(03-28-2021, 08:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(03-28-2021, 02:36 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: Thank you for proving context to this article and whats being done. 

While I understand and agree with to a certain extent the point of doing a program like this to close the wealth gap or income disparity, I think a more targeted solution like reducing debt and or tax burdens would be more beneficial. 

This is a complex issue that if I have the energy will be able to discuss my thoughts on but this continues to promote government dependency. The main reason why minority communities are at poverty level because the majority of people have (as stated  previously) tax and other debt. People are living paycheck to paycheck not because they are living above their means but with the cost of food continuing to increase but wages are stangant tough decisions are being made in regards to put food on the table and keep lights on and live in a decent apartment. Or apply for government assistance. I wish this program would focus more on the systemic issues and process.

Flying spaghetti monsters

I don’t understand this comment

---

(03-28-2021, 08:36 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(03-28-2021, 08:15 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: Are you going to post a source that says States have a right to revoke someones voting rights because of their lifestyle and or social-economical status? I ask because I assume that is the basis of your argument in the first place?

I'm sure you'll post something that says they can't?

Im confused, my stance has been a person has a right to vote unless they are a convicted felon. Their social economic or welfare status has nothing to do with their right to vote. 

Are you saying if a person is poor, homeless, disabled, or depend on the government that they shouldnt be allowed to vote?

---