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

Its a VERY dangerous road to go down, if you can remove potential (oposition) voters from the voters roll by eg closing a factory, getting everyone made redundant.... and x months later when they're on food stamps they cant vote against you.
Everyone has got to participate in a democracy...or its not a democracy.

Originally posted by Adyta
Voting is a right and nobody should be able to take that away (poor felons. No voting and no guns).

However, I do believe if you have an IQ over a certain number, or pass a test you should get an EXTRA vote, so those idiots are cancelled out.

Democracy: Where any 2 idiots outvote a genius.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
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 agree with this. Cigs and drugs are expensive. I'm not paying for your groceries so you can use your money for drugs or cigs. Either smoke, or starve.

I quit smoking because I got sick of spending $7 a day. They can too.

Did you smoke a package of cig's everyday? That is a lot haha

i am lucky to have a good job and a modest wage..

if i had to survive on benefits or even work for min wage ..id cheat the system to right

my family comes first no matter what..its survival of the fittest

all politicians are elitist to the core ..multimillionaires who don't even need a wage.yet they rob and corrupt the tax payer and blame the guy who works on min wage or can't find a job

wake up

How about a sliding scale? Decrease the benefits to everyone on the system, then people that agree to submit to a drug test and possibly counseling get more benefits than they did before. Those that refuse to submit to the drug test get the new lower amount of benefits, however enough to sustain them at a lower basal level.

As far as voting, how about if you receive benefits for more than 18 months you lose your vote until you're off the system, or start working a job full time.

Also drug test everyone that wants to run for office, the public has the right to know if our elected figures are living life and making policies in a drug-induced haze.

reply to post by DocAdama


I keep thinking alot about what you have put forth, as well. Reward and no reward. Hit pocketbook. I don't want to go into why here, but benefits had -literally- saved my life. (Social Security). I don't drink, (used to, occassional cup of wine but it makes me sick) I don't smoke, and I am totally non drugs. (Well, I have to take antihistamines before nightnight.) This might sound like big government, but I think people who live on benefits should not be able to live how they want to. Cases of beer and vodka, (and maybe a little drugs) loud parties that go on til morning. I would --gladly-- submit to frequent un announced screenings and be required to visit counselors. BUT I saw that a previous poster said in Florida, the screening wound up costing more than saving. There must be an answer to this ongoing government-money situation, and those in need versus those in weed.

Perhaps if banking families who have gotten billions weren't allowed to vote that would make sense. That is a massive conflict of interests. What about if someone is born wealth enough not to have to work, is that person too not productive. I am glad I live in the uk where there are not as many people with the opinions of this person.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


So judging by your thread,
what the person is saying that.
People that are poor and cannot afford to live have not got the human rights to change anything?
This is what this world has become and we are letting it happen.
They say children in Africa die everyday.Why dont we look at our countries for once?!

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by the4thhorseman

 

I agree, taxes for all. But the other thing that needs to be addressed is the power that comes along with money. You reach a certain amount, and you can do anything. Therefore we need to limit the amount, by taxing more the more you make. If you make 100,000,000,000 a year, you should be taxed a high percentage. NO one needs that much money, you'll still have enough to do whatever you want, just not line the pockets of politicians, and effectively run the country.

Who is to say how much one should be allowed to have? You have too much money, you have too much food, you have too vehicles and the list goes on. If the individual has the resources to share with others and chooses not to out of greed and lack of heart then that is their own choosing, we all reap what we sow in the end.

We should be judging the politicians harder than the ones trying to buy them with their money. Just because it is offered doesn't mean it has to be taken.

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Easy. Because although splitting the burden evenly "seems" like a good idea, it in reality leaves the poor without enough to afford a decent life. When people don't have a decent existence and hope for the future you wind up with a whole lot of problems with crime, drugs, and a miserable society in general. Miserable societies quickly devolve into third world countries and the wealthy might be feared...but they are also despised. Therefore, they must be ever-afraid of a "peasant-revolt".

Drugs are expensive if you can afford a "fix" you can afford to live. Sorry just wanted to say that. But what is a "decent life" what is that standard and who sets these standards? With my salary I am borderline poverty based on standards. As the cost of living has gone up I have downsized. I have had to adapt to the new way of life. Sure I am not happy with it but I do what I need to do to keep food on the table and a roof over my families head.

Honestly it should not cost this much to live. There are a few factors that contribute to higher costs of living fix these and we will see a change.

Originally posted by the4thhorseman

Originally posted by jrod
The4thhorseman,

Try reapplying and find out exactly why you were denied.

