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

Originally posted by jacobe001
It appears the intent of Mr Brion at the link, is to introduce shame in order to discourage Food Stamp use and also take away their political power.

It used to be that it was shameful when politicians engaged in dirty deals over the best interest of Americans, but today, it is wide open with no shame at al.

If shame is the intent, then how about we require politicians wear patches of every Corporation and Wall Street Bank they receive money from?

How about we also require those that served in our government, that then go on to serve in the private sector after helping their cronies out, also where patches of the positions they held in government and the laws and regulations they helped repeal / dispell?

Lets spread the shame around.

I'm all for that.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


Ive read the thread and I think the OP article was fair.
Seriously why should people who dont work get to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, go out to the movies etc etc.
If you are able bodied and minded and unable to support yourself the state should provide you with the bare minimum to get by and thats it.
And yes I think it should be as difficult as possible, drug and alcohol testing, not being given cash but made to shop in gov stores is a great idea.

Apart from saying its ridiculous you havent said why this is a bad thing so would you care to enlighten us why this idea is so evil?

Just so you know Im not rich and didnt grow up rich, I came from a single parent background and my mother did receive some forms of government assistance, including rental asst, and education asst for me and my sister.

Im not against people who need it getting assistance but the system is blatantly abused and I wonder why people are ok with that

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by David9176

 

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

edit on 29-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

When people find they can vote themselves money?

That sounds like Wall Street Bankers and Heads of Corps, that vote themselves money by putting their men in politics to serve them only.

Yep, end of the republic indeed.


Obama, Bush, Clinton etc all serve the rich elite only because that is who their masters are.

reply to post by jacobe001


"crony interests" eh

That shoe fits Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and welfare to a t holding that over the American heads to keep and maintain Governments power at the cost of trillions to the American citizen which consequently has destroyed wealth and tax revenue generation taking it out of the private sector.

Which means the have sold their votes for "security" but is used as the largest tool of manipulation to keep their crony interests

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by andersensrm

 

You see no problem with it, but I ask, again, for you to provide any legal backing that would make it possible.

It aint there, because it is absolutely an unconstitutional idea.

Which is why you amend the constitution. We can't have people on welfare, claiming they have no money, becasue they have a Benz that is taking up 40% of their monthly income, while during high school their favorite phrase was "I don't care" which is why they're in a crappy job to begin with. If you have all the benefits of life, while on welfare, what's the point of getting off of it.

This is just downright silly from so many angles.

1)You would ammend the constitution to TAKE AWAY the rights of certain people. That is simply the most un-american thing i have ever heard.

2)You assume that all, or even most, on foodstamps are doing so to take advantage of the system, to be able to stay lazy, and to be able to keep their benz. There is no point in even touching on this, as it is such an outright, outlandish LIE that it is laughable.

3)You assume that all on welfare didnt care in school, didnt try, and thats why they are where they are. Again, another strawman, with absolutely zero credibility.

If you cant back your statements with fact, thats fine, but quit lying and exaggerating. It does not prove your point in any way.

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by David9176

 

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

edit on 29-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

When people find they can vote themselves money?

That sounds like Wall Street Bankers and Heads of Corps, that vote themselves money by putting their men in politics to serve them only.

Yep, end of the republic indeed.


Obama, Bush, Clinton etc all serve the rich elite only because that is who their masters are.

edit on 29-2-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

No bankers and corp heads don't vote themselves money, they give money to the person they want in office, that person gets elected and then is controlled by whoever gave them the money.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Prove me wrong.

Actually no

You don't need a constitutional amendment when you already have the power to raise taxes to redistribute wealth which is basically the robin hood stupidity for what all social programs are.

Rob from the rich give to the poor blow that money and keep taking money and property from those who are successful.

The only thing Govermnental programs do is keep people in poverty

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Prove me wrong.

Well, i am a teacher who was laid off because of budget cut, and needed assistance until I could get a new position.

oops, you were just proven wrong.

