that lets dollars vote. It's called "lobbying", and it plays a much larger role in public policy than voting does.

[west20th]

I don't understand these numbers, particularly the % of all taxes. Shouldn't they add up to 100%?

They are cumulative totals. For example the top 5% totals include the top 1%, the top 10% totals include the top 1and 5% totals and so on.

[KinkaidAlum]

Y'all are funny.

For hundreds of years, honkies have been voting for other crackers who speak their own economic interests but when people of color get the first opportunity to do the same, then the system must be changed!

Hilarious.

Of course, what's even funnier is the universal theory put forward that the only reason Obama won is because of minority voter turnout largely due to the fact persons of color were all gonna get new rims for their Escalades!

Never mind that the three WHITEST states in the Union all went for Obama (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire). Over 95% of the population in these states are white. I am sure the 4% minority block really tilted the scales in the rough streets of Burlington, Concord, and Portland.

Never mind that in the 23 states in which whites make up over 80% of the population, Obama WON the majority of them.

[TheNiche]

But we already have a system that lets dollars vote. It's called "lobbying", and it plays a much larger role in public policy than voting does.

That's very inefficient. In my fantasy world, I'd prefer to cut out the middle man and keep things at least somewhat more transparent.

[RedScare]

I was merely disagreeing with your assessment that the police and fire department primarily cater to the rich. I spent over 27 years as a public servant and I know that is not the case.

What I said is that the wealthy derive a disproportionate BENEFIT from fire and police protection. I, like you, have spent many years in public service, and just because you see more poor people at the courthouse does not mean they are getting a benefit. They are the ones who have been arrested for stealing from the wealthy. And your house does not have to burn to receive the benefit of the fire department. The protection is there regardless, like insurance.

But, this is local, and because local services are primarily property and sales tax supported, the disproportionate benefit is paid by those receiving the benefit. My house being worth more than the one in the ghetto, I pay more tax for the protection I receive. The argument in this thread was primarily federal. But, even here the benefit is disproportionately to the wealthy, justifying that the wealthy pay more of the tax to support it. And, nowhere is the benefit greater to the wealthy, and lesser to the poor than the military spending. As mentioned before, all of the threats to the US requiring military force are derived from actions of the wealthy or actions of the government on behalf of the wealthy. The poor in the US are hated only by its own citizens. Even Hugo Chavez gives free heating oil to the US poor, while railing against the US government and its policies on behalf of the rich. And what does that military cost? In the 2009 budget, technically the military got $515 billion. But, that does not include emergency and supplemental spending which added $136 billion, nor does it include $33 billion for Veterans Affairs or $9.3 billion for our nuclear programs, which are funded through the Department of Energy. Add in about $170 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and interest on the debt of past wars and you have approximately $1 Trillion in spending for defense...over 1/3 of the 2009 budget.

[TheNiche]

And, nowhere is the benefit greater to the wealthy, and lesser to the poor than the military spending. As mentioned before, all of the threats to the US requiring military force are derived from actions of the wealthy or actions of the government on behalf of the wealthy.

False. You really shouldn't use the word "all" because it just completely invalidated your statement. You're an accomplished lawyer, man. You shouldn't put yourself in the embarrassing position to be lectured on really simple logic by a 24-year-old layman.

The poor in the US are hated only by its own citizens.

I would posit that there is a difference between hatred for the poor, as you put it, and indifference, fear, or distrust, along with all kinds of mixed feelings about economic injustice. Not all of society's attitudes towards the poor are justified, by any means, but I don't think that anybody hates them--it wouldn't make sense. Why would a rich person hate the person that mows his lawn? They're fortunate to have the lawn mowing guy around; that doesn't mean that the rich person should or would want to live next door to the lawn mowing guy and his noisy 7-person household or that he shouldn't be outraged if government determines that the lawn mowing guy and anyone like him doesn't have to pay taxes.

[Jeebus]

Y'all are funny.

For hundreds of years, honkies have been voting for other crackers who speak their own economic interests but when people of color get the first opportunity to do the same, then the system must be changed!

Hilarious.

Of course, what's even funnier is the universal theory put forward that the only reason Obama won is because of minority voter turnout largely due to the fact persons of color were all gonna get new rims for their Escalades!

