Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Contumacious]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

**** 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.

.

 

[kaz]

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

There is no social security trust fund. They collect a tax and spend it.

Oh, kaz, but they invest it in t-bills, don't they?

OK, but who pays back the t-bills? Your children.

So, you give your children a trust fund of t-bills, you also give them the bill to pay back the t-bills. How is that a trust fund?

 

[Contumacious]

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

Medicare is a Ponzi scheme.

it should be abolished. Clinto admitted that there was no Social Security Fund - that the moneys paid into Medicare were comingled with general revenue funds.

.

 

[kaz]

Are you gonna send us back all the damn money we paid into social security and medicare? You agree with privatizing all retirement. Good.

Send it back? No. Stop taking it? Yes. Unfortunately there is no money to send back.

That's the law of the land. I paid it, I take it. Don't like the law of the land move..

Good luck with that. There is no money. As for me, I would be thrilled with the deal that I'll never get a dime from Social Security but I can just stop paying for it now and walk away from all I paid.

 

[MaggieMae]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

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.

That you are clearly unaware of this is remarkable and tragic.

Is such ignorance indicative of all conservatives or only you?

Judging from this thread it seems the former.

I'm sick of the stupid "government caused the wall street thing".

To listen to the right, ‘government’ is responsible for hair loss, stubbed toes, and Beck no longer being on Fox.

Don't judge all by the crazy ideas of a few.

I'm trying not to, since I seem to be seeing a more toned-down conversation lately. (But that may be because I haven't been posting as much as usual.) I'm hoping eventually radical accusations flying back and forth will be less frequent and end altogether at some point.

 

[kaz]

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?

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.

 

[Toronado3800]

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

There is no social security trust fund. They collect a tax and spend it.

Oh, kaz, but they invest it in t-bills, don't they?

OK, but who pays back the t-bills? Your children.

So, you give your children a trust fund of t-bills, you also give them the bill to pay back the t-bills. How is that a trust fund?

Hey, you are off topic!

Just kidding lol. I thought your crack at me for trying to make your liberal idea fair at least was pretty funny.

Well, how many Americans actually own their house? The bank owns mine for the next couple years. Guess I should consolidate some money in it so i can vote?

Liberaltarians forgot to consider how big government built this country using the military to enforce land handouts of Indian land big government bought from colonial powers.

I worked for the union pacific which is still selling off big government welfare land from the trancontinental railroad days.

Think harder, I agree white middle class kids and others milk unemployment for all it is worth. Get an idea and try to turn the unemployment office into a day laybor office.

This way you build up the unemployed like the Homestead Actand CCC did.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm sick of the stupid Wall Street thing. Government caused the crisis which I opposed and bailed them out which I opposed and I'm supposed to apologize for that somehow, I don't think so.

On China, I also oppose deficit spending, and I'm proposing a solution to that, people who spend other people's money. That supports my point, it doesn't counter it.

I'm sick of the stupid "government caused the wall street thing". Government didn't cause the Casino of reselling mortgages and profiting off of each time it got sold to the point of collapse. It's obvious that you have no clue about this stuff. You just want to say Fannie and Freddy.... and as long as it absolves corporate greed... it's a good enough excuse for you.

Without government interference in free markets, some institutions will succeed and others fail. When Clinton started forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, it was the first domino in causing widespread industry failure which lead to the Great Recession, which we are still deeply in. However, regardless of whether or not government caused it, I opposed the bailouts so your argument is still irrelevant. I oppose all government interference in free markets, hence they are free. Which means individual players will succeed or fail and we live with it. Only government can tilt the playing field and cause them all to fail, and that is warped by leaches voting themselves other people's money.

So you don't think the banks who gambled with deposits weren't playing with other people's money? When depositors and investors started demanding their money back, there was none there. Ergo: The financial crisis of 2008.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

That you are clearly unaware of this is remarkable and tragic.

Is such ignorance indicative of all conservatives or only you?

Judging from this thread it seems the former.


To listen to the right, ‘government’ is responsible for hair loss, stubbed toes, and Beck no longer being on Fox.

Judging from this thread, and from each and every post I have read by persons who hate Obama, persons who would forever deny any rights for gay folks, people who pay few if any taxes, but complain about doing that while living in the most free, most prosperous, most diverse, most rich nation in the world,

I will say this... all of the above people seem to have voluntarily absented themselves from a studious study of history, and from the disciplines of law, science, economics, psychology, and even religious philosophy. They have barricaded themselves in their defensive corner, and strike out at anyone who challenges them to think with an open mind.

