# Another reason to repeal the 17th Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107 "2003-07-17T10:13:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/21 "2003-07-18T10:20:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ITR champion \* > \*\*Every OP that you’ve posted here has been instantly ripped to shreds by users who actually understand the issue that’s being discussed, and you invariably respond by retreating to a spasm of juvenile name-calling. Quite frankly, I think that even you should realize that there’s nobody here who’s dumb enough to fall for this OP or any of the others that you’ve provided. \*\* I guess you consider the posting of a blatant lie, as ripping an OP to shreds. > [@](#): > > The taxes that this group of taxpayers are being refunded are payroll taxes. > [@](#): > > Discussions are where people provide their opinions along with justifications for their opinions. That is precisely what I did. The **Governor, Degrance and Ekers** did not provide any “justifications”, just “no it’s not, cause I say it’s not” Nothing I have posted here has been “ripped to shreds”, that’s just wishful thinking by liberals through the looking glass. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bryan Ekers_ > However, since not all taxes are on income, it is illogical to jump from “they don’t pay income taxes” to “they don’t pay taxes”, a fallacy you’ve repeatedly trying to sneak through. Excuse me, but being that the current tax-cut was the subject at hand, and the current tax-cut is a cut on income taxes, in the context of this OP, “they don’t pay taxes” refers to income taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/22 "2003-07-18T10:49:21Z")
I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Am I an apologist too? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/23 "2003-07-18T11:47:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > That is precisely what I did. The **Governor, Degrance and Ekers** did not provide any “justifications”, just “no it’s not, cause I say it’s not” Actually, since you’re the one proposing a major change to the election rules, the burden is on _you_ to provide justification. Getting upset about a tax refund is pretty thin, as justifications go. > [@](#): > > Excuse me, but being that the current tax-cut was the subject at hand, and the current tax-cut is a cut on income taxes, in the context of this OP, “they don’t pay taxes” refers to income taxes. I glad you admit it, but it doesn’t follow. You’re using the phrase “low-income families” to try to link to “income taxes” to try to link to “tax refund”, as if they were inextricably linked. As has been pointed out several times, low-income familes _do_ pay taxes, though not necessarily income taxes. In any case, the $10 billion or so isn’t about to bankrupt the republic and comes nowhere near the dramatic failure predicted by Tyler. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/24 "2003-07-18T12:52:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BobLibDem \* > \*\*What is the evidence for believing that men of greater integrity will be appointed by state politicians than by direct vote of the people? \*\* Carole Mosley Braun, is that evidence enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/25 "2003-07-18T12:59:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Carole Mosley Braun, is that evidence enough for you? No, no it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/26 "2003-07-18T13:22:53Z")
Let us not debate the merits of Ms. Brown, let us merely stipulate for a moment that she is not a good senator. Therefore, in the current system, the people will on occasion choose a stinker for a senator. OK, so the Senate is going to have a few stinkers. The question is, what kind of people would the state legislatures choose? My opinion is that if we revert to this method, then the Senate seats will to go to those with the deepest party loyalties and the best political connections. Suppose for a moment that you have a fine, upstanding individual who would make a great senator and the people like what he stands for. Trouble is, he is Republican and the state house is dominated by Democrats. Would this individual have a prayer of getting in the Senate? In the current system, yes. In the old system, highly doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/27 "2003-07-18T13:27:15Z")
I agree with the OP. This country is going straight to hell because of all them liberuhls trying to give money to the welfare bludgers. What they need is some personal responsibility and more prayer in schools. And I think **Degrance** and **Governor Quinn** are communists, and probably Godless Commies at that. I’m off to bed now, but I’ve got my rifle loaded just in case any of you liberals even thinks about hiding under my bed. And if you don’t like this country, you can leave it! ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/28 "2003-07-18T15:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bryan Ekers_ > **I glad you admit it, but it doesn’t follow. You’re using the phrase “low-income families” to try to link to “income taxes” to try to link to “tax refund”, as if they were inextricably linked. As has been pointed out several times, low-income familes do pay taxes, though not necessarily income taxes.** But they all were “inextricably linked” with regards to the “tax-cut” that was passed by the Senate, which is the subject at hand. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted…_ > Problem is, these $400-per-child “tax-credits” will now be going to people that **don’t pay income taxes**. > [@](#): > > _Next post_ > I repeat, by a vote of 94-2, the Senate voted to give a tax-cut to people who **don’t pay taxes**. Now, throwing up “payroll taxes” and “sales taxes” is what’s known as a “red herring”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/29 "2003-07-18T17:00:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > But they all were “inextricably linked” with regards to the “tax-cut” that was passed by the Senate, which is the subject at hand. I did a fast search of the thread, and amusingly enough, you’re the only one actually calling this a “cut”. Even the actual legislation uses the word “credit”. I looked it up and what was actually voted for 94-2 on June 5th was a Senate _Amendment_ 862 of an existing House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 1308. The Senate was voting to expand on an existing House bill, and the House **approved** the Senate’s changes, but wanted to add some changes to the changes, which as far as I can tell is delaying the legislation. Congressional records are a damn labyrinth - if I were you, I’ve propose a consitutional amendment to ditch the entire congress as being just too damn hard to follow. At the very least, the House’s complicity only proves that they, too, are part of the socialist conspiracy. > [@](#): > > Now, throwing up “payroll taxes” and “sales taxes” is what’s known as a “red herring”. Personally, I’d just like to see you admit that even poor people occasionally pay taxes _of some kind_. It would make my day. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/30 "2003-07-18T17:05:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > But they all were “inextricably linked” with regards to the “tax-cut” that was passed by the Senate, which is the subject at hand. I did a fast search of the thread, and amusingly enough, you’re the only one actually calling this a “cut”. Even the actual legislation uses the word “credit”. I can understand _why_ you keep saying “cut”, since it feeds your theory that “these people don’t pax taxes, so how is it possible for their taxes to be cut? It must be _1984_-ish doublethink.” I looked it up and what was actually voted for 94-2 on June 5th was a Senate _Amendment_ 862 of an existing House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 1308. The Senate ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/31 "2003-07-18T17:34:23Z")