You're right, I found it funny that for the first time neighborhood voter registration groups actually got out and registered new voters - but only in the primarily minority areas, showed no discretion in letting people register multiple time without checking any credentials, and openly campaigned for Obama as they registered people. (I watched multiple stories on both local and national news about it - perhaps is was all conservative propaganda?)

I found it funny that Blacks and Hispanics allowed themselves to be interviewed and proclaimed things like how Obama was in essence, going to take care of them - and then to have white educated people, who voted the same, laugh in my face when I point out that this was occurring. I guess again the news was spreading conservative propaganda?

I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses, but suddenly, a minority candidate emerges and everyone mobilizes. From minority aimed community action groups to liberal voters with the chance to wash away the white guilt of their anscestors clean, Obama made people jump for one reason - he was Black. The majority wanted a Black president, and their actions leading up to the election along with the results prove it.

The only other reason could be that he's such a proven leader that he was the obvious choice as the Democratic candidate - which is why minorities voted for him - for his proven leadership, and not the color of his skin. Based on everything I've read, watched, and experienced, that is NOT the case.

Can you honestly prove to me that minorities would have mobilized for a white man, or even a white woman? If so, then why didn't they do it last election, or the election before? Were those Democrats such lame ducks that they couldn't get minorities to the polls?

Answer that one with out changing your stance while having to resort to racist remarks about whitey, crackers, and honkeys, and I will be impressed.

Never mind that the three WHITEST states in the Union all went for Obama (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire). Over 95% of the population in these states are white. I am sure the 4% minority block really tilted the scales in the rough streets of Burlington, Concord, and Portland.

Never mind that in the 23 states in which whites make up over 80% of the population, Obama WON the majority of them.

Yes, all three which have gone to Democrat canidates the last FIVE elections! Talk about a prediction! I'm too lazy to look up the 23 other states, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the results. What I would be surprised to find is if more than eight million new Hispanic and Black voters voted in this election. That would validate the 8 million vote margin Obama won by.

--

As for changing the voting laws, I wanted them changed long before Obama came along. And I don't think there's anything legally wrong with everyone wanting to vote for someone who is a certain anything, be it gender, race, political stance - whatever. Elections are popularity contests. I just want to see more educated voters to help curb the desire to vote for what one would feel is the most popular, and rather the most capable.

My reasons have nothing to do with Obama, but Obama proves my point.

[memebag]

I just want to see more educated voters to help curb the desire to vote for what one would feel is the most popular, and rather the most capable.

My reasons have nothing to do with Obama, but Obama proves my point.

Really? 53% of college graduates voted for Obama. Only 45% voted for McCain.

[houstonmacbro]

Over a heated conversation with my sister in law came the following topic....Should you be able to vote in FEDERAL elections if you do not pay any FEDERAL taxes? (IGNORE LOCAL ELECTIONS) Do we need a reverse tea party? No representation without taxation? I say yes!

When you look at it objectively (hard to do for some) it makes sense to me - that if you do not have an actual stake in the outcome you should not have a say in the decision. This does not include something to recieve....you must have something to lose, something that is not already a handout...One must pay to play so to speak. Redistribution of wealth has become a very hot topic recently, and what truth is there to the statements that it is occurring? Well, Obama actually ran on this exact redistribution of wealth during the election; promising more to those who have not, and more taxation for those who have. At what point is enough, enough? Do the "Wealthy" consume more services in relation to what they pay in?

Remember - Corporations are taxed separetly from the individual in many cases. Small business owners are the hardest hit, when they must file their business income as their own personal tax return.

When is enough enough? Can there be a cut off in the right to vote for Federal officials? This is Democratic Socialism, Socialism via Democratic process. People voting themselves access to the earnings and property of others.

Some Objective numbers as up to date as I can find from tax year 2006:

Taxes paid

Top 1% - 39.89% of all taxes ($388,000+)

Top 5% - 60.14% of all taxes ($153,542+)

Top 10% - 70.79% of all taxes ($108,904+)

Top 25% - 86.27% of all taxes ($64,702+)

Top 50% - 97.01% of all taxes ($31,987+)

I for one am sick of it, and I say enough is enough - no right to a federal official, unless you pay something in taxes to the government. If you dont make enough to have to pay taxes, you should not be allowed to vote for officials to legally do that which you could not do on your own, that is - Steal from your neighbor.

