What are the odds any welfare recipient will vote republican?

[Kondor3]

"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.

Trouble is, that's rather like asking a drug addict, if it's OK with him, if we cut off his heroin supply.

A 'conflict of interest' that borders upon (and crosses over that border with) the ridiculous.

The question now before the board is: Should we, as a nation, move to exclude people on Welfare (non-contributing members of society) from voting, in order to remove that conflict of interest?

It cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

The question then becomes: Is the problem serious enough, to look more closely at such an initiative, and to spend enormous time and energy and spirit upon such a question?

 

[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.

Trouble is, that's rather like asking a drug addict, if it's OK with him, if we cut off his heroin supply.

A 'conflict of interest' that borders upon (and crosses over that border with) the ridiculous.

The question now before the board is: Should we, as a nation, move to exclude people on Welfare (non-contributing members of society) from voting, in order to remove that conflict of interest?

It cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

The question then becomes: Is the problem serious enough, to look more closely at such an initiative?

If you would prefer some sort of dictatorship or oligarchy you should just say so.

 

[Kondor3]

"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.

Trouble is, that's rather like asking a drug addict, if it's OK with him, if we cut off his heroin supply.

A 'conflict of interest' that borders upon (and crosses over that border with) the ridiculous.

The question now before the board is: Should we, as a nation, move to exclude people on Welfare (non-contributing members of society) from voting, in order to remove that conflict of interest?

It cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

The question then becomes: Is the problem serious enough, to look more closely at such an initiative?

If you would prefer some sort of dictatorship or oligarchy you should just say so.

Removing the Dolists (those on Welfare) from the equation facilitates a return of sanity and control by Contributing Members of Society.

That is NOT dictatorship NOR is it oligarchy

Hell, it's still very vigorously extant as Universal Sufferage - within the domain of Net Contributors to Society.

We already deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of felony convictions.

That is a punishment.

We may in future find it necessary and wise to deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of Welfare (net 'taker' rather than 'contributor') recipients.

That is mandatory recusal on the basis of conflict of interest... not to mention that they should not have a say in how to spend others' money when they do not contribute.

It is an ugly prospect and stinks to high heaven, and a goddamned tough sell.

Trouble is, it is fast becoming obvious and necessary, as the only way to avoid a continued downward slide to a vast Dolist population within another generation or two.

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It may be time to change it again, with respect to Dolists and Voting Rights.

It would also begin to level the playing field with respect to our multi-party political system.

Preventing one side or the other from manifesting as Panderers and Vote Whores, who prostitute themselves to the Dolists with sugar-plum promises of a socialist paradise, even though that paradise is unattainable and unsustainable.

We are in Big Trouble with respect to the size of The Dole.

The question becomes: Do we have the courage to reverse that state of affairs?

And, if 'yes', what tactic(s) will prove most effective and long-lasting?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Zero plus 1 chance in the lifespan of a universe.

 

[Kondor3]

Zero plus 1 chance in the lifespan of a universe.

Agreed.

God Save the Republic.

Because we sure as hell aren't going to.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Name a program that is unconstitutional and the part of the Constitution that prohibits it
We the People established a government to meet the nations needs

 

[rightwinger]

"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.

Trouble is, that's rather like asking a drug addict, if it's OK with him, if we cut off his heroin supply.

A 'conflict of interest' that borders upon (and crosses over that border with) the ridiculous.

The question now before the board is: Should we, as a nation, move to exclude people on Welfare (non-contributing members of society) from voting, in order to remove that conflict of interest?

It cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

The question then becomes: Is the problem serious enough, to look more closely at such an initiative?

If you would prefer some sort of dictatorship or oligarchy you should just say so.

Removing the Dolists (those on Welfare) from the equation facilitates a return of sanity and control by Contributing Members of Society.

That is NOT dictatorship NOR is it oligarchy

Hell, it's still very vigorously extant as Universal Sufferage - within the domain of Net Contributors to Society.

We already deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of felony convictions.

That is a punishment.

We may in future find it necessary and wise to deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of Welfare (net 'taker' rather than 'contributor') recipients.

