It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.


I meant when the government is unable to pay out. And no, I know that welfare makes up a tiny % of the debt.



So you admit that the problem that you deem a problem is not really a problem right?

You also admit that if you say yes, you are adamantly saying that "If a person makes less than "X" they are not considered a whole person."

Do you still support your claim?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


Minimum wage should be set at, the amount at which someone can live without the assistance of the government. If you make less than that, you are either illegal, or you aren't doing anything, and thus making nothing. They are considered a whole person, just as a convict is.


Minimum wage is set by the states. For someone who is crying "less government", you sure are advocating a lot of government involvement...


on top of that, a minimum wage is a government program, that is equal to a handout.

Finally, id like to ask you, how do you explain the amazingly high unemployment rate and its rise over the last 10 years. Are more people lazy now than 10 years ago?

Are all the people out of work right now doing so out of laziness, and not lack of jobs?
edit on 29-2-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bill of rights was added later to the constitution to get approval from citizens, so I don't think that, rights were what it was purely about.


Then you need to go back to school. Or try reading the document. The bill o f rights are the amendments to the constitution. You would like to use the bill of rights, to limit citizens rights.

Downright scary.
edit on 29-2-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Fine forget the voting rights, they can keep them. But we need to do something about the abuse of our government programs, because there is a lot of it. We need to move off of the mentality that the government is always there to support you no matter what, we need people to be accountable for their actions, and responsible for their well-being.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.


I meant when the government is unable to pay out. And no, I know that welfare makes up a tiny % of the debt.



So you admit that the problem that you deem a problem is not really a problem right?

You also admit that if you say yes, you are adamantly saying that "If a person makes less than "X" they are not considered a whole person."

Do you still support your claim?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


Minimum wage should be set at, the amount at which someone can live without the assistance of the government. If you make less than that, you are either illegal, or you aren't doing anything, and thus making nothing. They are considered a whole person, just as a convict is.


A convict is not, his rights are restricted. As soon as your rights are restricted, you must ask for permission to do things. A whole person is free and does not have to ask permission to bear arms or vote. A convict has to plead for both of those rights. In essence, a convict becomes a slave to the government and has to do as they say with minimal guarantees of freedom.

You also didn't answer my first question. If there is intrinsically no problem with the budget of people getting entitlements, than why should we punish those getting them instead of cutting spending elsewhere?

If entitlements aren't what is making us broke, than why is it a problem?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Combination of laziness and lack of jobs. A lot of people weren't anticipating the growth in the technological industry, that would eventually lead to more efficient workplaces thus needing less workers.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
nvm....
edit on 29-2-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Your right, its not a "money" problem per say. It is a soceital problem, that can lead IMO to many other problems, and may be the reason for most or some of the ones we have now, which is why we need to address it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bill of rights was added later to the constitution to get approval from citizens, so I don't think that, rights were what it was purely about.


Then you need to go back to school. Or try reading the document. The bill o f rights are the amendments to the constitution. You would like to use the bill of rights, to limit citizens rights.

Downright scary.
edit on 29-2-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Fine forget the voting rights, they can keep them. But we need to do something about the abuse of our government programs, because there is a lot of it. We need to move off of the mentality that the government is always there to support you no matter what, we need people to be accountable for their actions, and responsible for their well-being.




This is the first post of yours I agree with, however -- asking the government to do it is not the answer.

If you want to stop abuse of welfare services, start turning in the people who fraudulently accept such entitlements.

If you turn a blind eye to those that don't really need it, YOU are the problem just as much as those that abuse it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Combination of laziness and lack of jobs. A lot of people weren't anticipating the growth in the technological industry, that would eventually lead to more efficient workplaces thus needing less workers.


So you admit there are less jobs in the market right now. So all the people cant be lazy.

So you would rather deny help to those that are trying, because there are some out there that arent?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

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.


To be honest... this is a lot disturbing. This is nanny state gone wild. This is tyranny with a velvet glove holding a can of pork and beans.

S&F... hope this gets the attention it deserves.


Why does it deserve attention? Sorry, but isn't daily caller where people call in and give opinions, or am I missing something? Some bigot gives their opinion - ok, move on to the next person, what is there to give attention to apart from someone being obnoxious who got out of bed the wrong side and isn't being very politically aware? Who cares? Where would attention be focussed?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition




Not if you make it so the companies must pay more, no tax incentives to move the numbers around. You just make them pay this minimum amount for regulatory purposes. Thats all the government should do, regulate, and defend. You regulate what companies can do, and defend the nation.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition





LOLOLOLOL





Took the words right out of my mouth. I.E. The people depend on the money that the government is supposedly assuring they will get.

