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

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.

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.

I think what we have here is a combination of problems. Taking any one of them out, is worthless, and seems pointless, because they all feed each other, and when one is taken out, others pump up and replace it. We need to make some serious changes. How?

1. National Proposition system- Why don't we let the politicians focus on the budget, national defense (not offense), and regulating the markets ( especially the insurance industry). This way, WE THE PEOPLE, can decide for ourselves, our social policies. And guess what? Congress has to abide to them as well, they should be seen just as any other U.S. citizen.

2. If your recieving government assistance, you should be drug tested. I've seen some posts that pretty much address that this will be detrimental to kids. Yea like the drugs aren't. What do we do with parents that can't take care of their kids? We already have CPS and other services set up for those scenarios, we're just going to have to let them step in, when they find that the reason person "x" needs $y amount of money, because they're spending it all on crack. That needs to end. Food stamps, should only be used to by healthy foods, as I was saying, all these problems feed each other. People get into a bad situation, so they start using drugs, they lose their job, need to get government assistance, buy junk food at stores, get sick from poor diet, need more money for medical bills, on and on and on. (Note: this is one example, and in no way, am I saying that everyone on food stamps is like this) But those that are need to be stopped, and simple solutions put in place can stop that.

3. The biggest chunks of the debt are SS, medicare, and other entitlement programs, along with the defense budget. These need to be cut, and/or rewritten. The retirement age needs to be pushed back to 70, possibly 75. Insurance companies need to be regulated. They need to pay full price to hospitals, no discounts or %'s. Full price. Then Hospitals won't need to jack up their prices to get what they need. Suddenly the health care crisis figures itself out, as now people can actually affor medical bills, without going through insurance companies. Healthcare, right now is rampant in gouging. You can pretty much drive up the price as much as you want, because people will pay whatever to live. This is why we NEED regulations.

4. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes - We need to start taxing people who have more money than they can possibly imagine.
Income per year
$250,000 or less : 15 %

250,000 - 500,000 : 20 %

500,000 - 1,000,000 : 30%

1,000,000 - 10,000,000 : 40%

10,000,000 - 100,000,000 : 45%

100,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 : 50%

1,000,000,000 or more: 60%

Income needs to be counted by money you receive. That is, any money you receive, doesn't matter from where, is income. That should solve the revenue problem, although many people won't like it.

Originally posted by andersensrm
4. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes - We need to start taxing people who have more money than they can possibly imagine.
Income per year
$250,000 or less : 15 %

250,000 - 500,000 : 20 %

500,000 - 1,000,000 : 30%

1,000,000 - 10,000,000 : 40%

10,000,000 - 100,000,000 : 45%

100,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 : 50%

1,000,000,000 or more: 60%

Income needs to be counted by money you receive. That is, any money you receive, doesn't matter from where, is income. That should solve the revenue problem, although many people won't like it.

OK some good points there except this one. I know, I know the rich should pay more because they can afford it. I say why don't we all pay the same percentage regardless of our income. That way 51% percent of the country isn't fronting the bill for the other 49% not paying any income taxes. If we need a tax increase then tax us all..all 100% percent of us. That way the ones struggling that do have a hard time making it will have more resources at the finger tips because of the extra revenue generated by more people paying taxes.

reply to post by caf1550

now i know plenty of people who don't hold government jobs are not in the military but they fully understand what is going on. they understand how most people in the country vote the way that a religon would tell them to vote, most christians vote the same way or the way a race votes, over 96% of black voters either voted or supported Obama

Never said it was perfect, what I said. Just highly selective. There will be those not selected who should be able to vote, but then again, I suppose that's why we're not a democracy. Again, that's why it would be iteresting to have some voting council to select view popular opinion.

yes i know that when the constitution was written that only white land owning males could vote, but times have changed since then so that just doesn't hold merit anymore

As I said too. It merely must be redefined to the times.

Ever read Star ship troopers? Not the movie, the book. It was pretty good how they managed it.

reply to post by Gorman91


the book was great much better then the movie

i actually like how in the book, in order to have the rights of a citizen then you must have voluntary federal service, this will never happen though. to many people would be against this in the time we live in, since we live in a "free" world where it should matter if you have served or not

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.

These are fine examples of what many Americans witness on a regular basis. The other day, while my family and I were waiting in a check-out line at Wal-Mart, I noticed that the woman checking out in front of us was texting on her $200 cell phone (which probably costs at least $100 a month in service fees and may have been paid for by the government as well) and holding what my wife says was a $100 designer purse, with a stack of junk food, beer and cigarettes on the belt behind a line of subsistence products like milk, cheese, cereal and meat. Read more: dailycaller.com...

Only a moronic half-wit would assume that the problems of America are caused by people on welfare, food stamps etc. living above what they actually "deserve".

It's NOT the poor people "stealing" from the others by getting a $100 designer purse or an expensive cell phone..respective this would really make a ridiculous low fraction compared to other things where billions are spent and wasted otherwise.

Obviously, whoever wrote that blog, is intellectually not capable of seeing farther than his local walmart checkout and unable to see the REAL reason for what causes a bad economic situation.

