Take welfare to live=no vote.

[buckeye45_73]

mmhmmm. I DO suppose that's the only way the Goopers could win. Slam the door on everyone that wouldn't vote for them if they had a gun to their head.

nope, they founded the country with that idea.....so you dont see a conflict of interest in people on welfae voting for more welfare...with no intention to get off?

I wasn't aware they directly voted for anything to do with Welfare. Huh. that a ballot question there, chachi?

ujh changing the argumen...but ill call your bluff

so if welfare was on the ballot would you allow them to vote for it?

 

[bucs90]

How bout this: You cannot vote if the company you work for has donated money to any candidate on the ballot.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Brilliant approach to constitutional interpretation. A selective eligibility to vote.

 

[eots]

How bout this: You cannot vote if the company you work for has donated money to any candidate on the ballot.

How about your vote represents about as much choice as coke or pepsi....its really about what kind of icing you want on your Shit-Cake

 

[Cheddarmelon]

nope, they founded the country with that idea.....so you dont see a conflict of interest in people on welfae voting for more welfare...with no intention to get off?

I wasn't aware they directly voted for anything to do with Welfare. Huh. that a ballot question there, chachi?

ujh changing the argumen...but ill call your bluff

so if welfare was on the ballot would you allow them to vote for it?

If it's a vote forwarded to all the people of America, yes.

it's not a hard concept. you know, that whole inconvenient democratic process and all. It's exceedingly inconvenient for Goopers, I know.

 

[Darkwind]

Interesting. So, should anyone who gets more in government benefits than they pay for forfeit their right to vote? What about corporate welfare - bailouts and the like. Should everyone working for those companies give up their vote? What about the stockholders? What about all the freeloaders who are going to 'clean up' on FEMA money after the hurricane. I guess they won't get to vote either, eh?

The first thing you have to understand is being allowed to keep more of your own money is not a government benefit. The second is that corporations don't cast votes.

Having said that, any individual who depends upon government for subsistence should be ineligible to vote until such time as they are able to provide for their own basic needs.

We simply cannot allow people to keep voting for their own monetary gain at the expense of the rest of us.

So all members of the US military....who depend on their govt check to survive...shouldnt be allowed to vote? Cops? Firemen? Teachers? None of them can vote?

Do you know the difference between a job and dependance?

I'm really curious......or are you playing stupid?

 

[dblack]

The first thing you have to understand is being allowed to keep more of your own money is not a government benefit.

Sure it is. Discriminatory taxation benefits some and punishes others. When some of us get to keep more of 'our money', and some of us don't - the ones getting special treatment benefit.

The second is that corporations don't cast votes.

The owners and employees of corporations cast votes - and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of their profits.

Having said that, any individual who depends upon government for subsistence should be ineligible to vote until such time as they are able to provide for their own basic needs.

What if they just depend on government for some stuff?

I want to be clear on where I'm coming from here. I'm fundamentally opposed to the 'caretaker' state. I don't think government has any business supplying us with our 'basic needs', much less big screen tvs and cellphones. But I think it's even more dangerous to indulge the impulse to 'punish' people who take advantage of these programs.

I'm particularly concerned with this kind of moralistic approach to government dependency because, in case you haven't noticed, they seem pretty intent on making all of us dependents of the state. Let's say the statists succeed in taking over health care. Should anyone who uses it forfeit their vote? Or should they forfeit their vote only if the rack up more costs than they've paid for with their taxes?

We simply cannot allow people to keep voting for their own monetary gain at the expense of the rest of us.

Agreed. But we should do it at the Constitutional level - putting the clamps on the politicians and leaders who promote this kind of government. I just don't see much point in finger wagging at the poor. Plus I think the notion that they vote exclusively from the 'pocket book' is overblown. I suspect they vote out of self-interest about as much as any other demographic.

 

[bucs90]

The first thing you have to understand is being allowed to keep more of your own money is not a government benefit. The second is that corporations don't cast votes.

Having said that, any individual who depends upon government for subsistence should be ineligible to vote until such time as they are able to provide for their own basic needs.

We simply cannot allow people to keep voting for their own monetary gain at the expense of the rest of us.

So all members of the US military....who depend on their govt check to survive...shouldnt be allowed to vote? Cops? Firemen? Teachers? None of them can vote?

Do you know the difference between a job and dependance?

I'm really curious......or are you playing stupid?

You depend on that job....right?

Many people "depend" on the government to survive. Some because they work for the government. Others because the government works for them. Others because the government simply maintains civil society so that thugs dont come murder their families and steal all their property (yes, there is a reason that the millionaire neighborhoods are easily "protected" by a flimsly metal gate and a 6 foot wall).

