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

[Harry Dresden]

"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?

Ahhhh paying Americans not to vote.

dear idiot this is the path to dictorship.

Goatless boy your long lost goat is smarter than you.

He is such a dick, with no balls.

Baretta did not say that.....if you two can read.....he said he got it from another site and wants to know your opinion....

 

[AmyNation]

Those of us that have our money forcibly redistributed. Stated different, the half of Americans that pay federal income tax and the other taxes that end up in welfare programs of all sorts.



Nobody is complaining about what anyone has. We're complaining about the federal government forcibly taking the wealth of some and giving to others. When the recipients of those handouts are considered rich to most earthlings, possessing such wealth that even the "poor" have air conditioning, it makes the idea of that wealth confiscation all the more intolerable.

So, you say.

As to your second, well that's a whole lot of nonsense which is again, counterproductive to the argument. If you were coming from a "half the country is so poor they dont pay income taxes! How do we help them" instead of a " those greedy poor people taking my money and buying an AC" you would find it much easier to sway people.

What exactly is your argument? You've not made that clear.

If you want to "help them", go right ahead. Write a check. Start a charity. Do what you have to do.

That's a very different thing from forcibly taking money from some to give to others. That's theft.

I suspect you stand against the kind of wealth redistribution that puts taxpayer money into the hands of the rich, so don't bullshit us that a recipient's wealth doesn't matter. Personally, I stand against ALL forcible wealth distribution regardless of the wealth of the recipient.

My argument is that the system promotes failure for the very poor. It's not rocket science, if I'm getting x amount in assistance, and I get a job where I would make less working full time than I would in assistance, then why would I work?

I think we need hasher caps on benifits, coupled with more effort in training and job placement.

However I'm also saying, you catch more flies with honey. I think both parties want the same thing, less Americans on welfare, however when republicans bring it up, they tend to word it as an attack on the poor.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Anything they purchase with their own money or that is given to them voluntarily.

Who says they aren't buying things "with their own money". I'm not suggesting people don't take advantage of the system, however I think complaining that some poor person has an AC is silly, and counterproductive to the discussion.

Many people assemble personal wealth while they are working. I know people who worked in construction and were making $30- $50 an hour while times were good. They were able to buy cars, air contitioners, video games with this money. Now that construction is dried up, they make $10 an hour at Home Depot.

Do we force the poor to liquidate everything they have accumulated in their lives while we ignore the assets of the super wealthy?

what are you saying here RW?......that the rich guy down the street should have to sell some of his stuff to give to the guy at the other end of the street who lost his job some cash?....

 

[eflatminor]

So, you say.

As to your second, well that's a whole lot of nonsense which is again, counterproductive to the argument. If you were coming from a "half the country is so poor they dont pay income taxes! How do we help them" instead of a " those greedy poor people taking my money and buying an AC" you would find it much easier to sway people.

What exactly is your argument? You've not made that clear.

If you want to "help them", go right ahead. Write a check. Start a charity. Do what you have to do.

That's a very different thing from forcibly taking money from some to give to others. That's theft.

I suspect you stand against the kind of wealth redistribution that puts taxpayer money into the hands of the rich, so don't bullshit us that a recipient's wealth doesn't matter. Personally, I stand against ALL forcible wealth distribution regardless of the wealth of the recipient.

My argument is that the system promotes failure for the very poor. It's not rocket science, if I'm getting x amount in assistance, and I get a job where I would make less working full time than I would in assistance, then why would I work?

All true.

I think we need hasher caps on benifits, coupled with more effort in training and job placement.

Again, feel free to start a charity or an organization that focuses on training and job placement. Charge what you like...or nothing at all. Your call.

Forcing some to pay for others is not charity, it's theft.

