Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion.
Who gets to define "temporarily"? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? Does he "contribute to the economy" enough to "deserve" a vote? Take note you said "contribute to the economy" as the deciding factor NOT "contribute to the safety or stability". How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25 am, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote: > The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and > effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem reasonable > to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. That would be strong > incentive to get of their butts and get a job. > > On Jul 20, 8:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of > > The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his > > words" "if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes > > of someone who pays 10K" End quote. > > > Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am > > most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, > > what do you think? > > Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
