Can't take away their right to vote. But they should be expected to contribute back into that system in some way - monetarily or by works.
2007-03-07 03:08:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't know if I would go that far, but I do see your point. I have been arguing that uneducated (not saying you need a degree, but you need to understand how the government works) people shouldn't vote. Basically for the same reason, how can you vote when you don't know what you are voting for, what the person you are voting for does or has the power TO DO. I think rules for government handouts should be more strict. I know many people LIVING ON government assistance because they are LAZY!!!!!!!! But there are some who need it for the right reasons, and they should have the right to put their input in on candidates that could possibly make a difference.
2007-03-07 03:17:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What about students who get a tax deduction for their tuition? And rich people who get tax deductions for certain kinds of investments? Corporations who get tax deductions for environmental protection? Everyone in the military, if the military is voted a pay raise? For that matter, what about the Congress people themselves, when they vote themselves a pay raise? In fact, I challenge you to find me anyone who doesn't get a "handout" from the government, in some way shape or form. If the government builds a new freeway in your area, isn't that your local Congress person trying to buy your vote?
The job of government IS to buy your vote. Sometimes they buy it through goods, services, etc., sometimes with direct financial incentives, sometimes with "peace of mind" (so-called homeland security)...What would you prefer that politicians do, keep all of the tax money for themselves?
2007-03-07 03:08:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Qwyrx 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Politicians buy votes with people's money regardless if they are rich or poor. The rich get hand outs too, you just don't hear about it.
2007-03-07 03:13:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jen 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
you're properly suited, i'm fairly specific all kinds of wealth redistribution by ability of a central authority is theft by way of fact the government acquires the wealth by tension (properly, different than possibly stealing enemy supplies throughout the time of a conflict). in assessment, wealth redistribution by ability of a charity would not be theft by way of fact it acquires the wealth from voluntary donations. the thought at the back of the bailouts replaced into to ward off extra economic cave in. in spite of if, the difficulty with this is that it sends a unstable message that once prosperous companies act irresponsibly the US government will confiscate wealth from the individuals to help them. on a similar time as letting those companies cave in could okay have led to extra economic cave in interior the fast term, saving them will reason economic worry for some destiny years.
2016-12-14 13:02:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It's no different than a rich person voting for a candidate who supports policies beneficial to the rich. This is America, dude. Everybody can vote. That's how we roll.
2007-03-07 03:04:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by FelixtheCat 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
That's ridiculous.
A govt. 'handout' is nothing but a pooling of our resources to better buy what we need as a culture. It's also a redistribution of wealth which is unfairly distributed by unregulated capitalism. (ie, you shouldn't make more money off my labor for you than I make off it.)
And since blue states pay in more than they get back and red states pay in less than they get back from the feds, let's disabuse ourselves of the laughable notion that dems voting rolls would go down.
2007-03-07 03:08:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by cassandra 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Special interests funnel campaign money to politicians. They write laws to favor the special interests. Is THIS fair?
2007-03-07 03:04:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you go by that rule, the democrats will lose a large percentage of their voting base.
2007-03-07 03:09:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
With that logic any member of a company that receives corporate welfare can't vote.
2007-03-07 03:04:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