While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!

[beretta304]

"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sounds fair. I thought the government giving out gifts for votes=illegal. Only people that work for a living should be allowed to vote.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

That you're looking for the larger-herd to follow?​

 

[beretta304]

Sounds fair. I thought the government giving out gifts for votes=illegal. Only people that work for a living should be allowed to vote.

I agree. I had a fried who said he voted for Obama because of the many unemployment extensions he was getting. Of course he stupidly suggested that had Bush still been President, he wouldn't have been able to collect for 99 weeks.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, only the greedy bloated mega rich who alone have prospered under Voodoo and even during this meltdown/depression/great recession should be pandered to. The poor victims should also have their voting rights taken away...It's their fault there are often hundreds of applicants for every job....see sig pp1.

I know, let's cut taxes on the bloated rich, destroy Medicare and health reform, raise taxes and fees on the nonrich, let corporate cheats run wild, cut aid to states and localities, raise military spending to more than the rest of the world combined, and worry about the debt in 2035. Absolute idiocy, dupes.

 

[tjvh]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

I think weed should be legalized, but I think the other stuff should be drug tested.

 

[tjvh]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

I think weed should be legalized, but I think the other stuff should be drug tested.

Regardless... People on the take should be held to the EXACT same standards as other Government employees with regards to drug screenings.

 

[Shelzin]

"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

I think that the only qualification to be able to vote should be that you are an American citizen that lives in the country, excluding Military. I don't care where they are they should be able to vote.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

 

[Article 15]

"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

Does that proposal include the employees and stockholders of companies that receive corporate welfare?

 

[ScienceRocks]

"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

Does that proposal include the employees and stockholders of companies that receive corporate welfare?

Sounds like a good idea to exclude those bastards. Only home owners and the middle class gets the vote.

 

[Article 15]

"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

Does that proposal include the employees and stockholders of companies that receive corporate welfare?

Sounds like a good idea to exclude those bastards. Only home owners and the middle class gets the vote.

What if you are a middle class homeowner who is also a shareholder in a company that receives corporate welfare? Or works for one?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does that proposal include the employees and stockholders of companies that receive corporate welfare?

Sounds like a good idea to exclude those bastards. Only home owners and the middle class gets the vote.

What if you are a middle class homeowner who is also a shareholder in a company that receives corporate welfare? Or works for one?

You lose the vote(within the world that would make both sides happy)

 

[tjvh]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

Bullshit. If our Tax payers are subsidizing people to sit on their asses, then it is not too much to ask that they not abuse substances on our dime. No different than the Constitutionality of requiring a new hire to pee in a cup when they get hired for a job.

 

[Article 15]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

Bullshit. If our Tax payers are subsidizing people to sit on their asses, then it is not too much to ask that they not abuse substances on our dime. No different than the Constitutionality of requiring a new hire to pee in a cup when they get hired for a job.

What about companies receiving government money?

Since tax payer money is subsidizing them should their employees and stockholders be subject to drug testing?

 

[francoHFW]

Welfare applicants are already screened and tested if found suspicious, in the most cost effective way. ANOTHER Pub "OUTRAGE"!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmmmm.

Is there any difference between a guy accepting a contract for a new job and a guy accepting unemployment compensation after losing his?

 

[ScienceRocks]

that may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

bullshit. If our tax payers are subsidizing people to sit on their asses, then it is not too much to ask that they not abuse substances on our dime. no different than the constitutionality of requiring a new hire to pee in a cup when they get hired for a job.

what about companies receiving government money?

Since tax payer money is subsidizing them should their employees and stockholders be subject to drug testing?

yes!

 

[beretta304]

Hmmmm.

Is there any difference between a guy accepting a contract for a new job and a guy accepting unemployment compensation after losing his?

I assume that you mean a Government contract in which case you make a good point. There is certainly a conflict of interest in that scenario.