7 questions all voters should ask themselves

[therealUT]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens?

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government?

4. What system of government was the US set up as?

5. What is the present system of government in the US?

6. Should the government legislate morality?

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote?

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare?

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct? Of course it is. (you didn't ask if the government should be required to support the less fortunate, but if our citizens do not supoort those that need it (really need it) I'm not against it.

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens? The government's job is to see that we all have an equal opportunity to get an education.

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government? No, freedom of speech=freedom of thought and action.

4. What system of government was the US set up as? Republic

5. What is the present system of government in the US? A #'d up mess.

6. Should the government legislate morality? No, they should legislate laws for the good of the people.

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote? Not in so many words. I WISH many of them would be tested in civics and reading comprehension.

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare? Yes, in some cases. I also support the proper management of the program and system to audit for abuse and to punish abusers. There are cases where Welfare is appropriate.

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure? I support the Fair Tax movement.

 

[therealUT]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?
Yes.

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens?
No.

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government?
Yes.

4. What system of government was the US set up as?
Republic with an economy based on a capitalist free market.

5. What is the present system of government in the US?
A judicial dictatorship with an socialist economic system.

6. Should the government legislate morality?
No.

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote?
Yes.

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare?
No.

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?
Not entirely. I support the Fair Tax because it is the best alternative out there.

 

[milohimself]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?
Absolutely.

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens?
No, but it is the government's job to provide all its citizens with the opportunity to educate themselves.

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government?
No

4. What system of government was the US set up as?
Representative democracy. I think many original documents were intentionally ambiguous.

5. What is the present system of government in the US?
A representative democracy that is unfortunately pigeonholed everywhere except the white house because of gerrymandering.

6. Should the government legislate morality?
Absolutely not.

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote?
Yes, it looks something like this:

"Provide proof of U.S. citizenship."

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare?
To an extent... For the citizens out there who are truly and genuinely incapable of supporting themselves.

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?
Meaning... Trickle down? If that's it, no. I don't really have too strong of an opinion in any direction on taxes. In theory, higher taxes for higher public benefits is a great idea, and it has been put to good use other places in the world. But implementing it in the U.S. would be entirely too difficult, if not impossible.

 

[therealUT]

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?
Meaning... Trickle down? If that's it, no. I don't really have too strong of an opinion in any direction on taxes. In theory, higher taxes for higher public benefits is a great idea, and it has been put to good use other places in the world. But implementing it in the U.S. would be entirely too difficult, if not impossible.

Progressive taxes are those that as income rises rates rise also;i.e. our current Federal Income Tax system.

My theory on taxes is completely opposite of yours. I believe social justice and welfare programs should be run by charitable organizations operating on voluntary contributions, not by the government operating on mandatory taxes. I believe this works for 2 reasons:
1. People are generous. For all the complaining about high tax rates, Americans continue to tithe 15-20% to their Churches on top of other charitable donations they make to organizations such as UnitedWay, American Red Cross, etc.
2. Independent (of government) Social Justice and Welfare Programs must be accountable for their results. Since donations are voluntary, if a donor is not satisfied with the results or does not like where his/her money is being funneled to, that donor can stop donating to that organization. Therefore, by competition, independent welfare organizations (to include schools, which I do not believe in public schools) actually produce greater results than government run programs.

 

[milohimself]

I can go either way... I meant to say the one I mentioned, I believe, can work. I don't think there's one right way to have a tax system. That one's all good too.

 

[therealUT]

I can go either way... I meant to say the one I mentioned, I believe, can work. I don't think there's one right way to have a tax system. That one's all good too.

 

[milohimself]

I ain't tax free anymore...

And yeah, the IRS sucks but I don't think taxes suck on the very base level of its concept. It sucks because the IRS is run by a bunch of a-holes and supported by money-grubbing politicians.

 

[milohimself]

And get this... Oregon has no salex tax, yeah... But the income tax is a hefty 9%. On INCOME. F&%$

 

[therealUT]

I ain't tax free anymore...

And yeah, the IRS sucks but I don't think taxes suck on the very base level of its concept. It sucks because the IRS is run by a bunch of a-holes and supported by money-grubbing politicians.

I would have less of a problem with the income tax if everyone paid by proportion, ie everyone pays 15% or everyone pays 20%. I have a major problem when one taxpayer is paying into a 10% bracket while another is paying into a 35% bracket.

 

[milohimself]

I can dig that. Playing equal.

 

[GAVol]

I can go either way...

Whatever floats your boat, man.

 

[vader]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?
Definitely

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens?
No, but it should provide the opportunity.

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government?
NO. Freedom of thought and expression is vital to a democratic government.

4. What system of government was the US set up as?
A representative republic.

5. What is the present system of government in the US?
Corrupt BS.

6. Should the government legislate morality?
No.

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote?
I have no problem with decisions being made by literate people.

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare?
For those truly in need, yes. See #1

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?
No. I would like to see tax reform on a large scale.

 

[milohimself]

:lol: That quote was about as accurate as Fox News quoting John Kerry.

