Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are SUPPOSED TO BE a Constitutional Republic, but since 1935 we have been operating as a welfare/warfare state.
.
And thats why we have to work to change that before the rest is destroyed by the unconstitutional laws congress keeps passing and the supreme court keeps upholding.
It could get ugly on the road back though. I could see welfare receipients showing up at people's places of work getting all violent and protesting the fact that they still get to keep about 50% of the money they earn....then one day the workers get sick of it and fight back...bam ugly.
Reason we have a right to bear arms.
The parasites knew, or should have known, that the politicians had no right to steal from "A" to support "B"".
.
And thats why we have to work to change that before the rest is destroyed by the unconstitutional laws congress keeps passing and the supreme court keeps upholding.
It could get ugly on the road back though. I could see welfare receipients showing up at people's places of work getting all violent and protesting the fact that they still get to keep about 50% of the money they earn....then one day the workers get sick of it and fight back...bam ugly.
Reason we have a right to bear arms.
The parasites knew, or should have known, that the politicians had no right to steal from "A" to support "B"".
.
This "A" is very upset by this mindset considering that I cant afford a new car or to have the roof on my house repaired yet the "B" people are telling uncle sam to take more in taxes from my boss which means i'll never get a raise.
If it gets bad enough I could see your 2nd ammendment comment being relevant.
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.
Because citizenship confers the right to elect those who govern us.
This question presumes that those who are not net beneficiaries of entitlements won't screw those who are. Why would we make this assumption? Why do we assume that those who aren't net beneficiaries of entitlements are any less venal than those who are receiving entitlements? Let's say you've paid your whole life into SS, then when you are 65 and begin receiving social security and you cannot vote. What happens if those who can vote suddenly decide that you should now receive $0, even though you've contributed your whole life?
Besides, everyone pays taxes. Everyone. Every single person who has bought anything has paid a tax. It's about net benefits. You can still be a net beneficiary of government spending even though you pay tax. You may pay a small amount of tax but drive on public roads, send your kids to public school, and be protected by publicly funded police and fire departments. You will be a net beneficiary of government programs even though you pay tax. Where do you draw the line? Why shouldn't they be barred from voting too? The majority of Americans are net beneficiaries of government spending. You would have to bar the majority of Americans from voting.
Conflicts abound in society. Why should we limit it to recipients of entitlements?
If you are concerned about conflicts of interest, surely you are for banning donations by corporate executives for instance? Maybe we should ban all voting and donating to anyone who works in the defense industry.
Also, why should those in the finance industry donate to those who write and affect laws on the finance industry? Hedge fund managers and private equity managers lobbied to pay a 15% tax on profits from carried interest by giving money to those who wrote the laws because they convinced the law makers that the fees they were paid were instead capital gains. This means that the lawmakers were either extraordinarily stupid or extraordinarily venal because carried interest is a fee, it is not a capital gain. If you are clever and make a cool handheld device that revolutionizes all media, and you make $1 billion, you are taxed at 35%. If you bet against subprime loans and profit off a collapsing economy and people's misery, you are taxed at 15%. So, on $1 billion, the difference in the tax bill is $200 million, yet the social benefit of the lower taxed individual is much less than the higher taxed individual. If you are concerned about influencing the political process for the allocation of wealth in society, the guy who made $100 million in a year and is taxed at 15% has affected his wealth through the political process more than anyone else who has ever taken SS or welfare.
I understand the concept of "since they can vote public funds from the treasury they shouldn't be able to vote" however I dont agree with keeping welfare receipients from voting. Its wrong to do in my opinion.
Now illegal immigrants on the other hand, they aren't citizens so NO vote.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. "
However, we are a contitutional republic and not a democracy so its different.
We are SUPPOSED TO BE a Constitutional Republic, but since 1935 we have been operating as a welfare/warfare state.
.
And thats why we have to work to change that before the rest is destroyed by the unconstitutional laws congress keeps passing and the supreme court keeps upholding.
It could get ugly on the road back though. I could see welfare receipients showing up at people's places of work getting all violent and protesting the fact that they still get to keep about 50% of the money they earn....then one day the workers get sick of it and fight back...bam ugly.
The right to vote is the most essential American right of all. It doesnt matter where your money comes from. It doesn't matter where YOU come from (as long as you're a citizen, legally). It's the great equalizer and CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be taken away. The fact that it's been taken from felons is the only defensible removal I can think of.
Kaz, your hatred of free-loaders is great. To some degree I agree with that revulsion. But not everyone on welfare is a cheat or a bum. Some are just people who need a little help and then pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Taking away that fundamental right is unthinkable. There's no justification for it. AT ALL.
they were accustomed to were being propped up by worthless paper..