That is mandatory recusal on the basis of conflict of interest... not to mention that they should not have a say in how to spend others' money when they do not contribute.

It is an ugly prospect and stinks to high heaven, and a goddamned tough sell.

Trouble is, it is fast becoming obvious and necessary, as the only way to avoid a continued downward slide to a vast Dolist population within another generation or two.

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It may be time to change it again, with respect to Dolists and Voting Rights.

It would also begin to level the playing field with respect to our multi-party political system.

Preventing one side or the other from manifesting as Panderers and Vote Whores, who prostitute themselves to the Dolists with sugar-plum promises of a socialist paradise, even though that paradise is unattainable and unsustainable.

We are in Big Trouble with respect to the size of The Dole.

The question becomes: Do we have the courage to reverse that state of affairs?

And, if 'yes', what tactic(s) will prove most effective and long-lasting?

What about the wealthy who makes millions off the government dole? Do they count as "Dolists"?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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 problem is people who think a min wage job should be career.
If they were to get out there and improve their situation I dont have a problem with assistance.
It's those that use it as a lifelong crutch that I have a problem with.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

More than one at a time.

 

[Borillar]

What are the odds that welfare recipients vote at all?

 

[hangover]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.

There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.

So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.

There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

You can't deal with "if", you must deal with reality. None of the debt has been paid since Andrew Jackson. Throwing the elderly and poor out in the street by cutting those programs, only creates a homeless and prison problem. And if you think the cons are going to cut out the defense budget, you're really in dream land.

 

[g5000]

The very reason liberals are always screaming for us to "tax the rich more" is precisely because they are too simple minded to see that wealth is being transferred up the food chain legislatively. That's why you will find I have opposed taxing the rich more every time the subject comes up. Raising tax rates on the rich is treating the symptom rather than the disease.

You are about as wrong about me as it gets, Acorn.

Eliminating tax expenditures would allow us to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

$18 trillion national debt.....If it's going to get paid off, those with the money are going to have to pay it. Don't pay it and money will be worthless.

Oh BTW, it was the rich that ran up that debt....there are no poor or even middle class in congress.

You would not have to raise tax rates on anyone. Period.

There are $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures given away each year. What's the deficit each year? A lot less than that.

So if you ban all tax expenditures, not only would you have a balanced budget, you would have a massive surplus, which means you could lower everyone's tax rates and pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid off, you could lower tax rates even further.

There is absolutely no need to raise tax rates on the rich. That would be treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

You can't deal with "if", you must deal with reality. None of the debt has been paid since Andrew Jackson. Throwing the elderly and poor out in the street by cutting those programs, only creates a homeless and prison problem. And if you think the cons are going to cut out the defense budget, you're really in dream land.

Where did I say throw the elderly and poor out in the street?!?

Tax expenditures have nothing to do with food stamps or Social Security. Or Defense, for that matter.

The savings from eliminating tax expenditures are realized regardless if spending is reduced in other areas. Just be banning tax expenditures, you would gain $1.2 trillion in revenues, without cutting a dime in spending.

That $1.2 trillion could be spend by reducing everyone's tax rates and paying down the debt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

that's true; its a conflict of interest. This is a widely recognized concept, but its hopeless to pursue given that most voters now get some welfare entitlements. We are doomed.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

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.

that's true; its a conflict of interest. This is a widely recognized concept, but its hopeless to pursue given that most voters now get some welfare entitlements. We are doomed.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

It's really a tough thing to deal with overall. I believe all adults who aren't felons should be able to vote but whenever something like welfare is the issue it makes things hard.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

that's true; its a conflict of interest. This is a widely recognized concept, but its hopeless to pursue given that most voters now get some welfare entitlements. We are doomed.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

It's really a tough thing to deal with overall. I believe all adults who aren't felons should be able to vote but whenever something like welfare is the issue it makes things hard.

