LOL......OK. So if you were non-white, or a woman, or was not a land-owner then you didn't have "skin in the game"? Is that what you're saying? Because it was people in those categories that didn't get the right to a vote. Mmmmm....that's interesting......You state that our founding fathers limited the vote to keep power in the hands of people "like themselves".
If by that you mean that they wanted to keep power in the hands of those with "skin in the game" I would agree.
But that's not what you mean, is it?........
I always manage a good chuckle when somebody throws out the "mob rule" justification. We obviously come from different worlds because I don't see a true democracy as a "mob rule" situation........Our forefathers were intelligent enough to understand the eventual result of "mob rule"......
OK....so lets get to that root. I believe you asked about inheritance taxes. I'm good with a tax on inheritance.....not good on a 100% tax which it seemed you had asked about.....but I have no issue with it, myself.......You stated that my comments regarding who put in vs who takes out, estate taxes, etc. were "out of left field" and not related to the conversation. I think they go to the root of it.......
KW Baraka;11889569 In my view said:The analog would be your household budget should be spent by the folks next door. No, of course not, they are not citizens of your house hold. True...but...All citizens of one country should decide about that country's budget? Such was the question starting in 1776 and answered a few years later. Sadly for those Founding Fathers, they had 2200 years of history to show the dangers of that answer. I know you are offended by the answer your FF settled on but isn't it possible that there is a better answer than your current system?
I agree with you Scot, but when you ask "How's that worked out for you so far?", the answer will depend on the perspective of who you're asking…"In my view, every person has as much right to provide input (a vote) into who runs/manages our government as anyone else."
The minimum competency in reading required to be a soldier was first tested during WWI. At the start of WWII millions of men showed up at registration offices to take low-level academic tests before being inducted. The years of maximum mobilization were 1942 to 1944; the fighting force had been mostly schooled in the 1930s, both those inducted and those turned away. Of the 18 million men who were tested, 17,280,000 of them were judged to have the minimum competence in reading required to be a soldier, a 96 percent literacy rate. Although this was a 2 percent fall-off from the 98 percent rate among voluntary military applicants ten years earlier, the dip was so small it didn’t worry anybody.
WWII was over in 1945. Six years later another war began in Korea. Several million men were tested for military service but this time 600,000 were rejected. Literacy in the draft pool had dropped to 81 percent, even though all that was needed to classify a soldier as literate was fourth-grade reading proficiency. In the few short years from the beginning of WWII to Korea, a terrifying problem of adult illiteracy had appeared. The Korean War group received most of its schooling in the 1940s, and it had more years in school with more professionally trained personnel and more scientifically selected textbooks than the WWII men, yet it could not read, write, count, speak, or think as well as the earlier, less-schooled contingent.
A third American war began in the mid-1960s. By its end in 1973 the number of men found noninductible by reason of inability to read safety instructions, interpret road signs, decipher orders, and so on—in other words, the number found illiterate—had reached 27 percent of the total pool. Vietnam-era young men had been schooled in the 1950s and the 1960s—much better schooled than either of the two earlier groups—but the 4 percent illiteracy of 1941 which had transmuted into the 19 percent illiteracy of 1952 had now had grown into the 27 percent illiteracy of 1970. Not only had the fraction of competent readers dropped to 73 percent but a substantial chunk of even those were only barely adequate; they could not keep abreast of developments by reading a newspaper, they could not read for pleasure, they could not sustain a thought or an argument, they could not write well enough to manage their own affairs without assistance.Today (last data-2014) it is 51% functional illiteracy.
Consider how much more compelling this steady progression of intellectual blindness is when we track it through army admissions tests rather than college admissions scores and standardized reading tests, which inflate apparent proficiency by frequently changing the way the tests are scored.
KW wrote...""In my view, every person has as much right to provide input (a vote) into who runs/manages our government as anyone else."
How's that worked out for you so far?
And for the last 2 1/2 years, I'm still occupying space in your brain! cwm2 cwm2 cwm2Hmmm.
I figured KW hadn't shut up for the last two and a half years...