Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[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.

Social Security and Medicare are not welfare.

It is a forced retirement program, that is you are forced to pay into it your whole life. Welfare is different, we dont all pay a specific "welfare tax" whose funds are soley dedicated to welfare like we do with social security and medicare.

I just had to correct that, carry on.

You're wrong. There is no social security trust fund any more then there is a defense trust fund. No assets are saved. This has been addressed several times, just because you keep repeating the lie doesn't make it truth.

 

[kaz]

What a retarded arrogant comment from one of our under-educated!

I think you probably didn't go to law school, nor any reputable high school. Try the Nineteenth Amendment, (fourteenth as well),or did you sleep through class that day?

Kalamazoo Central High School (note my screen name and home town)

U of Maryland - BS with a double major in Mathematics and Computer Science

Virginia Tech - MS in computer science and applications

U of Michigan - MBA in general management with emphasis in Finance and Corporate Strategy.

But thanks for the observation.

But no economics? How about economics and public policy? In order to understand the ramifications of what you deem "welfare" programs, you would have needed to study both, either in an academic arena or just doing some research on your own. If you're actually more schooled than you appear to be, you'll need to provide us with more substance and fewer conservative talking points.

Hmmm....you don't know what an MBA is, do you? And BTW, Finance is a branch of economics.

 

[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...

So is a corporate subsidy. Next?

The term corporate subsidy is somewhat broad, so if you mean:

1) Tax breaks, then comparing taking less of someone's money to giving someone money earned by someone else is preposterous.

2) Government investment, like Tarp, I agree, it's an abomination to capitalism and free markets and it's wrong and it's exactly what I'm arguing against, giving someone money earned by someone else with the power of government guns.

 

[kaz]

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?

It's still "welfare" for businesses, since you seem to be stuck on that word.

It's welfare to not tax them on the expenses? Repeating it's not an explanation. If my company earns $1M in revenue and has a net profit of $200K, you're going to charge me corporate tax on the whole $1M and if you don't, it's welfare? Explain.

 

[kaz]

So should pensioned disabled veterans who became disabled during their military service get the vote?

This was already asked and answered. Military is not welfare and if you're injured during service disability's not welfare.

 

[kaz]

There's 2 kinds of americans.

1.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of americans and the efficiency of charities.

2.) Those who believe in the charitable giving of bureacrats and the efficiency of big government bureacracies.

Number 1 would be me, number two would be the Left. I believe in effective private charity and those who receive it would be able to vote because they're not on the pubic dole.

The Left believes the charity of bureaucrats is charity. Charity is giving your own money, not someone else's money. With private charity you help people become independent, with forced redistribution of wealth politicians work to chain people to government. And they market to the receiver of government checks to continue to trade shackles for a few more Shekels.

If you actually cared about the poor, you'd give your own money to accountable charities and you'd do everything you can to make keep government away from them. That you actually turn to government and ignore the reality of what they are doing to the poor shows who your real priority is. You. Smug condescension bought with other people's money. Your favorite way to shop.

 

[kaz]

If charity were a legitimate option, welfare never would have existed

My God you are so naive. Welfare exists because politicians realized the incredible power that it provided. They actively push private charity away.

 

[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.

Wow, just wow, you could not be more mistaken or wrong.
SS and Medicare was paid into the system (Government) when people worked or were legally employed, which I did and have.
I expect something back from it.
Since I'm a veteran, most of my medical care is free.
I suppose you'd like to deprive Veterans too?
Government is the problem, not the solution?
By your post, you're leaning toward
having the Government take control of a citizen's personal life, by taking away their right to breed? or a nicer way to say it, mate.
Isn't that MORE Government control you're speaking of?
You have just contradicted yourself.
That's what I thought....

You quoted my post then addressed your paranoid delusions. If you actually have anything to say about the post you quoted, get back to me.

BTW, I've repeatedly said military's not welfare.

 

[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.

Bad idea. I suppose that you'd also be in favor of taking retired vets who live on their retirement (i.e. government money) and don't work would be suspended from voting for a year?

Thought this country was "one citizen, one vote". Does that mean your citizenship should also be revoked for a year?

You seriously think military is welfare? I don't. What is your view that it is based on because that frankly makes no sense to me.

 

[kaz]

The fact this is even a viable thread is wacked. Then lets pose another question?

"Should those who make over one million dollars be allowed to vote?

Actually, it should be asked "Should corporations be allowed to vote?"

Besides.......if you think about it........corporate CEO's actually get 2 votes. One for their corporation and one for them in the polling place.

Dude, actually corporations can't vote....

 

[kaz]

Why is it that whenever welfare is mentioned, conservatives always assume that all welfare recipients are cheats?

Actually as you just demonstrated that's actually what you always hear because I took no position on welfare recipients cheating. If you always hear it, it's always said by definition.

 

[Vanquish]

Why is it that whenever welfare is mentioned, conservatives always assume that all welfare recipients are cheats?

Welfare cheats and lazy bums are the myth that some conservatives tell themselves have caused the downfall of Uh-mar-ika. If only all these poor people would just get jobs (that don't exist) and stop being lazy or poor, Uh-mar-ika would be all right again.