I believe like our Founders did that democracy is absurd if folks don't understand the issues. So voter qualification tests should be mandatory.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

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.

that's true; its a conflict of interest. This is a widely recognized concept, but its hopeless to pursue given that most voters now get some welfare entitlements. We are doomed.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

It's really a tough thing to deal with overall. I believe all adults who aren't felons should be able to vote but whenever something like welfare is the issue it makes things hard.

I believe like our Founders did that democracy is absurd if folks don't understand the issues. So voter qualification tests should be mandatory.

Unfortunately it would be viewed as discrimination if any race did poorly on the tests.

 

[Kondor3]

"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.

Trouble is, that's rather like asking a drug addict, if it's OK with him, if we cut off his heroin supply.

A 'conflict of interest' that borders upon (and crosses over that border with) the ridiculous.

The question now before the board is: Should we, as a nation, move to exclude people on Welfare (non-contributing members of society) from voting, in order to remove that conflict of interest?

It cannot be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

The question then becomes: Is the problem serious enough, to look more closely at such an initiative?

If you would prefer some sort of dictatorship or oligarchy you should just say so.

Removing the Dolists (those on Welfare) from the equation facilitates a return of sanity and control by Contributing Members of Society.

That is NOT dictatorship NOR is it oligarchy

Hell, it's still very vigorously extant as Universal Sufferage - within the domain of Net Contributors to Society.

We already deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of felony convictions.

That is a punishment.

We may in future find it necessary and wise to deprive citizens of the Right to Vote in the case of Welfare (net 'taker' rather than 'contributor') recipients.

That is mandatory recusal on the basis of conflict of interest... not to mention that they should not have a say in how to spend others' money when they do not contribute.

It is an ugly prospect and stinks to high heaven, and a goddamned tough sell.

Trouble is, it is fast becoming obvious and necessary, as the only way to avoid a continued downward slide to a vast Dolist population within another generation or two.

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It may be time to change it again, with respect to Dolists and Voting Rights.

It would also begin to level the playing field with respect to our multi-party political system.

Preventing one side or the other from manifesting as Panderers and Vote Whores, who prostitute themselves to the Dolists with sugar-plum promises of a socialist paradise, even though that paradise is unattainable and unsustainable.

We are in Big Trouble with respect to the size of The Dole.

The question becomes: Do we have the courage to reverse that state of affairs?

And, if 'yes', what tactic(s) will prove most effective and long-lasting?

What about the wealthy who makes millions off the government dole? Do they count as "Dolists"?

Nope. But feel free to take 'em out around-back and shoot 'em if you like, once they've had a window-dressing kangaroo court trial.

 

[rdean]

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.

You are so fucking brainwashed it's not funny. Most welfare goes to Republicans for one. And there is no "gravy train". People on welfare are barely making it.

Besides, when Republicans are in charge, "rights" goes right out the door. They want to be involved in people's bedrooms. No, not involved, "in control".

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

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.

You are so fucking brainwashed it's not funny. Most welfare goes to Republicans for one. And there is no "gravy train". People on welfare are barely making it.

Besides, when Republicans are in charge, "rights" goes right out the door. They want to be involved in people's bedrooms. No, not involved, "in control".

Prove most welfare goes to republicans. The bottom 20% of voters income wise vote mostly democrat. Nothing you says is valid in any way.

 

[Care4all]

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.

You are so fucking brainwashed it's not funny. Most welfare goes to Republicans for one. And there is no "gravy train". People on welfare are barely making it.

Besides, when Republicans are in charge, "rights" goes right out the door. They want to be involved in people's bedrooms. No, not involved, "in control".

Prove most welfare goes to republicans. The bottom 20% of voters income wise vote mostly democrat. Nothing you says is valid in any way.

50% of the people in this entire nation eligible to vote, DO NOT VOTE.... you know that, right?

AND MOST of those in the 20% quin-tile of the lowest income are those who DO NOT VOTE....

Welfare recipients do NOT vote....just look at Ferguson....only 12% of their residents voted, 88% eligible to vote, DID NOT VOTE....

so it's BS as usual with the right wing's contention that welfare recipients vote for the rep that will give them welfare... these people, in general, never voted in their lives....