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

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

Im not even sure where you got that argument from. I dont care if you support unions. I ABSOLUTELY do believe tat EVERY worker should have a right to the benefits needed to live.

Anything beyond that is deflecting away from the point.

Union or not, EVERY WORKER SHOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE WORKING CLASS CITIZEN. This country doesnt exist, otherwise.

Originally posted by Maslo

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)……

Ok, so basically you are proving my point for me – human rights are limited to what one can secure or provide for him/her self without the aid or assistance of others. Without an organization to state the rights or to impose/enforce them – they do not exist. Human rights, true human rights, exist in absence of any authority.

You are citing the UN as the arbiter of Human Rights, which is funny in a way because it is an organization without the authority to enforce such rights and they are therefore meaningless feel good edicts.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the Unites States not the UN. The Federal Government has some enumerated powers. These powers include the power to levy taxes, borrow money and make laws for the following purposes:

For The General Welfare:

1. International and interstate commerce (trade)
2. Naturalization
3. Bankruptcy
4. Coin Money, establish its value
5. Weights and Measures
6. Punish counterfeiting
7. Postal Service
8. Issue patents and copyrights
9. Establish Federal Courts
10. Govern District of Columbia
11. Purchase real estate for necessary buildings

For the Common Defense:

1. Define and punish Maritime and international Crimes
2. Declare War
3. Make rules for, and fund Military Services

This list represents the sum total of the functions the federal government is constitutionally authorized to do. The limitation on Congress by the Constitution is further emphasized in Amendment Ten of the Bill of Rights.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ~Amendment 10, U.S. Constitution

I don’t know about you but I don’t see any provision in there that authorizes stealing from one person to give it to another. I don't even see a part that authorizes charity of any kind. Perhaps I am doing it wrong because you seem to think stealing and theft are ok…

Originally posted by MasloI 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.

Really, so what you are saying is that stealing or theft is ok if the person you are stealing from has more than you do? You have a warped sense of morality IMO. I an no lawyer but I doubt that the relative percieved wealth of the victim in proportion to the percieved need of the thief makes it any less of a crime. That is even if the thief is using a fancy title like say the IRS or even the UN to commit the crime.

Steal

Steal means to take the property of another without right or permission. It can be taking of personal property illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully. It also refers to taking something by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses.

Theft

–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic . something stolen.

reply to post by Golf66

human rights are limited to what one can secure or provide for him/her self without the aid or assistance of others.

No, thats natural rights (or even less, since libetarian natural rights require assistance of others in securing rights such as property right, if you cannot do it yourself. You are describing anarchy). Natural rights =/= human rights.

Without an organization to state the rights or to impose/enforce them – they do not exist. Human rights, true human rights, exist in absence of any authority.

There are no rights in the absence of any authority except for "might makes right". Even property rights need an enforcer.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the Unites States not the UN.

Then the US constitution is against basic human rights, since its libertarian. But you have some social security system in place, so the US government is not against human rights (is it because your interpretation of constitution is incorrect or the government ignores it?).

I don’t know about you but I don’t see any provision in there that authorizes stealing from one person to give it to another. I don't even see a part that authorizes charity of any kind.

Yes. Then why is the US government doing it?

Really, so what you are saying is that stealing or theft is ok if the person you are stealing from has more than you do?

Strawman. Dont put words in my mouth. I said stealing or theft from those who have more is OK in order to satisfy your basic biological necessities. Food, water, basic healthcare. If you have them satisfied, then stealing is NOT OK, even if the richer person has far more than you do.

Originally posted by MasloStrawman. Dont put words in my mouth. I said stealing or theft from those who have more is OK in order to satisfy your basic biological necessities. Food, water, basic healthcare. If you have them satisfied, then stealing is NOT OK, even if the richer person has far more than you do.

Stealing is never ok/legal/moral/justiffied regardless of the perceived need of the thief or the perceived wealth of the victim. If you think it is then you have some serious morality issues. Taking things that you didn't earn or own is one of the earliest and most common acts viewed to be a crime in any level of society be it in the family unit, a tribe or a modern society.

