Jeff Rigby wrote:

Harry, my wife and I have a combined income of less than $60K. Out of that
we pay $ 9,000 in local taxes, apx $4,000 in federal taxes (if you include
SS) $6,000 in insurance and $3,000 in health insurance.**While*Federal
taxes have been going down, local taxes have increased 400% in the last 10
years. My income has gone up 30% in that same period.**The*Cost*of*Living
in*my area has increased over the years just slightly higher than my
income except for local taxes, health care and insurance. Of course I'd
like to get a handle on these expenses.

so 10 years ago, you had an income of ~$40K and payed $1000 in local taxes =
$39K for other expenses, now you earn $60K and pay 4k in local taxes = $56K
for other expenses. that is an increase of $17K! Are you complaining that
this increase was not enough?
There are plenty of more civilised nations that tax much more then that.
(There are also al lot of other countries that have a more intelligent
president/foreign policy/electoral system, so that is not really an
argument...)

Your argument for imposing a literacy test is specious. Literacy tests
were abolished because those who imposed them misused them to keep
minorities from voting. There's no reason to go back to those days.
Besides, while I think it important to be able to read, in this day of
electronic communications, there are alternatve ways to hear about the
issues and decide what matters.

The test I am proposing just requires the voter to keep the name, possibly
just the letters (DEM) in memory long enough to vote. A pigeon can do
that.

So you think that most american voters that do not share your political self
interest are pigeons?

The reason we have public education is to insure we have an informed
electorate.*Informed*means*also*a*sense*of*HISTORY *and*the*ability*to
apply the lessons learned from history to today.*

That would disqualify your current president. But he promises you less taxes
so you can forgive him, don't you?

The*above*test*requires only the ability to keep three letters in memory
and press a button next to those letters.

With the above randomizing of the selections it should be harder to commit
voter fraud.

*cough*Diebold*cough*
Why bother with voters when you can easily manipulate the votes cast with
no trail showing you did so? Without international observers (that don't
have a vested interest or a political agenda) the coming elections cannot
claim to be 'fair.' Your president opposes those observers, IIRC.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle