Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Toro]

I'm going to switch your thoughts around.

You have to go back to the premise of the discussion. I defined welfare as someone getting a check of other people's money. When you get social security, regardless of everything you said, it will be all your kids money and none of yours. The supposed trust fund that is paying your social security check is paid by them. Whether they write a check to SSA to give to you, or write a check to the treasury to give to you, it's their money. And the SSA doesn't even have it's own money, it's part of the general fund. Your money is gone. I appreciate your more serious attempt to address the question, but it clearly meets my standard of you are getting a check of someone else's money. You can define welfare differently, but this thread is based on my definition.

I fundamentally disagree. Again, I would characterize SS as a pension fund invested 100% in government bonds, no different than any other pension fund invested 100% in government bonds. Virtually every pension fund in this country is invested in Treasury bonds (though, sanely, not at 100% of assets). A corporate pension fund that invests in government bonds is no different than the SS trust funds investing in government bonds, the only difference being that the terms of the "bonds" in the SS trusts are somewhat different. However, the economics of the bonds are exactly the same. Both are obligations with claims on future tax revenues of the government. Because of this, by definition, SS is not welfare.

Except your friend didn't by the bonds from himself and then claim them as an asset.

Except that my friend didn't buy them "from himself." He bought them from people who borrow. He is a saver.

I am assuming you didn't read my link I originally posted, so I will re-post it here.

Let's say you, Mr. Trajan, start a retirement savings account, and you don't want the ups and downs of the stock market, you don't trust banks, and since your house fell by 50% in price, no way are you going into real estate. Instead, you decide to invest 100% in government bonds. You can call the Treasury and open account to buy government bonds. For the rest of your life, that's all you invest in, Treasury bonds. I wouldn't advise it, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Now let's say you have the option of either doing it yourself or having someone else do it for you. You, for some odd reason, think the government is fabulous, so you select the government to do it for you. Instead of you calling the government every month and putting 6% into government bonds, the government just takes 6% off your paycheck and invests in government bonds for you.

What does the government do with that money that you've lent them? To you, you don't care. All you care about is that the government pays you back with the interest promised. The government will spend it anyway it wants. That's what it does now.

So you're following me here, right? Let's review.

1st option - you invest your money in government bonds yourself
2nd option - you have the government invest your money in government bonds for you.

In both options, the government spends that money in any way it sees fit. And in both options, you own an asset - a government bond - that is a liability of the government.

Now this is where it gets tricky, and this is where people generally get confused, like the people in this thread. Let's say the government approaches you and says "Mr. Trajan, I see that all you've ever done is buy government bonds. Government bonds have a cost. There are middle men that have to get paid. We have auctions. We have accounting for all these bonds. We have to pay a custodian. Let's make a deal. Instead of going to all the trouble of issuing these bonds that you buy every month, let's skip all the middle men and we'll debit your account the amount that you send to us every month. You will still compound the interest at the same rate but instead of owning the actual bond, we will pay you back your principal and accrued interest in the future when you need it." Thus, you have another option.

3rd option - you send the money directly to the government and the government enters into a contractual promise to pay you back in the future the amount of your investment plus accrued interest matching the rate of interest on government bonds.

And like the first two options, you have an asset - a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest - that is a liability of the government.

Economically, all three options are the same. In all three options, you are sending the government your savings and the government promises to pay you back plus interest. A bond is a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest in the future.

If you hadn't guessed, the third option most closely resembles how social security operates. Now take Mr. Trajan and 250 million other Americans and pool them all together in the third option and that's the SS trust fund. It's as if we are all buying government bonds together, but instead of going to the trouble of actually issuing the bonds, the government credits our accounts as if we were purchasing the bonds. And that pool of assets is run by the government, which is an asset credited against the liabilities of the Treasury.

Now, that's not how I would design a pension fund, but that's essentially how SS works.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...2000-when-we-had-a-surplus-7.html#post3825575

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

Every vote is a conflict of interest. Are you also advocating that the wealthy who benefit from corporate subsides should be denied the vote?

EVERY American deserves the right to vote for the candidate who will best represent them

True that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're walking down the street. A mugger grabs your wallet with $100 dollars in it. Before they run off they grab a $20 out of your wallet and give it back to you and run off with the rest. Now, were you robbed?

If the democratic processes upon which our system of government is based are 'criminal' then what are you going to replace them with?

Deny the vote to welfare recipients? How about the working poor who get food stamps, or earned income credit, or housing subsidies, or energy assistance? Take away their right to vote? How about working/middle class families who get child tax credits in the thousands, and public education, and mortgage deductions? How about defense contractors and everyone associated with that sector who stand to benefit or suffer in huge amounts based on who gets elected or not elected?

How about denying the vote to ANY taxpayer who stands to gain immensely through massive tax cuts, even though those tax cuts might add trillions to the national debt?

I oppose all tax "credits." But as for the rest, to compare taking less of someone's money through a tax cut and to give someone someone's else's money through redistribution is patently preposterous unless you are a Marxist who believes all money belongs to the State.