Everyone "depends" on the government in some way or another.

 

[Nightson]

I believe that outside of unemployment that anyone taking welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. People on cradle to grave are of course going to vote themselves more free shit.

As a civilization we can't do it and shouldn't allow it. There's NO way we can sustain this much longer as the takers start eating alive the providers.

I believe we must use the laws to keep this nation economically competitive.

Do I support unemployment=yes
Do I support SSI=YES
DO I support helping people of course.
Do I believe in helping the disabled of course! Hell, maybe I'd add an exception for this group as they can't help it.

We won't be a superpower if we keep walking down this street. We're at half the country right now and that will likely keep growing unless we cap it. Humans have two competing forces 1# The want to better one's self and 2# the want to be taken care of. Something for nothing. NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM can play to this without failure.

We should make 2# harder to come by. There's no economic way around it.

Another attack on the poor. I get your frustration, but it's misdirected. The amount of government assistance each of the many varying individuals living below the poverty line receive is collectively a paltry sum in comparison to government assistance handed to corporations. Tack on hundreds of billions spent annually on foreign aid which on the surface is advertised as eventual welfare for the poor of the third world and you'll realize that poor Americans who depend on their government for sustenance are not your enemy. That is exactly what you're expected to believe, however and it is obviously working quite well...the further division of Americans into mutually despising groups. Divide and conquer. No matter if it's Obama or Romney, come the future welfare will still exist and people will still collect it. Advocation of the suspension of rights of some Americans to supposedly benefit the rights and lives of others? Come on.

 

[Darkwind]

The first thing you have to understand is being allowed to keep more of your own money is not a government benefit.

Sure it is. Discriminatory taxation benefits some and punishes others. When some of us get to keep more of 'our money', and some of us don't - the ones getting special treatment benefit.

The second is that corporations don't cast votes.

The owners and employees of corporations cast votes - and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of their profits.

Having said that, any individual who depends upon government for subsistence should be ineligible to vote until such time as they are able to provide for their own basic needs.

What if they just depend on government for some stuff?

I want to be clear on where I'm coming from here. I'm fundamentally opposed to the 'caretaker' state. I don't think government has any business supplying us with our 'basic needs', much less big screen tvs and cellphones. But I think it's even more dangerous to indulge the impulse to 'punish' people who take advantage of these programs.

I'm particularly concerned with this kind of moralistic approach to government dependency because, in case you haven't noticed, they seem pretty intent on making all of us dependents of the state. Let's say the statists succeed in taking over health care. Should anyone who uses it forfeit their vote? Or should their forfeit their vote only if the rack up more costs than they've paid for with their taxes?

We simply cannot allow people to keep voting for their own monetary gain at the expense of the rest of us.

Agreed. But we should do it at the Constitutional level - putting the clamps on the politicians and leaders who promote this kind of government. I just don't see much point in finger wagging at the poor. Plus I think the notion that they vote exclusively from the 'pocket book' is overblown. I suspect they vote out of self-interest about as much as any other demographic.

Begin with this. There is no punishment. If I say to you, if you vote for Me, I'll see to it that those who want to require you to take classes so that you have to go back to work, will be blocked in the Congress", that is a bribe for a vote. A person who is opposed to going back to work or school so that they can continue to get that government program will vote for that person.

This is called voting for your own income. It is similar to the unions buying a congress person, and then sitting down across from that person to negotiate pay raises from the government.

It is wrong.

So, I say that if you receive money or subsistence from government, you cannot vote your own benefit from the treasury. This would not be a permanent thing. As soon as you are able to provide for yourself or your family, and you no longer take any subsistence from government, you can once again vote.

I would of course, allow for people who depend upon government because of some physical restriction or inability to provide for themselves through no fault of their own. The whole point of the policy is to get people acting for themselves and being responsible for themselves, even if they don't like it.

The other thing is this. Taxation at any rate that is different from anyone else is a form of discrimination. Taxation rates are not benefits. If I get taxed at 28%, simply because someone else thinks I should be taxed at 35, does not mean that I am getting government welfare.

That whole notion is a warped way of looking at what taxation is. It (income) is MINE prior to the taxation. Taxation is confiscation and no benefit.

People vote. Corporations do not.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

The first thing you have to understand is being allowed to keep more of your own money is not a government benefit.

Sure it is. Discriminatory taxation benefits some and punishes others. When some of us get to keep more of 'our money', and some of us don't - the ones getting special treatment benefit.

The owners and employees of corporations cast votes - and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of their profits.

What if they just depend on government for some stuff?

