Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[MaggieMae]

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."

I don't know who Tytler is, but I do know who Ronald Reagan was, and this is his most quoted remark on democracy:

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

 

[Antiderivative]

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.

Promises made by politicians, especially running for election/reelection, doesn't automatically turn into someone profiting from a vote. Not for people; not for corporations. For lobbyists, yes, who will turn on a dime, if it goes in their pockets.

The most richest counties centralize around Washington with Los Alamos being the 6th.

Politicians profit nicely from votes. To say otherwise is absurd.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

NOW what are you talking about? Arrested for WHAT? If a company engages in tax evasion, yes, law enforcement will confiscate assets to collect the tax and probably prosecute the perps. But last I looked, there's no one in jail because they avoided paying taxes.

 

[rdean]

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.

Talk about class warfare.

 

[kaz]

What you propose is illegal and un-Constitutional, a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the case law in support of those acts, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as it discriminates against a suspect class of persons

Actually there is no right to vote in the Constitution and nothing I'm proposing is based on race, gender or any other ethnicity. You went to a government school, didn't you?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, which pretty much covers every stripe, the "right to vote" is a state right. Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote, which would actually be redundant.

What does this have to do with anything I said?

 

[kaz]

Define a "federal government welfare check." I know of no one who gets a check just for being poor or out of work. If a person's income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, those are all separately administered on a case-by-case basis, usually with more help from state social welfare programs than the federal government.

A welfare check is a check that is written to a citizen of the United States which they did nothing to earn. The money is plundered from someone else and redistributed to you by a politician. Social Security is welfare because while we pay a tax, it is spent and your check will be confiscated from future taxpayers. Private Pension funds are actually funded and invested for your future benefit and they are based on your working for the money. Social Security is based on you paid welfare to your parents, they paid welfare to their parents, your kids will pay welfare to you...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote, which would actually be redundant.

Or rulings by the Supreme Court:

In South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), the Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was Constitutional and the Federal government had the authority to ensure that each American’s right to vote was protected per the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment, and that such authority did not violate states’ rights.

See also: Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969).

Consequently voting is a fundamental right subject to heightened scrutiny.

 

[kaz]

families DO NOT care for their elderly relatives, and they stopped doing that a long, long time ago

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Plunder is a way of life. I want to change that. In our young greedy friends case, he brazenly told me his grandmother is my problem, not his. It's frankly sad.

 

[kaz]

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?

And who do you suppose gets a nice tax writeoff for paying into Workers Comp and any long-term disability (or even health care) program? "Welfare" doesn't always come in the form of sustenance, you know.

So you consider businesses not paying taxes on benefits they pay their employees to be a "nice tax writeoff?" Seriously? The government shouldn't allow businesses to write off their expenses?

 

[WillowTree]

Define a "federal government welfare check." I know of no one who gets a check just for being poor or out of work. If a person's income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, those are all separately administered on a case-by-case basis, usually with more help from state social welfare programs than the federal government.

A welfare check is a check that is written to a citizen of the United States which they did nothing to earn. The money is plundered from someone else and redistributed to you by a politician. Social Security is welfare because while we pay a tax, it is spent and your check will be confiscated from future taxpayers. Private Pension funds are actually funded and invested for your future benefit and they are based on your working for the money. Social Security is based on you paid welfare to your parents, they paid welfare to their parents, your kids will pay welfare to you...

Then stop collecting social security money for people who work. or stop paying it out to people who have never worked.

 

[kaz]

Actually, MOST people don't.

If they are getting checks of other people's money through government force, then they are treading on other people's civil liberties.

I am for charity, I believe #1 people should pay for themselves, #2 their family should help them, #3 their community or church should help them, and only last should they turn to government. But when you are allowing politicians controlling government guns to take your living for you, you are plundering them and it's wrong.

It's clear you really haven't studied this whole situation very well. Every post of yours reads like a mantra, meaningless and without any real meat to your points, but a whole lotta whining. You might do better in a park with a soapbox.

I'll plead guilty to the soapbox, but the "whining" is all you, babycakes...

 

[rightwinger]

Define a "federal government welfare check." I know of no one who gets a check just for being poor or out of work. If a person's income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, those are all separately administered on a case-by-case basis, usually with more help from state social welfare programs than the federal government.

A welfare check is a check that is written to a citizen of the United States which they did nothing to earn. The money is plundered from someone else and redistributed to you by a politician. Social Security is welfare because while we pay a tax, it is spent and your check will be confiscated from future taxpayers. Private Pension funds are actually funded and invested for your future benefit and they are based on your working for the money. Social Security is based on you paid welfare to your parents, they paid welfare to their parents, your kids will pay welfare to you...

Are farm subsidies welfare checks?

Do we want to block farmers from voting?

 

[kaz]

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.

No you are not. What about the bankers, the corporatists, the bureaucrats, and the MIC?

You are only attacking poor people.

You are full of shit, you haven't read anything I've written. I believe in responding to valid points, but you are an intellectually lazy, pompous twit. Don't go into a conversation and pull accusations out of your ass and expect that your points be treated seriously. I don't agree with Maggie's view, but at least she's asking them based on the conversation. Not an over inflated ego with a blow hole.

I don't support any of those things, I support free markets, go fuck yourself, ass wipe.

 

[eots]

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

For temporary "basic needs" there is PRIVATE CHARITY.

But to allow a member of the Parasitic Faction to vote encourages the welfare state purveyors to increase benefits and widen the basic needs.

.

people having their basic needs met is not the cause of our woes

 

[kaz]

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."

I don't know who Tytler is, but I do know who Ronald Reagan was, and this is his most quoted remark on democracy:

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

Read my sig. And you think Reagan supported people voting for politicians who promised them more of other people's money?

 

[kaz]

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.

NOW what are you talking about? Arrested for WHAT? If a company engages in tax evasion, yes, law enforcement will confiscate assets to collect the tax and probably prosecute the perps. But last I looked, there's no one in jail because they avoided paying taxes.

I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with. I said they confiscate other people's money, if they don't pay they are arrested. You seemed to agree with that.

 

[WillowTree]

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

For temporary "basic needs" there is PRIVATE CHARITY.

But to allow a member of the Parasitic Faction to vote encourages the welfare state purveyors to increase benefits and widen the basic needs.

.

people having their basic needs met is not the cause of our woes

then what iz??? The way I see it the takers will soon outnumber the givers,, it's about 50 50 now.. when that scale tips it's all over but the crying dude.

 

[kaz]

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?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote, which would actually be redundant.

Or rulings by the Supreme Court:

In South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), the Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was Constitutional and the Federal government had the authority to ensure that each American’s right to vote was protected per the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment, and that such authority did not violate states’ rights.

See also: Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969).

Consequently voting is a fundamental right subject to heightened scrutiny.

You're arguing process, I haven't proposed a process. And the Supreme Court has long ago vacated any moral high ground having ruled among other things that there is no first amendment protection (e.g., so called campaign finance reform), second (though they've gotten better, fifth (New London), 9th or 10th, such as Obama Care.

 

[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.

Talk about class warfare.

what about class warfare? Are you saying that only poor get welfare checks? not true, and a huge part of the problem.

 

[eots]

For temporary "basic needs" there is PRIVATE CHARITY.

But to allow a member of the Parasitic Faction to vote encourages the welfare state purveyors to increase benefits and widen the basic needs.

.

people having their basic needs met is not the cause of our woes

then what iz??? The way I see it the takers will soon outnumber the givers,, it's about 50 50 now.. when that scale tips it's all over but the crying dude.

and why would that scale tip ? because having basic food and shelter has become the new american dream ? or because government and corporate america has looted the nation ?