Not sure where the conversation has gone since your original post, but I don't think voting should be tied to how much taxes you pay.

[west20th]

I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,

Huh?

[Marksmu]

Really? 53% of college graduates voted for Obama. Only 45% voted for McCain.

Having a college degree doesnt make you educated. I think that is at least one thing we can all agree on.

[RedScare]

False. You really shouldn't use the word "all" because it just completely invalidated your statement. You're an accomplished lawyer, man. You shouldn't put yourself in the embarrassing position to be lectured on really simple logic by a 24-year-old layman.

I shall wait for an enumerated threat caused by the poor before I respond.

I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses, but suddenly, a minority candidate emerges and everyone mobilizes. From minority aimed community action groups to liberal voters with the chance to wash away the white guilt of their anscestors clean, Obama made people jump for one reason - he was Black. The majority wanted a Black president, and their actions leading up to the election along with the results prove it.

Did you find it as funny as Evangelicals mobilizing for George W. Bush? Do I need to explain the parallels, or can you see them...or would it ruin your point?

As for changing the voting laws, I wanted them changed long before Obama came along. And I don't think there's anything legally wrong with everyone wanting to vote for someone who is a certain anything, be it gender, race, political stance - whatever. Elections are popularity contests. I just want to see more educated voters to help curb the desire to vote for what one would feel is the most popular, and rather the most capable.

I think the voting laws should be changed, too. They should start by making everyone with a DL or ID card eligible to vote, then subtract out those who are ineligible, such as felons. Since the GOP led Congress passed the RealID Act, making only US citizens eligible for DLs and IDs, it should be easy to use these databases as voting rolls. Anything else is an attempt to disenfranchise voters.

[memebag]

Having a college degree doesnt make you educated. I think that is at least one thing we can all agree on.

While it's possible to be educated without getting a college degree, it's impossible to get a college degree without being educated.

[JLWM8609]

I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,

Kennedy and LBJ had MUCH minority support.

[Marksmu]

I shall wait for an enumerated threat caused by the poor before I respond.

Did you find it as funny as Evangelicals mobilizing for George W. Bush? Do I need to explain the parallels, or can you see them...or would it ruin your point?

I think the voting laws should be changed, too. They should start by making everyone with a DL or ID card eligible to vote, then subtract out those who are ineligible, such as felons. Since the GOP led Congress passed the RealID Act, making only US citizens eligible for DLs and IDs, it should be easy to use these databases as voting rolls. Anything else is an attempt to disenfranchise voters.

There is a difference - evangelicals have always been a large voting block that have always voted with their religious beliefs - that happens to be republican because for whatever reason republicans are anti-abortion.

The big difference here is that the Black voters voted not on a political or religious stance, but on a racial one. They had never been a large united voting block - many often did not vote at all - they came out of the wood work, were registered by Acorn using taxpayer money and voted for Obama not because of what he stood on, but because he was Black, like them, and he was promising them free everything. Lots of white people voted for him not because of his beliefs but out of white guilt - a national phenomenon.

And the college educated voter statistic is a bad statistic as well. There is a sayingit goes - "if your young and your republican you have no heart, and if your old and your a democrat you have no money".

It makes complete sense, and is a true trend. As college educated people start working, they do not make lots of money yet....they believe in a Utopian society and really do want to help everyone, they are lower middle, or middle class workers, and there is usually little change to them in regard to taxes regardless of the party in power. However, as they age, they get more and more money, and they get frustrated watching it get stolen by democrats, and they see the problem is just getting worse, and they begin to vote republican...its why the majority of republicans are older middle/upper middle class people. It has nothing to do with whether or not they went to school....its contingent on income. It takes a while to see how much money was being stolen from you in taxes - people usually don't even notice till they get a raise, and that moves them to a new tax bracket, and they see how little of that raise they got to keep.

If Americans had to cut a check to the IRS each paycheck instead of it being automatically withheld from them by the employer - there would be a tax revolution in less than 6 months - and that would happen without increasing anyones taxes. People pay no attention to the deductions on their stub - they only look at the dollar amount they get to deposit, and start wondering what to buy, or whether there will be enough to cover all their bills.

