Should the recipient class be allowed a vote? (dollar, economy, financial)

[Donna-501]

Originally Posted by emcee squared

If you are a citizen of this country, then you have a 'skin in the game.'

[Brian Scates]

Originally Posted by 58robbo

once again, who is the recipient class? the poor dude who gets 50 bucks a week in welfare, a couple of hundred in social security, or the football franchise owner who gets his stadium subsidized to the tune of a few hundred million?

is the subsidized class the single mother whose kids get free school meals, or the corporation who gets the govt to spend $4billion constructing a rail lines that delivers even more people directly to their business?

is the recipient class the guy who gets his medical on medicare or the tobacco giant who successfully lobbies to pass legislation practically killing off any potential competitors?

The poor dude, single mother, and the guy who gets medicare. They are the ones that shouldn't be able to vote. They contribute nothing to society.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by alphamale

I tend to feel that corporations should have very little tax liability.

Their products are taxed out the wazzoo! Especially tobacco, alcohol and energy companies.

The CEO, COO, president, and all employees should pay taxes.

While I don't condone it, if a corporation has the kind of clout to swindle money from a politician, God bless them. They still create plenty of jobs, which produce tax revenue.

It's a lesson that obama STILL hasn't learned....it's the economy, stupid!

when a company creates jobs by swindling the money out of taxpayer pockets, that's welfare, pure and simple. if those taxes weren't taken out of the economy, you'd have an extra few bucks to spend in your local economy, that would've created jobs too.

we have a welfare problem in america, but before we get the people off welfare, we have to get the corporations and the rich off welfare first!

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by 58robbo

when a company creates jobs by swindling the money out of taxpayer pockets, that's welfare, pure and simple. if those taxes weren't taken out of the economy, you'd have an extra few bucks to spend in your local economy, that would've created jobs too.

we have a welfare problem in america, but before we get the people off welfare, we have to get the corporations and the rich off welfare first!

That's why the Tea Party is so important.

Limited government and term limits are what will save America, not public sector unions and government intervention.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by alphamale

No proven combat war vet should EVER have to pay taxes again. They should get the same health care benefits as congress, if not better.

Their vote is more important than mine, IMO.

Sounds like you want a system like in "Starship Troopers"

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Why?

The question is why would you want to limit the voting rights of people simply based on the fact they are receiving public assistance?

They as long as they are U.S. citizens they should have the right to vote.

The question is also do you want a plutocracy where only the rich or influential have a say in government and government of the people?

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by Brian Scates

The poor dude, single mother, and the guy who gets medicare. They are the ones that shouldn't be able to vote. They contribute nothing to society.

neither does someone who swindles the taxpayer to pay for his business! if the govt is going to pay the start-up costs, construction costs etc for one persons business, it must pay those costs for everyone. otherwise, football franchise owners should pay for their own stadia. and no, they don't create any more jobs because that money had to be taken out of the economy to fund this crony largesse.

I'm totally opposed to welfare, medicare, medicade, foodstamps, public education, public housing, etc. what annoys me more are the rich getting the little taxpayer to fund all their schemes which they in turn suggest will create jobs. nonsense

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy

The question is why would you want to limit the voting rights of people simply based on the fact they are receiving public assistance?

They as long as they are U.S. citizens they should have the right to vote.

The question is also do you want a plutocracy where only the rich or influential have a say in government and government of the people?

No.

"Rights" come with responsibilities.

You cannot have people voting themselves raises without the responsibility of working for it.

What are they, congress?

[LML]

By recipient class do you mean those who get Social Security? Those who take tax breaks so that they end up paying no tax? Those who own businesses and get government bail outs? Those who haven't worked a day in their lives but live off of inherited money? Those who use police service, fire service, public roads, public schools, the court system?

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by alphamale

This is a representative republic.

Where do rights end and responsibility begin?

Voting is a responsibility.