Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[MaggieMae]

Their disability should be covered by their agreement with their employer, not by a general State welfare program. Why are they on Social Security instead of Workers Comp or their employers long term disability?

And who do you suppose gets a nice tax writeoff for paying into Workers Comp and any long-term disability (or even health care) program? "Welfare" doesn't always come in the form of sustenance, you know.

So you consider businesses not paying taxes on benefits they pay their employees to be a "nice tax writeoff?" Seriously? The government shouldn't allow businesses to write off their expenses?

It's still "welfare" for businesses, since you seem to be stuck on that word.

 

[MaggieMae]

If they are getting checks of other people's money through government force, then they are treading on other people's civil liberties.

I am for charity, I believe #1 people should pay for themselves, #2 their family should help them, #3 their community or church should help them, and only last should they turn to government. But when you are allowing politicians controlling government guns to take your living for you, you are plundering them and it's wrong.

It's clear you really haven't studied this whole situation very well. Every post of yours reads like a mantra, meaningless and without any real meat to your points, but a whole lotta whining. You might do better in a park with a soapbox.

I'll plead guilty to the soapbox, but the "whining" is all you, babycakes...

The only thing I've whined about is your inability to see the whole picture. It's sad, really, especially since you posted all your academic credentials, that you can't debate this with any common sense knowledge.

 

[Sunshine]

So should pensioned disabled veterans who became disabled during their military service get the vote?

 

[MaggieMae]

Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I don't know who Tytler is, but I do know who Ronald Reagan was, and this is his most quoted remark on democracy:

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

Read my sig. And you think Reagan supported people voting for politicians who promised them more of other people's money?

No, but then you should have quoted Reagan, not some idealogue who obviously is class conscious.

 

[midcan5]

When did Americans become so heartless and soulless, so un-American? What caused it? Who raised these selfish and stupid bastards? Reading the OP one knows why fascism or communism or any other blind ideology can succeed, some people simply have no humanity. With thinking like this is the guillotine far behind? Off with their heads, but sir they have no head. Good, all the less waste.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

 

[Dr.Drock]

When did Americans become so heartless and soulless, so un-American? What caused it? Who raised these selfish and stupid bastards? Reading the OP one knows why fascism or communism or any other blind ideology can succeed, some people simply have no humanity. With thinking like this is the guillotine far behind? Off with their heads, but sir they have no head. Good, all the less waste.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

All your emotional blathering sounds cute, but has nothing to do with reality.

 

[MaggieMae]

then what iz??? The way I see it the takers will soon outnumber the givers,, it's about 50 50 now.. when that scale tips it's all over but the crying dude.

and why would that scale tip ? because having basic food and shelter has become the new american dream ? or because government and corporate america has looted the nation ?

You have to explain the corporate looting America. I do agree with you that corporations and both parties catering to them skew markets and I believe in free markets. But in the end, all government money comes from the private sector, so how does it make sense that corporations loot that which they created? You're going to have to explain how that one makes sense.

They can do it either by design (stock trades) or in anticipation of exemption from SEC regulation. (Except that the economic tsunami that followed the bank crashes beginning in 2008, it was the SEC's ignorance of securities manipulation by private lending investors and turning a blind eye to noncompliance of regulations that did exist).

Financial disasters damage people and businesses that never participated in the fatal transaction. Tragically, that's precisely why we're in the mess we are right now across the entire economic spectrum.

 

[Steelplate]

When did Americans become so heartless and soulless, so un-American? What caused it? Who raised these selfish and stupid bastards? Reading the OP one knows why fascism or communism or any other blind ideology can succeed, some people simply have no humanity. With thinking like this is the guillotine far behind? Off with their heads, but sir they have no head. Good, all the less waste.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

All your emotional blathering sounds cute, but has nothing to do with reality.

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed. The simple truth is, most people are struggling so much that they can't give to charity, and even going a little up the food chain(Middle class) see their lifestyles losing ground that they aren't comfortable in doing so in needed amounts. The Rich.... well the rich give for their tax writeoffs and a few are actual philanthropists.

