Guy, we ALL depend upon subsidies...or haven't you eaten any bread lately, since we share the benefit of low prices thanks to the subsidies we pay wheat farmers?
I am on record as needed to stop such subsidies if they exist. I know of corn subsidies, I wasn't aware wheat needed any subsidies.
I say, get rid of them. So what, maybe we pay a little more for bread.
If anybody who got subsidies couldn't vote, most of our farmers couldn't vote.
Well, we should stop the subsidies, right?
Most of our elderly couldn't vote (Medicare/Medicaid).
Medicare is paid for by employees as part of an insurance, and not the type of subsidy I refer to.
Anybody whose children got reduced-cost lunches at school couldn't vote.
Rightly so. Dependance on subsidies make a person vote to keep such subsidies.
Anybody who went on unemployment because they were laid off after their company went out of business couldn't vote...which means you're disenfranchising people because their employers didn't know how to run a business properly.
False.
Unemployment benefits are paid for with a business unemployment insurance tax. It is an employee insurance. Don't consider such things a subsidy.
And then there's the taxpayer-supported state colleges - the students pay lower prices thanks to those tax dollars, so I guess they couldn't vote, either. And then there's those who serve in the military - we got lower prices at the commissary, free housing, and so forth. Sure, you might try to label those as 'benefits' - but in reality, they're subsidies.
Going a bit overboard aren't you?
Maybe you should look up the definition of "subsidy" before you continue of such false statements.
Military... That's part of their benefits package. Commissary prices aren't subsidized. There simply is less profit involved. No profit actually.
And then there's the victims of disasters - they couldn't vote, either.
I would exclude such things as those are unique events rather than what can be classed as a lifestyle.
And women who were stuck with the children and had to go on public assistance because their husbands decided to leave couldn't vote, either.
If such is the case of the case, then child support fills in just fine.
In other words, guy, what you're proposing is a can of worms that you really don't want to open.
Wrong.
I do want to open that can of worms. I get even more severe than that because I am intolerant of irresponsibility that requires the use of tax dollars to subsidize with. One of the biggest problems I see is women getting pregnant with no ability to pay for the costs. It has even become financially preferred to have a baby every three years to retain the highest level of benefits. My solution is this. If someone conceives a child when they are in no position to support the child, then if they want government benefits, both parents must get their tubes tied. This is a preventative measure to insure that neither parent can burden the system a second time for the same type of irresponsibility.
Now contemplate that idea for a bit...