GOP bill : if one member of your family strikes, no food stamps for the entire family

Originally posted by jimmyx

why do you think unions were started in the first place? go look at the history, and see what atrocities the wealthy and big business forced on the american worker. by the way, you won't find that on FOX NEWS or even the "liberal" media. i'm 58, and my grandfather and grandmother told me of work conditions and pay, that bordered on slavery.
and during the early 20th century, labor strikes were filled with big business hiring goons to maim and kill strikers, this so well documented it will be easy to find.

Unions can strike all day long for all I care. I just don't feel that tax-payer funds should b used to subsidize their actions. Strike! Walk off! Protest!

Just don't ask me to stock your fridge.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jimmyx

why do you think unions were started in the first place? go look at the history, and see what atrocities the wealthy and big business forced on the american worker. by the way, you won't find that on FOX NEWS or even the "liberal" media. i'm 58, and my grandfather and grandmother told me of work conditions and pay, that bordered on slavery.
and during the early 20th century, labor strikes were filled with big business hiring goons to maim and kill strikers, this so well documented it will be easy to find.

Unions can strike all day long for all I care. I just don't feel that tax-payer funds should b used to subsidize their actions. Strike! Walk off! Protest!

Just don't ask me to stock your fridge.

Food stamp and other benefits are paid for by the worker.

If one strikes, it does not change the fact that they have paid into the program during all of their working years. They have every right to access these benefits.

This bill, if passed( which it wont) WILL cause riots.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I wasn't aware that the two situations were mutually exclusive. I'm not in favor of that, either.

i'm letting my frustration show with people somehow supporting the idea that if someone is in a union, they will be gouging the taxpayer by going on strike. but, the wisconsin republican governor gave tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate, and then said that the union workers have to make up for the lost revenue, by cutting their pay and benefits.
sorry, but this morally wrong, and facist in nature.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I pay into the system as well, but have never claimed foodstamps.
Whats next? Will I be forcd to make their car payments and mortgages as well?
This entitlement mentality has to stop somewhere, sometime.


Riots?

Sure, there will be riots. Because striking will take on a whole new meaning now. Is it for unfair wages, work conditions?

Or because they just want more? Wisconsin is a perfect example. They have to PAY for theirown medical insurance.
OMG.
The horror, the horror. Lets riot.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I pay into the system as well, but have never claimed foodstamps.
Whats next? Will I be forcd to make their car payments and mortgages as well?
This entitlement mentality has to stop somewhere, sometime.


Riots?

Sure, there will be riots. Because striking will take on a whole new meaning now. Is it for unfair wages, work conditions?

Or because they just want more? Wisconsin is a perfect example. They have to PAY for theirown medical insurance.
OMG.
The horror, the horror. Lets riot.

1)So your real issue is with the system, not those in unions. You feel it is unfair for you to have to pay into foodstamp benefits, if you dont use them. Just say it, quit beating around the bush.

2)Car payments and mortgage? Nice sensationalism there.

3)You have obviously never had to watch someone you know struggle in these types of situations. I truly hope you never do have to see it, and can continue to sit on your 'holier-than-thou' pedestal.

The bottom line here is this is an attack on american rights. Yet people are so clouded by buzzwords and ideas that they are missing the big picture and only looking at it from a selfish point of view.

I love it! Also if you are on welfare you shouldn't be able to vote!

Originally posted by MasloAs for the "entitlement based" society - right to food and water (basic necessities) is a basic human right, its not entitlement at all. We no longer live in 19th century.

Can you please tell me where human rights come from because you clearly have no clue.

A human absent another has only the right to what he/she can procure without the assistance of others. Therefore, you may have a right to seek food, to seek water or to seek shelter but absent your labor or effort it will not magically appear for you.

So you are saying that you a human with his rights are out seeking food for the day but you fail then you roll up on another human whose hunt was successful today; can invoke your human right to food and he will not object?

What about his right to food - (He may indeed have a surplus do you have a right to take it absent his consent or agreement?) you have now infringed...and must either have something of value with which to negotiate for food or to use some form of force to obtain it.

If he happens to be better at force than you all your rights are going to cease likely as not and you will have little else to trouble you.

In another scenario let’s say you have obtained food for the day - enough for yourself and someone comes upon you and claims their right to the food? Do you share it equally? Sure you might but that is your choice right - your right to freedom of self determination we hear so much about.

