What are the odds any welfare recipient will vote republican?

[Kondor3]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

That is an accurate assessment.

Perhaps we need to amend the US Constitution so that if you are receiving Welfare, you are disqualified from voting?

That oughta be enough to give The Left an apoplexy fit, but, consider, from a certain vantage point...

If a judge is faced with a conflict of interest, he-or-she is obliged to recuse him- or herself from a case...

Welfare voters are similarly encumbered with a conflict-of-interest...

One that could potentially prove lethal to our national finances and diversity of viable political parties...

The solution looks bad as can be and stinks to high heaven, vis a vis our traditional favoring of egalitarianism, but...

Some such thing is the only way that we can begin to weed-out the Panderers and Vote Whores who will continue to promise to sustain and expand The Dole...

If there is another way around that Po' Folk Conflict of Interest, I'd be game to hear about it.

Really people who are on welfare shouldn't be able to vote. It's like giving your 5 year old kid the same say in your house as you have as the adult.

Well, not quite, perhaps.

More like: Empowering the Poor to dictate how much money Non-Poor Folk must give them.

That's just insane, and will only lead to greater and greater numbers on The Dole, until the whole goddamned thing collapses under its own weight.

A blind man could see it comin' a mile away.

But I seriously doubt we'll do anything about it, in time to save our kids or grandkids.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

That is an accurate assessment.

Perhaps we need to amend the US Constitution so that if you are receiving Welfare, you are disqualified from voting?

That oughta be enough to give The Left an apoplexy fit, but, consider, from a certain vantage point...

If a judge is faced with a conflict of interest, he-or-she is obliged to recuse him- or herself from a case...

Welfare voters are similarly encumbered with a conflict-of-interest...

One that could potentially prove lethal to our national finances and diversity of viable political parties...

The solution looks bad as can be and stinks to high heaven, vis a vis our traditional favoring of egalitarianism, but...

Some such thing is the only way that we can begin to weed-out the Panderers and Vote Whores who will continue to promise to sustain and expand The Dole...

If there is another way around that Po' Folk Conflict of Interest, I'd be game to hear about it.

Really people who are on welfare shouldn't be able to vote. It's like giving your 5 year old kid the same say in your house as you have as the adult.

SUPERMAN1929
Kondor3


That's RW traitors for you. They always hate equality and they always go for any chance to screw over disabled vets.

And oooo oooo If they're Black or Hispanic, that's double win for the RW scum.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

That is an accurate assessment.

Perhaps we need to amend the US Constitution so that if you are receiving Welfare, you are disqualified from voting?

That oughta be enough to give The Left an apoplexy fit, but, consider, from a certain vantage point...

If a judge is faced with a conflict of interest, he-or-she is obliged to recuse him- or herself from a case...

Welfare voters are similarly encumbered with a conflict-of-interest...

One that could potentially prove lethal to our national finances and diversity of viable political parties...

The solution looks bad as can be and stinks to high heaven, vis a vis our traditional favoring of egalitarianism, but...

Some such thing is the only way that we can begin to weed-out the Panderers and Vote Whores who will continue to promise to sustain and expand The Dole...

If there is another way around that Po' Folk Conflict of Interest, I'd be game to hear about it.

Really people who are on welfare shouldn't be able to vote. It's like giving your 5 year old kid the same say in your house as you have as the adult.

SUPERMAN1929
Kondor3


That's RW traitors for you. They always hate equality and they always go for any chance to screw over disabled vets.

And oooo oooo If they're Black or Hispanic, that's double win for the RW scum.

Nah. Veterans should be exempt from pretty much everything if they are disabled. I mean they fought in our country's wars so why wouldn't they be able to vote?

 

[Katzndogz]

Easily, black women of whom 40% have been on food stamps at one time in their lives are the face of welfare. They are a very solid Democrat block.

Minority women in particular are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women (39%) have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 31% of Hispanic women but 14% of Hispanic men received assistance.

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients Pew Research Center

Black men don't need to be on welfare. They suck off the women who are on welfare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Zero. Simply because this is nothing more than buying votes. Oh, but Democrats want to purge "big money" from politics. Right. Let me know how that works out.

You don't think the defense industry buys Republican votes? You don't think the oil industry buys Republican votes? You don't think the polluters buy Republican votes? You don't the anti-regulation financial lobby buys Republican votes?

Why don't you?

So when do I get my check from the defense industry?

You don't. You get the bill.

So who's vote is getting bought than?

The Republicans in Congress, with rare exceptions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every senior on Medicare is on welfare. They vote Republican quite reliably.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Every senior on Medicare is on welfare. They vote Republican quite reliably.

Every senior on Medicare is on welfare. They vote Republican quite reliably.

Yabut, according to RWs, little old ladies who worked all their lives should be cast out on the street.

Same with little kids.

Thing is, some of them are Black, so they should be the first to starve to death.

