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

Originally posted by SteffieJo
reply to post by clayb2004

 

That is exactly what I said!! I don't care what anybody says, there shouldn't be an argument over that. There should not be a reason why they shouldn't be drug tested. It would be a great way to weed out the people abusing the system. It would be a brilliant idea. You want to know why it won't happen? Because the people that would pass that law would also have to be drug tested, since they are also being payed by the government. It's one of those, "what's good for the pot, should be good for the kettle" situations. The kettle doesn't want to give up their drugs, so that is why it won't happen.

On the other hand it gives government the power to dictate what people do
with their private serves which is a can of worms. It is easy to see that principle
be spread to many other things.

I believe in welfare, don't agree with abuse, but I also think the government
is out of control too often.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


I gave you a star because you are absolutely right. Your point is more important than mine. On another note, some of you keep saying that their privacy should not be violated in terms of a drug test. If you're poor and you need the assistance, I don't think peeing in a cup is a big deal. At least you will know that those people with hungry children won't be able to sell their foodstamps for crack anymore. It happens all of the time. I know someone who does that. It disgusts me. So many people need the help and so many people get the help to feed their addictions. What are you hard working people that actually need the help going to do when it's not there anymore? That is the road we are heading down.

The system is so jacked up and you made an excellent point Destroy.

reply to post by mastahunta


I don't think the government should dictate everything we do or invade our privacy. But heres the thing...people are getting GOVERNMENT assistance. I have no problem that some of my money goes to those who really need the help. I do have a problem with people using that help to feed their drug habits. I don't see anything wrong with getting the drug test.

But don't worry...it's not gonna happen so no use even debating about it.

reply to post by SteffieJo


This already happened in Florida, it was really popular at first. The end result was less than 1% of subjects popping positive and it cost the tax payers extra money because guess who had to pay for the urinalysis'.

If someone is smart enough to scam the system they are smart enough to pass a drug test even if they use drugs.

I live in one of those countries, the far right wing of your country call "communist", "death.panel", carebear nations. Apart from the fact that none of the above is true. Norway, Denmark and Sweden in particular, but also The Netherlands for example have EXTENSIVE government programs paid through taxes. These include, but are not limited to, universal free healthcare, free university-got the skills, you get the education, a monthly allowance(welfare) that by law is fixed at a minimum of 9.000 danish kronor which is the equivalent to $ 1611.11 , some get more if they live in a leased house, have children etc.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

That sounds great and that may work for a country with a population roughly around 6 million. But now get that to work for a country that has over 310 million people. Now I am not a math wiz by any means. But now lets say that almost half of those 310 million people do not pay any taxes into the system yet they can pull out of it. That leaves the burden on the other 155 million people.

I am not sure what percent of the population pays taxes in Denmark or any other country that has universal programs like this. Plus if you take into consideration current unemployment rates latest they had on Denmark was about 8% not sure if that is the real unemployment rate.

Just a thought..

reply to post by SteffieJo


Someone you know and it goes unreported? That makes you an accomplice and just as guilty of welfare fraud. They tried drug testing for assistance know what happened? It turns out that the drug using recipient is the same as Reagan's welfare queen statistically few and far between.

reply to post by the4thhorseman


What is applied to 6 million can be applied to 310 million. This is probably the most feeble argument one could come up with. Because you are making the mistake of taking the current tax code to pay for the new system of course taxes would have to be modified and adjusted to make it work. People also tend to make the mistake of who is paying what income tax. In reality most Americans tax refunds go right back to lining the corporations pockets. Why do you think there is such a demand for rapid refund services? The rich want you to have it and spend it as fast as you possibly can so that they can count it and put it in their pockets.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


I mean I would favor only military and government workers be allowed to vote.

They are part of the system. They are responsible to fix it. If they fail, they get the blame.

It's a matter of responsibility.

I also see the logic of loosing your voting rights if you are under government aid.

Government aid is slavery, and it ought to be treated as such.

Originally posted by SteffieJo
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

I gave you a star because you are absolutely right. Your point is more important than mine. On another note, some of you keep saying that their privacy should not be violated in terms of a drug test. If you're poor and you need the assistance, I don't think peeing in a cup is a big deal. At least you will know that those people with hungry children won't be able to sell their foodstamps for crack anymore. It happens all of the time. I know someone who does that. It disgusts me. So many people need the help and so many people get the help to feed their addictions. What are you hard working people that actually need the help going to do when it's not there anymore? That is the road we are heading down.

The system is so jacked up and you made an excellent point Destroy.

People on crack are hooked on crack. They are hooked and their prime motivation is more crack, before anything else. It may disgust you but that is because you don't understand that kind of addiction. Stopping their food stamps isn't going to miraculously stop them taking crack, even if their actions harms their children.

People like you et al need to go out into the real world sometimes. Your backwards society needs to learn to help these people for the future benefit of all your society. Stopping their food stamps will just make them turn to crime, which is real benefit. Try not to judge, lest ye be judged....

reply to post by the4thhorseman

That sounds great and that may work for a country with a population roughly around 6 million. But now get that to work for a country that has over 310 million people. Now I am not a math wiz by any means. But now lets say that almost half of those 310 million people do not pay any taxes into the system yet they can pull out of it. That leaves the burden on the other 155 million people. I am not sure what percent of the population pays taxes in Denmark or any other country that has universal programs like this. Plus if you take into consideration current unemployment rates latest they had on Denmark was about 8% not sure if that is the real unemployment rate. Just a thought..