However I'm also saying, you catch more flies with honey. I think both parties want the same thing, less Americans on welfare, however when republicans bring it up, they tend to word it as an attack on the poor

Perhaps Republicans do. I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian that stands against theft and the idea of forcing some to labor for others. Therefore, I attack welfare whether it's handed out to individuals, organizations or international corporations. Consistency.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i know people who are healthy and cant find work...that they're willing to do and that earns more than welfare, unemployment and other government handouts.

Fixed that for ya...

you did not see the 10.8% unemployment i take it?.....even the MacDonalds out here are not hiring....know a kid who has applied to 4 local fast fooders.....he is still looking.....

 

[Moonglow]

"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?

We can only dream. it would be the death of the democratic party.

Really?

Are people honestly willing to lose a freedom if they think it will hurt "the other guy"?

Just anarcists, republicans, Tea partiers, radial libertarians, you know, those kinds.

 

[eflatminor]

i know people who are healthy and cant find work...that they're willing to do and that earns more than welfare, unemployment and other government handouts.

Fixed that for ya...

you did not see the 10.8% unemployment i take it?.....even the MacDonalds out here are not hiring....know a kid who has applied to 4 local fast fooders.....he is still looking.....

While citizens from other countries sneak into American to fill jobs those on the dole just aren't willing to do. Can't have Americans picking vegetables I guess...

In addition, government puts all kinds of impediments in the way of those that are willing to work, legitimate work anyway. I bet your kid friend has little experience, but any prospective employer must provide a minimum wage, health benefits, etc. Too bad for the kid that just wants to earn a few bucks and get something on his resume.

The good news is, once he gets on the dole, he'll vote to keep the handouts coming.

 

[bodecea]

"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?

We can only dream. it would be the death of the democratic party.

Really?

Are people honestly willing to lose a freedom if they think it will hurt "the other guy"?

Absolutely....just look at all those who say they want to give up the protections, benefits, etc. of legal civil marriage just because they don't want to share it with gay couples.

 

[rightwinger]

Who says they aren't buying things "with their own money". I'm not suggesting people don't take advantage of the system, however I think complaining that some poor person has an AC is silly, and counterproductive to the discussion.

Many people assemble personal wealth while they are working. I know people who worked in construction and were making $30- $50 an hour while times were good. They were able to buy cars, air contitioners, video games with this money. Now that construction is dried up, they make $10 an hour at Home Depot.

Do we force the poor to liquidate everything they have accumulated in their lives while we ignore the assets of the super wealthy?

what are you saying here RW?......that the rich guy down the street should have to sell some of his stuff to give to the guy at the other end of the street who lost his job some cash?....

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility. That is why they structure their earnings to be capital assetts rather than income.

Meanwhile...Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner

 

[occupied]

I fully expect to see something like this become a plank in the republican platform before long. It is becoming harder everyday to paint their voter suppression activities as anything other than what it is and will stop pretending after Obama wins reelection, poor people must be prevented from voting for the republican party to survive, they know it, and are willing to push for such a naked show of fascism to do it.

 

[Publius1787]

"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?

We can only dream. it would be the death of the democratic party.

Really?

Are people honestly willing to lose a freedom if they think it will hurt "the other guy"?

What are you talking about? In a redistributive scheme, who loses freedom? Is it not a conflict of interest to vote for your own welfare benefits? Is it not a conflict of interest to allow those who do not pay for government to vote for government? Yes it is! Obviously you have never read James Madison’s notes on the Constriction or John Locke’s Second Treatise. Nor do you know what the negative concept of liberty that this country was founded on is. If you are going to make this an argument about freedom I want to know what your definition of freedom is. Freedom to other peoples stuff?

 

[eflatminor]

Many people assemble personal wealth while they are working. I know people who worked in construction and were making $30- $50 an hour while times were good. They were able to buy cars, air contitioners, video games with this money. Now that construction is dried up, they make $10 an hour at Home Depot.

Do we force the poor to liquidate everything they have accumulated in their lives while we ignore the assets of the super wealthy?

what are you saying here RW?......that the rich guy down the street should have to sell some of his stuff to give to the guy at the other end of the street who lost his job some cash?....

