GrassFire "Citizens Mandate"

[tombogan03884]

Got an E mail from them today, Here's mine :

My CITIZEN MANDATE on government run healthcare:I am calling for ObamaCare to be REPEALED immediatelyMy CITIZEN MANDATE on illegal immigration:Border security must be increased and those in our country illegally should be punished to the full extent of the law and deported.My CITIZEN MANDATE on the federal debt:The federal debt is a serious problem but the answer is not higher taxes. Instead, we must cap spending and grow the economy.My CITIZEN MANDATE on government spending:Government spending is out of control and the federal government should be required to reduce its annual budget every year until the budget is balanced.My CITIZEN MANDATE on TARP and other government bailouts:Federal bailouts of the private sector such as the TARP program must be stopped immediately and any unspent funds returned to the taxpayers.My CITIZEN MANDATE on taxes:I oppose any and all new taxes and want the Bush Tax Cuts made permanentMy CITIZEN MANDATE on government takeover of industry:The federal government should cease and desist its socialistic takeover of industry and return companies like General Motors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to the private sector.My CITIZEN MANDATE on welfare and entitlement programs:Social welfare and entitlement programs are unconstitutional and should be stopped altogetherThe issues I believe are important for the new Congress to address:Safeguarding individual liberties of citizensStopping the Socialist push to remake our nationSecuring our borders and stopping illegal immigrationRestoring limited government under the ConstitutionStopping the war on small businessRepealing ObamaCareMaintaining the tax cuts for all AmericansReducing the deficit and government spendingLimiting the size and scope of governmentThe SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE I believe the new Congress should address:Securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration


http://www.grassfire.com/140/survey.asp?PID=26612332&NID=1

Of course they ask for money but I left those parts blank and it still accepted it.

[fightingquaker13]

Problem is, you can't cut taxes and pay down the debt. We need taxes more or less frozen, or even increased. You can, and should adjust them to provide more icentives for job creation, personal savings and domestic investment and the like. Still, the sad thing is after W and BO (blame falling on both parties here if we're honest), what we need is huge spending cuts and taxes that do nothing but redeem debt. It will be pain with no short term gain. Its exactly what we forced on the rest of the world with the "structural adjustment" provisions that attached to IMF and World Bank loans in the '80s and '90s to help third world countries crawl out of there own ruinious debt. We ignored the pain and made them do it. Guess what, it largely worked. We just pretended that we were immune from pursuing the same sorts of policies they did. Cut taxes, increase spending, and pay for it on credit. And while we're at it, export our industrial base to create a negative trade balance while draining high wage jobs. What part of that seemed smart? It worked short term, but now the Visa is frozen and every third phone call is from a bill colector. There really isn't a good short term fix here.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Problem is, you can't cut taxes and pay down the debt. We need taxes more or less frozen, or even increased. You can, and should adjust them to provide more icentives for job creation, personal savings and domestic investment and the like. Still, the sad thing is after W and BO (blame falling on both parties here if we're honest), what we need is huge spending cuts and taxes that do nothing but redeem debt. It will be pain with no short term gain. Its exactly what we forced on the rest of the world with the "structural adjustment" provisions that attached to IMF and World Bank loans in the '80s and '90s to help third world countries crawl out of there own ruinious debt. We ignored the pain and made them do it. Guess what, it largely worked. We just pretended that we were immune from pursuing the same sorts of policies they did. Cut taxes, increase spending, and pay for it on credit. And while we're at it, export our industrial base to create a negative trade balance while draining high wage jobs. What part of that seemed smart? It worked short term, but now the Visa is frozen and every third phone call is from a bill colector. There really isn't a good short term fix here.
FQ13

You are correct, however, as I have said before, "No one who owes his continuing employment to popularity with the voting public  can do such things and remain in office beyond the next election.
In the 1880's Egypt was so far in debt that the Creditor nations of Europe placed England in charge of the counties finances.
Basically they were put in receivership, The country was allowed to function on a fraction of their tax revenues, 1/3 IIRC, the remaining 2/3 went to serving the debt with English administrators overseeing the accounting, it was the beginning of English rule in Egypt.
During his Presidency Teddy Roosevelt nearly took us to war with Germany over similar actions toward Venezuala.

Churchill goes into much more detail in his book "The River War" setting the background for his adventures at the battle of Omdurman during Lord Kitchner's vain attempt to rescue Gen Charles Gordon from siege by Muslim fanatics led by "The Mahdi".
But I found this quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_occupation_of_Egypt#British_Occupation

The British succeeded in defeating the Egyptian Army at Tel El Kebir in September and took control of the country putting Tawfiq back in control. The purpose of the invasion had been to restore political stability to Egypt under a government of the Khedive and international controls which were in place to streamline Egyptian financing since 1876.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_Crisis_of_1902%E2%80%931903

The Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903 was a naval blockade of several months imposed against Venezuela by Britain, Germany and Italy over President Cipriano Castro's refusal to pay foreign debts and damages suffered by European citizens in a recent Venezuelan civil war. Castro assumed that the United States' Monroe Doctrine would see the US prevent European military intervention, but at the time the US saw the Doctrine as concerning European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se. With prior promises that no such seizure would occur, the US allowed the action to go ahead without objection. The blockade saw Venezuela's small navy quickly disabled, but Castro refused to give in, and instead agreed in principle to submit some of the claims to international arbitration, which he had previously rejected. Germany initially objected to this, particularly as it felt some claims should be accepted by Venezuela without arbitration.

