Thursday, October 30, 2008

Rights, Responsibilities, and the Republic

The "Right" to Vote for President

I was reading somebody on the blogroll (and I don't honestly remember) when I noticed someone talking about the fundamental right to vote. Well, I remember my Constitution (and I have my copy from the Heritage Foundation) and guess what? There is no right to vote for President. The states have control over the selection of the president through electors. And those electors can essentially do what they want.

However, we all have a privelege and a responsibility to go out there, learn about the candidates and the issues, and then vote. Now I'll assume everyone reading this blog today has the capacity to read, form rational thoughts (even the liberasl) and decide what they think is best for the country.

Now tomorrow I will try to lay out exactly where we need to go as a country, despite us finding out which candidate is going to ignore my sagelike advice and plunge us further down the path to socialism. And Monday (or Sunday if I'm frisky and plaid), I'll try to summarize your choices on Tuesday, in as simple language as I can manage. But consider that we live in a country where we have a path to make all our voices heard.

I know we haven't always done it perfectly, some people have been butt surfed completely out, and many a man has had to swing, but that's the beauty of this system. It guarantees nothing but the opportunity to participate in the ongoing maintenance of our republic. And no matter how foolishly (Obama) you vote, if you understand this concept, it's beautiful.

Too Lazy to Be More Articulate

It's 12:46 AM right now. And I want to get my FairTax comment in. No matter how you believe taxes should be apportioned among the people, I haven't heard anyone refute the premise of the Fairtax: to create a transparent, simple, progressive, fair tax system that doesn't tax productivity, doesn't taxt the poor, and doesn't allow politicians to manipulate it for their own end. Naturally, there are bound to be some weak points that won't be known until it is fully implemented, but I haven't heard anything else that even approaches sense.


My first blog post (titledThe First Post (w/rules)) went up Tuesday, October 30, 2007, Scribed by Patrick M at 2:10 AM. And I don't think I was thinking about anything other than flexing my writing muscles, much less being ass-deep in the election. Now that I'm moderately toned (in a literary sense; I'm otherwise a sloppy sack of shit), I'm enjoying looking back at the simplicity of the first post.

Oh, and for you lumps of asscheese that bitched about my rules, I covered them in brief on this post. So polish my nuts and dance a polka in a metal bikini (Leia, Episode VI style, bitches) becasue there's no reason to whine.

Infomercials and Pie

I missed the Barack Obama half-hour infomercial. Yay, a half-hour fucking bullshit ad. Although it would have given me an idea what to expect for the next four years. I could have probably caught some highlights, but I had to play some video games, watch South Park, then dig into the final installment of the American Pie movies, thus the reason for the gratuitous fucking obscenity. I will say that, not only is it good to escape the sad reality of this election for a little bit, but even knowing all the comedy that's coming, the movies still elicit excessive laughter. Only then was I ready to write.

And now I'm done.


James Manning said...

Voting should be a right. Think of the irony that is Ted Stevens. He is not a convicted Felon but there is no law that says he cannot serve in Congress. But in most states, anyone with a felony record cannot vote. Its' this simple: as a citizen you are subject to the laws and regulations set forth by out legislators. If a person paid their debt to society, then there is no reason to restict that person from voting.

TAO said...

Well, as you write away, remember there are liberals watching!

"A Fair Tax" is such an idealistic concept (and from someone who is not a liberal! Imagine that!)

Right now we have the lowest tax on capital gains and dividends we have ever had and we also have the highest amount of underreported income among individuals who do not get W-2's. I know, lower the taxes more and people would be more apt to report their income.

Sorry, it appears that in this country honesty does not pay! We have voter fraud, vote suppression, we have candidates twisting and flipping in the wind on a daily basis. We have a plumber who asks a simple question and now he is turning that moment into a book deal and a recording contract.

Without some basic honesty you cannot expect anything to be fair...especially a tax. As soon as you devise a fair tax someone will come up with a loophole. There will be too many CPA's and attorney's looking for work...

Look at the current financial meltdown; people made money wrapping garbage up....

Without honesty and integrity it is just a slow and painful decline as everyone attempts to benefit themselves as we decline.

Lista said...

This is so interesting that you mentioned the right to vote for president as not actually being a right granted by the Constitution. I was just talking to someone about the Sovereignty of State issue and how more power should be given to the states and less to the Federal Government and thus, less to the President.

