If You're On Food Stamps, You Should Lose Voting Privileges?

reply to post by NorEaster


Well said.

Its amazing how many nazis are running around disguised as americans nowadays.

You need government help? You must be on drugs!!

Ridiculous. Yet senators and reps commit treason against the public daily and they don't give a #

The car thing... Funny... Years ago, to get food stamps you were only allowed 1 car per household. No matter how many working adults were in the home, 1 car was necessary and any more were "luxury items". Now, this has been changed for a long time now, but this is another example of how (in the past) things like food stamps have been used to control so to speak. It is very hard to have 2 working adults with 1 car.

Well, this made me laugh. I hope this guy was joking, because if he was serious then he is a total moron as far as taking voting rights away. It would make sense to drug test, but that was tried here in FL but didnt work out so well. Anyways... The reason i found it funny is that too many people assume that people that are on FS dont work. Where do some of you guys get that idea? I doubt taking away voting rights would happen, but if it did, do you know what would happen? Revolution. Maybe not right away, but eventually those people will get sick of being treated as even less of a human than they are now by some of the posters here who agree with this guy. Then you add the fact that the majority on assistance DO work and pay taxes and such. Anyone remember Taxation Without Representaion? Yeah...that would just be a stupid thing to do and would lead to another civil war. Good thing the people who support this dont have the ability to put this into action. Thats how i see it anyway.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Let me get this straight...don't help the needy and take their right to vote away. That could very well start a revolution, good one.
So it sounds like some posters prefer to have a caste system in America? Now I've heard it all. It amazes me how some find feeding the poor is taking advantage of tax payers; however, its better to waste billions of dollars on wars with no end and bailouts for Wall Street? It's ok to kill millions of innocents to get a few bad guys, but we shouldn't feed the working poor? This is class warfare and anti-constitutional.
BTW for those who quoted the founding fathers consider that:
1. They did not have a global economy.
2. Lived in an agrarian society.
3. Did not have fiat currency (ah hum Federal Reserve anyone)
4. Did not have a military-industrial complex which consumes billions and billions of dollars.

/end rant

Originally posted by imawlinn
Well That wouldn't work out too well for obama, that's half his voter base.

You would be surprised how many Republicans are on welfare and food stamps. Go visit social services in any smaller town in the south and see how many good old boys are in the waiting room.

Originally posted by DarthOej
The argument of stripping people of their right to vote because of a conflict of interest is asinine. By that logic anyone affiliated with local, state, or the federal government shouldn't be allowed to vote. Military, civil service, whatever. Hell, by that logic no citizen should have the right to vote because we all have something to gain by getting the right person elected.

100% agree with your statement.

That being said, I had a hard time reading your post because of your avatar.
Hahahaaaaaa

That's awesome.

Losing your right to vote because you get food stamps is just a slap in the face because the votes really don't count. How about if you get food stamps you should have to contribute by doing a community service.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
dailycaller.com...

Just read this ridiculous article.
So according to this guy, people on food stamps should:
1. Lose voting privileges so "they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t)."

2. Be forced to shop at "Government Stores" so they feel the humiliation of being "wards of the state".
Oh and the "Government food products" would be easily recognizable, to further humiliation for people on food stamps.

3. Be subject to monthly tobacco and drug screening, and if found with tobacco or drugs in their system, be dropped from the program.

I really hope this is a joke, but I'm guessing it isn't. The sad thing is, a lot of people on this site will probably agree with this reprehensible person.

edit on 2/29/12 by ideasarebulletproof because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/29/12 by ideasarebulletproof because: (no reason given)

Hah! I know this is probably from the US - But it sounds decidedly like something Tony Abbott - (the leader [joke] of the Australian opposition [joke] for the No-alition parties) - would love to bring into Australia! He would obviously love to see the crime rate and homelessness rise - He once said "People are homeless because they want to be homeless" The man is a jerk and whomever wrote the piece you posted must also be a jerk

I do not have a problem with these stipulations. It may force these lazy POSs into actually getting a job. I would say put them to work for the state to earn their money. There are plenty of roads and other infrastructure to get fixed and trash on the roads that needs to be picked up. While we are at it they should be drug tested as well.

I think YOU need a drug test.

Originally posted by luccadeo
I do not have a problem with these stipulations. It may force these lazy POSs into actually getting a job. I would say put them to work for the state to earn their money. There are plenty of roads and other infrastructure to get fixed and trash on the roads that needs to be picked up. While we are at it they should be drug tested as well.

