"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve."
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
I'd say that if you've got terrorist commanders openly praying against you, you must be doing something right....
Comment by joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Hey, anyone know that fellow in Salem, "George Nester" (I think) it was on CNN this morning when they were interviewing political junkies? Cute spot and I am sooo there!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 9:45 am
stop the madness! Sandi, it is none other than our dear Bush administration...no surprises there!
Exactly what conclusion do you draw from the Times article?
Here is what Obama said as quoted in an interview:
"The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference," he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how "hard" it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time."
"I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy -- especially now," Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing "the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq." Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Obama emerge victorious next week."
If setting a rational, realistic timetable is "lowering expectations", then McCain is a socialist. I don't ever recall that Obama said that all of the problems would be solved the day after inauguration or even in the first hundred days. I don't see where he is saying that he is not going to work toward the fulfillment of his promises, just that it is going to take time. So, where exactly did he lie?
As for McCain, in February of 08 he said he would balance the budget by the end of his first term. Then in April, he said the economic situation was worse and it would take until the end of his second term.
So, was McCain lying in February? Now, he has gone back to saying he will balance a budget by the end of his first term. Is he lying now? Or is he being incredibly naive to think that he will be able to lower taxes on everyone, lower corporate tax rate and then balance the budget? The same source cited in these pages against Obama's budget states that their analysis also shows that, regardles of promises, McCain's plans will require $200 billion in additional spending. Lowering taxes and increasing spending doesn't seem to be the way to move to a balanced budget
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Great, nutBush has to kick us in the teeth one last time! Can more de-regulation fly in the current crisis situation? Is he just waxing the skids for his good friend and supporter John McCain?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Does it seem unjust to anyone that a person who works hard, raises a family, pays taxes, and contributes to society gets exactly the same vote as the ignoramus on the public till who was recruited off his park bench by an ACORN employee to go vote for NObama in exchange for a fifth of whiskey?
A third of voters pay no taxes. My feeling is, unless you're retired, you shouldn't get a vote unless your unadjusted income is at a certain level. That is perfectly fair. Voting is a privilege.
You're absolutely right. In fact, let's go back to the original system: You can't vote unless you're a white, male landowner.
There's one scenario that might actually result in a McCain victory.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Great idea Josh. You really strike me as a brilliant person (note: that statement is absolutely oozing with sarcasm). Actually, I would rather that people with such skewed ideas as yours not be allowed to vote.
And that Josh is what you're going to have in any sort of representative government, the wealthy and the poor both get an equal vote and there is no inherent bias for or against either one. If that's honestly how you feel, that's also been tried in society before and failed about as miserably as pure socialism did. It was France in the 1700's where the poor and uneducated were taxed heavily while the nobles paid relatively little in taxes. It didn't take too long for the lower classes to violently revolt and overthrow the system that you seem so fond of creating here.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Josh...no taxation without representation...if the poor and lower class can't vote, then they also shouldn't be taxed therefore the rich will have to pay higher taxes!
yeah that'll stir the pot, Josh!! I think your post raised a couple of important issues regarding the PRIVILEGE of voting..1) naaah I can't agree with an income requirement for voting. 2) but I would like to see some sort of "civics/political test" for one to obtain a voter ID card or registration in order to vote. 3) finally, what is currently happening with voter registration/fraud is hurtful to the overall process. As stated in OHIO, you can state your residence is a park bench and therefore vote is assinine. That judge should be disrobed and made to wear a clownsuit and go sit on a park bench. One should have an established residence, you must register 3 months BEFORE an election to vote at that precinct. One must got to a registrars office and show proof of citizenship to be registered--take your voting test--get an ID card. The only way you can vote is to present the ID card for an absentee ballot or the first Tuesday in Nov. Make it the same for everyone.
Leave it to you to skew a good idea into something racist.
HCS,
OK. Let's do this. Other than retirees, if you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get to vote. You aren't a contributor so you don't get a say.
OJ,
We did it in America for many decades and it apparently worked even with racial and other contstraints I'm not asking for. All I am asking is that you contribute with taxes (other than retirees) to society in order to get the privilege of voting. It's not rich vs. poor. It's people who do something vs. those who sit on their asses. How is it unfair?