The problem I saw right away with this suggestion was that the media makes a much bigger deal out of Federal Elections, than about local ones. The schools also make a bigger deal out of the Federal Government, resulting in a knowledge of the US Constitution, while very few people know what their State Constitutions say.

If most of the important stuff is supposed to be decided by the States, whether than the Federal Government, than it is really too bad that the Federal Government gets all the media attention. People are going to focus on what they are the most aware of and are going to want to figure out a way to influence and vote in that area. Perhaps the media has been the problem all along.

I just decided to make a quick stop by your blog and didn't get much past the first paragraph of this post, but I'll be back.

Beth said...

Happy Blogging Anniversary, Patrick, and I am looking forward to many more!

Z said...

Happy BlogBirth, Patrick..good stuff! Keep it up..!

Hey, I had to tell you again(mentioned it at pasadena's blog) that your description of Cheney's frankenstinian birth imaged by the left KILLED me! Absolutely roared..thanks for the laugh!

Re: this super piece you wrote, I was thinking something tonight: President is a NATIONAL JOB. EVERY STATE votes for ONE GUY.
My question is this; Why does each state have different voting methods which can get SO screwed up for the electino of a national office?

I think we ought to go back to ONE DAY ELECTIONS (this month long thing is anarchy) and we need photo IDs and that's walk in, you show your photo, you smile like the photo and they see it's you, you vote, your name is checked off as having voted on the computer, and that's IT. You don't get 983759287 votes, ACORN is useless, and there's no voter fraud.

??? what do you think!?

Toad734 said...

Ya, I missed it too, I thought it was going to be on tonight. From what I hear it was pretty good but wasn't going to convert Republicans. In not once slamming McCain, it will supposedly make swing voters think more fondly of him, What ever.

Again, the only socialist in this race is Sarah Palin, that's obvious. The fair tax isn't fair and the economy would collapse, it isn't 23% its a 30% tax and middle class and poor people are the ones who spend all their income, its the rich who don't and would benefit greately from it. In fact, you are probably the poorest fair tax advocate in the country. The fair tax isn't fair and we have already discussed that.

Patrick M said...

James: If a person paid their debt to society, then there is no reason to restict that person from voting.

I could be convinced of that, especially if it's a lesser felony. As for criminal Congressmen, we could sure use an amendment to keep them out forever.

Tao: Welcome. You picked my one-year post to join the conversidation. Cool.

There's a reason why I talk specifically about the Fairtax specifically. If you haven't read up on it, it essentially eliminates ALL OTHER TAXES in favor of one single consumption tax. No loopholes, no exceptions, no double or triple or quadruple taxation, no favoritism, absolute transparency. No one who spends below the poverty line pays the tax. And the highest rate you pay is 23%.

But I'll assume you read up on it.

As for honesty not paying, it's because we've let the dishonest run things and accepted political bullshit as the status quo.

My Friday post, which went up before I came over here, explains it better.

Lista: Dittos on the welcome.

Simply put, this country will be much better off when the President can get to the business of leading the country in the world without having to sit by the fireside and tell us what he's going to do for us.

Beth: Thanks. I honestly am surprised I've kept up the steam this long. I will be slowing down in November and December a little so I can give the other blogs some life.

Z: Thanks and thanks. (Here's the link to PCC's post if anybody wants to check it out)

Why does each state have different voting methods which can get SO screwed up for the electino of a national office?

Politics, plain and simple. If it was streamlined, and all you had to do was go through a simple process, anybody with a brain and a sense of responsibility would show up, and the braindead (and dead when ACORN is around) would get lost and walk into traffic.

But streamlining makes playing games with the votes easier. Ask Jennifer Brunner. She's the Secretary of State here in the great state of Ohio, and she's conveniently failing to aggressively pursue an investigation into voter registration fraud perpetrated by our nutty (get it?) friends at ACORN. Oh, and she's a Democrat, of course.

Toad: You keep on the 'Sarah the Socialist' rant all you want and we'll ignore you.

As for the FairTax, I seem to remember that you were interested up to the point that you found out businesses wouldn't be taxed (they don't pay the taxes, but that doesn't seem to interest you). So since you continue to ignore what the FairTax says and go with the bullshit, I'll not waste the time on reiterating it for you either.