The bottom line is that Charity will never be enough. No on is telling you to give to welfare to the point that you are impoverished too. but that is what's being portrayed. The truth is... you people don't want to give at all. So you rail against programs that force you to and call for freedom and choice, when we all know what that choice will be.... fuck 'em... let them starve.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And who do you suppose gets a nice tax writeoff for paying into Workers Comp and any long-term disability (or even health care) program? "Welfare" doesn't always come in the form of sustenance, you know.

So you consider businesses not paying taxes on benefits they pay their employees to be a "nice tax writeoff?" Seriously? The government shouldn't allow businesses to write off their expenses?

It's still "welfare" for businesses, since you seem to be stuck on that word.

Why can't a homeowner right off the labor of those who, for example, put a new roof on their home? The roofing company paid their employees with MY MONEY!
(gee, maybe I've been reading too many posts by conservatives)

 

[Zona]

What about home owner vice renters? Even within this sub group, how much should that home be worth to get that vote...? 150k?

What about having a bachelors degree vice a high school diploma?
What about disabled vets not contributing any more income into the united states and are taking away from america with them recieving checks. Damn them.
What about non vets on disablity. Damn leeches.
I say, anyone who makes under 50k cant vote. Damn they are unamerican.
To me, only "certain" people should be able to vote. Pretty much everyone who voted for McCain...righty's?

 

[Dr.Drock]

When did Americans become so heartless and soulless, so un-American? What caused it? Who raised these selfish and stupid bastards? Reading the OP one knows why fascism or communism or any other blind ideology can succeed, some people simply have no humanity. With thinking like this is the guillotine far behind? Off with their heads, but sir they have no head. Good, all the less waste.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

All your emotional blathering sounds cute, but has nothing to do with reality.

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed. The simple truth is, most people are struggling so much that they can't give to charity, and even going a little up the food chain(Middle class) see their lifestyles losing ground that they aren't comfortable in doing so in needed amounts. The Rich.... well the rich give for their tax writeoffs and a few are actual philanthropists.

The bottom line is that Charity will never be enough. No on is telling you to give to welfare to the point that you are impoverished too. but that is what's being portrayed. The truth is... you people don't want to give at all. So you rail against programs that force you to and call for freedom and choice, when we all know what that choice will be.... fuck 'em... let them starve.

Americans are struggling because of the government we're taxed into oblivion to keep going and they spend us into crippling debt.

As taxes go up and government spends more, the middle class and our discretionary income plummets.

Government has trained you into thinking that it HAS to be huge and spend unlimited amounts of money in order to save poor people, never was the case, and doesn't have to be now.

 

[Steelplate]

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

All your emotional blathering sounds cute, but has nothing to do with reality.

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed. The simple truth is, most people are struggling so much that they can't give to charity, and even going a little up the food chain(Middle class) see their lifestyles losing ground that they aren't comfortable in doing so in needed amounts. The Rich.... well the rich give for their tax writeoffs and a few are actual philanthropists.

The bottom line is that Charity will never be enough. No on is telling you to give to welfare to the point that you are impoverished too. but that is what's being portrayed. The truth is... you people don't want to give at all. So you rail against programs that force you to and call for freedom and choice, when we all know what that choice will be.... fuck 'em... let them starve.

Americans are struggling because of the government we're taxed into oblivion to keep going and they spend us into crippling debt.

As taxes go up and government spends more, the middle class and our discretionary income plummets.

Government has trained you into thinking that it HAS to be huge and spend unlimited amounts of money in order to save poor people, never was the case, and doesn't have to be now.

Oh bullshit. on all of your counts. Taxes are a near historical lows. The issue is that prices and profits keep going up, but wages and even jobs themselves are losing ground.

FOX news and the Heritage Foundation has trained you into thinking that it's ALL government's fault and the power brokers on Wall Street are just clean cut Christian boys in the service of the Lord. Furthermore... Speaking of religion, you guys tend to think that Capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand... when it's very much the opposite. God despises your winner take all/loser gets none attitudes.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed. The simple truth is, most people are struggling so much that they can't give to charity, and even going a little up the food chain(Middle class) see their lifestyles losing ground that they aren't comfortable in doing so in needed amounts. The Rich.... well the rich give for their tax writeoffs and a few are actual philanthropists.