I agree there is NO justification for not using ID's. I still would like to see some evidence of contribution to the system, though. I don't know how else to measure it other than taxes paid.
FGS! You guys are frightening! Did you complain about "the electorate" when Reagan or either Bush won? Get over it already. We got the vote, it's part of the Constitution, (you remember that pesky old thing right?)and we are not giving it up. The Bottom Feeders Unite-TBFU!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Bud - yes you should be a U.S. citizen to vote in the U.S. but be required to take a test? I don't think so. I may not be able to cite specific details about the entire political process and I may not always know what politician did/said what but I know what issues I'm voting on and I know which candidate supports my views and I shouldn't have to take a test to vote and neither should anyone else.
Sorry to go off topic. However I figure since there are a lot of Obama supporters, I am curious as to why Obama's associations have not played into consideration of your vote and if they have, how did you get around them?
1) Ayers- Doestic Terrorist and radical. (Also wrote a book tributed to Sirhan Sirhan the assasin of RFK)
2) Rev. Wright
3) ACORN
4) Khalidi (what would the Roanoke Times do with the Video)?
5) Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshal Davis, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, Raila Odinga
I can't get past the fact that these associations are not a matter of guilt by association, but a matter of shared worldviews and life experiences. Life Experiences.
I like some of the things he says, his tax cut is a little worthless, whoop de-doo on 1-2000 extra bucks... but his associations are baffling and I for one can not see through them.
Thanks!
Comment by Christina Hallai — October 31, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Why stop there? Why not restrict voting to people who have shown they are willing to make personal sacrifice and take risks for our country? Only military veterans should get to vote, you know, like in "Starship Troopers" (the excellent book, not the horrible movie).
Or we could just stick with the Constitution like Sandi suggests.
Comment by c. trejbal — October 31, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Sandi...I don't think there is a right to vote in the constitution. Everyone is NOT guaranteed suffrage.
The constitution can be un-amended if the the original amendment didn't work. Letting non-contributors vote clearly isn't working. Our journey down the socialist path didn't begin until non-contributors got the right to vote.
Christian,
OK. I'll go for that. If you served in the military or pay taxes or are retired, you can vote.
HCS..didn't mean to imply the test to vote would be "current" in nature..more generic..how often does a senator run...the max speed of a north american barn swallow..things like that.
so those who are hurting most never get a chance to vote on the people who have the power to enact policies that might help them so that they can get to a point where they do contribute?
Josh- by not giving those folks a voice their needs, concerns etc are never heard. The rich "contributors" (in reality everyone contributes in some way) vote for elected officials who are going to benefit the rich. Keeping those who "don't contribute" out of the loop and never giving them the opportunity to succeed and "contribute"
Bud - sure. but a person can still have the right ideas on issues and know who to vote for to support those ideas without knowing how often a senator runs.
If non tax-payers are not able to vote, then what's to say the ruling people couldn't just take whoever they didn;t get support for off the tax roles and thus cement their permanence in power? That would be a complete and utter disaster because then all the decisions made would be made to benefit the people in power and their supporters. Gaming the tax system can cut both ways, and they are both equally dangerous. For all the imperfections of a representative republic, it's still the best option out there given the alternatives of artistocracy, theocracy, dictatorships, communism, or pure socialism.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Josh,
I'm tired of the implication that those of us who do not have large salaries somehow aren't contributing to society. At the very least, if you have a job, you pay medicare/social security taxes even if your income tax liability is nothing. Further, the whole problem I have with the republican worldview is that the only measure of worth is a person's income and net worth. Our family volunteers our time to various organizations, is active in church and the community, and makes charitable donations, as well as raising our children to the best of our ability. I would say each of those is at least as valuable as having a large salary, in some ways more valuable. Your proposed criteria for voting eligibility is nothing more than a way to try to keep hard-working people from having a voice in the government.
HCS---well I guess we disagree then..i think a person should have a basic knowledge of how the government works and maybe a bit of history in order to vote..we require it for new citizens, why not new voters?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. And yes it is probably helpful but for it to be a requirement I think is just too much. So yes I suppose we will just have to disagree.
So Josh, honey, would people who pay Social Security, Medicare or federal fuel taxes get to vote?