I am a white male and when I needed assistance I had no problem getting approved for food stamps.

edit on 2-3-2012 by jrod because: (no reason given)

Thankfully I am working full time and have been for a few years now so I no longer need it. As I have stated before I do believe in a safety net for people. But I also believe you should "pay" into that safety net as well. At the current rate we are going there will be nothing left for us who really need it when the time comes.

I was denied because the car I had was newer I believe it was 5 years old at the time. I paid it off with the sale of our home years before. I asked how am I supposed to look for work if do not have a vehicle.

This is why I have a sour taste in my mouth. Being in a southern state Texas one will know exactly what I am talking about.

edit on 2-3-2012 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)

They actually changed the systems since then and stopped counting cars as income. Because like you said, why should people get punished for having a car? And trying to find work?

Originally posted by yougetwhatyoudeserve

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
To say that you should lose your rights because you are on hard times is just disgusting...

Yes, but you dont know the whole story behind someone who is losing his rights.... You don't lose them if you "play the game along".

Really??

So all the mothers who are trying to escape abusive husbands and boyfriends just weren't playing the game right and should be penalized?

[

im on food stamps...cant work...im so thank ful for them..or we would starve my daughter and myself....I once didnt have to worry about food or didnt have food stamps..but now much needed....about the voting..well they ask you at the DHHR office where you get the food stamps if you want to be a voter..i always say yes...but i havent been voting...theres just really no one good to vote for...lol

Originally posted by openminded2011

It sounds good until you really think about it. Lets say we have a flat 15 percent tax on income. Ok, someone who makes 40000 a year gets taxed 6000. So they have a take home pay of 654 dollars a week to live on. Ok, now tax someone who makes 10 million a year 5 percent:they pay 1500000, THEIR take home pay is 163000 a week. So who will feel it more, the guy who has 600 dollars a week to live on who has lost 100 dollars, or the guy who makes 163000 a week who lost 28000, but still has more to live on per week than the other person has to live on in a YEAR? Still sound fair?

edit on 3-3-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

Yes I understand the numbers. It basically comes down to this, for all of this. We ALL want and desire a certain type of lifestyle and we all want to keep that way of life as long as possible.

BUT as we see it taking more and more to live just day to day as the cost of everything is going up we find that we have less and less to keep the life style we want. Fix the cost of life..then we can fix the other. If we can't do that we will all have to learn to adapt.

OK increase the taxes on the wealthy also raise the percentage of those paying taxes say instead of 49% that pay taxes lest say 70% of pay taxes and the other 30% do not. But we can't do that can we..because the poverty level keeps getting increased..and why is that? Because the COST of living is going up..lets find the reason and FIX it. IT should not cost this much to live.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

They actually changed the systems since then and stopped counting cars as income. Because like you said, why should people get punished for having a car? And trying to find work?

Well it is about time! Now lets quit giving all of our resources to those who are here illegally and give to our own legalized citizens....sure when Hell freezes over.

Originally posted by Adyta
Voting is a right and nobody should be able to take that away (poor felons. No voting and no guns).

However, I do believe if you have an IQ over a certain number, or pass a test you should get an EXTRA vote, so those idiots are cancelled out.

Democracy: Where any 2 idiots outvote a genius.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
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 agree with this. Cigs and drugs are expensive. I'm not paying for your groceries so you can use your money for drugs or cigs. Either smoke, or starve.

I quit smoking because I got sick of spending $7 a day. They can too.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
So it's ok to take their voting rights away, but we should give them back to convicted felons.

Well, that makes perfect sense.

Give me one good reason a convicted felon doesn't deserve to vote.

Here's one good reason why a convicted felon doesn't deserve to vote:

1. A murderer took away somone else's right to vote permanently.

(bonus) 2. A rapist severely scarred someone who now is too afraid to leave their house to go vote.

(bonus) 3. Insert "kidnapper" or "assaulter" for "rapist" in (bonus) 2.

(bonus) 4. An arsonist or burglar has no respect for another's property rights. Why should we care about their voting rights?

We could go on and on.

Here's where you can argue the case for a felon's right to vote:

1. Convict A is serving/served time for felony drug possession charges.

2. Convict B is serving/served time for felonious patronizing of a prostitute.

3. Convict C is serving/served time for income tax evasion.

4. Convict D is serving/served time for disobeying a peace officer.

We could go on and on here too. None of the 2nd set of "crimes" infringed on anyone else's rights.

The original argument really skewers what I see as "voting rights". The right to vote should not be taken away simply because you are on food stamps... because food stamps and other tax-funded social programs shouldn't exist in the first place. Take away food stamps. Problem solved. Then people have more money in their pockets that aren't taxed away, and we can help to donate to local food banks, etc. and THEY can help.

