Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Contumacious]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

Fuck no.

Firstly, the federal government has no authority to steal from "A" to give "B". So it has no authority to operate a welfare state.

Be that as it may, welfare recipients will vote for whomever promises to increase their benefits.

Welfare recipients should not be permitted to use their vote as an ATM card which they can use to access the US treasury.

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

Actually, MOST people don't.

Exactly Maggie.

It's the Shiite Republicans that have it stuck in their heads that everyone abuses welfare and unemployment. That people DIDN'T pay into their own Social Security and Medicare funds...

It's always about them and their twisted selfishness.

My words are not what your making them out to be. Please stop as your comments are not at all what I believe.

 

[kaz]

Actually I'm a libertarian. And why do you suppose the founding fathers only allowed landowners to vote?

I would like to know what YOUR answer to that question would be.

And ...another question:

Were you given the right to vote when you turned 18 without owning any land?

The reason was they only wanted stakeholders to vote. I'm not advocating we go that far, only that we don't have people who are living off plundered money vote for more plundering while they are still plundering.

Libertarians, to me, are the most socially irresponsible people in the USA, who hide their affliliation with the conservative Republican Party, shielding themselves with that label, but rooting and actually supporting similar irresponsible Republicans most of the time.

I'm confused, you said librarians are worse then Republicans, but they are just Republicans.

As for my being a Republican, I'm pro-choice, I think prostitution, drugs, gambling and other vices should all be legal. I oppose the wars in the middle east as well as all permanent military presence other then international waters and US territory. Yeah, I'm a Republican. If you want to call me that, I don't care. I only told you to give you the chance to be less ignorant.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You do that, but it has nothing to do with me. I'm saying she should have saved for her own retirement. Or better...

...her deadbeat family should help her out of the goodness of their heart instead of relying on government guns forcing strangers to do it....

You earned the rep you just got from me with that stupid post.

Please, he's telling me I should pay for his Grandmother instead of him, why is that stupid? I believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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.

No they should not. Its buying votes and nothing more.

 

[eots]

those with a birth certificate are share holders btw...and those that make laws are their Representatives not their masters

When their living is coming from their Representatives, you bet your ass the Representatives are their masters...

their living can not possible come from their Representative as Representatives produce nothing

 

[MaggieMae]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

They are infringing on the civil liberties of others through people they are voting for who use the power of guns to do it. Why should they be able to continue to vote for that forced redistribution and infringement on other's right to property WHILE they are doing it?

You have a very skewed interpretation of the Constitutional rights of every American, no matter what flavor or gender. What about a stay-at-home mom who never worked a day in her life but has different political views than her husband who brings home the bacon and pays the taxes? She shouldn't vote because she doesn't "contribute" to your image of your society?

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

If you go out to dinner with a group of people who are paying your share, would you demand an equal say in where you go to eat?

Apples and oranges.

 

[Steelplate]

The question was if he was disabled in service to our country, not just if he's a veteran and he's disabled. That's not welfare, he actually earned it.

It doesn't matter if he was disabled in service to our country... it's still SSI.

Finally... what about a person who was disabled working for a living... hey... I know... let's make it a STATE worker who got hit by some careless motorist while working on a road that you don't want to pay for? He was in the service of his country... or at least his state.

Do they deserve to vote?

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?

Employers don't have long term disability... You going to Have GOVERNMENT FORCE them to carry long term disability Insurance? Wow... mandates... you socialist prick. That's going to hurt business.... don't want to fuck with the JOB CREATORS, now.. do we?

Worker's Comp is one year max... 3 in certain circumstances. Once that runs out... it's SSI.

Walmart used to(I'm not sure if they still do), tell their employees to apply for food stamps and TANF medical benefits so they could pay less and not have to cover their medical insurance.

Get over yourself dude... you aren't that special that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. In fact... no one is... not even our loophole ridden wealth elite or the Corporations that they run.

 

[kaz]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

Fuck no.

