im sure as far as government aid, he is probably talking hardcore unemployment receipients. those that choose not work, draw unemployment, think they are owed something from the government. some government aid in small doses is ok, but abuse of the aid bc ur a lasy sack of potatoes, UHHHH, wrong answer. RL to add to your government aid examples, how about veterans disability, GI BILL for soldiers, who for most earned it, government workers retirement. here are more examples of government aid that in the wrong accpect and text, be considered baned from voting, but again im sure he was refering to welfare and abused unemployment receipients.
[/quote]
I understood his intent. My amplification was to show that just because a thought is simplistic does not make it simple. You have to think about where you draw the lines. For instance, if someone has worked for a company for 30 years, gets laid off, receives unemployment benefits, would they then lose the right to vote? Or if a company receives government assistance (think banks, wall street, autos) would those employees lose the right to vote? In reality, they are employed because of gov't assistance. Would farmers get to vote because they accept gov't subsidies?
