Patriotism and Compensation

[wulfie]

I'd say no vote without mandatory federal service.

Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.

Federal service could be anything that benefits the citizenry. Medical, construction (a la the old time CCC), law enforcement support (data/admin/etc.), etc.

The key point is this - the best way to trust someone to vote for the common good of the Nation is for them to prove thru service that they are willing to put the common good of the Nation above their own comfort, financial gain, etc.

I'd also say no political office of any type without required federal service.

Mike/wulfie

[gofaster]

Originally posted by popeye
"There were a lot of WTC workers bringing in a lot of big salaries. If there was a powerhouse of business, it was the WTC. There was money there, a lot of fat wallets. Those wallets are gone and the survivors are trying to compensate for a lot of big-ticket lost income."

Well, I sure don't want to see the survivors starve, but I don't think I want my taxes to support them in the "manner to which they have become accustomed".  I'd set a cap on the compensation.

Its not the government that's providing the compensation; its the life insurance policies and private donations to the relief funds.  As usual, Rush doesn't provide THAT bit of detail.  The assumption by the listener is that, if Rush is talking, then he's talking about the government.  And that's why I don't like listening to Rush Limbaugh.  As I said earlier, he manipulates the facts to cause outrage by his listeners, which causes an increase in ratings, which allows him to get paid more money.  

Like Deep Throat (Pat Buchanan) told Bob Woodward: "Follow the money."  

[gofaster]

Originally posted by wulfie
I'd say no vote without mandatory federal service.

Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.

Federal service could be anything that benefits the citizenry. Medical, construction (a la the old time CCC), law enforcement support (data/admin/etc.), etc.

The key point is this - the best way to trust someone to vote for the common good of the Nation is for them to prove thru service that they are willing to put the common good of the Nation above their own comfort, financial gain, etc.

I'd also say no political office of any type without required federal service.

Mike/wulfie

So, if you can't get a federal job then you aren't allowed to vote?

I can tell you right now, there are more people in this great nation than there are federal occupations.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by wulfie
Not military service. Military service is for certain totally incompatible with certain types of people who would still without a doubt make outstanding citizens.

 I would agree that some people may be excused from serving where they may have to kill, but nobody should be excused from serving where they can get killed.
 As a citizen, you vote for policy that may result in a war. It's only fair that the one with such significant privilege bears equal personal responcibility.

 Those who do not pay taxes are not as interested in reducing them. Those who do not share danger of getting killed or having their children killed should not be able to send others in danger.
 So many people are willing to support all kinds of good causes by sending US troops. Very few volunteer to personally go there and fight.

 What you are proposing is buying citizenship, not qualifying for it.

 miko

[Wotan]

No service - no vote

the percentage of eligible voters that do vote is already lo.

I would like to see a system of Citizens, Subjects and aliens based on a service model.

Full citizenship to those who offer their service to the greater good of the Nation. They could serve in any roll state or federal level.

Subjects are those born here but choose not to participate.

Aliens are immigrants and would be eligible for citizenship  through sevice as well.

They would all be protected under the bill of rights but citizens would vote and recieve things like free secondary education and reduced taxes. The right to vote would be reserved for citizens but they we have to qualify every x amount of year by taking a basic civics exam. Too many people now just get bussed to a poling station and get told who to vote for with out the slightest understanding of how the process works.

[Monk]

Sort of like the the "Sofa Generals" watching CNN, asking why we didn't march to Baghdad.......Muhahahaa:rolleyes:

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Wotan

I would like to see a system of Citizens, Subjects and aliens based on a service model.

They would all be protected under the bill of rights but citizens would vote and recieve things like free secondary education and reduced taxes. The right to vote would be reserved for citizens but they we have to qualify every x amount of year by taking a basic civics exam.  

You've been watching "Starship Troopers" too much.  As it is, people complain about performing basic jury duty.  Do you really think people would want to take a test?  The result would be that fewer people would vote, and then you'd REALLY see some election manipulation going on.  As it is, the private interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and politicians control the election process to a larger degree than they should.  By making it a burden upon the common man to simply vote, you're making it easier for those select few with a direct economic interest to manipulate the elections, and the legislation.

Originally posted by Wotan
Too many people now just get bussed to a polling station and get told who to vote for with out the slightest understanding of how the process works.

And who would that be?  And where would it be occurring?  Let me know so that I can fire off a stern memo to the local election officials regarding campaign reforms and the losing candidates so that they can file a lawsuit.

[Wotan]

You've been watching "Starship Troopers" too much. As it is, people complain about performing basic jury duty. Do you really think people would want to take a test? The result would be that fewer people would vote, and then you'd REALLY see some election manipulation going on. As it is, the private interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and politicians control the election process to a larger degree than they should. By making it a burden upon the common man to simply vote, you're making it easier for those select few with a direct economic interest to manipulate the elections, and the legislation.

I dont watch tv so I dunno what your talking about "Starship Troopers"

But the fact fewer people would be eligible to vote could also mean that these folks are better versed in whats going on and able to hold a politician to a greater level of accountablilty. It would be much tougher to fool a few well informed section of society then a large group of sheep. The only people excluded from citizenship are folks who choose not to serve their community.

As for bussing we just had election here in florida and there were several groups who joined together to offer "rides to the polls". Granted they cant make anyone vote one way or another but they certainly can influence a persons descision. At one pick up point there was a representative handing out "ticket information" with a list of preferred canidates. This same type goes on at several churches (religous right types) where they hand out "lists of candidates". Theres nothing illegal about it. Thats just the way it is.

