Should you have to have a positive net contribution to the government in order to have a say in it's business?

Question

People on welfare statistically vote for whoever will increase their benefits... This is the very reason that the United States was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. Our founders were generally egalitarian, and wanted umbrella suffrage for land-owning males. They disallowed minorities from voting only because the slave states never would have ratified the constitution otherwise. That doesn't make the original denial of suffrage based on race any less evil (do keep the race card in your pocket), but the point is that the requirement of owning land was the pillar of our Republican electoral system. Women weren't allowed to vote because it was assumed that their husband had both of their interests at heart. Again wrong, but again not damning of the economic intentions of our founding fathers--that people who are dependent on government aid (non land owners typically wouldn't pay much, if any, in taxes) shouldn't vote.

Greed, not charity, is what shapes our welfare policy!

Answer 1

*I suppose their was aquestion in there that you wanted an answer to?

Sorry I can't help you. You pretty well covered everything that needs to be said,except that I agree with everything you said. Which is what you wanted in the first place,someone to agree with your statement.

Right?!!!!

Answer 2

I would agree that a net positive contribution is important -- but the lack of contributions and HUGE influence by super-wealthy tax dodgers does a lot more damage than anything welfare recipients could do.

Corporate welfare, like no-bid contracts, subsidies, and policies that benefit the wealthy, bleeds the U.S. budget a lot more than the COMPLETELY MYTHICAL "welfare mom with a Cadillac."

And just like the "American dream" scam is becoming more and more transparent to average people, the real meaning of what you are saying becomes quite clear, too - that most citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And you land-owning gentlemen will just run things on our behalf, huh?  For our own good?

Ever hear of a little thing called the French Revolution?

When Americans turn left (not "liberal" but LEFT), and eventually they WILL, you're gonna think with nostalgic longing of the days of the guillotine.

Answer 3

But inspite of all thedraw backs US has changed, every one has got a vote and now may be U may elect a Woman as your President. So democracy did take roots, though the Rich do have a lot of say in your system or you may say they are able to manipulate that way but still every one has a chance otherwise people from all over the World would not have headed towards US in these last 5/6 decades. SO do not loose hope , struggle for Rights is also part of Democracy and will always be and that is where any contribution counts.

Answer 4

A governmental system that purports to cherish freedom and individual liberties for ALL of its citizens, and whose leaders routinely lecture the rest of the world about the importance of “human rights,” should be sure enough of the strength of its core principles to tolerate whatever the legislative and electoral process produces in the way of laws, public policy and leadership.

To manipulate policy and election outcomes by excluding certain allegedly self-serving "non-contributors" (read: “undesirables”) from having a say in their formulation is hardly a reflection of confidence in the worth of those principles.  Indeed, it is demeaning, insulting and damaging to them; it is a ghastly violation of basic human rights; it is arrogance and paternalism writ obscenely large; and it is offensive beyond words.  

Fortunately, the people have had the good sense over the years to rid the Constitution of these outrageous exclusions (even if some people appear to still yearn for their return) .  That these measures once served a “useful” purpose is both questionable and poor justification for holding onto them or resurrecting them.

You want to walk along that slippery slope?  Fine.  Let’s start with the greediest, most egregiously self-serving malingerers of all – wealthy corporate fat cats – and prohibit them from voting or influencing any legislative policy having to do with taxation.  Perhaps then we can restore some semblance of fiscal sanity to this Republican “republic.”

Greed indeed!  Spare me!

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

Thank you for your comments, Rab.  I’ve gone over them again and again, and I must concede that I can’t refute a single argument you’ve made.  They are astonishingly persuasive.  You’ve made a believer out of me, no easy task, let me tell you!  I’m just ashamed and embarrassed that I had not seen the wisdom of this point of view before.  Please forgive me for the intemperate comments and flawed thinking in my previous post.  I repudiate them in toto.

Since we’re now both on the same page, thanks to your convincing arguments (seriously, a most impressive display of intellectual probity), I’ve been thinking about how we might fix this problem.  I want to be a positive net contributor to the system we support, and I'm hoping these suggestions will acquit me after being ignorant for so long.  

OK, so here’s what we should do!  Tell me how this sounds:  

First, we sterilize them.  Every last one of them, so they can’t multiply.  That way we get a good start at cleaning up the gene pool.  After all, we'll never have a culturally, economically and militarily dominant society with pollutants tainting our image and our genetic homogeneity.

Next, we institute a poll tax.  Make it really steep…so steep that not even all those Food Stamps they get will be enough to pay for the privilege of participating in our system.  And for good measure, I say we throw in a literacy test.  We know they can’t read or write, seeing as how they’re more interested in leeching off us taxpayers than in getting an education.  That’ll keep them from s******g up the system.  

Sorry this is so long.  I've got a couple more ideas.  Are you still with me?  

Eventually, we should gather them all in one area of the country where we can keep an eye on them.  We can call it a “reservation” or maybe a "camp."  Of course, our government will have to build and staff this reservation or camp to make sure they don’t wander away from it and get into trouble doing things like stealing and committing other crimes in the general population.

Next, we put an end to their shiftlessness by making them work, either for the government or for us put-upon taxpayers.  We will consider their labor as reimbursement for these benefits.  No need to fret over eight-hour days, health insurance and other details like that.  It’ll be a long time before we get back what we’ve invested in them.  We can just work them until they fall over.

Wait a second!  As I think about it, all of this is still more trouble and expense than those people are worth.  Now, I know this is going to sound a little harsh, but…(stay with me here)...

What would you think about the idea of just, well…you know…getting rid of them altogether?  You understand what I'm saying?  I mean, what good are they to us?  What do we need them for?  They're nothing but an unproductive, tax-wasting burden on the system, and what do we get for it?  Ingratitude, for starters.  I say, stop the fiscal waste AND the ingratitude!

Seriously, think about it!  We can set up a system where we “process” thousands of them at a time.  Those who are still left can prepare places for their...how shall I put this... disposal.  That way, we keep them working and out of trouble right up to the end.  It'll be very efficient, and who's going to object...I mean, besides them?

Here's another idea that just came to me!  We can harvest their organs and sell them to the Iraqis.  Lord knows, they could use them.  That way, we can still recoup at least some of our investment in the slackers so that it doesn’t feel like we’ve wasted so much money.  The whole thing could be done in a couple of months.  A lot less muss, fuss and bother.  And best of all, no more moochers!  Huh?  What do you think?

Don’t go getting squeamish on me now, Rab.  You are absolutely right.  This can work.  Imagine how much better off we'll all be.  I can hardly contain my enthusiasm!

ADDITIONAL COMMENT #2:

Rab:  I'm gettin' a little worried here.  Your “silence” about my suggestions is makin' me kinda nervous.  I’m going to assume for now it is because you're workin' on gettin' my plan under way as soon as possible.  

You do like it, right?  I mean, what’s not to like?  

…unless you’re actually one of those - Gasp! - closet liberals.  

You’re not, are you?  Please tell me you’re not really a liberal.  Tell me you agree with my ideas about how to get rid of the greedy moochers and lazy people and welfare cheats you’ve been writin' about who don’t pay their way and who offer nothing of value to the rest of us hard-workin' taxpayers.  

You’re my hero, Rab.  Heck, you can even take all the credit for this idea, I don't care.  After all, I got it from you.  Just don’t leave me hangin' out here all alone.  You know how those liberals can be when you come up with these kinds of ideas, how they get all righteous and holier-than-thou and in your face and start talkin' about how we all sound like Adolf Hitler and stuff.  Help me out here.

Rab…?  Talk to me, Rab…