You do understand that being against more and more government, more and more taxation of those of us who already are carrying the burden for millions who either cannot or will not pay for what they use is not the same as opposing charity or the same as turning our backs on those who are truly needy.
and its the shareholders of a corporation and market demand that should determine executive compensation
im very aware of that but sometimes I think you can be very blunt and it can come off as very harsh to the lower class,....
im very aware of that but sometimes I think you can be very blunt and it can come off as very harsh to the lower class, probably not intentional but sometimes thats what it looks like.
in any electoral campaign, the politicians try to convince the people to go and vote. It's in interest of both (competitors into a campaign) to get the highest number of voters. They please the people to go all and vote.I think paraphrasing Heinlein, says it best.
"Something that is free, has no value."
I think everyone should have to earn the privilege of voting and running for public office.
Not through taxes or money'd payments but through community service.
source? link?not really. the number one cause of poverty is divorce, and number two is failing to marry the other parent of your children in the first place.
you mean hateful & bigoted, as his loathing for the poor as being "parasites", is notorious.
another idiotic post . Parasites are those who demand others pay for them, being poor has no relevance
you mean like disabled and paralized veterans of foreign wars? folks like that?
you are batting zero so far in addition to a personal attack
try again
I have already noted that those disabled in the service of this country have paid their dues in full...
source? link?
you are batting zero so far in addition to a personal attack...
I wouldn't peg voting rights to income. Perhaps to those who own property....
you mean like disabled and paralized veterans of foreign wars? folks like that?
hell, why not strip women & blacks of their right to vote aswell?
lol how do you figure? And try to steer clear of hyperbole.
Can't argue with that. :shrug: Thanks for the links.less than 10 percent of married couples with children are poor as compared with about 35 to 40 percent of single-mother families, and once you start looking at the kids the picture becomes even more stark: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty
....
especially given that most people, as they age, move from one income quintile up into the next. studies that focus on individual income earners rather than income quintiles tend to demonstrate much stronger wage growth.
its not hyperbole, when folks here are actually discussing stripping the poor and non-property owners of the right to vote.
its not hyperbole, when folks here are actually discussing stripping the poor and non-property owners of the right to vote.
Can't argue with that. :shrug: Thanks for the links.
evanescence said:I said it shouldn't be pegged to income.
Requiring ownership of property would strip many of the young and the poor of their right to vote. Such a requirement for voting is just as easy way to eliminate a certain type of person from voting and considering how easy it would be to pass more restrictive laws on property ownership, it's quite easy to see how such a requirement would be incredibly abused.I said it shouldn't be pegged to income. Anyone can own property. You definitely don't have to be wealthy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?