In fact, you are probably the poorest fair tax advocate in the country.

That's because I run the numbers and I figured out I'll break even in the process. But with more income available weekly and the boom that will result from everybody having more weekly take-home pay....

Toad734 said...

I was interested up until the point when I actually read it and found out that it was bullshit which would only benefit rich people and the dirt poor and create and even bigger version of the IRS and not collect the revenue we need and that its a 30% rate, not 23%.

I am interested in a lot of things and only close my mind to them when I find out they are bunk. I was open to the idea of people like McCain and Giuliani until I found out they are crazy and want to start WWIII. I didn't like Hillary Clinton at all at the beginning of the race but once I found out more about her, not just what Oreilly says about her, I found out that she wasn't that bad. Although, I did still vote for Obama.

Patrick M said...

Toad: You really want me to repeat, don't you? But since there's new people here, let me address your points.

23% vs 30% - The 23% is a number to compare the FairTax to the equivalent income tax. Someone in the 39% income tax bracket would pay $39 for every hundred earned. The FairTax would cost them a maximum of $23 per hundred spent. Treated as a sales tax and the same total outlay of $100, $77 is cost, $23 is tax, and in those terms it's 30%.

Only the rich and poor benefit - How? At worst, if you're an honest taxpayer, you're already paying 15-20% in the embedded taxes, plus your own income taxes. The worst you can do under the FairTax is up to 23%. And if you're frugal enough, you don't pay any taxes. Only the stupid are punished by the FairTax.

A bigger IRS - Where the fuck did you get this? Most states would be collecting the FairTax, passing it on to a little office in Washington that just tallies the numbers, deposits the cash, and is done, except for a little enforcement of a few hundred thousand. Compare that with the reams of paper, miles of regulation, 10 million filing, the insanity of tax season, and the size of the beast we call the IRS. If you can show me where I'm wrong on this point, I'll suck my own dick.

I am interested in a lot of things and only close my mind to them when I find out they are bunk.

Or your assumptions render them bunk.

Toad734 said...

No, it would cost them $30 of every hundred every spent. Look at the site again, even they admit this. They call $30, 23% of $130.

You are still under the impression that there are all these embeded taxes and for every penny extra spent by a retailer means and extra penny that the consumer pays and that isn't the case. The market will only bear so much and only tolerate so much volatility.

Sometimes businesses have to rack up expenses as a cost of doing business and maybe it cuts into their profits, maybe it cuts into their bonuses, maybe they pass it on to the consumer but it doesn't always come back out of the retail price. Outsourcing is a perfect example of this; nothing has gotten cheaper since it has been outsourced, things have only gotten more expensive. Levi Jeans, when they were made in the US cost $35 dollars, go to the Levis store now and they will cost almost $50 now that they are made in Mexico. Those savings didn't get passed on to the consumer, converse shoes are a perfect example as well. Since they closed their NC plant and started making shoes in China the cost of Chuck Taylors has gone up $5.

What these Exxons and AIGs need to do is take the extra taxes they would pay out of their CEO's salary and hes still rich so he doesn't care, the government gets their money and we get cheap products. Everyone wins.

Patrick M said...

23%/30% - Your numbers are not wrong, but I explained the difference once.

You are still under the impression that there are all these embeded taxes...

Sometimes businesses have to rack up expenses as a cost of doing business and maybe it cuts into their profits,

Yeah, here's the list of expenses (and embedded taxes) that the FairTax eliminates:
Matching for SSI and Medicare
W-2's and payroll tax forms
Corporate tax expenses (quarterly)
Accounting staff for tax management
401-k and retirement account management expenses (as there is no need to have tax-free retirement plans)

Just consider that it cost $15/hr to hire someone at $10/hr and it becomes obvious.

What these Exxons and AIGs need to do is take the extra taxes they would pay out of their CEO's salary and hes still rich so he doesn't care, the government gets their money and we get cheap products.

Toad, do you even understand the profit motive, or "greed" in your class-warfare parlance? Take the motive out of it and either they adjust the price to get their money or they give up altogether and the government has to buy them up. Taxing the CEO's is a surefire way to get them to invent another way to hide money.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I am on vacation and I refuse to go here with yall.

And don't you go runnin off with any other girls while I'm gone.