And how would you separate the voters and elections. Would you need to pay federal income taxes -- how much is a qualifying amount? -- in order to cast votes in state or local elections. Would sales tax count? Isn't that a fair tax? Would voters be segregated then as to which elections they could vote in.
And shouldn't votes then be weighted. Following your reasoning(?) people who pay the most in taxes should have the most influence. You could assign the number of votes per taxpayer based on the income tax tables.
You might want to read up on the history of the use and abuse of literacy tests as a precondition to voting.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Wow another bomb right from KOA-AM radio New Mexico.
Seems Barack's own party have no idea what he doing
or they do and he isnt telling the truth.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Again, Herb, links are helpful so others know what you're talking about.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Sorry Dan my bad,
Front page of foxnews.com
Remember people this is not fox breaking the story just passing it on.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
If this were Obama, I would be worried, but we know a lot of statements by politicians in the same party are not crediblr. Even McCain had to disavow the congesswoman whoo said many members of congress were un-America.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Christina,
Think back to all of the people you have known or have been associated with and ask yourself if you should be judged by them?
I lived through the same period as Ayres so I probably have known terrorists. I have had meetings and dinner with people from quite a number of countries including the middle east. I am not defined by those associations. Heavens, I hang around with a number of ultra-conservatives and I wouldn't want to be classified as one by association.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Well it would have to be from a credible network before I would believe it. In the first place, Fixed News is only reliable for telling Herb and Josh what they want to hear. AND if we are going to hold the candidates responsible for misstatements by themselves or their surrogates, John McCain is ... well, up a certain Sunni/Shia Creek.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Which of the 57 states was mccain in when he said that sandi?
Comment by Marked Man — October 31, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Thank you Mr. Radmacher for implying that my wanting people to take a basic civics test to vote makes me a bigot.
Did someone here suggest full-time mothers and clergy should not be able to vote? Maybe clergy pay income taxes, I dunno, maybe I shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Comment by bobdobalena — October 31, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
fortunately josh and bud's candidate (nor any other candidate or many other americans for that matter) see eye to eye with them on this voting matter and we don't have to worry that our voting rights will be taken away no matter who is elected.
A little touchy, aren't we, Bud? If I thought that was your intent, I wouldn't have suggested you could use a history lesson.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I don't believe that there is actually a true right to vote, but it's nice that the politicians let us vote anyway. Of course, it would be to the destruction of the government and the country if the ability to vote on who ran things was ever restricted. I don't think it would ever fly, or last too terribly long.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
It is true that we could change the constitution, but given the thankfully difficult process, the likelihood of such a change is small. For now, taxes are off the table as a criterion.
24th amendment
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
HCS
#25 The "hurting" people who can't pay a single dime in income tax can turn to churches or get charity from others (probably Republicans) who have more money to give, thanks to the improved economy. Giving works so much better when its voluntary.]
OJ
#27 When the percent of people who don't pay taxes reaches 51, wouldn't the same thing happen? Then they could vote themselves all the goodies they wanted and the achievers couldn't do anything about it. There is your disaster. Then the Obamas of the world can promise the moon. I say there are enough good people in the world who would contribute privately to help people in need.
Liz
#28. Read the post, hon. I never said only people with "large" salaries could vote. I said only people who pay taxes (and retirees and veterans) should be allowed to vote. Sounds like you and your people fit that, so relax. Gotta stop the demagoguery. It gets in the way of rational discussion.
Luanne
#31. I said if you're paying anything at all (or your pre-adjusted gross income is anything greater than zero) you get to vote. If you're paying SS and FICA and so forth, it means you're probably paying some taxes. It's very simple, dear. If you're contributing you can vote. If you sit on your brains all day, you don't get to. Comprende?
RSS feed 
PIGS never gets their fill, do they?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html?nav=rss_email/components
Comment by Joe — October 31, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Link did not work, who's a pig?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 9:25 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece
"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve."
Comment by Eugene — October 31, 2008 @ 9:30 am
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
I'd say that if you've got terrorist commanders openly praying against you, you must be doing something right....
