Why I'm 'Wasting' My Vote on Gary Johnson

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The guy that pours the foundation for a house is generally a subcontractor of the one who who puts together and oversees the project until completion. Like the CEO of a corporation delegating authority to his management team.

True and that is the presidents job as well. But when the President, or that CEO, says "Who cares about the foundation f this shaky old house? Lets use the credit card to replace the siding and paint it again and call it "change"

One or the other, Obama or Romney, will win. But for the country it will not matter. Makes no difference

We are borrowing $5 billion every day from people that are philosophical enemies to support a lifestyle we cannot afford. The revenue (TAX) system cannot support our government because our government has decided to do too much and at the same time has manipulated the tax system so much that 47% of Americans pay no tax and the rest do their best to avoid it with exemptions, deductions, credits, shelters, Until a very wealthy man, Like Romney, pays 11% of his income in taxes. Now 11% may be enough and maybe even 9 or 10% is enough IF EVERYONE PAYS IT!!!!!!! You even have a smaller percentage getting huge refunds, up to $5600 and they paid nothing in.

Neither of the candidates will change that. Y'all can argue over which programs we can't afford you want to charge on the credit card and which group of people get the next tax break, and which get an increase (to be avoided with the new credits and deductions and exemptions)

Neither of the candidates is going to do anything about the employers in this country that thumb their nose at the wage and hour laws and exploit illegal aliens for profit. This forces downward pressure on wages for legal workers because hey, if you demand too much they just go and hire illegals...legal workers get displaced and collect unemployment and welfare instead of paying taxes. Fine with one party who receives more dependents...fine with the other party who get cheap labor for business.

Until the basic issues are addressed nothing can possibly change. I simpy will not play the game with my vote. If it means my vote has no part in selecting either of the two political hacks, that's OK with me.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

It seems like Romney would take a tougher stand against illegals currently in the country, but I doubt either man would get the support needed in Congress, etc. Why no mandatory E-Verify? Why no penalties on US employers who knowingly hire illegals? I could probably right a book about what goes on in the underground community and I'm in a suburb of Boston. The government doesn't actually want to get rid of the illegals. They just pretend like they do.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It seems like Romney would take a tougher stand against illegals currently in the country, but I doubt either man would get the support needed in Congress, etc. Why no mandatory E-Verify? Why no penalties on US employers who knowingly hire illegals? I could probably right a book about what goes on in the underground community and I'm in a suburb of Boston. The government doesn't actually want to get rid of the illegals. They just pretend like they do.

Exactly! He wants them here for his own purposes...cheap labor. Romney will talk toughter about them because that is what his supporters want him to do, but he will do nothing.

There is only ONE way to get rid of illegals. Get rid of what brings them here. The way to get rid of that is make it economic suicide to hire them. Government can do that with draconian taxes on any employer that hires them. Simple. None of them propose it. In fact, only the other night I heard a congressman for the first time (on the Jim Bohannon radio talk show) advocating exactly that. I could hardly believe my ears! First I ever heard it from a congressman or even the other radio big mouths. The only flaw in the congressman's plan was he wanted to make it a CRIME and put people in JAIL for hiring illegals. Nice thought but will not work. For one thing you would have to have a trial for every violator and that would go on for years and years. Better a TAX. If illegals are found to be working there you slam a padlock on the door while you assess the TAX they must pay to get the padlock off the door. Avoids all that messy court stuff. They can even confiscate property to pay the tax. I think the penalty for hiring illegals needs to be severe (as in "putr you out of business" severe) and needs to be swift and sure. Let one or two businesses in a city get padlocked and see what happens.

Electronic compliance and verification should be mandatory and the I-9 needs to be tightened. Acceptable documents need to be narrowed to Green Card, US birth certificate with photo ID, US passport, EAD card, citizenship certificate. Nothing else needed or accepted.

When it becomes an unacceptable risk to exploit illegals, when it becomes more expensive to avoid our labor laws than to comply with them...illegals will have no jobs and will walk right back.

Romney will do NOTHING to stop illegal immigration. He MIGHT waste some tax money building a fence or with some sort of aerial surveilience for "show" but it will have no affect. May as well try to hold back the ocean with a broom. If he is elected, 4 years later there will be MORE illegals here than when he was elected.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Why does E-Verify exist if employers aren't required to use it? I know people that have been in the country for a few days and they are already working for a major chain getting a real paycheck with taxes withheld. Of course they just made up a ss# or bought a counterfeit ss card, greencard, drivers license etc from the underground market. They can't speak two words of English but they have a job. Of course with mandatory E-Verify they wouldn't have gotten the job. Dunkin' Donuts, Five Guys Burgers etc would be out of business in no time.

[Pooky 3,782]

Romney will do NOTHING to stop illegal immigration. He MIGHT waste some tax money building a fence or with some sort of aerial surveilience for "show" but it will have no affect. May as well try to hold back the ocean with a broom. If he is elected, 4 years later there will be MORE illegals here than when he was elected.

I'm not so sure. With the increasing influence of the Hispanic population in the national vote and with a need to increase the tax base to get close to making his financial policy work, a Romney administration may find it expedient to enact legislation to back up his current stance on illegal immigration.

