Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if...

[Mxylplyx]

Some people always need someone to hate dont they?

 

[werepossum]

From yesterday's morning paper:

http://www.modbee.com/2012/03/07/2102531/you-are-probably-on-the-dole.html




So...which particular "welfare" recipients should we stop from voting?

"Welfare/medicaid?"
Social Security recipents?
Those who take the mortgage interest deduction?

The term "tax expenditures" indicates a pretty hard core Marxist philosophy in that it only makes sense if you assume that all income belongs to government and therefore, any money government doesn't take is a "tax expenditure".

 

[Phokus]

If there was any further proof needed that conservatives ache for a plutocracy where the rich controlled everything, look no further than this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

The term "tax expenditures" indicates a pretty hard core Marxist philosophy in that it only makes sense if you assume that all income belongs to government and therefore, any money government doesn't take is a "tax expenditure".

When you don't have an argument, just scream Marxist! as if the term actually applies.

Ezra Klein is a Marxist!? Really? Which alternate universe do you hail from, anyway?

 

[blackangst1]

Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote after 3 years?

No.

 

[Rainsford]

The term "tax expenditures" indicates a pretty hard core Marxist philosophy in that it only makes sense if you assume that all income belongs to government and therefore, any money government doesn't take is a "tax expenditure".

I don't know, dedications ARE "expenditures" from the government point of view (in the sense that they reduce usable money), little different than if they used the money to build a bridge. I see what you're saying about terminology, but I also sort of like the phrasing since it highlights that tax breaks have an associated cost to them from a government point of view.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know, dedications ARE "expenditures" from the government point of view (in the sense that they reduce usable money), little different than if they used the money to build a bridge. I see what you're saying about terminology, but I also sort of like the phrasing since it highlights that tax breaks have an associated cost to them from a government point of view.

You can only spend what you have. Progressives love to refer to tax cuts and deductions as expenditures, but relating that to anything but government immediately breaks down the analogy. If you refuse to work available paid overtime, do you consider that an expenditure? If you refuse to move to an area with higher average salaries, do you consider that an expenditure? If your hours (and salary) are cut, do you consider that an expenditure?