Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[asaratis]

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.

One man (or woman)-One vote!
...except for convicted felons, dead people and ILLEGAL ALIENS. All US citizens deserve the privilege of voting whether they pay taxes or not.

 

[kaz]

Government should not be helping or harming any citizen at the expense of another, including the rich. BTW, as a math major I agree numbers don't lie, but you can definitely lie with numbers...

Think of it this way..........you're a citizen of this country, so your rent to live here is paid by your taxes.

Once you've paid your rent, you have no say in what the landlord does with your rent. You just get to live there another month.

Once you've paid your taxes, you have no say in what the politician elected does with it. You just hope that the person elected is doing what you'd like them to do.

No. Once you've paid taxes, it's no longer your money, it's the government's.

It's not the renter's building, it's the landlord's building. It is however my country.

 

[Toro]

Alan Greenspan is not a stupid fuck.

He said the claims are real. In case you don't know what "claims" are, they are assets of the holder. In this case, the claims are assets of the SS trusts. If a trust owns 100% tradable government Treasury bonds, the trust has claims on the tax revenues of the US Treasury. A bond is a claim on an asset. The assets in the SS trusts are also claims on the assets of the US Treasury. The only difference between publicly traded bonds and the nontradable liabilities in the trusts are that bonds are represented by a piece of paper that says they are bonds. In fact, almost all bonds are no longer tangible. They aren't "real." Nowadays, most bonds are merely electronic entries called CUSIPs held at a custodial bank. Like the liabilities in the Trusts, they don't exist in tangible form. But you can trade them, unlike the liabilities in the trusts, whereby all that occurs is that the custodial bank swaps CUSIPs between account numbers. The government could effectuate the exact same economics by making SS a "real" trust fund that does nothing but buy and sell government bonds.

Hope that helps.

Yet...Spin your way out this one...

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can spin it any way you want, these are the facts:

1) You are giving your children the trust fund

2) You are giving your children the national debt, which includes the fund

3) Therefore, your children will be funding the trust fund you give them.

Thanks Dad. Spin your way out of that.

It's not spin. It is explaining the economics of SS.

Any pension fund that invests 100% in government bonds is investing entirely in the claims of future tax receipts within the jurisdiction. Again, this is a tremendously poor way of designing a retirement system, but the economics are no different than someone socking their entire savings away in Treasury bonds.

It's also why your OP is flawed. SS is not welfare. It is a retirement system which requires by law that individuals save when they work then receive benefits based on how much they earn over time, just like a regular pension fund.

 

[St.Blues]

Just looking at the poll numbers... It just goes to show you always invest against the majority. They are usually wrong.

 

[Care4all]

the term is no taxation, without representation....we went to war over it....

the term is NOT

no representation, without taxation.... and this is what YOU and others, are supporting imo.

Props for a great line even if it's not accurate. I didn't say you have to pay taxes, I said you can't be receiving government checks of other people's money. You can receive checks from voluntary sources, but not involuntary.

everyone pays taxes kaz....including those on welfare....there are federal gas taxes, and federal cigarette taxes, and state sales taxes, state income taxes, state cigarette taxes, state gas taxes too, i believe?

so, those on welfare are affected by what Congress does and by taxation, just like you and me, whether they get TANF, or not....they deserve representation in our representative Republic....and no less!

care

 

[kaz]

It's also why your OP is flawed. SS is not welfare. It is a retirement system which requires by law that individuals save when they work then receive benefits based on how much they earn over time, just like a regular pension fund.

Still shucking and jiving. Where is the savings? You give your kids a trust fund, and the full freight bill to pay for it. You spent 100% of the money, every dime. Your kids are paying 100% of your benefits out of their own pockets. Yet you continue the word game of saying you "saved" money. Where is the money you saved? If you say treasuries again, who is going to pay that again? Your children, so again where is the money you saved?

 

[kaz]

the term is no taxation, without representation....we went to war over it....

the term is NOT

no representation, without taxation.... and this is what YOU and others, are supporting imo.

Props for a great line even if it's not accurate. I didn't say you have to pay taxes, I said you can't be receiving government checks of other people's money. You can receive checks from voluntary sources, but not involuntary.

everyone pays taxes kaz....including those on welfare....there are federal gas taxes, and federal cigarette taxes, and state sales taxes, state income taxes, state cigarette taxes, state gas taxes too, i believe?

so, those on welfare are affected by what Congress does and by taxation, just like you and me, whether they get TANF, or not....they deserve representation in our representative Republic....and no less!

care

I didn't say anything about people who pay taxes. I said people who get welfare checks, and I defined that as people who get a direct government check of other people's money. So I don't see the relevance of your point on who pays taxes.