Now, Ill wait for you to back up your lies in any way...go on.....

Originally posted by neo96
Actually no

You don't need a constitutional amendment when you already have the power to raise taxes to redistribute wealth which is basically the robin hood stupidity for what all social programs are.

Rob from the rich give to the poor blow that money and keep taking money and property from those who are successful.

The only thing Govermnental programs do is keep people in poverty

Right, which is exactly why we need to change things.

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin

 

Show me the evidence that most people in hardship is not a result of laziness, then I will take everything back that I said, and will apologize. Until then, thats what I honestly believe. Most people in hardship, in america, are there purely because of themselves. Their laziness and carelessness has brought them to a situation they now realize is a bad one, and want others to pay for it. I see no problem with taking away voting rights to those that are in government welfare programs. If its unconstitutional, then make an amendment, thats what they're for.

Show me the evidence that most people in hardship are there as a result of laziness. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I however happen to be one of those people and know first hand that it's not out of laziness, I'd wager if I had anything to wager, that I work much harder than you.

It's easy to cast judgement when sitting on your cushy couch. What is the basis for your "belief?"

Because I already know what it is, that's what you were TOLD.


I don't get unemployment or medicare/caid. I don't even have car insurance.

And before you LOLOLOL and say well you have internet -- please remember in order to get a job in 2012, it's completely crucial that you have internet and a phone over car insurance.

I can drive for a week or two without it, I can't get a call or an email about my resume to get a job to get paid to make payments on insurance without those.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Prove me wrong.

Well, i am a teacher who was laid off because of budget cut, and needed assistance until I could get a new position.

oops, you were just proven wrong.

Now, Ill wait for you to back up your lies in any way...go on.....

Okay, but thats one person, out of how many millions of welfare? Hardly proof. And how long did you need to get a new position? I gather not any significant amount of time. You would have been just fine getting your food at a government store, and holding off your votes until you could get a job.

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Prove me wrong.

Well, i am a teacher who was laid off because of budget cut, and needed assistance until I could get a new position.

oops, you were just proven wrong.

Now, Ill wait for you to back up your lies in any way...go on.....

Okay, but thats one person, out of how many millions of welfare? Hardly proof. And how long did you need to get a new position? I gather not any significant amount of time. You would have been just fine getting your food at a government store, and holding off your votes until you could get a job.

I know of plenty of teachers in the exact same position.

Can you provide any proof, at all, that most on welfare are lazy, drive spendy cars, etc? You made the claim, now prove it...

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Seriously why should people who dont work get to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, go out to the movies etc etc.

Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed so much so the money almost goes back directly from where it was given. Although I agree first hand that you are right that people not working shouldn't be out having fun, I can't say it's bad for the economy.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
If you are able bodied and minded and unable to support yourself the state should provide you with the bare minimum to get by and thats it.

I guess I can agree with you on that, other than help to get back to work or educate, people that have no disabilities shouldn't have access to new luxury while on wealth fare.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Im not against people who need it getting assistance but the system is blatantly abused and I wonder why people are ok with that

Yeah, it should be better but I think with the way economy works, social security isn't a big problem in short term. But the government should work towards getting people back to work instead of helping corporations moves out of the country.

Ah the strawman argument.

Lost my job bs well if Social Security was privatized and someone lost their job they could access their own funds to get by until things turned around.

Or the "saved for a rainy day" because crap happens but nope someone elses responsibility or make your problems someone elses.

Yeah someone did mention PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in this thread it's just has a different meaning

You are responsibile for other people.