I want to be clear on where I'm coming from here. I'm fundamentally opposed to the 'caretaker' state. I don't think government has any business supplying us with our 'basic needs', much less big screen tvs and cellphones. But I think it's even more dangerous to indulge the impulse to 'punish' people who take advantage of these programs.

I'm particularly concerned with this kind of moralistic approach to government dependency because, in case you haven't noticed, they seem pretty intent on making all of us dependents of the state. Let's say the statists succeed in taking over health care. Should anyone who uses it forfeit their vote? Or should their forfeit their vote only if the rack up more costs than they've paid for with their taxes?

We simply cannot allow people to keep voting for their own monetary gain at the expense of the rest of us.

Agreed. But we should do it at the Constitutional level - putting the clamps on the politicians and leaders who promote this kind of government. I just don't see much point in finger wagging at the poor. Plus I think the notion that they vote exclusively from the 'pocket book' is overblown. I suspect they vote out of self-interest about as much as any other demographic.

Begin with this. There is no punishment. If I say to you, if you vote for Me, I'll see to it that those who want to require you to take classes so that you have to go back to work, will be blocked in the Congress", that is a bribe for a vote. A person who is opposed to going back to work or school so that they can continue to get that government program will vote for that person.

This is called voting for your own income. It is similar to the unions buying a congress person, and then sitting down across from that person to negotiate pay raises from the government.

It is wrong.

So, I say that if you receive money or subsistence from government, you cannot vote your own benefit from the treasury. This would not be a permanent thing. As soon as you are able to provide for yourself or your family, and you no longer take any subsistence from government, you can once again vote.

I would of course, allow for people who depend upon government because of some physical restriction or inability to provide for themselves through no fault of their own. The whole point of the policy is to get people acting for themselves and being responsible for themselves, even if they don't like it.

The other thing is this. Taxation at any rate that is different from anyone else is a form of discrimination. Taxation rates are not benefits. If I get taxed at 28%, simply because someone else thinks I should be taxed at 35, does not mean that I am getting government welfare.

That whole notion is a warped way of looking at what taxation is. It (income) is MINE prior to the taxation. Taxation is confiscation and no benefit.

People vote. Corporations do not.

Corporations are people, my friend.

 

[House]

I believe that outside of unemployment that anyone taking welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. People on cradle to grave are of course going to vote themselves more free shit.

As a civilization we can't do it and shouldn't allow it. There's NO way we can sustain this much longer as the takers start eating alive the providers.

I believe we must use the laws to keep this nation economically competitive.

Do I support unemployment=yes
Do I support SSI=YES
DO I support helping people of course.
Do I believe in helping the disabled of course! Hell, maybe I'd add an exception for this group as they can't help it.

We won't be a superpower if we keep walking down this street. We're at half the country right now and that will likely keep growing unless we cap it. Humans have two competing forces 1# The want to better one's self and 2# the want to be taken care of. Something for nothing. NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM can play to this without failure.

We should make 2# harder to come by. There's no economic way around it.

I'll support your cause if you support mine.

What is mine? Anybody that is convicted of a felony related to sex or violent crime should also lose their right to vote unless their conviction is formally overturned or they receive an executive pardon.

 

[Darkwind]

Sure it is. Discriminatory taxation benefits some and punishes others. When some of us get to keep more of 'our money', and some of us don't - the ones getting special treatment benefit.

The owners and employees of corporations cast votes - and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of their profits.

What if they just depend on government for some stuff?

I want to be clear on where I'm coming from here. I'm fundamentally opposed to the 'caretaker' state. I don't think government has any business supplying us with our 'basic needs', much less big screen tvs and cellphones. But I think it's even more dangerous to indulge the impulse to 'punish' people who take advantage of these programs.

I'm particularly concerned with this kind of moralistic approach to government dependency because, in case you haven't noticed, they seem pretty intent on making all of us dependents of the state. Let's say the statists succeed in taking over health care. Should anyone who uses it forfeit their vote? Or should their forfeit their vote only if the rack up more costs than they've paid for with their taxes?

Agreed. But we should do it at the Constitutional level - putting the clamps on the politicians and leaders who promote this kind of government. I just don't see much point in finger wagging at the poor. Plus I think the notion that they vote exclusively from the 'pocket book' is overblown. I suspect they vote out of self-interest about as much as any other demographic.

Begin with this. There is no punishment. If I say to you, if you vote for Me, I'll see to it that those who want to require you to take classes so that you have to go back to work, will be blocked in the Congress", that is a bribe for a vote. A person who is opposed to going back to work or school so that they can continue to get that government program will vote for that person.

This is called voting for your own income. It is similar to the unions buying a congress person, and then sitting down across from that person to negotiate pay raises from the government.

It is wrong.