Ok, I'm not going to get into a urine flow contest with you and derail the thread even further - but you have to be aware that in the quote above you stated that it’s ok to steal if you feel your basic needs are not being met.

Good luck with that I hope you have honed your self defense skills better than your ability skills to provide for your own needs. There are places wherre this philosophy is frowned upon and hunger or poverty will likely not be a defense. On the up side in jail you will get your basic needs met...

Sorry for OT diversions there OP - won't go on further; it is apparent why we have issues with welfare and food stamps since a good many people think like Maslo that people are somehow justified in stealing the wealth of others if thief deems the victim to have more than they need with regard to food, water and other "human rights" may the gods help us all if these type people become further empowered.

Golf66 - Out!

reply to post by Golf66


I will just point out the huge irony that you disagree with poor people who are not convicted criminals themselves getting food and water through welfare payed from taxes because its stealing, but you have no problem with thieves getting food and water in jail, payed from the same taxes, the same stealing. So unless you wanna claim that theives would be also left to starve in jail, you give more rights to inmates than law abiding poor people! The former have all basic life necessities secured by law, even when they directly damaged the society, the latter can be left to die when they are unable to take care of themselves on their own, even when they did not harm anyone. Talk about logical consistency, morality or justice. This happens when you change "right to life, (then) liberty, (then) property" to "right to property, and everything else afterwards".

What is this country turning into?



In America life isn’t fair, work hard for your share and end up on welfare
because there is no meritocracy, the system breeds mediocrity
you think you’re #ing free but you're living the totality
it’s everything you see so you see it as reality
the worst kind of depravity, and I say so with all gravity
you can say you’re doing great or that it’s fate
tell me your country is first rate and pretend
the state of the state isn’t something we create
but you’re all just apologists and #ing closet nihilists
so you can go ahead and file this under # with liberal biases
cause you and your system won’t be missed
when the rest of us realize we’re pissed
because the invisible hand is a fist, and corporations have us by the wrist,
they say “stop hitting yourself,” as we vote down public health
and hand over public wealth
leaving our minds and morals on the shelf
a trophy for the guys on top who never stop
and don’t blink at a sweatshop
when you see you’re just a prop in this show
and there’s no room to grow
you’ll know that you reap what you sow
does this nation have to implode before we pick an alternate road?
This isn’t the Da Vinci Code
there isn’t a conspiracy, just look at things empirically
there’s a growing disparity and economic irregularity
but I can’t say solidarity without people getting scared of me
anything shared is a threat to our prosperity
How many people have died or had to hide
been blacklisted for caring how others were faring?
Daring and declaring that Beck’s a red herring
that big brother is staring
and that freedom isn’t ringing when detainees are singing?
Maybe I’m crazy but it’s strange to me
give bread to the needy and you’re a saint to the greedy
ask why they don’t have bread and they’ll paint you Red
that shred of doubt fills them with dread
they want you to think their system keeps everyone fed
believe what they’ve said and work till you’re dead
they need you unable to see the system’s unstable
that its success is a historical fable and that just cause you’ve got cable
and options on the table doesn’t mean you have a choice
if there’s no money in your wallet you haven’t got a voice
success on Wall Street is no reason to rejoice
if you’re living on Main Street you don’t get a Rolls Royce

WORK HARDER SO WE CAN HIRE LESS PEOPLE.

reply to post by Golf66

Under your system of thought, what "right" do you have to anything? You have no inherent "right" to keep anything, no matter what it is or how you got it.

Your life?

If I want to take it and can, it's mine, since there is "no right to life" you acknowledge.

Your butt?

Again, under your thought, you've no "right" to keeping it from me if I want it and can take it.

What you are really saying is that you want rights for yourself but not others: typical of so-called conservatives, libertarians, and others of the same ilk.

You have no "right" to police of fire protection, because you didn't pay the entire cost of equipment and personnel.

Sick attitude if you ask me: certainly bears the characteristic patterns of sociopathy.

Originally posted by apachemanUnder your system of thought, what "right" do you have to anything? You have no inherent "right" to keep anything, no matter what it is or how you got it. Your life?