You're right, we're a small country, tiny compared to the US(actually I read that there are more registered pets in New York city than people in denmark, haha!), but the same principles of math should apply irrespective of high low or high the number is. The issue is not numbers, but how society as a whole is structured. I can't speak of the percentage of taxpayers in the US as I simply don't know these numbers and I suspect they vary greatly from state to state? However, I do know that a massive amount of revenue in Denmark stems from taxes. Basically, you don't turn in your tax year to the relevant authorities in Denmark- the authorities already got the information they need because everything is computerized. Sure, you get a taxform each year, but those are rarely used by others than the self-employed who have a fluctuating month-to-month income.

My point is, the US, is more than capable of going in what direction you as voters want it to go. I'm not gonna derail the thread with personal comments on where it should and shouldn't go imho, which would be a moot point anyway since I can't vote in the US, all I'm saying is that the enormous gap between rich and poor is gainning increased notice from other developed countries.

I'm just saying.....

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1
I'm just saying.....

'cept you dont HAVE to, to earn money. You AGREE to.

Very big difference.

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1


Or perhaps you shouldn't have to take one at all.

Who cares if their voting privelages are taken away...elections are rigged anyway, but I do believe that they should go through drug screening to stay on the food stamp program. There are far too many shady convenience stores that buy the food stamps for cash, but they get less money for them...What do you think they are buying with this cash?? clothing and neccessities for their dozens of babies??? I don't think so

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof

 

I would never accept assistance. I've been laid off in this recession, and I refused to even accept unemployment benefits.

I will never rely on the State.

I will never accept a hand out.

I will never demand services from my fellow citizens without working for it.

I tightened my household budget, supplemented my food with what I grow myself, and discovered other ways of making money to survive.

I guess that's the difference between people like me, and those who take for free without hesitation.

Unemployment benefits are free? Hardly pal. It's part of the burdened rate an employer figures into your salary. If you worked long enough to earn them,and then are laid-off (the only way to get them), you earned them.

You don't get unemployment if you've never worked or if you quit or even if you get fired (justly fired). You get them if you're job is cut or you are laid-off.

I guess great for you for not taking the benefit that you paid for, but that wasn't a very wise decision.

Sure it's something that can be taken advantage of, but mainly people want to get back to work. The stipend helps families get by until the benefited one can regain employment, or until the benefit runs dry. It's not a neverending entitlement.

edit: the burdened rate is an amount the employee will never see (unless they are bean counters or managers keeping track of profit margin). It's an hourly amount that factors in all taxes, insurances, and benefits. If you are making $20/hr and have benefits, your burdened rate to the employer is 15, 25, 40+% more per hour. Employers pay for unemployment too, not the Gov. Gov may suplement the benefit, but the employers pay the majority.

voting privileges?? the president is selected voted in by the electoral college, it usually matches the popular vote, but not always, as what happened in the not too distant past.

no one knows if they will end up in dire straits somewhere down the line, but its easy to mock those who are, in the meantime.

Wow. I have been on Food Stamps before, and I can tell you to me, it was personally embarrassing. However, I had no choice as I got pushed out of my high paying job (for going against the grain) and all my monthly expenses were waaaay too much for my temporary job to cover. It was either pay Rent and cut out everything else including enough food (I'm not obese and don't eat a lot), or pay Rent and go on Assistance to help me by while I looked for a job.

The issue isn't the system, it's the people "using" it. Most of the people I know that are on it just view it as a freebie, and they don't care it costs taxpayers money, nor do they care what it shows about their lack of character. Some people like myself temporarily use it for what it's intended for, but most others abuse it.

I personally think each State should handle their own system and employ a system of Checks & Balances to help those using it, and those funding it (taxpayers). If you're on assistance you should be required to provide proof you've been attempting to get a job, e.g., you have to prove you've had interviews every few weeks or something of the sort. Once you've got a job, they should reevaluate your circumstances and perhaps drop your assistance after certain amount of time; once you've had time to catch up.

Drug & Alcohol tests shouldn't matter for that, cuz most would be found out quickly enough by either being fired or not getting hired.

Anyways, just my 2cents.

reply to post by Destinyone


Well if you are four years away let me assure you that you WILL be getting your SS checks in the mail as per the plan from your generations politicians......THE REALITY is me and mine (25 and younger) are the ones really left to wonder if we are being duped to pay into a system that may not exist when we are of age to collect the benefits....

I know it is the young who will fight when the time comes, so I understand this is our time to make the decisions about which direction to go. I have to say we are resoundingly approving of PAUL and resoundingly disapproving of anything that is reminiscent of the status quo of our parents and grand parents generations....

We know we are just the "uneducated youth" but look where the past 50 years of "educated" blue collar workers has gotten us.....

I believe a man many years my senior said it best:

"....oh, the times they are a changin'...."


As far as taking away voting rights for those on food stamps, I would say sure, as long as all people who get any type of tax relief from the government in any way shape or form were also forced to no longer vote (in other words EVERYBODY) that'll bring the changes we really need REAL quick....

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


After much consideration I am now for this law as it is a fact that most food stamp recipients are from the "red" states it would severely hamper their ability to field insane dominionist politicians.
APB

How about, 'If you have sent american jobs overseas, you should lose all banking previledges now'?
Wouldn't that be just as fair as attacking the victims of 'that great sucking sound', of all your jobs going overseas?