You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women "on the dole". I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide.
On Jul 22, 1:12�pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT > contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she > actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. > > Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping > the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed .... she neither > earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving > woman, who may or may not be "on the dole" through some fault of her own... > trhere are actually people in this position that are not there > voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > � � � � Holly, > > > � � � � � Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! > > > ************************************************************************ > > > On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > perp, > > > > Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to > > > society. > > > > On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You miss the point entirely. �Raising children in a stable household > > > > that pays taxes positively contributes to society. �You seem to think > > > > it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life > > > > without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of > > > > others. �I clearly distinguished between the two. > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Perp, > > > > > > Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you > > > > > would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:01 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > And don't forget the stay-at-home- > > > > > > mom. > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > > Millions of "stay at home moms" have multiple kids from multiple > > > > > > fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. �Others > > do > > > > > > crack all day long. �Those "stay at home moms" who appear on a > > joint > > > > > > tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. �The others > > > > > > who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it > > shouldn't. > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, �,www.filacoffee.com- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
