Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom.
And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting & dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24 am, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote: > I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. But, I guess > if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. If > they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. My > real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones > who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that > raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future > generations. The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the > one I raised. But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers > feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even > with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest > risk to long-term success as a nation. We are living their worst > fears at the present. > > On Jul 20, 8:47 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