"The rest" included defense contractors. Oops.

 

[kaz]

What was left out of the equation, dear fool, is that the term "stakeholder" applies to all parties in a business transaction, INCLUDING CONSUMER!!!! In a business, the term "stakeholder" as NOT synonymous with "STOCK HOLDER"!!! It includes the producer, AND THE CONSUMER, and the stock holder! Sorry the right wing brain-dead listeners didn't learn that quite obvious fact of the business model from Fox or Rush or Glenn.

It depends on the context you use the term. Here it's being used regarding having an interest in the success of the government. Welfare recipients aren't "customers" of government, they are dependents. By writing them checks of other people's money, they no longer have a stake in our success. Their interest is getting a larger check.

And regarding your Fox and conservative bashing, it's sad you can only tolerate a country with your views. I was sad when they took people like the whack job Keith Olberman off MSNBC and Randi Rhodes off Air America. Your monolithic goals will only lead to your enslavement. I want their ideas in the public domain so they can be debated, I'm not looking to suppress anything.

 

[kaz]

Look, Kaz, your priorities are back-asswards, okay?

Its the private equity mobsters and the venture capitalist barons who have sucked up billions and billions of dollars out of the productive economy who deserve your ire. This is not a conservative v. liberal thing at all. The productive rich like Bill Gates and the thousands of entreprenuers and family farmers are getting raped, but not by poor-people welfare, but by corporate and military-industrial welfare. This is about the corporate class and the financial class ruining America.

And you want to persecute single-mothers on food stamps and their children on SCHIP because of some bad choices?

An MBA graduate: someone who thinks a liberal education means partisan propaganda.

You like repeating liberal buzz words don't you?

See, this kind of lameass retort doesn't work on me because I'm not actually a liberal. I don't have problems with liberals or conservatives per se. And my attacks on MBA graduates are even somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I know enough MBA graduates who have decried the sad state of the MBA education system to know there is hope for some of you guys.

Yeah, for some of you.

I didn't say you're a liberal, I said you're repeating liberal buzz words. And you are. If you're not a liberal, why are yo doing that?

 

[kaz]

I am assuming you didn't read my link I originally posted, so I will re-post it here.

I understand the national debt just fine. I just suffer from the delusion that when you spend a dollar that you don't have it anymore. I'd love it if I could spend a dollar and not only get what I bought but still have an asset of a dollar, but in my non-liberal ignorance I just can't see how the dollar I spent isn't just gone.

 

[Toro]

I am assuming you didn't read my link I originally posted, so I will re-post it here.

I understand the national debt just fine. I just suffer from the delusion that when you spend a dollar that you don't have it anymore. I'd love it if I could spend a dollar and not only get what I bought but still have an asset of a dollar, but in my non-liberal ignorance I just can't see how the dollar I spent isn't just gone.

We are discussing the nature of debt. It's not a conservative or a liberal thing. It's a financial issue, which is completely devoid of ideology. If you want to make it ideological about whether we should have so much debt or have social security, that's another issue altogether. But from a flow of funds perspective, it makes no difference.

From this perspective, the government is a conduit through which savers channel funds to consumers. You can argue whether the government should do this, but from a flow of funds perspective, its irrelevant. Its no different than a bank channeling funds from savers to consumers. Both are conduits through which capital flows.

It is not correct to say that when the government is the middleman, "you are borrowing from yourself," because the government is just the middleman. If you are a saver, you are lending your money to a consumer or an investor. That is true in any transaction, whether or not the government is in the middle.

In the government's case, you are lending to the government who then passes those funds on to others who will either consume (welfare, social security, medicare), invest (roads, schools) or pay for protection (pay for the military). If I lent you $1000, and you took the money to buy food, fix your car and buy a gun, the affects are exactly the same if I paid the government $1000 in taxes and the government gave you a welfare check, paved your road and hired a policeman to protect you. The government is just the intermediary, albeit a highly inefficient one.

All money lent to the government is savings which is recycled back into the economy. It doesn't matter if it is SS or Treasury bonds. Your FICA taxes used to pay the SS income for someone else is no different than a bank lending your deposits to the government by buying Treasury bonds, which the government uses to fund general operations.

 

[Contumacious]

Your FICA taxes used to pay the SS income for someone else is no different than a bank lending your deposits to the government by buying Treasury bonds, which the government uses to fund general operations.

OK Mr Bull

If it is true that there is a Social Security Trust Fund where a record is kept of how much an individual has contributed , how then can the government state that someone who has faithfully paid into the system and is ready to retire in the 2037 may only receive from 0% to 75% of the scheduled benefits?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem."

.

 

[Toro]

Your FICA taxes used to pay the SS income for someone else is no different than a bank lending your deposits to the government by buying Treasury bonds, which the government uses to fund general operations.

OK Mr Bull

If it is true that there is a Social Security Trust Fund where a record is kept of how much an individual has contributed , how then can the government state that someone who has faithfully paid into the system and is ready to retire in the 2037 may only receive from 0% to 75% of the scheduled benefits?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem."

.