If we take the vote from people on welfare does that also get rid of their obligation to serve in the military if the draft where ever reinstated?
they were accustomed to were being propped up by worthless paper..
Ms Maggie, I hate to burst your bubble, but since 1935 we are being propped up by worthless paper.
One scumbag by the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt stole our gold back then.
.
It always confuses me how people who are anti-welfare (and I myself am anti-welfare) usually blame the welfare recipients for the welfare problem rather than welfare creaters and funders (government).
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
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.
Then how do you explain that taxes are at their lowest rate in 50 years?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.
We are not taxed into oblivion, you just think we are.
Then how do you explain that taxes are at their lowest rate in 50 years?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.
We are not taxed into oblivion, you just think we are.
A lot of taxes are state-generated. One of the reasons states needed bailouts was that people stopped buying, so projected sales tax revenues and the like weren't being collected. In better times, no one thinks much about it (except maybe property taxes, which no one likes to pay, but again, those are based on state law).
[
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
.
Funding for Medicare comes partially from payroll taxes, known as FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes. FICA comprises Social Security tax and Medicare tax. The rate of the Medicare tax is 2.9 percent. Employers withhold 1.45 percent from their employees and match it with another 1.45 percent [Ref]. High-income Social Security beneficiaries also pay income tax on their Social Security income, some of which goes toward Medicare. This money goes into a trust fund used to pay doctors, hospitals and private insurance companies when Medicare patients use their services. This trust fund has been more difficult to manage than the Social Security trust fund, because health care expenditures are harder to track and can change quickly. Medicare Part B is partially (about 25 percent) paid for by premiums and co-pays. In all, Medicare costs about $277 billion per year, roughly 13 percent of the total federal budget
Reason we have a right to bear arms.
The parasites knew, or should have known, that the politicians had no right to steal from "A" to support "B"".
.
This "A" is very upset by this mindset considering that I cant afford a new car or to have the roof on my house repaired yet the "B" people are telling uncle sam to take more in taxes from my boss which means i'll never get a raise.
If it gets bad enough I could see your 2nd ammendment comment being relevant.
But according to many posters the federal government has re-instituted slavery. Practice so you can make those "Yassa Massa" sound crispy and genuine.
.
I guess I missed something. Huh?
they were accustomed to were being propped up by worthless paper..
Ms Maggie, I hate to burst your bubble, but since 1935 we are being propped up by worthless paper.
One scumbag by the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt stole our gold back then.
.
Just about every "welfare" program probably had a noble intent, but most of them reached a point where monitoring the people who are on the programs became nearly impossible. Now we have situations where the few bad applies spoil it for everyone else. Too many people have learned how to game the system, and more enforcement is needed to clean it up and clean them out.
HUD Section 8 is a perfect example. There's no reason why state-run Section 8 programs can't follow the rules set up by HUD, that is, thoroughly verifying the application and cross-checking references; regularly inspecting the housing units to make sure they aren't being destroyed, and getting bad tenants removed immediately. Over the years in two separate states, I've seen Secton 8 housing gone to the dogs in one and another maintained in pristine condition where the rules and regulations will be followed, or the tenants are out after three warnings.
Same thing with other welfare benefits, such as programs to assist single low-income parents with children. They need to prove their financial status at least once a year, as well as abide by the Welfare to Work rules still in existence, and social workers need to follow up to make sure they aren't making up stories just to buy more time.
Your post implies that some large percentage of welfare administrations in states are not doing their jobs. But you give no factual evidence of this.
Replying to people whose view of the world and of how welfare is administered is brought to them by Fox News, whereas millions of people rely upon welfare for a few months or slightly longer, and follow the rules, return to work, and don't " game the system", it's important to separate broad accurate statistical fact from statistical anomalies.
Well-informed and compassionate Americans like you and I have to guard against the "man bites dog" stories, when most of the time, the story is just the same as ever, "dog bites man". The norm never gets reported, the exception becomes a Fox News headline, and tens of thousands of their viewers think it's now the norm that "all the men are biting the dog".
I'm grateful for honest, ethical, sensible, well-trained administrators of these programs, as you, yourself, appear to be. Please don't feed the Fox News-inspired trolls who start threads based upon the exception to the rule, the statistically outlying anecdote.
Voters need the facts, the figures, the standards, rules, and general information upon the operation of these programs. Voters need more than anecdotes and myths perpetuated by the selfish. As the number of unemployed ballooned since the Bush era recession sunk in, as more needy Americans make legitimate claims upon our public assistance system, please realize the inevitability of more and more "man bites dog" stories; they are NOT the norm, but they are more frequent, even if statistically the same or even less statistically frequent than in previous times. Don't feed into their mythical fantasy that the exceptions are the norm.
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.