Firstly, the federal government has no authority to steal from "A" to give "B". So it has no authority to operate a welfare state.

Be that as it may, welfare recipients will vote for whomever promises to increase their benefits.

Welfare recipients should not be permitted to use their vote as an ATM card which they can use to access the US treasury.

.

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."

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Are you gonna send us back all the damn money we paid into social security and medicare? You agree with privatizing all retirement. Good.

 

[kaz]

You earned the rep you just got from me with that stupid post.

Please, he's telling me I should pay for his Grandmother instead of him, why is that stupid? I believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

Oh.. ok. That's where you are going. Fine. If I am lucky enough to get back some of the money that I paid into SS, I reject the notion that I am on the dole. That's just plain wrong.

But yes, I'd much rather not pay into SS and invest that money myself.

You are on the dole because it's not your money that is paid back to you, it's a future taxpayer's money. Yours was spent at the time you paid it. It's no different then any other tax. You can say you paid for the military and your children should pay for the military, but you can't say they are paying you back for doing it.

well then,, so is theirs. I needed mine to save for MY retirement, but your stupid gov forced it from my hands.

 

[kaz]

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?

What an idealistic and simplistic answer, ignoring all facts about employers firing, or often never hiring people with disabilities. Why should employers have to be burdened with the general health of Americans, why doesn't the nation as a whole provide for everyone, regardless of illness or injury? Why do so many libertarian-minded Americans think it's up to the OTHER guy to provide care for fellow Americans not as fortunate as the healthy ones? Unconsciounable selfishness seems to be a value to libertarians.

Wow, what remarkable pretzel logic that was. Are you double jointed? I am an employer, I own two businesses and have about 30 employees. I offer some disability and some not, it's part of the package we negotiate. Obviously I don't support "sticking" employers with it.

 

[eots]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

Fuck no.

Firstly, the federal government has no authority to steal from "A" to give "B". So it has no authority to operate a welfare state.

Be that as it may, welfare recipients will vote for whomever promises to increase their benefits.

Welfare recipients should not be permitted to use their vote as an ATM card which they can use to access the US treasury.

.

for basic needs they should..this country has vast natural resources and our Representative simply administers the profits for these resources for us and often time wastefully ,a citizen should be able to access these funds for basic needs..just as the Representative draws from these revenue source for its needs

 

[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.

Are you gonna send us back all the damn money we paid into social security and medicare? You agree with privatizing all retirement. Good.

Send it back? No. Stop taking it? Yes. Unfortunately there is no money to send back.

 

[Contumacious]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

They are infringing on the civil liberties of others through people they are voting for who use the power of guns to do it. Why should they be able to continue to vote for that forced redistribution and infringement on other's right to property WHILE they are doing it?

You have a very skewed interpretation of the Constitutional rights of every American, no matter what flavor or gender. What about a stay-at-home mom who never worked a day in her life but has different political views than her husband who brings home the bacon and pays the taxes? She shouldn't vote because she doesn't "contribute" to your image of your society?

Again, the best thing is for the the federal government to cease and desist operating a welfare state.

 

[Steelplate]

Please, he's telling me I should pay for his Grandmother instead of him, why is that stupid? I believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Are you gonna send us back all the damn money we paid into social security and medicare? You agree with privatizing all retirement. Good.

Send it back? No. Stop taking it? Yes. Unfortunately there is no money to send back.

That's the law of the land. I paid it, I take it. Don't like the law of the land move..

 

[kaz]

those with a birth certificate are share holders btw...and those that make laws are their Representatives not their masters

When their living is coming from their Representatives, you bet your ass the Representatives are their masters...

their living can not possible come from their Representative as Representatives produce nothing

OK, you explain it. The Representatives take a vote, they send the IRS out to collect it, the courts to confiscate their assets and the police to arrest them. The Representatives do produce nothing, yet they are their masters because they are the decision makers. That the Representatives produced nothing is why it was plunder, and a crime.