I have no clue where you got this impression – humans have a right to life of course; however, you do not have the right to take things from me to preserve your own. I have no right to take your life nor you mine – no more than I have a right to the fruits of your labor any more than you do to mine. You have the right to life but not at the expense of another person’s labor. You cannot absent a government to force me make me give away any portion of the things I make, earn or gather to you or any other person. That’s what I am talking about.

Originally posted by apachemanWhat you are really saying is that you want rights for yourself but not others: typical of so-called conservatives, libertarians, and others of the same ilk.

No, I want people to have the rights to keep what they earn. What right do you have to something that belongs to another? You must either have something of value be that a skill or item with which to trade for it. If you take something from another without their consent that is called theft… Should someone consent to give you something of value for nothing in return that is called charity. Charity involves consent.

Originally posted by apachemanYou have no "right" to police of fire protection, because you didn't pay the entire cost of equipment and personnel.

Sure I do as I pay my local taxes; further protection from others is one of the enumerated roles of government; while providing charity or for the food, shelter and clothing of all citizens is not. The purpose of a society is to band together for mutual protection is it not?

Originally posted by apachemanSick attitude if you ask me: certainly bears the characteristic patterns of sociopathy.

You need to go back to Psych 101 then…

reply to post by Rockpuck


that is the smartest comment made in this thread.


you have a job a union job at that and you need welfare ie food stamps is exactly one of the biggest problems in america is: there are people who are on welfare who don't need it.

this country needs welfare reform in a massive way the only thing welfare is today is the liberals way of controlling the less fortunate and keep them them enslaved with no future other than to be dependent of mother and father government and a tomorrow no better than any yesterday.

the masses need to wake up and see whats really going on

Originally posted by neo96
you have a job a union job at that and you need welfare ie food stamps is exactly one of the biggest problems in america is: there are people who are on welfare who don't need it.

Or conversely that companies don't pay a fair living wage. One could still be employed, a union member and be eligible for food stamps due to earning what equates to poverty level income.

Just saying that it is a tad more complex than your over simplified view.

reply to post by kinda kurious


oversimplified not really

show me a union job that doesnt pay well or have health benefits to cover the entire family?

let me get this straight and please clarify:

a union job a union employee gets paid little and has no insurance and needs medicare and welfare and food stamps?

reply to post by Vitchilo


Good catch.

I'd write more but I need to go rolf. ....S&F&

Extremist libertarianism completely ignores positive liberty.

Positive liberty is defined as the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential (this may include freedom from internal constraints);[1] as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint.[2]

It is also a huge omission bias.

The omission bias is an alleged type of cognitive bias. It is the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions).

I like this legislation. Food stamps and other public benefits are intended for the needy who have no other options. Union members shouldn't be able to make a voluntary choice to forego employment income and still qualify for public benefit assistance.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

let me get this straight and please clarify:

a union job a union employee gets paid little and has no insurance and needs medicare and welfare and food stamps?

Okee Dokee,

Here is is but one example. A flight attendant represented by AFA (Flight Attendants Union) was fired for publicly declaring she was eligible for food stamps.

Flight Attendant Says Eligible for Food Stamps, Fired by Airline

Calling it "a horrible, horrible feeling," Phoenix-based flight attendant Kirsten Arianejad applied and was approved for food stamps, despite already being a full-time employee of Minneapolis-based Compass Airlines and working a full schedule.

The Association of Flight Attendants ("AFA"), which represents Arianejad and 50,000 other union members, calls that wrongful termination and a purely retaliatory move by Compass. "Poverty is not a crime and it is despicable that Compass Airlines would fire an employee for speaking the truth," said Patricia Friend, International President of AFA.

SOURCE

Please let me know if you require further elucidation. Regards...kk

reply to post by kinda kurious


national average for flight attendants is between $35,000and $65,000 per year from i am sitting that doesnt qualify for food stamps.

www.bls.gov...

and that link didnt work

reply to post by neo96


From YOUR link:

The lowest 10 percent earned less than $20,580

Food Stamp eligibility for family of 4 must not exceed $2,097.00/mo. x 12 = $25,164.00
(Typical scenario, Single Mother with 3 kids or supporting elderly parent(s) + kids)

SOURCE

The devil is in the details my friend. It is both plausible AND realistic. Sorry about prior link, here ya go:

LINK