[RedScare]

There is a difference - evangelicals have always been a large voting block that have always voted with their religious beliefs - that happens to be republican because for whatever reason republicans are anti-abortion.

The big difference here is that the Black voters voted not on a political or religious stance, but on a racial one. They had never been a large united voting block - many often did not vote at all - they came out of the wood work, were registered by Acorn using taxpayer money and voted for Obama not because of what he stood on, but because he was Black, like them, and he was promising them free everything. Lots of white people voted for him not because of his beliefs but out of white guilt - a national phenomenon.

This is so wrong that it does not need refuting. It is comical on its face, and reveals that you haven't looked up a single voting statistic before replying. I will not do your research for you.

And the college educated voter statistic is a bad statistic as well. There is a sayingit goes - "if your young and your republican you have no heart, and if your old and your a democrat you have no money".

I was a college Republican and a current Democrat (if I was registered). I have always scoffed at that saying.

If Americans had to cut a check to the IRS each paycheck instead of it being automatically withheld from them by the employer - there would be a tax revolution in less than 6 months - and that would happen without increasing anyones taxes. People pay no attention to the deductions on their stub - they only look at the dollar amount they get to deposit, and start wondering what to buy, or whether there will be enough to cover all their bills.

More proof that you have never been self-employed.

[Marksmu]

While it's possible to be educated without getting a college degree, it's impossible to get a college degree without being educated.

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

I took an entry level Pre-cal class for athletes the summer before I started college b/c I didnt take the AP Cal 1 test after taking Cal 1 in highschool, and I didnt want to start in precal and repeat a class I already had, and thus waste a semester on something I already knew. The teach actually drew an alligator on the chalk board to explain to the people the greater than less than symbol. I laughed out loud thinking it was a joke - I looked around to a room full of blank stares that seemed to be saying holy crap - I dont get it. I made a 110 on the first test - the median grade on that exam was only a 58. It was the easiest thing I have ever taken, and the teacher allowed me to take the final exam in lieu of finishing the class - as in her words, it would cause the curve to schew and 2 or 3 athletes would not pass her class with my tests averaged in. That is a true story.

[RedScare]

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

I took an entry level Pre-cal class for athletes the summer before I started college b/c I didnt take the AP Cal 1 test after taking Cal 1 in highschool, and I didnt want to start in precal and repeat a class I already had, and thus waste a semester on something I already knew. The teach actually drew an alligator on the chalk board to explain to the people the greater than less than symbol. I laughed out loud thinking it was a joke - I looked around to a room full of blank stares that seemed to be saying holy crap - I dont get it. I made a 110 on the first test - the median grade on that exam was only a 58. It was the easiest thing I have ever taken, and the teacher allowed me to take the final exam in lieu of finishing the class - as in her words, it would cause the curve to schew and 2 or 3 athletes would not pass her class with my tests averaged in. That is a true story.

[west20th]

Kennedy and LBJ had MUCH minority support.

As have almost every Dem since FDR.

"I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,"

^

That has to be the most Bizzaro World statement I've seen.

[memebag]

Ive met more than my fair share of complete idiots, who cheated their way through college - and it is a problem at all colleges. There are lots of college educated folks who still cant read...look to the athletes if you dont believe me.

So let's review. An army of uneducated idiots cheated their way through college, failed to pay taxes, and then voted for Barack Obama. It's all clear now.

[Jeebus]

Not sure where the conversation has gone since your original post, but I don't think voting should be tied to how much taxes you pay.

I NEVER implied that you would even have to pay taxes to vote. In fact, I specifically stated that even if you didn't earn an income, you can still file a return - which you could use to vote with.

Did you find it as funny as Evangelicals mobilizing for George W. Bush? Do I need to explain the parallels, or can you see them...or would it ruin your point?

No, it perfectly illustrates my point. It however was in the last election, and unlike Obama's "grass-roots" organizations, evangelical groups didn't launch a campaign to register as many evangelicals, all on the premise that one: Bush was white like them, and two: that his election would get them closer to Heaven.

"I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses,"

^

That has to be the most Bizzaro World statement I've seen.

Really, is that the best retort you have? Basically you're saying you've got nothing intelligent to reply with, so you'll just proclaim my statement crazy. Seems about right for you. All bark, no bite. At least Red gives SUBSTANCE to his replies.

While it's possible to be educated without getting a college degree, it's impossible to get a college degree without being educated.

I'm afraid almost every professional sports athlete can disprove that theory.

[crunchtastic]

Kennedy and LBJ had MUCH minority support.

Yes--despite the fact that blacks were still barred from voting in many parts of the South. The Voting Rights Act was 1965--it has not been that long since we had institutionalized voter disenfranchisement in this country. Now 40 some-odd years later, look at the new ways the non-poor are promoting to keep the poor away from the polls: proving that one paid one's fair share in taxes (a catch 22 if I ever heard one) or, laughably, they want 'educated' people voting for the most 'capable' candidate? The ballot is determined by money and favoritism: the money hedging on who is 'electable.' It has ZERO to do with capability.

I think all this Obama anger is misplaced. You should be pissed at the republican party for running a slobbering old man who couldn't stay on mesage. You should be pissed at the party for not even having a mesage, while the economy was circling the drain and an unpopular war was dragging on and on.

Remember, we only elect who is put on the ballot.

[RedScare]

No, it perfectly illustrates my point. It however was in the last election, and unlike Obama's "grass-roots" organizations, evangelical groups didn't launch a campaign to register as many evangelicals, all on the premise that one: Bush was white like them, and two: that his election would get them closer to Heaven.

I don't think you've read up on the Evangelical...and more importantly, the Bush/Rove...campaign strategy. Grass roots activism, with a heavy emphasis on the "He's one of us" line of thought, is exactly what the Rove campaign strategy was. If there is a contrast, it is that Obama did not campaign directly to Blacks. In fact, he rarely mentioned Blacks in his campaigns (except when forced to). He campaigned on helping the working poor and the middle class. He virtually excluded the traditional poor from his speeches. This is the opposite of your claim. Bush's approach more closely fits your claim.

The fact is that Obama took the Black vote for granted. He could afford to, because Blacks understandably were attracted to his candidacy.

As for west20th's comment, he is alluding to the fact that Blacks have voted for Democrats in numbers at or above 90% for decades. To suggest that Obama is the first Democrat to garner the Black vote is more than a little off the mark. Remember the claims that Bill Clinton was "the first Black president"? And, even claiming that Blacks voted for Obama because he is Black are false. As recently as October 2007, Hillary Clinton held a majority among Black voters. It was not until Obama won Iowa and came in a close 2nd in New Hampshire that Blacks started supporting Obama in big numbers, suggesting that Blacks had other thoughts than race on their minds.

[Marksmu]

This is so wrong that it does not need refuting. It is comical on its face, and reveals that you haven't looked up a single voting statistic before replying. I will not do your research for you.

Its not wrong nor is it without research - the evangelicals have always voted their beliefs - if you have not read their manifesto, you should....its here I will make it easy for you. http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs...l_Manifesto.pdf

They historically vote republican on their beliefs - things have been changing, but evangelicals allegedly cannot support any candidate that is pro-abortion and abortion is a core belief of the democratic party. It is patently against that which they claim to stand for.

If your referring to my statement that blacks came out in force to vote for obama b/c he was black look at the statistics, they do not lie there the last statistic I saw said that over 80% of black voters voted for Obama. Wow - 80% that is not just a majority, its a super majority. You will never be able to prove what did or didnt play in those voters minds, but I can tell you right now, if you pick 10 strangers from 10 races and put them in a room, there is virtually no chance youll get 8 out of 10 to agree on anything. Race was a factor and your kidding yourself if you dont think it was.

I was a college Republican and a current Democrat (if I was registered). I have always scoffed at that saying.

Glad you scoffed- I find it true. I didnt care much in college, and as I started getting paychecks, I started caring more and more.

More proof that you have never been self-employed.

You are correct - I have never been self employed...I do however have to make estimated payments based on my investment property incomes - and I hate those too....However, the majority of Americans are not self employed, which makes your point that I have never been self employed mute. I would even venture to guess that the SUPERMAJORITY of Americans have not been self employed, and that if those who have not been self employed were to have to write checks for the amount of taxes coming out of their check automatically - there would be a revolution. People dont seem to notice how much of the money they make they dont get to keep.