Now _that’s_ an interesting hamster stunt. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/32 "2003-07-18T20:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by BobLibDem_ > **Suppose for a moment that you have a fine, upstanding individual who would make a great senator and the people like what he stands for. Trouble is, he is Republican and the state house is dominated by Democrats. Would this individual have a prayer of getting in the Senate? In the current system, yes. In the old system, highly doubtful.** A fair analogy, but let’s look at one that is a bit closer to reality. Imagine a typical mid-western state that has one or two large urban centers. After 40 years of “Great Society” programs, that have had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy and encouraging the immigration of a peoples that are not inclined to assimilate into traditional American society, the populations of these urban centers have now swollen to the extent that they have the ability to determine the outcome of state-wide elections. Many of these state-wide elections are being won by the candidate that promises the biggest cornucopia of welfare entitlements, thus, feeding the cycle of an ever-increasing under-class that is dependent on an ever-increasing welfare-state. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/33 "2003-07-18T21:23:29Z")
…And would this not mean that the State Legislature would itself be dominated by representatives of those large urban centers, beholden to the same interests? Or are you proposing that state legislatures not be apportioned by population, or be gerrymandered so that “large urban centers” have their voting capacity diluted? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/34 "2003-07-18T23:58:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Degrance \* > **Payroll taxes take a bigger percentage out of the paychecks of these taxpayers, who are largely living in poverty, than payrole and income taxes combined take out of a higher paid persons earnings.** What?! Payroll taxes are a straight percentage. They aren’t higher (or lower) for low-income folks. Oh, sure, at high income levels, your Social Security taxes cut off, but your wages have to exceed **$84,900** per year before this “payroll tax break” kicks in – don’t try telling me that someone who makes $84,899 per year is “living in poverty”! ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/35 "2003-07-19T04:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*Imagine a typical mid-western state that has one or two large urban centers. > > Many of these state-wide elections are being won by the candidate that promises the biggest cornucopia of welfare entitlements… \*\* You MUST be talking about those pinkos like George Voinovich, Peter Fitzgerald, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley. Or, reaching a little futher back in history, those commie loving tax cutters like John Ashcroft, John Danforth, and Dan Coats. Those goddamn socialist midwestern states. Let’s change the Constitution and stick it to the goddamned elected representatives of the people. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/36 "2003-07-19T04:39:30Z")
Come to think of it, Razorsharp, can you explain why this particlar tax cut was supported by the directly elected Senate, and the indirectly elected President, but faced a tough ride in the directly elected House? Also, what further Constitutional amendments would you propose to see that the US government acts in accordance with your views on tax policy? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/37 "2003-07-19T10:14:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*I did a fast search of the thread, and amusingly enough, you’re the only one actually calling this a “cut”. Even the actual legislation uses the word “credit”. I can understand _why_ you keep saying “cut”, since it feeds your theory that “these people don’t pax taxes, so how is it possible for their taxes to be cut? It must be _1984_-ish doublethink.” > > I looked it up and what was actually voted for 94-2 on June 5th was a Senate _Amendment_ 862 of an existing House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 1308. The Senate \*\* You know, it’s really getting boring, having to address your nit-piking. But, I’m going to do it one more time. It is my understanding, that the House Bill, that was sent to the Senate, contained the provisions for an accross-the-board **tax-cut** on income as well as an additional $400 per child credit to those who paid income taxes. When the House Bill was enroute to the Senate, Democrats, aided and abetted by their media allies, began demogoging the House Bill as a “tax-cut for the rich” and neglecting “America’s poor”. Only token mention was given to the fact that the “America’s poor” did not pay **income taxes** through the benefit of the “Earned Income Tax Credit”. With elections looming next year, Senators felt that they couldn’t afford to be labled with the charge of “neglecting America’s poor”. And fearful of loosing their seat in the exclusive club of the United States Senate, many Republicans sold-out to the Democrat Amendment to the House Bill that gave a **“tax-credit”** to “Americas hardest working families”. Problem is, This “tax-credit” (another example of “newspeak”) was not a “credit”, but an actual payment. Now, I have just illustrated another reason that justifies the repeal of the 17th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/38 "2003-07-19T11:39:50Z")
And equally demonstrated the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What will you do for your next trick, **Razorsharp**? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/39 "2003-07-19T13:29:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\* Problem is, This “tax-credit” (another example of “newspeak”) was not a “credit”, but an actual payment. \*\* And we all know Republicans have never engaged in newspeak. Thank god they corrected “estate tax” to the more accurate term, “death tax.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107/40 "2003-07-19T17:37:34Z")
Remember when Bush first spoke of decreasing the income tax? Liberal Democrats started wailing about “raiding the Social Security Trust Fund”. Nevermind that income taxes are not related to Social Security (FICA) revenues. Hell, let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good demogogue. Now that the tax-cut has become inevitable, liberal Democrats are demanding that “America’s hardest working families” (that don’t pay income taxes) get a “tax-cut” from their “payroll taxes”, which is their Social Security taxes. Of course, you don’t hear a word about raiding the “Social Security Trust Fund” when the Democrats are actually doing the “raiding”. Depraved hypocrites!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-reason-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment/189107.md?page=3)