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Comment by Eugene — October 31, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Sandi,
You can sign on to the Washington Post site for free, but if you don't want to do that you can catch the article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466701/
Comment by joe(not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Hey, anyone know that fellow in Salem, "George Nester" (I think) it was on CNN this morning when they were interviewing political junkies? Cute spot and I am sooo there!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 9:45 am
stop the madness! Sandi, it is none other than our dear Bush administration...no surprises there!
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Eugene,
Exactly what conclusion do you draw from the Times article?
Here is what Obama said as quoted in an interview:
"The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference," he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how "hard" it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time."
"I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy -- especially now," Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing "the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq." Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Obama emerge victorious next week."
If setting a rational, realistic timetable is "lowering expectations", then McCain is a socialist. I don't ever recall that Obama said that all of the problems would be solved the day after inauguration or even in the first hundred days. I don't see where he is saying that he is not going to work toward the fulfillment of his promises, just that it is going to take time. So, where exactly did he lie?
As for McCain, in February of 08 he said he would balance the budget by the end of his first term. Then in April, he said the economic situation was worse and it would take until the end of his second term.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html
So, was McCain lying in February? Now, he has gone back to saying he will balance a budget by the end of his first term. Is he lying now? Or is he being incredibly naive to think that he will be able to lower taxes on everyone, lower corporate tax rate and then balance the budget? The same source cited in these pages against Obama's budget states that their analysis also shows that, regardles of promises, McCain's plans will require $200 billion in additional spending. Lowering taxes and increasing spending doesn't seem to be the way to move to a balanced budget
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Great, nutBush has to kick us in the teeth one last time! Can more de-regulation fly in the current crisis situation? Is he just waxing the skids for his good friend and supporter John McCain?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Does it seem unjust to anyone that a person who works hard, raises a family, pays taxes, and contributes to society gets exactly the same vote as the ignoramus on the public till who was recruited off his park bench by an ACORN employee to go vote for NObama in exchange for a fifth of whiskey?
A third of voters pay no taxes. My feeling is, unless you're retired, you shouldn't get a vote unless your unadjusted income is at a certain level. That is perfectly fair. Voting is a privilege.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Josh,
You're absolutely right. In fact, let's go back to the original system: You can't vote unless you're a white, male landowner.
There's one scenario that might actually result in a McCain victory.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Great idea Josh. You really strike me as a brilliant person (note: that statement is absolutely oozing with sarcasm). Actually, I would rather that people with such skewed ideas as yours not be allowed to vote.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 11:06 am
And that Josh is what you're going to have in any sort of representative government, the wealthy and the poor both get an equal vote and there is no inherent bias for or against either one. If that's honestly how you feel, that's also been tried in society before and failed about as miserably as pure socialism did. It was France in the 1700's where the poor and uneducated were taxed heavily while the nobles paid relatively little in taxes. It didn't take too long for the lower classes to violently revolt and overthrow the system that you seem so fond of creating here.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Josh...no taxation without representation...if the poor and lower class can't vote, then they also shouldn't be taxed therefore the rich will have to pay higher taxes!
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 11:21 am
yeah that'll stir the pot, Josh!! I think your post raised a couple of important issues regarding the PRIVILEGE of voting..1) naaah I can't agree with an income requirement for voting. 2) but I would like to see some sort of "civics/political test" for one to obtain a voter ID card or registration in order to vote. 3) finally, what is currently happening with voter registration/fraud is hurtful to the overall process. As stated in OHIO, you can state your residence is a park bench and therefore vote is assinine. That judge should be disrobed and made to wear a clownsuit and go sit on a park bench. One should have an established residence, you must register 3 months BEFORE an election to vote at that precinct. One must got to a registrars office and show proof of citizenship to be registered--take your voting test--get an ID card. The only way you can vote is to present the ID card for an absentee ballot or the first Tuesday in Nov. Make it the same for everyone.
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Dan,
Leave it to you to skew a good idea into something racist.
HCS,
OK. Let's do this. Other than retirees, if you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get to vote. You aren't a contributor so you don't get a say.