To those who want to drug test all Food Stamp recipients: If this were to happen the crime rate would increase, grocery stores would have a bigger shop lifting problem, crime most certainly would go up.

I do believe one of the problems in this country over the last 50 years or so is the uninformed voter voting in the candidate with the best commercials, or the better looking candidate, or whoever their news source pushes on them. This is why he have so many buffoons as elected officials. I wish there was a way to control who votes in an ethical way.

Take away voting rights from those collect government assistance is one way of jump starting the revolution.

Originally posted by Viking9019
Well they are the lowest of the low in society so i wouldn't care if they did lose their privileges.

If they had their privileges taken away years ago then Obama would of never of got into power since most of his supporters were ghetto trash.

You are amazingly ignorant.

1. Voting is not a "privilege". It's a Constitutional RIGHT. Period. End of the story.

2. Demographically speaking all those that "Ghetto trash" you reference has a higher average income, higher net worth, and has attained a higher level of education than those red voting districts in the last presidential election. Don't get me wrong...I can't stand Obama. I'm all for Ron Paul. But that doesn't make your statement any less ignorant.

3. Food Stamps and other social programs are not in place for the benefit of the poor. They are in place for the benefit of the middle class and wealthy. Why, you ask? Easy. Because as much as we don't like paying more in taxes...it still beats the hell out of roving bands of marauding starving people. History tells us that even very good upstanding people will do ANYTHING for their survival when they get desperate enough. At the end of the day, virtually every major civilization on earth has ultimately come to the conclusion that it is just simply cheaper, more productive and less dangerous to simply do what is necessary to make sure the public has a full belly so they don't storm the palace and murder the king and his court. History also tells us that typically speaking civil wars are particularly nasty and no matter how eager the factions are to start one...both sides usually wishes they had found reasonable resolution in the end.

You have whatever you have today BECAUSE we have lived in a society that has historically NOT allowed it's citizens to starve...political ideology be damned. There are 45.8 million Americans on food stamps. There are not enough police or soldiers to protect you, your family, and your property if you allow those people to starve...nor are there enough bullets in the 'ol hunting rifle that I surmise you have put undue confidence in.

Think about it. Time and time again otherwise reasonable people will even resort to CANNIBALISM when they get hungry enough. The Donner Party? That movie "Alive" about the soccer players in the Andes? The archeological record contains evidence of last-ditch cannibalism (usually when snowed in) on every continent on earth going back a minimum of 40,000 years.

So, if hungry people will ultimately even eat another human being when DESPERATE ENOUGH...just think about how few qualms they will have about killing you while you sleep for your canned goods.

Now I would wager you will have a whole lot of tough-guy, NRA, rhetoric...but remember...even the Navy Seals got overrun in Mogadishu when they faced a mob of thousands of starving people. And they had air support from Blackhawk & Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, armored troop transports, the benefit of working together with other Navy Seals, and ACTUAL military skills as opposed to IMAGINED ones.

Next time, please think before you chime in with such stupidity. It makes me embarrassed to be an American.

This guy needs to get a clue. Many people are on foodstamps AND have a job. Maybe if they would form unions and negotiate reasonable wages they would not need foodstamps. I would be curious how he feels about unions.

Originally posted by jrod
To those who want to drug test all Food Stamp recipients: If this were to happen the crime rate would increase, grocery stores would have a bigger shop lifting problem, crime most certainly would go up.

I do believe one of the problems in this country over the last 50 years or so is the uninformed voter voting in the candidate with the best commercials, or the better looking candidate, or whoever their news source pushes on them. This is why he have so many buffoons as elected officials. I wish there was a way to control who votes in an ethical way.

Take away voting rights from those collect government assistance is one of jump starting the revolution.

...and on that note...why is it that we don't then drug test everybody who receives taxpayer money every month or so. This includes:
-Senators & Congressman
-Cops
-Firefighters
-Teachers, University Professors, and school staff (including janitors mind you).
-Virtually every farmer in America.
-Every employee in the entire American banking industry (Yep...you can't argue that it's "government interference in private industry"...they got taxpayer money in the bailout).
-Every single elderly person on Social Security. (Let's hope Grandma can show her 'scrips and didn't eat any poppyseed muffins lately!)
-Every judge in the country.
-All employees of all defense contractors, DARPA, researchers, and our CIA assets overseas...classified status be damned.
-Any religious institution that might have received a government grant for a project. I'm sure nobody will object to incessantly drug-testing thousands of nuns every month...but admittedly I am not sure if this means the Pope would have to check in every month as well. He received public assistance...but he's not citizen. Hmmmm.
-All the new employees of this drug testing program will have to also be drug tested since they are being supported by the state. But we can't have them drug test themselves because that would be a conflict of interest. So I guess we create TWO NEW AGENCIES. The Drug Testing Bureau and also the Drug Tester Testing Bureau. (Good thing the "small government republicans" are behind this thing!!)
- ....and countless other categories and occupations as well.