Originally posted by the4thhorseman

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Easy. Because although splitting the burden evenly "seems" like a good idea, it in reality leaves the poor without enough to afford a decent life. When people don't have a decent existence and hope for the future you wind up with a whole lot of problems with crime, drugs, and a miserable society in general. Miserable societies quickly devolve into third world countries and the wealthy might be feared...but they are also despised. Therefore, they must be ever-afraid of a "peasant-revolt".

Drugs are expensive if you can afford a "fix" you can afford to live. Sorry just wanted to say that. But what is a "decent life" what is that standard and who sets these standards? With my salary I am borderline poverty based on standards. As the cost of living has gone up I have downsized. I have had to adapt to the new way of life. Sure I am not happy with it but I do what I need to do to keep food on the table and a roof over my families head.

Honestly it should not cost this much to live. There are a few factors that contribute to higher costs of living fix these and we will see a change.

Exactly. I don't have all the answers as to how classify what a "decent" living is. For that...you will need someone far more wise than I am. However...I know it when I see it. It usually has the following characteristics:

1. Degrees of wealth or poverty to not garner the individual greater/fewer legal rights...OR THE ABILITY/INABILITY TO ENFORCE THEM.

2. Politicians cannot not be bribed to throw their own people under the bus.

3. Serious conflicts of interest are illegal. This means no sitting on both the boards of GM and Exxon-Mobile, no insider trading if you are a Senator, no accepting Israeli/foreign lobbying dollars, no lobbyists or special interest groups in general, and no "attaboy" jobs after you are out of politics for $20 million bucks / year.

4. Full disclosure of the countries laws. As it stands 70% of our nations legislative documents are on paper only at the LOC and can only be viewed by appointment only IF you are a congress person, Federal or Supreme Court Judge, or an attorney representing a case. The excuse in past years has always been that it's "too massive" to make accessible in a digital format. However...all of the nations legislative documents, rules and regulations since our nations inception (INCLUDING THOSE LAWS NOT PASSED AND THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM EVERY SESSION OF CONGRESS!!) is estimated to be only about 20 TB. As of right now a 4TB hard drive is about $300 on Amazon.com. Granted...a proper server implementation with several redundant mirrors and backups across the country is a little more expensive...but it's nothing that a lousy $250,000 won't cover. I betcha that's way cheaper than paying people to make appointments to physically view documents like a bunch of douchebags.

5. A "free" society doesn't imprison a higher percentage of it's population than any other country in the world does....and then doesn't punish those people by making them essentially unemployable for life because of a felony rap. I like to think that if an 18 yr old kid screws up bad and serves his time...maybe you oughtta not keep making him check the "I'm a felon" box on his job applications for the next 62 years. Maybe the kid won't sell drugs if he can land a halfway decent job, huh?

6. CEO's making $20 million bucks per year for driving a company into bankruptcy while 1/3 or better of the staff makes peanuts should be an act of criminal theft.

There are probably a bunch of other ones...but I can't think of them right now. This stuff really isn't that hard. The bottom line is that if the rules of society are fair and honest...there just won't be that many people on all these social programs and we won't have to have such panic attack about them. They will be a teeny-tiny part of the budget.

Originally posted by illuminatislave
reply to post by Under Water

 

The cheaters outweigh the needy? Are you blind to the rampant poverty and unemployment destroying this country? Just because your family happens to be a bunch of scoundrels doesn't mean that everyone is. Step outside of your shallow world and stop being ignorant.

Go back and read my post again. I admitted some members of my family do this, and some of my friends and many of my neighbors. In my area, it's common knowledge that people just do this because they can. They aren't thinking about the consequences of bleeding the system dry. This is a huge problem. I'm so sorry you continue to ignore the others like me who have posted about this. Just because you haven't' been exposed to this, don't for a second think that everyone on welfare is there not by choice. Open your eyes. It's a way of life for way too many people. I'm sorry you can't see the logic in what I posted. It's a tough subject and I do feel for those truly in need, and I feel they are the ones being hurt most by all this. They don't have the aid they should have because the cheaters are stealing it all out of the pot for them. I tried to give a long, honest and thoughtful post on this subject, and you called me shallow and ignorant. Thank you for showing your ignorance.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Exactly. I don't have all the answers as to how classify what a "decent" living is. For that...you will need someone far more wise than I am. However...I know it when I see it. It usually has the following characteristics:

1. Degrees of wealth or poverty to not garner the individual greater/fewer legal rights...OR THE ABILITY/INABILITY TO ENFORCE THEM.