 

[vhclark]

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Pauls vote is a lock

 

[rdean]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

Republicans imagine the most ridiculous stuff. A good science or math class might help with that.
Ground them in reality. Course, they could be too far gone.

Course, the odds are if it's a Red State, it's a white conservative ON FOOD-STAMPS who wants to get rid of food-stamps because they think it will hurt black people. Then, when they lose their own food-stamps. they cry government doesn't work.

 

[rdean]

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Pauls vote is a lock

Many rich don't care who they rob. Remember Romney? But once they got it, the GOP is duty bound to protect them from having to share it. They think they are doing "God's work". God will make sure they wind up burning in hell.

 

[Kondor3]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

That is an accurate assessment.

Perhaps we need to amend the US Constitution so that if you are receiving Welfare, you are disqualified from voting?

That oughta be enough to give The Left an apoplexy fit, but, consider, from a certain vantage point...

If a judge is faced with a conflict of interest, he-or-she is obliged to recuse him- or herself from a case...

Welfare voters are similarly encumbered with a conflict-of-interest...

One that could potentially prove lethal to our national finances and diversity of viable political parties...

The solution looks bad as can be and stinks to high heaven, vis a vis our traditional favoring of egalitarianism, but...

Some such thing is the only way that we can begin to weed-out the Panderers and Vote Whores who will continue to promise to sustain and expand The Dole...

If there is another way around that Po' Folk Conflict of Interest, I'd be game to hear about it.

Really people who are on welfare shouldn't be able to vote. It's like giving your 5 year old kid the same say in your house as you have as the adult.

SUPERMAN1929
Kondor3


That's RW traitors for you. They always hate equality and they always go for any chance to screw over disabled vets.

And oooo oooo If they're Black or Hispanic, that's double win for the RW scum.

Calm down and take your even meds, pissant...

In all likelihood, in the Real World, I've done more for the poor, and for disabled vets, than you ever will... by an order of magnitude.

 

[Kondor3]

Every senior on Medicare is on welfare. They vote Republican quite reliably.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice.

The generic term 'welfare' is generally understood in our present times to encompass TANF, Food Stamps, etc., not Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, etc.

But you-and-yours can have a field day pretending otherwise.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We need to get rid of the unconstitutional programs that are illegally soaking so much of our country's tax money.

Some of us are not liberals. We don't want government involved in things other than protecting our fundamental rights.

The argument that "government is doing SO much more (paying retirement funds, paying unemployment, paying health subsidies, etc. etc.) that to stop those things would cause chaos and pain", is itself bogus.

I'm sorry the government has deliberately gotten its subjects hooked so heavily on the narcotic of "government help and free stuff" and is now sounding warnings about the withdrawal symptoms that will happen if it stops. That doesn't mean that the addiction is a good thing, and doesn't mean we are better off getting more and more hooked.

We MUST stop the addiction (gradually if necessary) before it kills the patient, and must get the patient (that's the country) healthy again. First step is to get rid of the dope peddlers (liberals), while showing the patient that, painful though it my be, breaking the addiction is the only way they can survive. Next is to step down the dosage of drugs (govt help and free stuff), on a schedule that CANNOT be altered or slowed.

The American people have to get used to the fact that the gravy train is doing the country more harm than good, and that they must get used to getting along without it.

Either we will get rid of the gravy train by legislating it out of existence sooner, or we'll get rid of it by its running out of Other People's Money and completely collapsing later. But not as "later" as you might think.

There IS no other way - one of those two things WILL happen.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Government gifts" (more accurately called "Robbing Peter to pay Paul") is exclusively a liberal thing, regardless of which party they are in. Conservatives know that government has no business doing such a thing, and rightly regard it as theft, followed by distribution of stolen goods.

The Declaration of Independence points out that government are created to protect our fundamental rights... and for no other purpose.

And it also mentions that when a government starts abusing those rights instead of protecting them, we have a duty to alter that government to make it stop. And, if it won't alter, to overthrow it.

The DOI was referring to the British government of the 1700s when it said that. But the people who wrote it and enacted it, knew that the British government wasn't the only one that could abuse people's rights.

And stealing and distributing the stolen goods (that is, taxing to give the money to people you have no authority to give it to), is one of the most fundamental abuses. A major reason we create governments, is to keep people from stealing our stuff. When government itself starts stealing from us, then what do we do?

The DOI answers that question in no uncertain terms.

 

[BluesLegend]

The abled bodied welfare mooches made their bed with Dem's they can just lay in it. The rest of us will move up and on with our lives.

 

[auditor0007]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.

Yeah.....i'm sure you see people on face book all the time telling the world they're on welfare.

I happen to know a number of people who work full-time but still need some assistance to get by. They don't tell me on Facebook. They've told me in person. I happen to live in the real world where I see and know people from many different life situations.

So let me guess,they have a min wage job,five kids and no skills.