All this does is prove once again that knee-jerk reactionism to things that SOUND GOOD without actually thinking about them is the definition of foolish.

Yes. I agree that we should not have a culture of enablement which allows people to live a life as drug addict or alcoholic. Realistically...the best measure has ALREADY BEEN TAKEN by giving these people vouchers for food, shelter, and energy instead of outright cash.

Is it perfect? Nope...and it never will be. Does it beat having to replace your white picket fence with a barb wire fence to fight off post-apocalyptic bands of starving people? You bet it does....and it's cheaper too.

Originally posted by 00001
Losing your right to vote because you get food stamps is just a slap in the face because the votes really don't count. How about if you get food stamps you should have to contribute by doing a community service.

Now this ladies and gentlemen is what should be taking place, Creating ideas that change in a positive direction, not providing a smorgasbord for trolls

Milo- thats what they dont even think about for a second. In their pea sized minds its just "Cut their foodstamps, save me my tax monies and those lazy jerks will start working again!" nevermind the fact that most of those people ARE working, just with bad hours/wages because thats about all there is right now. In their simplistic view, everything will be solved by just cutting benefits. As if they believe their money will go towards some better program/cause...or right back in their pocket Lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I don't like entitlement programs but I also don't agree with drug testing welfare recipients. Doing so opens the door to drug testing seniors who qualify for Social Security as well as anyone else on any other kind of entitlement program. It will be costly, a violation of our civil liberties and just too invasive to protect an individuals privacy. Individuals who have done nothing wrong in a court of law will unjustly have to submit a urine or blood sample to continue to qualify for benefits. Rediculous.

All this talk about drug testing is just ignorant. With any kind of entitlement program there will always be people who abuse it and take advantage of it. With the taxpayers just having to pick up the extra expense to find out only 3% of the people on food stamps failed a urine test.

On the other hand, some of these programs have a tendacy to keep the poor people poor. I read a story once about welfare. There was a girl in Georgia who's obese mother was on welfare. The girl wanted to do good things in life so at an early age she started working with the intent of saving money to go to college. Once the Social Worker was aware that the child was earning taxable income she told the girls mother that if she continued earning money her family will not be eligible for welfare payments anymore. The mother made the girl quit.

Welfare has it's flaws, the way it is designed ends up keeping poor people and their children poor. It should be a program designed to get people educated, productive and employed to a point where these families who use these programs can eventually move on and be able to pay their own expenses. The way it is now it is just too beneficial to stay poor. So yeah, it's a flawed system but drug testing for food stamps seems unconstitutional and costly to me with no real benefit to society.

It's always funny how some people can make such claims of superiority above others when they are truly no different from those they oppose. This guy is but a few imaginary numbers in a bank account away from being in the exact same position as the lowest of our society. And when the SHTF (not even anything major, even just another depression would probably be enough) he'll be victimized by his own statements that attempt to victimize others. People assume that the lowest of society have the easiest lives, having things handed to them and not having to work for anything. Truth is, they usually have the most horrible stories I have heard in my life, full of rape, abuse, and generalized beatings from everything around them their entire life. We're all just trying to survive this world the best we can, some people have bigger battles to fight than those of us fortunate to live our privileged at or above the lower middle-class. He wants try to fix societies problems? He thinks he has all the answers this world has been waiting for? Why doesn't he try fixing these people's lives since he seems to be enlightened with all the right answers and solutions for everyone else. Better yet, let him try to live a day in their lives, with their demons haunting them every waking moment, and see how he fairs. Then again, some problems are just too hard for us lesser intelligent beings anyway, lets just humiliate the poor, make their lives worse, and slowly kill them off, it's just easier that way

reply to post by milominderbinder


Be careful what you post here, the insurance and drug testing companies may take your idea and run with it. Earlier in this thread I had a ranted a bit about drug tests.


When Florida started drug testing their welfare recipients it actually cost taxpayers more than it saved, less that 1% tested positive. Governor Scott won given his company Solantic did the majority of the drug tests.

Everyone on this thread seems intelligent now?!?

Where have the rest gone, goose-step practice?