OJ,
We did it in America for many decades and it apparently worked even with racial and other contstraints I'm not asking for. All I am asking is that you contribute with taxes (other than retirees) to society in order to get the privilege of voting. It's not rich vs. poor. It's people who do something vs. those who sit on their asses. How is it unfair?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Bud,
I agree there is NO justification for not using ID's. I still would like to see some evidence of contribution to the system, though. I don't know how else to measure it other than taxes paid.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
FGS! You guys are frightening! Did you complain about "the electorate" when Reagan or either Bush won? Get over it already. We got the vote, it's part of the Constitution, (you remember that pesky old thing right?)and we are not giving it up. The Bottom Feeders Unite-TBFU!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Bud - yes you should be a U.S. citizen to vote in the U.S. but be required to take a test? I don't think so. I may not be able to cite specific details about the entire political process and I may not always know what politician did/said what but I know what issues I'm voting on and I know which candidate supports my views and I shouldn't have to take a test to vote and neither should anyone else.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Sorry to go off topic. However I figure since there are a lot of Obama supporters, I am curious as to why Obama's associations have not played into consideration of your vote and if they have, how did you get around them?
1) Ayers- Doestic Terrorist and radical. (Also wrote a book tributed to Sirhan Sirhan the assasin of RFK)
2) Rev. Wright
3) ACORN
4) Khalidi (what would the Roanoke Times do with the Video)?
5) Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshal Davis, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, Raila Odinga
I can't get past the fact that these associations are not a matter of guilt by association, but a matter of shared worldviews and life experiences. Life Experiences.
I like some of the things he says, his tax cut is a little worthless, whoop de-doo on 1-2000 extra bucks... but his associations are baffling and I for one can not see through them.
Thanks!
Comment by Christina Hallai — October 31, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Why stop there? Why not restrict voting to people who have shown they are willing to make personal sacrifice and take risks for our country? Only military veterans should get to vote, you know, like in "Starship Troopers" (the excellent book, not the horrible movie).
Or we could just stick with the Constitution like Sandi suggests.
Comment by c. trejbal — October 31, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Sandi...I don't think there is a right to vote in the constitution. Everyone is NOT guaranteed suffrage.
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Sandi and Christian,
The constitution can be un-amended if the the original amendment didn't work. Letting non-contributors vote clearly isn't working. Our journey down the socialist path didn't begin until non-contributors got the right to vote.
Christian,
OK. I'll go for that. If you served in the military or pay taxes or are retired, you can vote.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
HCS..didn't mean to imply the test to vote would be "current" in nature..more generic..how often does a senator run...the max speed of a north american barn swallow..things like that.
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
so those who are hurting most never get a chance to vote on the people who have the power to enact policies that might help them so that they can get to a point where they do contribute?
Josh- by not giving those folks a voice their needs, concerns etc are never heard. The rich "contributors" (in reality everyone contributes in some way) vote for elected officials who are going to benefit the rich. Keeping those who "don't contribute" out of the loop and never giving them the opportunity to succeed and "contribute"
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Bud - sure. but a person can still have the right ideas on issues and know who to vote for to support those ideas without knowing how often a senator runs.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
If non tax-payers are not able to vote, then what's to say the ruling people couldn't just take whoever they didn;t get support for off the tax roles and thus cement their permanence in power? That would be a complete and utter disaster because then all the decisions made would be made to benefit the people in power and their supporters. Gaming the tax system can cut both ways, and they are both equally dangerous. For all the imperfections of a representative republic, it's still the best option out there given the alternatives of artistocracy, theocracy, dictatorships, communism, or pure socialism.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Josh,
I'm tired of the implication that those of us who do not have large salaries somehow aren't contributing to society. At the very least, if you have a job, you pay medicare/social security taxes even if your income tax liability is nothing. Further, the whole problem I have with the republican worldview is that the only measure of worth is a person's income and net worth. Our family volunteers our time to various organizations, is active in church and the community, and makes charitable donations, as well as raising our children to the best of our ability. I would say each of those is at least as valuable as having a large salary, in some ways more valuable. Your proposed criteria for voting eligibility is nothing more than a way to try to keep hard-working people from having a voice in the government.
Comment by Liz — October 31, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
HCS---well I guess we disagree then..i think a person should have a basic knowledge of how the government works and maybe a bit of history in order to vote..we require it for new citizens, why not new voters?