As an observer, Americans who whine and complain and continue to "think" that way.... look to me to be dragging the reputation of America down. Given all the wonderful gifts that the USA offers people, compared to every other nation and location on planet Earth, to hear people complain about being asked to give equal rights to other fellow Americans, complain about having to pay a few taxes, complain about a leading Constitutional law scholar occupying the White House, complain about corporations not being allowed to operate tax free, complain about welfare and healthcare for the poor and sick, complain about (and threaten) people that disagree with them, complain that their religious beliefs are not officially endorsed by the government, complain that the slow recovery from the worst recession since the 12 year Great Depression isn't over yet, after 30 months, complain about convicts having rights under the Constitution, complain about the rights of workers being "cumbersome" and inefficient for bosses, complain about gun legislation, complain about the national debt they themselves supported running up, complain about Fox News being scrutinized for their outright lies.........

the list of their complaints is ENDLESS, and yet, on their national holiday, marking the start of their great nation, they are free to complain all they want that everyone doesn't think and complain as they themselves do. But they don't appear to an outsider's view to be a group of American people very "grateful" for their good fortune, living and being free as they are, in that great nation, the USA!

And now, with THIS thread, they would ask to deny poor mothers the right to vote?

I am simply dumbfounded.

 

[kaz]

I'm sick of the stupid "government caused the wall street thing". Government didn't cause the Casino of reselling mortgages and profiting off of each time it got sold to the point of collapse. It's obvious that you have no clue about this stuff. You just want to say Fannie and Freddy.... and as long as it absolves corporate greed... it's a good enough excuse for you.

Without government interference in free markets, some institutions will succeed and others fail. When Clinton started forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, it was the first domino in causing widespread industry failure which lead to the Great Recession, which we are still deeply in. However, regardless of whether or not government caused it, I opposed the bailouts so your argument is still irrelevant. I oppose all government interference in free markets, hence they are free. Which means individual players will succeed or fail and we live with it. Only government can tilt the playing field and cause them all to fail, and that is warped by leaches voting themselves other people's money.

So you don't think the banks who gambled with deposits weren't playing with other people's money? When depositors and investors started demanding their money back, there was none there. Ergo: The financial crisis of 2008.

Did you read my post?

 

[Contumacious]

FOUR VOTERS in this poll, so far, are confirmed Nazi's, parading or impersonating educated American citizens

ELEVEN VOTERS in this poll, so far, are confirmed members of the Parasitic Faction, Nazi's, who are parading or impersonating educated American citizens.

After 12 years at a government brainwashing center they actually believe that their neighbors and taxpayers owe them a living.

.

 

[MaggieMae]

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find you to be amazingly liberal in your approach. But hey, w/o free thought from the most open minded nothing would be made better.

Personally I am against the idea. Gotta have everyone vote for what is for the best of the country as a whole, not just my elite ruling class.

But, long as we are talking, throw in the Bill Dewitts of the world who take government money by the millions in the name of their business ventures.

Then throw in the entire population, working and residential of the Chesterfield Valley. Place used tons of my tax money to build levees for their benefit. Like there wasnt land left up the hill in america. Nooooo, we had to spend my money to make the worthless floodplain sell for more. Someone must have had some political clout to pull that off.

Throw that in and we will have a working proposal. Not that I believe the international business suckerfish elite or the permanently unemoloyed care and being disenfranchised but hey, it sounds threatening.

For sure by the time your ammendment and thousand page subsequent law are in effect you were going to allow those qualified for disability and injured in service to the countey to vote, right?

Dont loose track of my ideas posted above.

Your other ideas were not part of my proposal. I said people who get Federal government welfare checks. If you want to argue people who "benefit" from government, start your own thread to do it, that's not my proposal.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll be sure to tell ,my bed ridden 90 year old granma to get off her azz and get a job.

You do that, but it has nothing to do with me. I'm saying she should have saved for her own retirement. Or better...

...her deadbeat family should help her out of the goodness of their heart instead of relying on government guns forcing strangers to do it....

Coulda/woulda/shoulda. If you sleep better with that thought process, then knock yourself out. You can't change in midstream things in place that might have been done differently. The inyourface fact about elderly care is that TODAY, families DO NOT care for their elderly relatives, and they stopped doing that a long, long time ago when giant six-bedroom, two-story homes became an unaffordable option to house every member of an immediate family.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Is there a power delegated to the Unites States which permits it to assist an individual
if his income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, .

.

 

[MaggieMae]

The question was if he was disabled in service to our country, not just if he's a veteran and he's disabled. That's not welfare, he actually earned it.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

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.

 

[Antiderivative]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

Actually, MOST people don't.

That's what I ment. Sorry I worded it wrong. But their are a lot of people who abuse the system.

Yes, there are, but catching them is easier said than done. Most state social welfare offices are understaffed and their employees underpaid for the massive number of cases they're expected to keep track of. Been there, done that. If people want welfare fraud to stop, then they can't defund the money needed to do the job.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.