Most that I know have one or two kids and a minimum wage job. Some of them work a full-time job and a part-time job. Some are single mothers where the fathers do not support their kids, so they need help. Some of them are working more than full-time, trying to raise a kid and go to school at the same time. While their skills are limited, they do work their asses off. People like this deserve to have a roof over their head, food on the table, and health care coverage. If you don't like that idea, which I'm pretty sure you do not, then I can't help you, but I will continue supporting the idea that we should help people as much as we can to improve their lives, and that doesn't mean cutting them off of government assistance when they need it the most. Bottom line is that I'm sick of hearing ignorant conservatives blame the poor for being poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Government gifts" (more accurately called "Robbing Peter to pay Paul") is exclusively a liberal thing, regardless of which party they are in. Conservatives know that government has no business doing such a thing, and rightly regard it as theft, followed by distribution of stolen goods.

The Declaration of Independence points out that government are created to protect our fundamental rights... and for no other purpose.

And it also mentions that when a government starts abusing those rights instead of protecting them, we have a duty to alter that government to make it stop. And, if it won't alter, to overthrow it.

The DOI was referring to the British government of the 1700s when it said that. But the people who wrote it and enacted it, knew that the British government wasn't the only one that could abuse people's rights.

And stealing and distributing the stolen goods (that is, taxing to give the money to people you have no authority to give it to), is one of the most fundamental abuses. A major reason we create governments, is to keep people from stealing our stuff. When government itself starts stealing from us, then what do we do?

The DOI answers that question in no uncertain terms.

The People create the government. The People decide what powers the government will have.

When you get enough People together who want to cut off government help for the poor, or the disabled, or the elderly, or whoever,

you win. Until then, you lose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.

Yeah.....i'm sure you see people on face book all the time telling the world they're on welfare.

I happen to know a number of people who work full-time but still need some assistance to get by. They don't tell me on Facebook. They've told me in person. I happen to live in the real world where I see and know people from many different life situations.

So let me guess,they have a min wage job,five kids and no skills.

Most that I know have one or two kids and a minimum wage job. Some of them work a full-time job and a part-time job. Some are single mothers where the fathers do not support their kids, so they need help. Some of them are working more than full-time, trying to raise a kid and go to school at the same time. While their skills are limited, they do work their asses off. People like this deserve to have a roof over their head, food on the table, and health care coverage. If you don't like that idea, which I'm pretty sure you do not, then I can't help you, but I will continue supporting the idea that we should help people as much as we can to improve their lives, and that doesn't mean cutting them off of government assistance when they need it the most. Bottom line is that I'm sick of hearing ignorant conservatives blame the poor for being poor.

The best way for the Rich to get people to take their eyes off what's happening at the top of the ladder is to get them to look at what's happening at the bottom of the ladder.

 

[Freewill]

Imagine this scenario. A person is receiving benefits from the government. That person has to make a choice between two candidates. One promises to extend this benefits forever and the other wants to end them. Who do you think that person will vote for?

It just seems like that the candidate promising to maintain those benefits has an advantage over the one that doesn't. I've spoken with people who are on these programs and they say they are great. It almost impossible for anyone to run on taking them away from them and you definitely can't tell them that to their face especially when they tell you they have a billion kids to feed. How does anyone run on taking away those benefits?

The funny part is that if you look up Clinton's bio, Bill that this, one of his crowning achievements was welfare reform.

 

[J.E.D]

As usual, cowardly hypocrite, SpecialEdDear cherry picked from that post. The post actually reads,

You would be very surprised at how many redneck welfare Republicans are actually out there. They are so dumb they don't even understand that they are on welfare. This is because they work low paying jobs but still need some government assistance to make it. But they think when Republicans talk about welfare Queens, they are talking about someone else, so they agree with the cons. It's the funniest shit I've seen in some time, but I see this shit on Facebook all the time.

And auditor0007 is correct.

You're a dumbass welfare queen.

SUPERMAN1929

You take the name of a super being and yet you're a liar.

I have yet to see even one of your posts that is anything but lies.

Look no further than this post. Negros smell bad. Fact.

See what I mean?

Yet another lie.

Or maybe you're just stooopid.

Or BOTH!

One thing I know for sure, slime like you are alive only because its illegal to kill you.

SUPERMAN1929

You take the name of a super being and yet you're a liar.

I have yet to see even one of your posts that is anything but lies.

Look no further than this post. Negros smell bad. Fact.

Fuck you, asshole. On her worst day my wife smells better than you on your best day.

Wow. That's a big assumption. Have you smelled me before? I smell rather sweet.

Have you smelled my wife, dipshit? Go fuck yourself.

I have a high IQ unlike people that want to debate stupid shit. Everyone knows that all blacks vote democrat because of group think and they get called uncle tom if they aren't part of the group.

We're not talking about your group think theory, Mr. High IQ. We're talking about your statement of supposed fact that "negros smell bad". You ignorant sack of dicks.