Makes no difference who the money comes from, only that they get it. The reason it's done the way it is, is -- if you just gave it to the companies they would interfere with it going into the hands of those that need to receive it and you'd have to give them tax breaks so they could afford to pay the absurdly high minimum wages that would be necessary. Thus, giving entitlements to companies and corporations instead of real tangible living, breathing people who die.


It's always better to make a transaction from one party to another, it's always worse to stick in a middle man.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Combination of laziness and lack of jobs. A lot of people weren't anticipating the growth in the technological industry, that would eventually lead to more efficient workplaces thus needing less workers.


So you admit there are less jobs in the market right now. So all the people cant be lazy.

So you would rather deny help to those that are trying, because there are some out there that arent?



I never said anything about everyone being lazy, or denying anyone help.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Combination of laziness and lack of jobs. A lot of people weren't anticipating the growth in the technological industry, that would eventually lead to more efficient workplaces thus needing less workers.


So you admit there are less jobs in the market right now. So all the people cant be lazy.

So you would rather deny help to those that are trying, because there are some out there that arent?



I never said anything about everyone being lazy, or denying anyone help.



Yeah but you wish to punish EVERYONE who needs help because SOME of them are lazy.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition




Not if you make it so the companies must pay more, no tax incentives to move the numbers around. You just make them pay this minimum amount for regulatory purposes. Thats all the government should do, regulate, and defend. You regulate what companies can do, and defend the nation.


Ahhh, things sure are easy in lala land.

It simply does not work that way. You cant simply tell a company they have to pay more, without figuring in the ripple effect. No tax breaks? Then that company's services will get much more expensive.

Not to mention, now you are RELYING on the companies to pay a specific amount. Its still a government regulation that leads to people RELYING on another entity.

And that isnt even bringing in the corporate slavery argument that goes along with this.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition





LOLOLOLOL





Took the words right out of my mouth. I.E. The people depend on the money that the government is supposedly assuring they will get.

Makes no difference who the money comes from, only that they get it. The reason it's done the way it is, is -- if you just gave it to the companies they would interfere with it going into the hands of those that need to receive it and you'd have to give them tax breaks so they could afford to pay the absurdly high minimum wages that would be necessary. Thus, giving entitlements to companies and corporations instead of real tangible living, breathing people who die.


It's always better to make a transaction from one party to another, it's always worse to stick in a middle man.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


If you gave it to the companies, and had the government REGULATE it, the money would go to the people who need it. Problem is, the government doesn't and hasn't ever done that, so people are skeptikal that the government could even do such a thing.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition




Not if you make it so the companies must pay more, no tax incentives to move the numbers around. You just make them pay this minimum amount for regulatory purposes. Thats all the government should do, regulate, and defend. You regulate what companies can do, and defend the nation.



Right, then they close down and move out of the country and take the jobs offshore because they can do what they do from another location for a fraction of the price thus boosting profit margin by avoiding the regulation causing more unemployment and more people that need entitlements.


Sure sounds like a winner, no?

BTW this is why government regulation does not work.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


But you see here, where the government is governing the wage, as opposed to just giving handouts.


same difference. You are telling the companies that they must pay more. Which will only happen with tax breaks to the companies. Meaning you are basically taking from peter to give to paul.

You would take the money out of the governments hands, and put it into the hands of corporations. Now theres a good proposition





LOLOLOLOL





Took the words right out of my mouth. I.E. The people depend on the money that the government is supposedly assuring they will get.

Makes no difference who the money comes from, only that they get it. The reason it's done the way it is, is -- if you just gave it to the companies they would interfere with it going into the hands of those that need to receive it and you'd have to give them tax breaks so they could afford to pay the absurdly high minimum wages that would be necessary. Thus, giving entitlements to companies and corporations instead of real tangible living, breathing people who die.


It's always better to make a transaction from one party to another, it's always worse to stick in a middle man.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


If you gave it to the companies, and had the government REGULATE it, the money would go to the people who need it. Problem is, the government doesn't and hasn't ever done that, so people are skeptikal that the government could even do such a thing.


So now you are advocating even more government control...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


So you make it more expensive to do business outside the U.S. Most are payed above what minimum wage should be, so it wouldn't affect a large number of businesses.




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join