 

[therealUT]

I find it ironic that most lower middle class income earners are very opposed to 'welfare,' yet they fight rigorously to keep their tax rates low and make sure the wealthier are most heavily taxed. I guess they do not realize they by being allowed to pay less to support the government is a form of systemic welfare.

 

[allvol123]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?
Yes.

2. Is it the government's job to educate its citizens?
No.

3. Should citizens, educated by their government, be obligated to regurgitate learned information to the government?
Yes.

4. What system of government was the US set up as?
Republic with an economy based on a capitalist free market.

5. What is the present system of government in the US?
A judicial dictatorship with an socialist economic system.

6. Should the government legislate morality?
No.

7. Do you support basic exams to be given to potential voters prior to granting them the right to vote?
Yes.

Sorry, had to add some more questions...

8. Do you support welfare?
No.

9. Do you support a progressive tax structure?
Not entirely. I support the Fair Tax because it is the best alternative out there.

realUT, I agree with your answers except #6. In a sense, morals are pretty subjective, therefore what one person considers morlaistic another person might not. Legislation exists on moral issues and new legislation will continue to be written as the moralistic compass of a society changes. It is inevitable that people in a culture want social values considered to be the "norm" to be guarded and when they are not, the society feels threatened and will thus seek protection from their governing bodies in the way of laws to gain this protection.

 

[therealUT]

realUT, I agree with your answers except #6. In a sense, morals are pretty subjective, therefore what one person considers morlaistic another person might not. Legislation exists on moral issues and new legislation will continue to be written as the moralistic compass of a society changes. It is inevitable that people in a culture want social values considered to be the "norm" to be guarded and when they are not, the society feels threatened and will thus seek protection from their governing bodies in the way of laws to gain this protection.

The only morality the gov't should be concerned with, is morality of an objective nature. If a person is physically harmed (without their consent) by someone whose intent is was to harm them, then there should be laws in place to keep that from happening.

 

[therealUT]

1. Is providing support to the less fortunate morally correct?
Definitely

6. Should the government legislate morality?
No.

8. Do you support welfare?
For those truly in need, yes. See #1

I don't mean to single you out, Vader, but you see where I am going with this...I agree that there are those out there who truly need financial help from others, and I believe it is morally correct to help them out. However, I do not feel it is the gov't that should provide that help. Charity will do just fine.

 

[allvol123]

The only morality the gov't should be concerned with, is morality of an objective nature. If a person is physically harmed (without their consent) by someone whose intent is was to harm them, then there should be laws in place to keep that from happening.

I disagree with narrowing it down to physical harm. An intelligent enemy can cause great harm to their opponent without ever a striking blow or firing a bullett. In fact they can cause more harm than a physical strike with the right methods.

 

[therealUT]

I disagree with narrowing it down to physical harm. An intelligent enemy can cause great harm to their opponent without ever a striking blow or firing a bullett. In fact they can cause more harm than a physical strike with the right methods.

You should provide an example if you are going to make a statement like that. Anyone who wants something will not be deterred from getting it, unless physically barred from doing so.

 

[allvol123]

You should provide an example if you are going to make a statement like that. Anyone who wants something will not be deterred from getting it, unless physically barred from doing so.

I am not up on military history as you are, but come on, I knnow you have studied this somewhere I bet. The idea that a war can be fought or an objective achieved through non-military means is far more superior than achieveing your task through brute force. I believe this idea is in The Art of War isin't it?

 

[therealUT]

I am not up on military history as you are, but come on, I knnow you have studied this somewhere I bet. The idea that a war can be fought or an objective achieved through non-military means is far more superior than achieveing your task through brute force. I believe this idea is in The Art of War isin't it?

First, my military 'Bible' is On War by Clauswitz. The Art of War by Sun Tzu basically says things like, keep your troops happy and they will fight for you, keep them fed and they will be happy. Not all that useful to a tactician.

Second, yes, one can achieve military objectives without having to fire a single round against a foe that does not possess the will to fight. Once that foe desires to actually defend and protect what you desire to seize, then no amount of psyops is going to deter them.

 

[allvol123]

First, my military 'Bible' is On War by Clauswitz. The Art of War by Sun Tzu basically says things like, keep your troops happy and they will fight for you, keep them fed and they will be happy. Not all that useful to a tactician.

Second, yes, one can achieve military objectives without having to fire a single round against a foe that does not possess the will to fight. Once that foe desires to actually defend and protect what you desire to seize, then no amount of psyops is going to deter them.

true, but if the opponent walks around oblivious thinking there is no battle, hence the apathetic people of this country in reference to the cultural battle that is being waged, then these people are already losing in a sense.

 

[therealUT]

true, but if the opponent walks around oblivious thinking there is no battle, hence the apathetic people of this country in reference to the cultural battle that is being waged, then these people are already losing in a sense.

There can be no battle if one side is too apathetic to fight back.

 

[allvol123]

There can be no battle if one side is too apathetic to fight back.

yes, but there can be a winner and a loser. You can lose by never entering the battle at all.