I agree with the article 1000% and would add unemployment should be employment benefits. All remedial local government jobs should be alocated to unemployment recipients. Some will argue this simply shifts the scope of unemployment, and it does, but with comprehensive reform as stated in the article unemployment benefits will truly become a last resort.

reply to post by Laokin


Basis of my belief, is what I see, no one told me. I know a lot of people on welfare. My family is on welfare. I am a student, live by myself, and I work very hard for little money. I've sacrificed my car, and other things to get by. I live with 5 other people in a 2 room apartment. I don't get any payments from the government, with the exception of tax refunds when they're there. Most of everyone I talk to, who is on welfare, don't really need it. NONE of them have sacrificed as much as I have, becasue they are unwilling to lower their standard of living. Listen to a radio show, where the host tries to help listners with their money. Most of the listners are on some type of welfare program, and most if not all of them have a car payment that takes up 40% or more of their income, and a house mortgage payment that takes up the rest. Sure some are in real hardship, but not most. And if I find my self to the point where I need government assistance, I don't mind sacrificing my rights for the little time I would need the assistance to get back on my feet.

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Prove me wrong.

Well, i am a teacher who was laid off because of budget cut, and needed assistance until I could get a new position.

oops, you were just proven wrong.

Now, Ill wait for you to back up your lies in any way...go on.....

Okay, but thats one person, out of how many millions of welfare? Hardly proof. And how long did you need to get a new position? I gather not any significant amount of time. You would have been just fine getting your food at a government store, and holding off your votes until you could get a job.

There are 311 million people in America. I've been laid off too.

What you need to realize is the people who get benefits aren't all on them for their entire life, there are millions and millions of people who are constantly needing them and then not needing them.

When this teacher here got a new job 10 welders got laid off, 20 IT guys, 55 salesmen etc.


It's not one denomination of "poor" people. It's a constantly changing amalgamation of people using said benefits. It's not just ONE person, I've been laid off, my brothers been laid off, my father has been laid off 4 times in one year (from businesses that employ him failing) my friends have been laid off, I've seen so many people laid off.

Laid off means not fired, it means they could no longer afford to employ you.

I.E.

Not because of laziness or lack of production and productivity. But because the employer no longer had the moneys.


My mother was a realtor -- when the bubble collapsed she was effectively put out of business.

What world do you live in/how old are you?

I'm betting young.

reply to post by Laokin


But it all comes down to GOVERNMENT PROVIDED WELFARE. People should be able to take care of themsleves. Save their own money for when bad times are afoot. Not just to be careless and only care when it happens to them. Which is WHY I say we should make government provided welfare, and entitlements for that matter, as undesirable as possible, to push people to plan for themselves, rather than just thinking the government is a back up no matter what.

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin

 

Basis of my belief, is what I see, no one told me. I know a lot of people on welfare. My family is on welfare. I am a student, live by myself, and I work very hard for little money. I've sacrificed my car, and other things to get by. I live with 5 other people in a 2 room apartment. I don't get any payments from the government, with the exception of tax refunds when they're there. Most of everyone I talk to, who is on welfare, don't really need it. NONE of them have sacrificed as much as I have, becasue they are unwilling to lower their standard of living. Listen to a radio show, where the host tries to help listners with their money. Most of the listners are on some type of welfare program, and most if not all of them have a car payment that takes up 40% or more of their income, and a house mortgage payment that takes up the rest. Sure some are in real hardship, but not most. And if I find my self to the point where I need government assistance, I don't mind sacrificing my rights for the little time I would need the assistance to get back on my feet.

WAT!

5 people in a 2 bedroom, sacrificed your car?

Where do you live the city, where you can get a bus for 50 cents?

Because where I live, if you sacrifice your car you don't work. Period.

Also 5 people in a 2 bedroom is atrocious. That means you are RELYING upon other people to live. You get rides to work, you live for free and or at a really low rate.


This is no different than getting government money. You are taking handouts from personal people, but if you had no personal friends to rely upon what would you do?


So getting handouts = getting hand outs, you're as lazy as the rest of us.


I've actually had a friend of mine murdered by a roommate... He thought he was being safe and responsible by cutting down his expenses by taking on a stranger.


I'm glad it worked out for you, but you need to realize what works for you is a product of not just YOUR merit.

It's Merit/Luck/Dependency on other people.

I.E.

It's not because you aren't "lazy" that you do this -- it's because your circumstances allow it, nothing more -- nothing less.