Do you agree with this?

[BigRob]

Thats absurd.

On its face it might seem absurd, but it is not out of the norm in the United States to give more weight in terms of votes to those who offer more.

At our very founding, larger states (arguably the more important states) were not satisfied with the concept of one state one vote. The Connecticut Compromise obviously solved this problem, but still, look at the structure of the House of Representatives, states are not represented equally, but rather proportionally by the size of their population (and arguably then by their importance).

I would not support the concept of disallowing people to vote, but I don't think the argument to do so is absurd off the bat.

 

[BigRob]

Not even the officers who took multi million dollar "bonuses" paid for courtesy of the US taxpayer?

I think an argument can be made that the government forced many banks to accept bailout money when they did not want it, and then refused to let them pay it back unless they met certain criteria.

I don't think you can hold people responsible if the government says "you will take this money", whereas someone on welfare is a different situation.

 

[PLC1]

I think an argument can be made that the government forced many banks to accept bailout money when they did not want it, and then refused to let them pay it back unless they met certain criteria.

I don't think you can hold people responsible if the government says "you will take this money", whereas someone on welfare is a different situation.

Good point. If it wasn't your idea to take the money, then that's different.

What about agribusiness that accepts subsidies?

 

[Apathy]

The case could be made that the government shouldn't have supported the welfare state, either.

Yes it can and I do believe I made that case about a page ago.

 

[Apathy]

On its face it might seem absurd, but it is not out of the norm in the United States to give more weight in terms of votes to those who offer more.

At our very founding, larger states (arguably the more important states) were not satisfied with the concept of one state one vote. The Connecticut Compromise obviously solved this problem, but still, look at the structure of the House of Representatives, states are not represented equally, but rather proportionally by the size of their population (and arguably then by their importance).

I would not support the concept of disallowing people to vote, but I don't think the argument to do so is absurd off the bat.

No you are giving the keys of the nation to the richest in the nation. If you give the rich more of a say you are saying what they think is worth more than what others think. In my experience wealthy or poor doesnt matter the idea stands alone.

Also the idea that some state deserve more representation was based on the population not the taxes collected.

I didnot think it absurd "off the bat" it was the conclusion I drew from the argument given.

 

[BigRob]

No you are giving the keys of the nation to the richest in the nation. If you give the rich more of a say you are saying what they think is worth more than what others think. In my experience wealthy or poor doesnt matter the idea stands alone.

The idea does stand alone, but the concept that some opinions are more important than others is not new in our country.

Also the idea that some state deserve more representation was based on the population not the taxes collected.

Yes, but then they also said spending bills had to originate in the House, giving those larger states more sway in how the money flows.

The idea being that some states are more important than others, and should be represented accordingly.

I didnot think it absurd "off the bat" it was the conclusion I drew from the argument given.

I don't fully disagree.

 

[Apathy]

1)The idea does stand alone, but the concept that some opinions are more important than others is not new in our country.



2)Yes, but then they also said spending bills had to originate in the House, giving those larger states more sway in how the money flows.

3)The idea being that some states are more important than others, and should be represented accordingly.



I don't fully disagree.

1) Yes if you have the money to buy representation you are immediately right. (Just a wee bit of sarcasm here.)

2) You mean in the house based on population?

3) Yes but you are comparing apple and oranges. You are saying those with less money are less important than those who dont have a private airports in their back yards. Then you completely change how the political climate is... All a potential candidate would have to do is convince warren buffet to vote for him and the have the election. Then no one will give a damn about normal people making 30-40k a year. This is a form of tyranny.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Corporations are not people I do not see how you can deny individuals at goldman sachs the right to vote just because they were tanking. The government should have let them tank but its not right to deny people the right to vote for such trivial reasons.

hey if they get the same legal rights to "free speech" then they get to lose the right to vote to

 

[Apathy]

hey if they get the same legal rights to "free speech" then they get to lose the right to vote to

I agree.

This message has been sponsored by doritos.

Snack Strong!