When the US press reacted negatively to incidents including the sinking of two Venezuelan ships and the bombardment of the coast, the US pressured the parties to settle, and drew attention to its nearby naval fleet. With Castro failing to back down, US pressure and increasingly negative British and American press reaction to the affair, the blockading nations agreed to a compromise, but maintained the blockade during negotiations over the details. This led to the signing of an agreement on 13 February 1903 which saw the blockade lifted, and Venezuela commit 30% of its customs duties to settling claims. When an arbitral tribunal subsequently awarded preferential treatment to the blockading powers against the claims of other nations, the US feared this would encourage future European intervention. The episode contributed to the development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the United States' Monroe Doctrine, asserting a right of the United States to intervene to "stabilize" the economic affairs of small states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in order to preclude European intervention to do so.

[Solus]

Seems like there might be two options to get around Tom's statement:

"No one who owes his continuing employment to popularity with the voting public  can do such things and remain in office beyond the next election."

One is to limit who can vote.  I can't see a really workable solution here, but someone else might have ideas.  Something along the lines if you don't pay taxes, or a certain level of tax or a certain level of income, you don't vote.  The "Heinlein Solution" of only vets of the armed services can vote may or may not have the desired effect.

The other is to limit what those who are elected can vote into law.  The Constitution should do that already, but, obviously, there must be to may "loopholes" in the system.  Can they be plugged or can new ways to limit what can be done be enacted?

Since I haven't come up with workable ideas for these (and might not manage to find any), your homework assignment is to give it a try too.

[JC5123]

I disagree with denying someone the right to vote based on military service. However, here is a way to maybe start to reverse the entitlement mentality.

As soon as a person accepts welfare from the state, they lose their right to vote UNTIL they are no longer on any form of assistance. Obviously there would be exceptions. Retirees on Social Security or someone who was disabled. Things like that. But people who simply live off the system? No you don't get to choose. It's the sacrifice you make for living off your fellow man.

I think of it in these terms: Back in the day, you would take in your neighbor and his family and help them through a tough time. I believe that is the right thing to do. You help them out and they return in kind by helping you until they were back on their feet. The caveate that the guest family makes is that they will live under the rules of the host family. They don't really get a say in the way the household is run.

I know it's long and confusing, but that is how I look at justifying denying a right to vote to someone who I know is going to vote the country out of existence.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

JC and Solus both have good idea's, Under British rule you had to own 100 Pounds worth of property to vote, after the revolution many States doubled that to 200 pounds, there by disenfranchising a large number of Revolutionary war veterans.
The reasoning behind "The Heinlein Solution" is that by completing a term of enlistment, the individual has demonstrated a level of "social responsibility by placing the good of the community above their own best interest even if that means losing their life.
Back in the 30's, if you were "living on the town" ie on welfare , you could not vote, buy tobacco or alcohol.

But again, what politician could support it and remain in office ? Look at our own reaction to Obummercare.

[Solus]

Ann Coulter speaks to the "who should vote "issue at this link.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226669    An excerpt follows.

We must repeal the 26th Amendment.

Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.

But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.

As we have learned from Obamacare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health-care plans. The old motto was: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."

Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.

[fightingquaker13]

I call BS on this for a whole lot of reasons. First, the drinking age. If you're old enough to be a Marine, you're old enough to buy a beer. You're also old enough to own a gun. AND get a CCW. If you're old enough to be executed, or drafted, you should be old enough to vote against the death penalty or the draft. Why is it we try 15 year olds as adults when they can't sign a contract, drive a car, buy a beer or go to an "R" rated movie?

To me, we need an age of majority that cuts across the board. One that says at this point you are an adult with all the rights and responsibilties that go with it. Below that, you are a child and will be treated as one. It pisses me off that a vetran of Iraq can't buy a beer. It pisses me off someone who is to young to drive is prosecuted as an adult. To me, it seems the state is trying to have it both ways. You're an adult when it serves their interests, a child when it doesn't. BS! Pick an age of majority and stick with it! Rant over.
FQ13

[Solus]

I call BS on this for a whole lot of reasons. First, the drinking age. If you're old enough to be a Marine, you're old enough to buy a beer. You're also old enough to own a gun. AND get a CCW. If you're old enough to be executed, or drafted, you should be old enough to vote against the death penalty or the draft. Why is it we try 15 year olds as adults when they can't sign a contract, drive a car, buy a beer or go to an "R" rated movie?

To me, we need an age of majority that cuts across the board. One that says at this point you are an adult with all the rights and responsibilties that go with it. Below that, you are a child and will be treated as one. It pisses me off that a vetran of Iraq can't buy a beer. It pisses me off someone who is to young to drive is prosecuted as an adult. To me, it seems the state is trying to have it both ways. You're an adult when it serves their interests, a child when it doesn't. BS! Pick an age of majority and stick with it! Rant over.
FQ13

If you read the story at the link, she started by stating an Amendment should be enacted that anyone serving on active duty should have the vote regardless of age.

[tombogan03884]

Drinking age varies by state, No one under 18 can drink booze legally, in some states, between 18 and 21 you can only buy beer but not hard liquor, other States you can't drink any thing till age 20 then your legal for whatever.