So, I say that if you receive money or subsistence from government, you cannot vote your own benefit from the treasury. This would not be a permanent thing. As soon as you are able to provide for yourself or your family, and you no longer take any subsistence from government, you can once again vote.

I would of course, allow for people who depend upon government because of some physical restriction or inability to provide for themselves through no fault of their own. The whole point of the policy is to get people acting for themselves and being responsible for themselves, even if they don't like it.

The other thing is this. Taxation at any rate that is different from anyone else is a form of discrimination. Taxation rates are not benefits. If I get taxed at 28%, simply because someone else thinks I should be taxed at 35, does not mean that I am getting government welfare.

That whole notion is a warped way of looking at what taxation is. It (income) is MINE prior to the taxation. Taxation is confiscation and no benefit.

People vote. Corporations do not.

Corporations are people, my friend.

Not too surprised you don't get the context....

 

[House]

Corporations are people, my friend.

I'll believe corporations are people when one is on death row.

 

[dblack]

So, I say that if you receive money or subsistence from government, you cannot vote your own benefit from the treasury. This would not be a permanent thing. As soon as you are able to provide for yourself or your family, and you no longer take any subsistence from government, you can once again vote.

So, we'd keep some kind of a government debit card, that we paid into via taxes, and charged against when we used services? And we could only vote if we were 'in the black'?

I would of course, allow for people who depend upon government because of some physical restriction or inability to provide for themselves through no fault of their own.

See... that's where the 'stingy Republican' zeitgeist loses me. You're assuming some portion of the people on welfare are there through 'fault of their own'. I'd probably have to concede that's true. But how do you know which ones? Isn't that sort of the point of the rules governing eligibility for those programs? If you think those rules need to be changed, let's get to changing them. Monkey around stripping fundamental rights of citizens seems like sledge hammer solution.

The other thing is this. Taxation at any rate that is different from anyone else is a form of discrimination. Taxation rates are not benefits. If I get taxed at 28%, simply because someone else thinks I should be taxed at 35, does not mean that I am getting government welfare.

If you lobby congress for special perks that lower your taxes while your competitors still pay the higher rate, you're sure as hell benefiting. We can quibble over whether you're just 'keeping more of your money' - or whether the other guy is being forced to pay more of his - but in the end, it's bad government and subject to exactly the same kind of "vote selling" you are nominally concerned with from welfare recipients.

 

[Cowman]

I think you mother fuckers need to reassess just what the **** living in America means in the modern age. Listen to you bitches, wanting to go back to landed white male voting system.

 

[Cowman]

Corporations are people, my friend.

I'll believe corporations are people when one is on death row.

I'll believe corporations are people when EA gets hit by a car and ******* dies.

 

[Charles_Main]

I believe that outside of unemployment that anyone taking welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. People on cradle to grave are of course going to vote themselves more free shit.

As a civilization we can't do it and shouldn't allow it. There's NO way we can sustain this much longer as the takers start eating alive the providers.

I believe we must use the laws to keep this nation economically competitive.

Do I support unemployment=yes
Do I support SSI=YES
DO I support helping people of course.
Do I believe in helping the disabled of course! Hell, maybe I'd add an exception for this group as they can't help it.

We won't be a superpower if we keep walking down this street. We're at half the country right now and that will likely keep growing unless we cap it. Humans have two competing forces 1# The want to better one's self and 2# the want to be taken care of. Something for nothing. NO ECONOMIC SYSTEM can play to this without failure.

We should make 2# harder to come by. There's no economic way around it.

Sorry, I am a conservative and I think you are out of your mind. Everyone has the right to vote, save for Felons. Hell if you are going to stop anyone from Voting, I say it's anyone who does not pay attention and does not know the first thing about the issues or the Candidates. Listen to man on the Street interviews the other day. dude asked 5 Obama supporters to explain Obama's Second Term Agenda and not one of them could. They all just kept saying, he is going to look out for us. Of course those same people criticism of Romney was he was not specific enough. lol

But even then I would not stop them from Voting, Even the pathetically ignorant lemmings have the right to cast their vote for Stupidity. Out job is to try and Educate as many as we can.

 

[Charles_Main]

Corporations are people, my friend.

I'll believe corporations are people when one is on death row.

Who so you think the Share Holders of a Corporation are? Robots?

 

[House]

Corporations are people, my friend.

I'll believe corporations are people when one is on death row.

Who so you think the Share Holders of a Corporation are? Robots?

I think the shareholders are people that pay taxes and thus are entitled to rights and a voice in the way things work in this country.

I don't agree with corporations being taxed period, that shit should be coming out of everybody's salaries. But that's a whole 'nother topic.