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility.

The same is true of poor, middle class...everyone that pays taxes. So what's your point?

Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner

No, they stand against being forced to hand over their money to another, which is justified by the Left under the idea that some American's are "poor"...but not so poor they can't live without air conditioners, cars, televisions, phones, etc, etc, etc.

Feel free to hand over your money but stop forcing others into your idea of charity. It's not, it's theft.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Many people assemble personal wealth while they are working. I know people who worked in construction and were making $30- $50 an hour while times were good. They were able to buy cars, air contitioners, video games with this money. Now that construction is dried up, they make $10 an hour at Home Depot.

Do we force the poor to liquidate everything they have accumulated in their lives while we ignore the assets of the super wealthy?

what are you saying here RW?......that the rich guy down the street should have to sell some of his stuff to give to the guy at the other end of the street who lost his job some cash?....

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility. That is why they structure their earnings to be capital assetts rather than income.

Meanwhile...Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility. That is why they structure their earnings to be capital assetts rather than income.

well im willing to bet anyone Right or Left would do whatever it takes to pay the least amount of tax possible.........

Meanwhile...Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner
many of the people bitching about that RW dont live were the Temp gets to be triple digits for weeks at a time......and if they were on the "Govt Dole" and had access to an AC and they lived in those areas.....it would be on.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

what are you saying here RW?......that the rich guy down the street should have to sell some of his stuff to give to the guy at the other end of the street who lost his job some cash?....

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility.

The same is true of poor, middle class...everyone that pays taxes. So what's your point?

Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner

No, they stand against being forced to hand over their money to another, which is justified by the Left under the idea that some American's are "poor"...but not so poor they can't live without air conditioners, cars, televisions, phones, etc, etc, etc.

Feel free to hand over your money but stop forcing others into your idea of charity. It's not, it's theft.

where do you live Eflat?....

 

[eflatminor]

What I am saying is that the personal assets of the wealthy are off limits when it comes to determining their tax liablility.

The same is true of poor, middle class...everyone that pays taxes. So what's your point?

Conservatives whine if someone on welfare owns a stinking air conditioner

No, they stand against being forced to hand over their money to another, which is justified by the Left under the idea that some American's are "poor"...but not so poor they can't live without air conditioners, cars, televisions, phones, etc, etc, etc.

Feel free to hand over your money but stop forcing others into your idea of charity. It's not, it's theft.

where do you live Eflat?....

Why do you ask? I grew up in the Midwest, traveled extensively as a young man (South America, Africa, Middle East), worked at a Fortune 100 around the globe (New York, Connecticut, London, Brussels, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles). Today, I own businesses headquartered in California, Nevada and Ohio. I own property in Ohio with rental agreements in California. I travel a lot, so it's not an easy question to answer.

 

[kaz]

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.

I have a friend who said her boyfriend "hates government." I was confused because I recalled she told me he'd voted for Obama. I asked and she confirmed he had. So I asked, so he wants stuff from government, he just doesn't want to pay anything for it? She said "exactly."

Hmm ... he's not a looker either, not sure what she sees ...

 

[Darkwind]

"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?

What corporate welfare are you talking about?

When did government give money to a corporation, other than alternative energy corporations?

I'll caution you right now. Utilizing loopholes in the tax law, and not being taxed as much as you would like, does NOT qualify as welfare.

 

[dblack]

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

So, once you've retired, you're screwed, eh?

 

[dblack]

"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?

What corporate welfare are you talking about?

When did government give money to a corporation, other than alternative energy corporations?

I'll caution you right now. Utilizing loopholes in the tax law, and not being taxed as much as you would like, does NOT qualify as welfare.

Sure it does. It's every bit as much a transfer of wealth as direct entitlements.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania GOP House Majority Leader: Voter ID Will Allow Mitt Romney To Win State