[10Bears]

Solution--  Roll back the 16th Amendment.

[10Bears]

Would military even want people that were drafted against their will? Most people who served in drafted militaries would tell you those suck.

I believe I have the best solution to having good volunteer military, concientious citizens and right politicians:

No service - no vote

miko

Oh my, you'd have the Republicans squirming on that one...they depend on KKK members,  Aryan prison inmates and trailer park trash for their votes!

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Wotan
I dont watch tv so I dunno what your talking about "Starship Troopers"

I was referring to the movie.  It didn't do well in the theatres, but its worth a weekend rental.  Too bad Denise Richards didn't show any skin.

Originally posted by Wotan
But the fact fewer people would be eligible to vote could also mean that these folks are better versed in whats going on and able to hold a politician to a greater level of accountablilty. It would be much tougher to fool a few well informed section of society then a large group of sheep. The only people excluded from citizenship are folks who choose not to serve their community.

It could mean that.  But the reality would be that it would be easier for the system to be manipulated by a select few in key positions - "Vote Your Commanding Officer for Governor!".  By enacting barricades to keep the common man from controlling his destiny, you give rise to a revolution by the people.  Your basic premise is that people that vote are incompetent (not that it isn't true - I would guess that's how Sonny Bono got to Congress).  I would counter that the people that take the time to vote are actually interested in voting for a particular candidate and have a pretty good idea of the ability of that candidate to govern.  Sure, in the primaries and local elections they may not be familiar with the opinions and stances of every judge or councilman on the ballott, but chances are that they know which candidate they want to be their governor.

Originally posted by Wotan
As for bussing we just had election here in florida and there were several groups who joined together to offer "rides to the polls". Granted they cant make anyone vote one way or another but they certainly can influence a persons descision. At one pick up point there was a representative handing out "ticket information" with a list of preferred canidates. This same type goes on at several churches (religous right types) where they hand out "lists of candidates". Theres nothing illegal about it. Thats just the way it is.

I took part in those same elections.  My assumption is that these busses visited the retirement communities and public housing areas or other spots where there was a density of people without transportation.  Its a noble service that may not have the results the bus operators wanted - those people might very well have voted for someone other than the endorsed candidates.  By law, campaign organizations may not solicit votes within a certain distance of the polls.  This doesn't apply to the vehicles that go to the polls.  So, yeah, it wasn't illegal, but it is shady.  Then again, so is endorsement of particular candidates by the media, who have a far stronger influence on the booths than bus operators.

[midnight Target]

Sounds like elitist BS to me.

"All people are stupid and must be controlled"  except me of course, and Rush Limbaugh.

and

How dare they bus all those poor people in to vote!  

[AKSWulfe]

This is amusing.. the people who vote are the dumb ones...

Nevermind that there are few if any candidates actually worthy of being in any office, let alone leading a state or the country....
-SW

[miko2d]

gofaster: By enacting barricades to keep the common man from controlling his destiny, you give rise to a revolution by the people.
 Not true. Government has powers of coersion and people in conrol of the government (voters) can exercise control over your life - including outright exploitation. It is only fair that such people are qualified.
 Enacting "barricades" that filter by competence and motivation will lead to incredibly stable situation - any person who is capable and motivated to participate in revolution would be able to get franchise and would not be interested in revolution. Those too stupid or lazy will not be likely to raise in arms - especially without capable and dedicated leaders.

 Such system is commonly referred to as "meritocracy".

 Granted, smart unscrupulous leaders often use dumb masses for their political ends. But even those would have much harder time persuading them to revolt than now they have persuading them to vote. The scoundrels would be deprived of the powerfull tool.

 "Common man" never controlled his destiny. The best he can expect is competent and honest rulers (meaning enfranchised voters and elected officials) who proved their civic worth by something more than just rhetoric.

 miko

[Dago]

I think some of you are missing the point, and also, that some will take any opportunity to slam Rush Limbaugh.

Nowhere in that quote did he say where the funds are coming from that are being used to compensate the familys of the 9/11 victims.  I think he is basically showing his disgust with the greed they are displaying.

What he is doing is comparing the members of the military who accept the risks and consequence of going in harms way to protect and serve our nation, and the compensation their families stand to receive if they die doing so,  with the compensation supplied to victims families who can't get enough to satisfy their greed.  It doesnt matter where the funds come from.

I will state without hesitation that I feel all persons lives are of equal value to their loved ones when they die, regardless of the amount of money they made when they were alive.  I personally have greater respect and appreciation for someone who died fighing a terrorist enemy in foreign lands to secure our safety than someone who died on accident or through terrorist act without knowingly put himself or herself at risk.

Rush is also highlighting the fact that members of Congress are free to give themselves generous raises and make sure they retire extremely well, while at the same time they can easily commit to war our nations young people and do so without providing adequate financial compensation compatible with the risk and sacrifice they face.

Put your Rush bashing aside, consider the subject of his commentary objectively.  

Truth be told, a few of you are guilty of exactly what you accuse Rush of doing.  You say something, challenging what someone else said (Rush) without offering proof or facts to back yourself up.

My thoughts: Yes, some victims families are displaying greed and some undeserved sense of entitlement.  No, most members of the military who risk their very lives to protect us are not adequatly compensated, nor are their families adequately compenstated when their loved ones die in our service.  And no, Congress should absolutely not be allowed the power to decide their own salaries and retirement programs, its letting the fox into the hen house.


dago