Though I concede I hadn't stated I am referring to Federal government and Federal elections. I had been only addressing that, but I didn't state it. I'd argue the States should do the same, but I would never force them to as I believe strongly in State rights.

 

[Toro]

It's also why your OP is flawed. SS is not welfare. It is a retirement system which requires by law that individuals save when they work then receive benefits based on how much they earn over time, just like a regular pension fund.

Still shucking and jiving. Where is the savings? You give your kids a trust fund, and the full freight bill to pay for it. You spent 100% of the money, every dime. Your kids are paying 100% of your benefits out of their own pockets. Yet you continue the word game of saying you "saved" money. Where is the money you saved? If you say treasuries again, who is going to pay that again? Your children, so again where is the money you saved?

Have you ever bought a government bond?

 

[Jarhead]

Per the topic of this thread and the poll...

Isnt it a conflict of interest for anyone who votes for what they deem is in their best interest?

As a top 5%er I will likely vote for a candidate that does not want to raise my tax rate higher than others....

So isnt that a conflict of interest?

All have the right to vote if they are citizens and of legal age.

Nothing more to be said of it.

 

[kaz]

It's also why your OP is flawed. SS is not welfare. It is a retirement system which requires by law that individuals save when they work then receive benefits based on how much they earn over time, just like a regular pension fund.

Still shucking and jiving. Where is the savings? You give your kids a trust fund, and the full freight bill to pay for it. You spent 100% of the money, every dime. Your kids are paying 100% of your benefits out of their own pockets. Yet you continue the word game of saying you "saved" money. Where is the money you saved? If you say treasuries again, who is going to pay that again? Your children, so again where is the money you saved?

Have you ever bought a government bond?

I'll slow down, maybe this is going too fast for you.

- The National Debt is only going up, not down.

- You pay surplus social security. The government spends it, but doesn't count it as deficit spending anyway.

- The government writes itself an IOU

- During your life, you only pay interest on the debt. When you retire, you hand the debt and future debt payments to your children.

- You also give them a bill for Social Security bills, which you claim to have given them assets to fund, the assets which you told them to pay for you as well as the ongoing interest.

- You gave your children no money, they are giving you Social Security checks. It is welfare.

Are you grasping this at all?

Your children....got no money....from you. None. You spent it. You never actually saved a dime of actual money.

 

[kaz]

Per the topic of this thread and the poll...

Isnt it a conflict of interest for anyone who votes for what they deem is in their best interest?

As a top 5%er I will likely vote for a candidate that does not want to raise my tax rate higher than others....

So isnt that a conflict of interest?

All have the right to vote if they are citizens and of legal age.

Nothing more to be said of it.

Yes, it is a conflict for anyone to vote, I agree. But welfare, a direct check of other people's money is the most extreme.

 

[Care4all]

Per the topic of this thread and the poll...

Isnt it a conflict of interest for anyone who votes for what they deem is in their best interest?

As a top 5%er I will likely vote for a candidate that does not want to raise my tax rate higher than others....

So isnt that a conflict of interest?

All have the right to vote if they are citizens and of legal age.

Nothing more to be said of it.

precisely.

 

[Toro]

Still shucking and jiving. Where is the savings? You give your kids a trust fund, and the full freight bill to pay for it. You spent 100% of the money, every dime. Your kids are paying 100% of your benefits out of their own pockets. Yet you continue the word game of saying you "saved" money. Where is the money you saved? If you say treasuries again, who is going to pay that again? Your children, so again where is the money you saved?

Have you ever bought a government bond?

I'll slow down, maybe this is going too fast for you.

- The National Debt is only going up, not down.

- You pay surplus social security. The government spends it, but doesn't count it as deficit spending anyway.

- The government writes itself an IOU

- During your life, you only pay interest on the debt. When you retire, you hand the debt and future debt payments to your children.

- You also give them a bill for Social Security bills, which you claim to have given them assets to fund, the assets which you told them to pay for you as well as the ongoing interest.

- You gave your children no money, they are giving you Social Security checks. It is welfare.

Are you grasping this at all?

Your children....got no money....from you. None. You spent it. You never actually saved a dime of actual money.

Have you ever bought a government bond? What about a money market fund?

 

[kaz]

Per the topic of this thread and the poll...

Isnt it a conflict of interest for anyone who votes for what they deem is in their best interest?

As a top 5%er I will likely vote for a candidate that does not want to raise my tax rate higher than others....

So isnt that a conflict of interest?

All have the right to vote if they are citizens and of legal age.

Nothing more to be said of it.

precisely.

If you elect me, I will buy your town a fountain.

If you elect me, I will write you a check.