If you take the employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants for cheap labour out of the equation, this makes economic sense every way you look at it. It is the employer lobby, with their short-term tunnel vision, who will condemn any attempt to make this happen to the political dustbin.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Nothing will change because this country is ruled by the almighty corporations who own all of the major business enterprises, including the military complex. 98% of the U.S. media, and finance 98% of all politicians' elections.

If you want change, real change, find out how to get corporate money out of U.S. politics. The second major step would be to get away from the 2-party system and allow 2-tier votes. You vote for Presidential candidate number 1 and number 2. So if your candidate number 1 does not win, your candidate number 2 gets your vote. This way you can make a point, try to pull something off, but don't waste your vote if it doesn't happen. Finally, what we need is a Congress with coalitions. Not the winner takes all. The guy who got 51 % votes gets to rule and the 49% of the votes get the erected middle finger. Congress should get a proper percentage of senators and congressmen according to the percentage of votes received. This way there could be a vote on issues, and with the help of coalitions, bills could get a super majority.

Of course, all of this is utopia.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm not so sure. With the increasing influence of the Hispanic population in the national vote and with a need to increase the tax base to get close to making his financial policy work, a Romney administration may find it expedient to enact legislation to back up his current stance on illegal immigration.

If you take the employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants for cheap labour out of the equation, this makes economic sense every way you look at it. It is the employer lobby, with their short-term tunnel vision, who will condemn any attempt to make this happen to the political dustbin.

And that is what will happen. There is only ONE way to fix an economic problem and that is with an economic solution. Risk/benefit. Everyone knows it, every one knows how tax incentives and penalties work. They do it all the time. Buy a house, $8000 credit. Buy a car, tax credit. Hire an illegal...get slammed with a tax penalty.

The other alternative, for those with NO BALLS would be a tax incentive that they could not pass up. $10,000 refundable credit for every documented LEGAL employee hired. But this would cost more as you would be paying it to employers that already hire legal workers. Better to punish the offenders and collect tax. Eliminating illegals will save much more than $10,000 per employee but it is the numbers of employers you would have to pay it to that makles it unfeasible

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I voted for Ron Paul.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Nothing will change because this country is ruled by the almighty corporations who own all of the major business enterprises, including the military complex. 98% of the U.S. media, and finance 98% of all politicians' elections.

If you want change, real change, find out how to get corporate money out of U.S. politics. The second major step would be to get away from the 2-party system and allow 2-tier votes. You vote for Presidential candidate number 1 and number 2. So if your candidate number 1 does not win, your candidate number 2 gets your vote. This way you can make a point, try to pull something off, but don't waste your vote if it doesn't happen. Finally, what we need is a Congress with coalitions. Not the winner takes all. The guy who got 51 % votes gets to rule and the 49% of the votes get the erected middle finger. Congress should get a proper percentage of senators and congressmen according to the percentage of votes received. This way there could be a vote on issues, and with the help of coalitions, bills could get a super majority.

Of course, all of this is utopia.

Getting corporate money out is no problem and has nothing to do with the first amendment. Simply repeal the constitutional amendment (the founders ahd it right, we messed it up) that chnged the Senate from appointed to elected. Go back to a Senate appointed by the Legislatures of the States and they are not subject to election, no need to raise funds. In the same amendent, prohibit these appointed officials from accepting even a cup of coffee. Since all legislation must be passed by both houses, you just eliminated the influence of money by simply going back to the way it was.

Eliminate "districting" altogether. The purpose of the census is to detemrine the NUMBER of representatives the state gets. Districtng is a purely political party function and needs to be removed from government. The new way would be to either...

1. At large voting. This means if your state gets 25 Representatives you get a ballot with ALL the candidates and vote for 25 of them. The top 25 get elected. Modern printing techiques can change the order of every ballot sequentially so you do not always have the same listed as the first 25. Any one of the 25 could handle your problems or issues with the government. In other words, elect representatives the way we elect Senators.

OR

2. Require the state be divided into equal size districts based on the area of the state in square miles/number of representatives. This will eliminate the stanglehold a particular party has on a particular area.

[Karee 4,190]

Nothing will change because this country is ruled by the almighty corporations who own all of the major business enterprises, including the military complex. 98% of the U.S. media, and finance 98% of all politicians' elections.

If you want change, real change, find out how to get corporate money out of U.S. politics. The second major step would be to get away from the 2-party system and allow 2-tier votes. You vote for Presidential candidate number 1 and number 2. So if your candidate number 1 does not win, your candidate number 2 gets your vote. This way you can make a point, try to pull something off, but don't waste your vote if it doesn't happen. Finally, what we need is a Congress with coalitions. Not the winner takes all. The guy who got 51 % votes gets to rule and the 49% of the votes get the erected middle finger. Congress should get a proper percentage of senators and congressmen according to the percentage of votes received. This way there could be a vote on issues, and with the help of coalitions, bills could get a super majority.

Of course, all of this is utopia.

Getting labor union money out of politics would be nice as well.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Getting labor union money out of politics would be nice as well.

Eliminating one body of congress as being elected, the way it WAS before it was changed...would negate the effect of money.

Making Union membership voluntary nationwide would also force the unions to concentrate their efforts with their members money...on the members, not on political bribes.

Everyone wants to make this or that "illegal" which will not work. Make it impractical and it WILL work. Eliminate the "return on investment" and there is no "investment" Make an organization repsonsible to their customers for survival and they change their focus.