Do they exist, sure. But they're not the bogeyman that some conservatives make them out to be.

 

[Toro]

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.

Social Security and Medicare are not welfare.

It is a forced retirement program, that is you are forced to pay into it your whole life. Welfare is different, we dont all pay a specific "welfare tax" whose funds are soley dedicated to welfare like we do with social security and medicare.

I just had to correct that, carry on.

You're wrong. There is no social security trust fund any more then there is a defense trust fund. No assets are saved. This has been addressed several times, just because you keep repeating the lie doesn't make it truth.

There is a trust fund for SS. It invests solely in nontradable government obligations. It is as if the trust fund invested 100% in Treasury bonds, except the government just skips the middleman and debits participants' accounts as if they were invested in Treasury bonds.

This may give light to the situation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...2000-when-we-had-a-surplus-7.html#post3825575

Hope that helps.

 

[St.Blues]

I don't think welfare recipients should be allowed to vote. Why?, They vote for the party that supports the checks. They are mostly uneducated people and have no idea why they would vote otherwise.
Take a look and listen to the Obama voters on a you tube videos. Politically brain dead at best...

Other videos: Strangely many Obama voters are college students without a clue. Just following the professors orders I guess.

Take the welfare and union voter out of the equation... The Democratic Party would cease to exist.

 

[St.Blues]

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.

Bad idea. I suppose that you'd also be in favor of taking retired vets who live on their retirement (i.e. government money) and don't work would be suspended from voting for a year?

Thought this country was "one citizen, one vote". Does that mean your citizenship should also be revoked for a year?

You seriously think military is welfare? I don't. What is your view that it is based on because that frankly makes no sense to me.

To think the Military is a welfare program is absurd. Yea, The urban area's just can't wait to defend America. How Laughable.......
So many Liberals want to burn the American flag. Democrats make me sick!

 

[Toro]

[

Link? Medicare is paid for by a separate direct payroll tax. Period.

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits. (emphasis added)


William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton

.

At a Senate hearing in July 2001, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked whether the trust fund investments are “real” or merely an accounting device. He responded, “The crucial question: Are they ultimate claims on real resources? And the answer is yes.”

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[St.Blues]

Dick Cheney equal corrupt elite with no real/true party affiliation. He's a RINO at best.
Scum...................................

 

[Care4all]

I don't think welfare recipients should be allowed to vote. Why?, They vote for the party that supports the checks. They are mostly uneducated people and have no idea why they would vote otherwise.
Take a look and listen to the Obama voters on a you tube videos. Politically brain dead at best...

Other videos: Strangely many Obama voters are college students without a clue. Just following the professors orders I guess.

Take the welfare and union voter out of the equation... The Democratic Party would cease to exist.

THAT'S just plain silly....

I think that YOU, and your thinking is about as unamerican as they come! Maybe you should consider living in a less free country where you can be king or Dictator or Lord....?

May you some day fall in to the category of people you consider ''lesser'' than yourself.....it would only be justice served or karma! (i truly do not wish this upon you, the comment was for you to contemplate, the golden rule...treating others fairly, as you would want to be treated, by loving your neighbor)

James 2

Favoritism Forbidden

1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

James 2 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

you probably are not a Christian and that passage means nothing, but if you are a Christian, I would think about that 'uppity' stance of yours....just sayin'

I don't think you are more human or more of a person, or more of a citizen, than your fellow poorer or unfortunate citizen, and you deserve no more privileges than the least among us...I think we are ALL equal and each man/woman, deserves the same right to vote for representation as the next citizen...and certainly the same privilege to vote as the richer guy/gal.....for goodness sakes!

care

 

[Againsheila]

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?

Interesting question. If I'm stuck in their group and have no choice of going elsewhere, I would. And trust me, Americans don't have a choice of emigrating, especially if they are poor.

 

[kaz]

Social Security and Medicare are not welfare.

It is a forced retirement program, that is you are forced to pay into it your whole life. Welfare is different, we dont all pay a specific "welfare tax" whose funds are soley dedicated to welfare like we do with social security and medicare.

I just had to correct that, carry on.

You're wrong. There is no social security trust fund any more then there is a defense trust fund. No assets are saved. This has been addressed several times, just because you keep repeating the lie doesn't make it truth.

There is a trust fund for SS. It invests solely in nontradable government obligations. It is as if the trust fund invested 100% in Treasury bonds, except the government just skips the middleman and debits participants' accounts as if they were invested in Treasury bonds.

This may give light to the situation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...2000-when-we-had-a-surplus-7.html#post3825575

Hope that helps.

Again. Our parents paid social security taxes, "invested" them in t-bills, and spent the money. They then gave us a "trust fund" of t-bills. Oh, and they make us pay back the t-bills. We are doing the same to our children.

You going to take that deal from me? I'll give you a trust fund, make you pay for the trust fund and then you can pay me out of the trust fund. It's not that complicated. There is no social security trust fund any more then a defense trust fund because without assets, there is no trust fund.

Your children will be paying for you out of your own pocket, my friend. The money you say you saved you already spent. If I'm the one between us who doesn't get it, why are you the one who can't be honest about it? You are telling our kids to pay you from a trust fund and giving them the bills for the trust fund. It's welfare.