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. And yes it is probably helpful but for it to be a requirement I think is just too much. So yes I suppose we will just have to disagree.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
So Josh, honey, would people who pay Social Security, Medicare or federal fuel taxes get to vote?
And how would you separate the voters and elections. Would you need to pay federal income taxes -- how much is a qualifying amount? -- in order to cast votes in state or local elections. Would sales tax count? Isn't that a fair tax? Would voters be segregated then as to which elections they could vote in.
And shouldn't votes then be weighted. Following your reasoning(?) people who pay the most in taxes should have the most influence. You could assign the number of votes per taxpayer based on the income tax tables.
Now, where'd I put that bottle of aspirin?
Comment by Luanne T. — October 31, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Bud,
You might want to read up on the history of the use and abuse of literacy tests as a precondition to voting.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Wow another bomb right from KOA-AM radio New Mexico.
Seems Barack's own party have no idea what he doing
or they do and he isnt telling the truth.
"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Again, Herb, links are helpful so others know what you're talking about.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Sorry Dan my bad,
Front page of foxnews.com
Remember people this is not fox breaking the story just passing it on.
Comment by HERB KREBS — October 31, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Once again I'll do Herb's job for him:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/
If this were Obama, I would be worried, but we know a lot of statements by politicians in the same party are not crediblr. Even McCain had to disavow the congesswoman whoo said many members of congress were un-America.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Christina,
Think back to all of the people you have known or have been associated with and ask yourself if you should be judged by them?
I lived through the same period as Ayres so I probably have known terrorists. I have had meetings and dinner with people from quite a number of countries including the middle east. I am not defined by those associations. Heavens, I hang around with a number of ultra-conservatives and I wouldn't want to be classified as one by association.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Well it would have to be from a credible network before I would believe it. In the first place, Fixed News is only reliable for telling Herb and Josh what they want to hear. AND if we are going to hold the candidates responsible for misstatements by themselves or their surrogates, John McCain is ... well, up a certain Sunni/Shia Creek.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 31, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Which of the 57 states was mccain in when he said that sandi?
Comment by Marked Man — October 31, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Thank you Mr. Radmacher for implying that my wanting people to take a basic civics test to vote makes me a bigot.
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Did someone here suggest full-time mothers and clergy should not be able to vote? Maybe clergy pay income taxes, I dunno, maybe I shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Comment by bobdobalena — October 31, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
fortunately josh and bud's candidate (nor any other candidate or many other americans for that matter) see eye to eye with them on this voting matter and we don't have to worry that our voting rights will be taken away no matter who is elected.
Comment by HCS — October 31, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
A little touchy, aren't we, Bud? If I thought that was your intent, I wouldn't have suggested you could use a history lesson.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 31, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I don't believe that there is actually a true right to vote, but it's nice that the politicians let us vote anyway. Of course, it would be to the destruction of the government and the country if the ability to vote on who ran things was ever restricted. I don't think it would ever fly, or last too terribly long.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
It is true that we could change the constitution, but given the thankfully difficult process, the likelihood of such a change is small. For now, taxes are off the table as a criterion.
24th amendment
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Comment by Joe (not the plumber) — October 31, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
HCS
#25 The "hurting" people who can't pay a single dime in income tax can turn to churches or get charity from others (probably Republicans) who have more money to give, thanks to the improved economy. Giving works so much better when its voluntary.]
OJ
#27 When the percent of people who don't pay taxes reaches 51, wouldn't the same thing happen? Then they could vote themselves all the goodies they wanted and the achievers couldn't do anything about it. There is your disaster. Then the Obamas of the world can promise the moon. I say there are enough good people in the world who would contribute privately to help people in need.
Liz
#28. Read the post, hon. I never said only people with "large" salaries could vote. I said only people who pay taxes (and retirees and veterans) should be allowed to vote. Sounds like you and your people fit that, so relax. Gotta stop the demagoguery. It gets in the way of rational discussion.
Luanne
#31. I said if you're paying anything at all (or your pre-adjusted gross income is anything greater than zero) you get to vote. If you're paying SS and FICA and so forth, it means you're probably paying some taxes. It's very simple, dear. If you're contributing you can vote. If you sit on your brains all day, you don't get to. Comprende?
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2008 @ 10:53 pm