Those are clearly entirely different levels of conflict.

 

[kaz]

Have you ever bought a government bond?

I'll slow down, maybe this is going too fast for you.

- The National Debt is only going up, not down.

- You pay surplus social security. The government spends it, but doesn't count it as deficit spending anyway.

- The government writes itself an IOU

- During your life, you only pay interest on the debt. When you retire, you hand the debt and future debt payments to your children.

- You also give them a bill for Social Security bills, which you claim to have given them assets to fund, the assets which you told them to pay for you as well as the ongoing interest.

- You gave your children no money, they are giving you Social Security checks. It is welfare.

Are you grasping this at all?

Your children....got no money....from you. None. You spent it. You never actually saved a dime of actual money.

Have you ever bought a government bond? What about a money market fund?

Let me ask you the question this way. If you give your children a bill (social security) and another bill (the national debt) which includes funding the first bill, how have you "saved?"

 

[Jarhead]

Per the topic of this thread and the poll...

Isnt it a conflict of interest for anyone who votes for what they deem is in their best interest?

As a top 5%er I will likely vote for a candidate that does not want to raise my tax rate higher than others....

So isnt that a conflict of interest?

All have the right to vote if they are citizens and of legal age.

Nothing more to be said of it.

precisely.

If you elect me, I will buy your town a fountain.

If you elect me, I will write you a check.

Those are clearly entirely different levels of conflict.

if you elect me, I will make sure you dont have to pay another 30K in taxes.

If you elect me, I will make sure you get 30K in welfare for another 4 years.

Both seem to be pretty much the same "conflict of interest" to me.

 

[Kuros]

I wonder if we should allow MBA graduates to vote. Its a clear conflict of interest, they are not stakeholders and they are taking much more than they are giving, just look at the recent Great Short of the stock market and the recent bailouts. Two clarifications:

1) I'm talking about all sorts of MBA graduates, not just those who work in finance. If you are sucking off some hard working man's salary with your cushy but unproductive job in management, you're part of the problem.

2) I am not allowing them to vote only once they completely graduate. If they get a real job outside of finance or management, they'll be able to vote within one year. An MBA graduate who works with his or her hands may have the vote reinstated immediately.

 

[Toro]

I'll slow down, maybe this is going too fast for you.

- The National Debt is only going up, not down.

- You pay surplus social security. The government spends it, but doesn't count it as deficit spending anyway.

- The government writes itself an IOU

- During your life, you only pay interest on the debt. When you retire, you hand the debt and future debt payments to your children.

- You also give them a bill for Social Security bills, which you claim to have given them assets to fund, the assets which you told them to pay for you as well as the ongoing interest.

- You gave your children no money, they are giving you Social Security checks. It is welfare.

Are you grasping this at all?

Your children....got no money....from you. None. You spent it. You never actually saved a dime of actual money.

Have you ever bought a government bond? What about a money market fund?

Let me ask you the question this way. If you give your children a bill (social security) and another bill (the national debt) which includes funding the first bill, how have you "saved?"

Let me put it another way. A friend of mine (with more money than me) just bought $5 million in Treasury notes and bonds, ranging in duration of 1 to 5 years. It was most of the money he had. By your explanation, it sounds like my friend has taken all his money and just blew it all away. That $5 million isn't savings. He doesn't have it anymore. It's a Ponzi scheme. He just did the equivalent of taking 5 mil and burning it in a can in the back. Am I right?

 

[Toro]

I wonder if we should allow MBA graduates to vote. Its a clear conflict of interest, they are not stakeholders and they are taking much more than they are giving, just look at the recent Great Short of the stock market and the recent bailouts. Two clarifications:

1) I'm talking about all sorts of MBA graduates, not just those who work in finance. If you are sucking off some hard working man's salary with your cushy but unproductive job in management, you're part of the problem.

2) I am not allowing them to vote only once they completely graduate. If they get a real job outside of finance or management, they'll be able to vote within one year. An MBA graduate who works with his or her hands may have the vote reinstated immediately.

Au contraire, as an MBA, I am a superior human being than the rest of you. And because I'm better off financially than most, my vote should count more, even though I'm not an American. Plus, I'm probably better looking!

Now bow down to my greatness.

 

[kaz]

precisely.

If you elect me, I will buy your town a fountain.

If you elect me, I will write you a check.

Those are clearly entirely different levels of conflict.

if you elect me, I will make sure you dont have to pay another 30K in taxes.

If you elect me, I will make sure you get 30K in welfare for another 4 years.

Both seem to be pretty much the same "conflict of interest" to me.

Yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. It's ridiculous comparing they will take less of your money that you earned and they will give you money earned by someone else.