2. Politicians cannot not be bribed to throw their own people under the bus.

3. Serious conflicts of interest are illegal. This means no sitting on both the boards of GM and Exxon-Mobile, no insider trading if you are a Senator, no accepting Israeli/foreign lobbying dollars, no lobbyists or special interest groups in general, and no "attaboy" jobs after you are out of politics for $20 million bucks / year.

4. Full disclosure of the countries laws. As it stands 70% of our nations legislative documents are on paper only at the LOC and can only be viewed by appointment only IF you are a congress person, Federal or Supreme Court Judge, or an attorney representing a case. The excuse in past years has always been that it's "too massive" to make accessible in a digital format. However...all of the nations legislative documents, rules and regulations since our nations inception (INCLUDING THOSE LAWS NOT PASSED AND THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM EVERY SESSION OF CONGRESS!!) is estimated to be only about 20 TB. As of right now a 4TB hard drive is about $300 on Amazon.com. Granted...a proper server implementation with several redundant mirrors and backups across the country is a little more expensive...but it's nothing that a lousy $250,000 won't cover. I betcha that's way cheaper than paying people to make appointments to physically view documents like a bunch of douchebags.

5. A "free" society doesn't imprison a higher percentage of it's population than any other country in the world does....and then doesn't punish those people by making them essentially unemployable for life because of a felony rap. I like to think that if an 18 yr old kid screws up bad and serves his time...maybe you oughtta not keep making him check the "I'm a felon" box on his job applications for the next 62 years. Maybe the kid won't sell drugs if he can land a halfway decent job, huh?

6. CEO's making $20 million bucks per year for driving a company into bankruptcy while 1/3 or better of the staff makes peanuts should be an act of criminal theft.

There are probably a bunch of other ones...but I can't think of them right now. This stuff really isn't that hard. The bottom line is that if the rules of society are fair and honest...there just won't be that many people on all these social programs and we won't have to have such panic attack about them. They will be a teeny-tiny part of the budget.

Agreed to 1, you can not buy your freedom. 2. Politicians should not be paid enormous salaries for being a public servant last time I checked servants worked for free....funny how that works. 3. 100% agree as long as a definite line can be drawn of what is and is not a conflict of interest.

Not sure what 4 has to do with this. But sound goods, scanning and storage is cheap..sure have back-ups but if you still have the original docs to rescan if needed I wouldn't worry.

6. Agree

Now point 5 is the only one I will question. Having working in the prison system, I can understand how this can be a concern with employers. There is a high rate of "repeat" offenders in the system. I worked for a school district inside of our state prisons. We found that giving them the education and skills to succeed in life kept them "clean". So your point is valid giving these guys/gals jobs will keep them off of the streets. Once they finished with their GED or trade skill and served their time we had a department that would help them find jobs in our state. We had agreements with certain places of business to allow our inmates to work for them to help rebuild their life.

I will that the punishment should fit the crime. The type of crimes should be considered when dealing with future jobs.

My grandmother said there are 3 things and you should have 2 of them or be able to check them off to vote.

1) A job of any sort
2) Own Real Property(land, house etc...)
3) Active in your community IE charity, or going to every town hall etc...

I told her that she doesn't qualify to vote under her own list and she said she was fine with that as long as it forced others to check off at least 2 of the above list.

Number 2 I can kind of understand, in California and LA there are measures all the time to increase property taxes and allocate the funds this way or that.
I don't think it's right that someone who rents or leases their house can vote to raise the taxes on other people.
If someone put a measure forth to tax just renters there would be an uproar, but it's okay to tax just home owners?
That's not right.

I can also see number 3, if you are active in your community you will want to improve it and won't vote for stupid measures that actually harm the community.
Too many people don't actually read what they vote for.
I honestly think cities should be broken up into smaller voting units so everyone can go to town halls and learn about what is happening in their community.
Too many people just hope someone else will fix the problem, or vote randomly or down party lines without knowing the issues.

Number 1 is hard because this is a tough economy, and if you don't have number 1 you will never have number 2.
Still something needs to change because too many people are voting and not knowing what they vote for.

In LA they were stealing money through an illegal tax on cell phones.
So they had to vote on it, they wrote the info on it saying that if you vote no we will have to refund all the money stolen and that will bankrupt the school system.
If people actually read the ballot the money wasn't going to the schools in the first place that was a lie to get people to vote yes so the city could keep their stolen money.
The measure passed and we have a new tax in LA.
Too many people were fear mongered into voting one way.

We need to educate ourselves before each election.
I personally abstain from voting on certain things if I could not find enough info one way or another.
That is the responsible thing to do, not voting randomly.