Ah but then along comes society and groups and now we have a Government.

Now this is the organ that provides the force through which resources are stolen from those who have them to reapportion them to those who do not. In some cases people would willingly make the decision to aid the poor; what about the rights of those who would not make such a decision - or do their rights not count as much?

In conclusion - food, shelter, and clothing are not a human right man friend; the government may have declared it so but true human rights do not require the application of force or threat against others to obtain.

There is not a human right to food and water - sorry you are sorely misguided; are you from a former Communist country per chance?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Unions in this country drive the cost of EVERYTHING up. Whether it’s health care, cars, or a loaf of bread. Don’t tell me striking workers are worried about their country. They are worried about themselves. When does a company go on strike? When they have to take a smaller raise, pay more into your own health care, can’t get as many vacation days… The holier then thou, sanctimonious union workers that cry their getting screwed by the company have it better than most. When I see a union go on strike for something more than their greed I may change my mind. Don’t give me that crap about their doing it because their getting screwed. Your all cry babies. Tell us what you’re making. How much vacation you get. What you get at retirement. We will see how bad off you are.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jimmyx

why do you think unions were started in the first place? go look at the history, and see what atrocities the wealthy and big business forced on the american worker. by the way, you won't find that on FOX NEWS or even the "liberal" media. i'm 58, and my grandfather and grandmother told me of work conditions and pay, that bordered on slavery.
and during the early 20th century, labor strikes were filled with big business hiring goons to maim and kill strikers, this so well documented it will be easy to find.

Unions can strike all day long for all I care. I just don't feel that tax-payer funds should b used to subsidize their actions. Strike! Walk off! Protest!

Just don't ask me to stock your fridge.

you are subsidizing the wealthy, and non-taxpaying corporations like GE, EXXON, BANK OF AMERICA,...all 3 didn't pay a dime in income taxes last year, you paid more in income taxes then they did, that's who you are subsidizing. but....subsidize union strikers!!....hell no!!..that's really the problem.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

High drama because the unions ONCE again are trying to get something for nothing.

Complain all you want about the evil people who want to take away from the poor unions.

Why should my tax dollars support unions?

Riddle me that! Batman.

reply to post by jimmyx


S you're saying since GE (thanks to the Obama administration)got to pay 0 taxes I have to pay for union members as well?

No.

I will fight to have my tax dollars go to companies like GE and will fight to have those same dollars go to SEIU.

Sorry. I just don't accept the premise that I HAVE to pay for anyone.

Originally posted by D1Useek
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Unions in this country drive the cost of EVERYTHING up. Whether it’s health care, cars, or a loaf of bread. Don’t tell me striking workers are worried about their country. They are worried about themselves. When does a company go on strike? When they have to take a smaller raise, pay more into your own health care, can’t get as many vacation days… The holier then thou, sanctimonious union workers that cry their getting screwed by the company have it better than most. When I see a union go on strike for something more than their greed I may change my mind. Don’t give me that crap about their doing it because their getting screwed. Your all cry babies. Tell us what you’re making. How much vacation you get. What you get at retirement. We will see how bad off you are.

i've seen these ideas in a book:

The first consequence of gravest importance was the weakening of the peasant class. Proportionately as the peasant class diminished, the mass of the big city proletariat increased more and more, until finally the balance was completely upset.
Now the abrupt alternation between rich and poor became really apparent. Abundance and poverty lived so close together that the saddest consequences could and inevitably did arise. Poverty and frequent unemployment began to play havoc with people, leaving behind them a memory of discontent and embitterment. The consequence of this seemed to be political class division. Despite all the economic prosperity, dissatisfaction became greater and deeper; in fact, things came to such a pass that the conviction that 'it can't go on like this much longer' became general, yet without people having or being able to have any definite idea of what ought to have been done.
These were the typical symptoms of deep discontent which sought to express themselves in this way.
But worse than this were other consequences induced by the economization of the nation.
In proportion as economic life grew to be the dominant mistress of the state, money became the god whom all had to serve and to whom each man had to bow down. More and more, the gods of heaven were put into the corner as obsolete and outmoded, and in their stead incense was burned to the idol Mammon. A truly malignant degeneration set in; what made it most malignant was that it began at a time when the nation, in a presumably menacing and critical hour, needed the highest heroic attitude. Germany had to accustom herself to the idea that some day her attempt to secure her daily bread by means of 'peaceful economic labor' would have to be defended by the sword.
Unfortunately, the domination of money was sanctioned even by that authority which should have most opposed it: His Majesty the Kaiser acted most unfortunately by drawing the aristocracy into the orbit of the new finance capital. It must be said to his credit, however, that unfortunately even Bismarck himself did not recognize the menacing danger in this respect. Thereby the ideal virtues for all practical purposes had taken a position second to the value of money, for it was clear that once a beginning had been made in this direction, the aristocracy of the sword would in a short time inevitably be overshadowed by the financial aristocracy. Financial operations succeed more easily than battles. It was no longer inviting for the real hero or statesman to be brought into relations with some old bank Jew: the man of true ment could no longer have an interest in the bestowal of cheap decorations; he declined them with thanks. But regarded purely from the standpoint of blood, such a development was profoundly unfortunate: more and more, the nobility lost the racial basis for its existence, and in large measure the designation of 'ignobility' would have been more suitable for it.
A grave economic symptom of decay was the slow disappearance of the right of private property, and the gradual transference of the entire economy to the ownership of stock companies.

the book?? Mein kampf by adolf hitler, vol 1. chap 10

Originally posted by jimmyxyou are subsidizing the wealthy, and non-taxpaying corporations like GE, EXXON, BANK OF AMERICA,...all 3 didn't pay a dime in income taxes last year, you paid more in income taxes then they did, that's who you are subsidizing. but....subsidize union strikers!!....hell no!!..that's really the problem.

This is the argument my 13 year old daughter uses to derail a discussion; suggesting that one wrong is justified by the commission of another by a 3rd party to the issue. it doesn't really hold a lot of merit.

Both subsidizing the rich and the poor are equally bad but the discussion here is welfare and in particular food stamps.

There is no provision in the constitution for any form of charity; further, there is no provision for taking resources from one group regardless of their perceived surplus of them to distribute it to others regardless of their perceived need.

In so doing they can assign merit to whichever cause suits their particular voting block at the time which gives them a lot of power to manipulate their own rise to power and maintain their status.

We are currently reaping the results of such illegal actions by politicians on both sides of the isle in that when they grant themselves the authority to give advantage to one group because of a perceived need to curry favor they must then take from another group relative to a perceived surplus. The tax pool is a zero sum game – to give to one area’s program or new project either taxes must be raised or other programs unfunded.

Eventually the system becomes more about graft and corruption than service because an honest public servant who does what is right or votes his/her conscience will never be able to attain such a position – to grant favor or advantage to one’s constituents with the tax dollars of others is the very root of our problems.

This problem of robbing one area to the benefit of another is why a limited federal government is a must; people in area A must be limited to their own resources not entitled to a portion of the resources of the residents of area’s B and C because their representative has seniority and experience to game the system or secure key posts.

This is a problem in which term limits become a must as well so no State’s Representatives become so entrenched in the systems and committees that they can abuse and control the others.

So just because these people are in a union they should be exempted from losing food stamps after walking out on their job and striking? What about the regular worker not in a union because you people are aware that some people work jobs that are not union jobs right? Where is the protection for those people? Why should the average Joe that works a non union job lose but these union workers get special treatment? Are you people nuts, really, that brainwashed by your spokesperson because you can't be a real man or woman and stand up for yourself? Unions had a time and a place, when the worker was actually treated wrongly and working for .50 an hour with horrible conditions. Now your just a bunch of cry babies that demand everything, UNIONS have destroyed our country that is a fact. And if your a union member and not putting an end to the crap these higher up union members are doing to you and this country then you get what you deserve, the gravy train has stopped in case you haven't noticed. The public has spoken and decided that they are not gonna continue bending over for you, and for once it seems that the message has gone to the top. And I will tell you another thing, there are a bunch of unemployed people in this country right now that would love to work for the pay the union people get and would gladly take the jobs that the crybaby union workers wanna walk out on because they might lose a couple of bucks to healthcare costs or retirement funds etc. Never thought I'd say this but God bless the day the unions die. Classic example of how messed up the whole union situation is, My father is a retired firefighter with 20+ yrs of active service, been retired for 15yrs now and because of his unions bargaining he still to this day gets raises when the active members get raises. And I am pretty sure he still gets paid extra for holidays.