The bottom line is that Charity will never be enough. No on is telling you to give to welfare to the point that you are impoverished too. but that is what's being portrayed. The truth is... you people don't want to give at all. So you rail against programs that force you to and call for freedom and choice, when we all know what that choice will be.... fuck 'em... let them starve.

Americans are struggling because of the government we're taxed into oblivion to keep going and they spend us into crippling debt.

As taxes go up and government spends more, the middle class and our discretionary income plummets.

Government has trained you into thinking that it HAS to be huge and spend unlimited amounts of money in order to save poor people, never was the case, and doesn't have to be now.

Oh bullshit. on all of your counts. Taxes are a near historical lows. The issue is that prices and profits keep going up, but wages and even jobs themselves are losing ground.

FOX news and the Heritage Foundation has trained you into thinking that it's ALL government's fault and the power brokers on Wall Street are just clean cut Christian boys in the service of the Lord. Furthermore... Speaking of religion, you guys tend to think that Capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand... when it's very much the opposite. God despises your winner take all/loser gets none attitudes.

I've never watched 5 straight minutes of fox news in my entire life, mostly only watched a couple interviews from Bill O'Reilly on youtube (Dawkins and others). Never vote republican and am not a christian, talk about swinging for the fences and being wrong over and over and over again.

There's no doubt the middle class is plummeting, the first to blame for the destruction of the long term economy and size of the middle class is the Fed for destroying the dollar, next to blame is our group of democans and republicrats for taxing and spending us into oblivion.

 

[cloudy]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Wow, just wow, you could not be more mistaken or wrong.
SS and Medicare was paid into the system (Government) when people worked or were legally employed, which I did and have.
I expect something back from it.
Since I'm a veteran, most of my medical care is free.
I suppose you'd like to deprive Veterans too?
Government is the problem, not the solution?
By your post, you're leaning toward
having the Government take control of a citizen's personal life, by taking away their right to breed? or a nicer way to say it, mate.
Isn't that MORE Government control you're speaking of?
You have just contradicted yourself.
That's what I thought....

 

[cloudy]

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

All your emotional blathering sounds cute, but has nothing to do with reality.

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed. The simple truth is, most people are struggling so much that they can't give to charity, and even going a little up the food chain(Middle class) see their lifestyles losing ground that they aren't comfortable in doing so in needed amounts. The Rich.... well the rich give for their tax writeoffs and a few are actual philanthropists.

The bottom line is that Charity will never be enough. No on is telling you to give to welfare to the point that you are impoverished too. but that is what's being portrayed. The truth is... you people don't want to give at all. So you rail against programs that force you to and call for freedom and choice, when we all know what that choice will be.... fuck 'em... let them starve.

Americans are struggling because of the government we're taxed into oblivion to keep going and they spend us into crippling debt.

As taxes go up and government spends more, the middle class and our discretionary income plummets.

Government has trained you into thinking that it HAS to be huge and spend unlimited amounts of money in order to save poor people, never was the case, and doesn't have to be now.

Then how do you explain that taxes are at their lowest rate in 50 years?
We are not taxed into oblivion, you just think we are.

 

[cloudy]

it's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) i am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) i am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

in hard economical times a lot of former hard working tax payers have had to seek help why should they be hindered from voting for what obama caused in a failed economy?

not

 

[Contumacious]

[

Link? Medicare is paid for by a separate direct payroll tax. Period.

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits. (emphasis added)


William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Bad idea. I suppose that you'd also be in favor of taking retired vets who live on their retirement (i.e. government money) and don't work would be suspended from voting for a year?

Thought this country was "one citizen, one vote". Does that mean your citizenship should also be revoked for a year?

 

[initforme]

The fact this is even a viable thread is wacked. Then lets pose another question?

"Should those who make over one million dollars be allowed to vote?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The fact this is even a viable thread is wacked. Then lets pose another question?

"Should those who make over one million dollars be allowed to vote?

Actually, it should be asked "Should corporations be allowed to vote?"

Besides.......if you think about it........corporate CEO's actually get 2 votes. One for their corporation and one for them in the polling place.