Because like most pension funds, there won't enough money without changes. If SS were a "real" pension fund, we would call it underfunded.

As I have stated repeatedly, SS is designed in about the worst way possible. It should be like a "real" pension fund.

 

[Care4all]

Your FICA taxes used to pay the SS income for someone else is no different than a bank lending your deposits to the government by buying Treasury bonds, which the government uses to fund general operations.

OK Mr Bull

If it is true that there is a Social Security Trust Fund where a record is kept of how much an individual has contributed , how then can the government state that someone who has faithfully paid into the system and is ready to retire in the 2037 may only receive from 0% to 75% of the scheduled benefits?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem."

.

it will fund 75% of what was promised with absolutely no reform changes and with reforms it should be on solid ground again.

i am not certain where you got 0%-75% as what it will pay in 2037? the figure is 75%?

 

[Toro]

Hey, I missed this the first time.

Your FICA taxes used to pay the SS income for someone else is no different than a bank lending your deposits to the government by buying Treasury bonds, which the government uses to fund general operations.

OK Mr Bull

If it is true that there is a Social Security Trust Fund where a record is kept of how much an individual has contributed , how then can the government state that someone who has faithfully paid into the system and is ready to retire in the 2037 may only receive from 0% to 75% of the scheduled benefits?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem."

.

it will fund 75% of what was promised with absolutely no reform changes and with reforms it should be on solid ground again.

i am not certain where you got 0%-75% as what it will pay in 2037? the figure is 75%?

But, but, but ... there's no trust fund!

 

[MikeFrank]

I am against the welfare system as it is currently, but we should let every american citizen vote.

 

[kaz]

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.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

Incorrect.

Voting is indeed a Constitutional right:

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

B. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. David J. VANN and Robert S. Vance, Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al. John W. McCONNELL, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of |

And classifying citizens as ‘welfare recipients’ clearly and unnecessarily abridges that right to vote.

Remember also that the Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Moreover, in order for the state to deny a citizen his right to vote, there must be at least a rational basis to indeed deny that right, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the disenfranchising measure, there must be a compelling governmental interest, and there must be a legitimate legislative end.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that those who receive public assistance are motivated solely by that consideration. There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that public assistance programs will lead to ‘financial destruction.’ There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that those who receive public assistance will vote only for candidates who advocate ‘welfare programs.’ And there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that those who receive public assistance and vote constitute a ‘conflict of interest.’

The OP’s opposition to those who receive public assistance is not rational, he is motivated only by animus toward those who receive public benefits; consequently there is no compelling governmental interest in support of denying the vote to those on public assistance, and there is no legitimate legislative end to his desire to single out those who receive public assistance for punitive treatment, as he seeks to only make them difference from everyone else, in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

Last, wishing to deny the right to vote to a particular class of persons, in this case those who receive public assistance, is in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

[R]equirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections—violate the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws.

Morris H. KRAMER, Appellant, v. UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Those who receive public assistance are qualified by age and citizenship to vote, that they apply for or receive public assistance in no way justifies prohibiting them from voting, and is consequently un-Constitutional.

One can only hope that the OP has the ability to consider this wise and appropriate case law concerning the right to vote, manifests greater forbearance toward his fellow citizens less fortunate that he, and has the courage to admit that he is indeed wrong – at least to himself.

 

[ron4342]

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.

This is why you people fit the classification of "Pieces of Shit." You scream about patriotism and people's rights under the Constitution but it is all just a show. You would shred the Constitution if you had a chance and turn this country into a dictatorship.
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Bottom line, IF THEY ARE A CITIZEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE <PERIOD> Oh, and by the way, only a total idiot and fool would call Social Security welfare.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Nobody should be allowed to vote ......... all Americans need to conform.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nobody should be allowed to vote ......... all Americans need to conform.

Spoken like a true tea bagging idiot.

I guess that the Dems agreeing to 90 percent of what the Reps wanted wasn't enough eh?

Nice to see the GOP will shut down the government if they don't get their way.

BTW.......................not raising the debt ceiling is going to be the death knell of the GOP if they keep pushing it.

Shutting down the government started it, and if they keep screwing around, it's going to be a blood bath in 2014.

Nice to see the GOP eating itself. I hope it continues and results in them losing all races for the next decade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

1. Why should a defense contractor be able to vote for someone who promises more defense spending?

2. Why should anyone who is or ever will be eligible for Medicare be able to vote, since 40% of Medicare is paid for with funds other than the payroll tax?

3. Why should anyone who has anything to gain financially, for that matter, be allowed to vote for any candidate who might work in favor of any such gain for that voter?

 

[zeke]

I think anyone that admits to a Republican party affiliation should immediately have their right to vote rescinded. Fuking rethuglican leeches and perverts.

Republicans don't have enough sense to be trusted with the vote. Deny Repubs their rights. Just like the Kaz wants to deny so many others their rights. Fair is fair. Right.

 

[zeke]

This thread is another fine example of how the Republicans are making their party of less and less consequence come elections time.

People like you kaz are fuking nuts. Thank you for making the Dems job so easy.