Trust me any union I have ever been in I made enough money to strike without needing government assistance and if I were going to strike I would do so knowing that they could close the doors instead of giving in. I support workers rights but I support business rights as well. If the government is subsidising the strikers then it makes it much easier for the workers to not give in.

All that being said that is why our jobs go over seas. The unions can make ridiculous demands and the workers make so much that the company can't make enough to continue so they go over seas. We are going to have to understand that the workers need to make money but so does the business that way they have money to pay the business. When the government gives these unions that kind of leverage all it does is make the union leaders rich and the workers depend on the government.

Originally posted by jimmyx
why do you think unions were started in the first place? go look at the history, and see what atrocities the wealthy and big business forced on the american worker. by the way, you won't find that on FOX NEWS or even the "liberal" media. i'm 58, and my grandfather and grandmother told me of work conditions and pay, that bordered on slavery.

That's because unions did their job back then to protect workers. Now they're just tring to screw everyone else.

and during the early 20th century, labor strikes were filled with big business hiring goons to maim and kill strikers, this so well documented it will be easy to find.

And now it's the unions sending out the goons to intimidate regular people at election time aand other times.

Since when has Guilt by Association been the Law of the Land?
Get rid of collective bargaining for public unions...and then there will be no strikes (in that sector anyway). If they still want to pay dues for their work related club then go for it.

reply to post by Golf66

Can you please tell me where human rights come from because you clearly have no clue.

www.un.org...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (since you cannot live without food and water, right to life obviously includes them)

Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. ^ Top

Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. ^ Top

Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. ^ Top

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. ^ Top

Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Libertarian state is against basic human rights (or more exactly, it has no mechanism in place to protect them).

What about his right to food - (He may indeed have a surplus do you have a right to take it absent his consent or agreement?) you have now infringed...and must either have something of value with which to negotiate for food or to use some form of force to obtain it.

I dont see anything wrong with the use of force in order to save someones life from starving. Exactly the opposite, its the most moral thing to steal from the rich to feed the starving.

In conclusion - food, shelter, and clothing are not a human right man friend; the government may have declared it so but true human rights do not require the application of force or threat against others to obtain.

Why? I really cannot see any reasonable moral system that refuses the use of force to obtain basic necessities from someone who is rich. Whether its utilitarianism, natural law (the most important right to life, THEN right to liberty, THEN right to property..), virtue ethics..

Figures. NOT A SINGLE REBUTTAL to my example of how the "loophole wording" of the provision of the bill unjustly penalizes innocent victims, including CHILDREN.

Example: An adult aged child (age 21) lives at home with parents who are working (at poverty level wages) along with a couple of other family members under the age of say 10. The adult age child contributes part of his income to support family. The adult age child participates in a strike unbeknownst to his parents or without their "consent". He can no longer contribute to family income. THE ENTIRE FAMILY BECOMES INELIGIBLE FOR FOOD STAMPS.

PLEASE NOTE IT READS NO MEMBER OF A FAMILY UNIT. It makes NO DISTINCTION as to "HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD."

Oh and @ Beezer, I too am a taxpayer with no children. I am HAPPY to pay my fair share as a portion of my tax dollars go towards funding schools and education.

Originally posted by D1Useek
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Unions in this country drive the cost of EVERYTHING up. Whether it’s health care, cars, or a loaf of bread. Don’t tell me striking workers are worried about their country. They are worried about themselves. When does a company go on strike? When they have to take a smaller raise, pay more into your own health care, can’t get as many vacation days… The holier then thou, sanctimonious union workers that cry their getting screwed by the company have it better than most. When I see a union go on strike for something more than their greed I may change my mind. Don’t give me that crap about their doing it because their getting screwed. Your all cry babies. Tell us what you’re making. How much vacation you get. What you get at retirement. We will see how bad off you are.

Bs bs bs. Same argument every time.

Do your research on why unions were formed. Consider what the average wage would be without unions. Consider whether you like having a middle class in this country.

Then come on back.

If you think unions are only about vacation days and bigger raises, you have no clue.

Perhaps you ought to spend some time focusing on yourself and your education before you jump in and call people silly little names like 'crybabies"