What if correctional facility prisoners throughout the country were allowed to vote for any candidate they wanted and there just so happened to be a candidate who ran on the promise that if elected all sentences would be commuted to time served?  And by voting together these prisoners constituted a majority, are there any doubts as to who would win and what the results would be?  

Well, there is no need to think in the hypothetical for the answer because the results of such a system are seen in most major liberal cities across the United States. And it's all done legally by nonworking people who vote for Democrat candidates promising to overtax hardworking Americans to pay for the stuff they say is "free." Ronald Reagan put it as direct as possible, “When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.” And Benjamin Franklin also warned against such practices when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” 

Because this system has been ongoing for decades, people accept it as business as usual when a Democrat is in office, yet outside the world of politics, people commonly refer to the practice as theft. 

According to a December 2018 article in Lexington Law, "The total cost of poverty assistance programs in America can add up to a shocking $1 trillion a year when combining both federal and state level program budgets." A sobering statistic found in a 2012 policy analysis report from the CATO Institute found that from 1965 to 2011 the total percentage of GDP spent on welfare programs had quadrupled from .83 percent to 4.4 percent of the total. The report went on to add, "The American welfare state is much larger than commonly believed. The federal government alone currently funds and operates 126 different welfare or anti-poverty programs, spending more than $668 billion per year." 

With the new wave of Democrat Socialists rising through the ranks of the Democrat party, promising free tuition and free healthcare, the welfare state will most certainly balloon and see a significant increase in expenditures inside an already unsustainable system.  

The Democrat efforts to shrink America's middle class through wealth redistribution is being joined with a plan to exploit the already broken immigration system.  Leftist media propaganda, as well as leftist universities, have put forward the lie that illegal immigrants are a net financial gain to the country but the facts are clear and reveal the exact opposite.  As an example, according to a 2013 report from the Heritage Foundation, In 2010, the average illegal immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying $10,334 in taxes. This means that U.S. taxpayers shouldered the net cost of about $14,387 per household. 

A Watchdog report stated that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) report discovered that illegal immigrants in the U.S. generated an estimated national net cost from $2 billion to $19 billion annually. Astonishingly, Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio are doubling down and demanding that illegal aliens be added to the list of those already getting government "freebies."  Combine that absurdity with another Democrat demand for open borders, and it's not difficult to see the cataclysmic economic and social destruction that an entitlement budget of immense proportions will present. 

The 2020 Democrat plan to take back the Presidency is simple.  Promise debt forgiveness, free education, healthcare, and any other entitlements a young, shortsighted or indentured voting populace would like or need.   Increase the Democrat voter base by opening up America's borders and offering the above list of freebies to anyone setting foot on American soil. 

So how do financially responsible Americans fight back against Democrat taxation proposals and "free stuff" programs aimed at maintaining their hold on power by redistributing other people's wealth?  

Apart from voting for a conservative, Americans should demand voting reforms. One such proposal could be to suspend the voting privileges to anyone who relied on government assistance for a consecutive 24-month period while the unemployment rate was at or below 6% for 18 out of the 24 months.  Another solution might include a proposal written by the private sector and agreed to by voters offering limited government assistance based on established community needs. But whatever the agreed to plan, it should never incorporate the understanding that any support provided is "free."