Originally posted by the4thhorseman

Originally posted by andersensrm
4. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes - We need to start taxing people who have more money than they can possibly imagine.
Income per year
$250,000 or less : 15 %

250,000 - 500,000 : 20 %

500,000 - 1,000,000 : 30%

1,000,000 - 10,000,000 : 40%

10,000,000 - 100,000,000 : 45%

100,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 : 50%

1,000,000,000 or more: 60%

Income needs to be counted by money you receive. That is, any money you receive, doesn't matter from where, is income. That should solve the revenue problem, although many people won't like it.

OK some good points there except this one. I know, I know the rich should pay more because they can afford it. I say why don't we all pay the same percentage regardless of our income. That way 51% percent of the country isn't fronting the bill for the other 49% not paying any income taxes. If we need a tax increase then tax us all..all 100% percent of us. That way the ones struggling that do have a hard time making it will have more resources at the finger tips because of the extra revenue generated by more people paying taxes.

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".

Think about it...who had the more enjoyable world to live in and the best overall "deal"? The uber-wealthy of the 1950's when the top tax bracket was TOOK 80-90% of your income or the uber-rich of new millennium where that number is basically reversed and you KEEP 80-90% of that income?

It's not like the wealthy people of the 1950's in America were "hurting". If memory serves the Kennedy's, Howard Hughs, and the Rockefeller family still had all kinds of obscene wealth to throw around. However...the citizens had hope. With hope...comes strong families, low crime, and clean neighborhoods.

Attached is a link to a chart that shows the history of the income tax. Prolonged periods of low top-tier tax rates correlate to economic downturn far more frequently than economic upturn. The lower the top-tier tax rate...the more severe the downturn. Link: www.businessinsider.com...

Besides...what's the problem? Assuming you do not have a net worth in the 10's of billions of dollars...those 90% top-tier tax rates on the disgustingly rich only HELP you and your family.

Unless you think you are going to hit it big and join that billionaire club anytime soon. Far too often when we think about "increasing taxes on the wealthy" we just assume that some small business owner who has a couple million bucks in the bank is "wealthy". Sure...they have a lot more money than many people...but in reality...anybody with less than a hundred million bucks is a piss-ant in the grand scheme of things.

That's the one thing I DON'T like about the Occupy message of the 1%. Really...we could just go ahead tax the bejeebies out of the .1% or .25% and FLOOD the coffers with big piles of juicy cash.

So maybe we just keep everybody else's tax rate right where it is...and jack up the rate on the top .5% to circa 1950's levels and the next .5% to Reagan-era levels and we allow all Multi-National corporations to pay 0% in taxes provided they invest a minimum of 10% previous quarters REPORTED profits into capital investments to create manufacturing, design, and engineering jobs IN THE UNITED STATES.

This brings back "real" jobs into the country which ACTUALLY produce things and which also REALISTICALLY provide jobs which an average or moderately below average employee can participate in.

Whether we like it or not...there are only three choices with all of these semi-skilled individuals who USED to work on production lines but are now unemployed. We can let them die in the streets and/or imprison them, we can support them with social programs, or we can make sure that there are plenty of decent-paying jobs at their skill level available.

Only one of those three options makes any kind of sense at all.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Or we can do away with income tax all together and come up with something less criminal. Forcing someone to give you a cut of their wages is mere thuggery.

reply to post 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.

The only thing I agree with. If you want help. It is wise to not be under the influence of drugs that affect brain chemicals while you are seeking such help.

Only because it is a known fact that drugs that affect the mind can cause persons to act in ways that they would regularly not act while not under such influences.

I know because I got personal experience!

I am really tired of some of the most assine sttements about people using food stamps!!

And no one on food stamps should be smoking, drinking or enjoying anything other than the food they need to survive. They shouldn't be allowed to buy a new car, expensive electronics outside of a house phone, go on vacations or make improvements to their dwellings.

I never used the (so-called) benefit programs that myself, and entire family, have been paying into for all ouradult working lifes.......Until I quit my job to care for my elderly mother. I would not it all again. She was my mother.

Mom just died last August 23rd. I lost everything. Could not function for a full 5 months and still having problems because - as devastating as Mother's death has been - my 49 yr old brother has a massive stroke on 2/27 and my 56 yr old brother just had 3 hour eye surgery ttrying to save his left eye. His retina is detached. Nothing happened to cause it. People's retinas detach for no reason as they get older.

So.......I am collecting food stamps - just to survive. Now, I need to get the eye brother to Texas because our "little" brother is very bad. All they can do is wait to see if the brain swelling he has (with meds) will decreaseand stop the swelling. If not he will not survive. He may be very brain damaged should he survive.....We both want to be near him.

I have watched 7 family members pass away in the last 10 years. Only the 3 of us are left - from our 'family of origin". I have been with 4 (all origin) and, totally, caretook mother at her request. She did not want to end up in a nursing home. She didn't.

I have many physical, and mental health issues, that seem to have rendered me disabilied - per my personal physican. I am applying for this, also. I do not feel a damn bit quilty as I paid for it - so did my dead family members. The Government has taken much more from me than all the money I gave them.

There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance.

There already is!!! At least for me. I have always taken care of myself - even lived in a van 3. But that was 35 yrs ago. I need some assistance or the streets would destroy me. Do I plan on getting back on my feet?? Definitely YES!!

#!! This country does not even care about you, anymore, if you are over 50-60 years old!! But, if I had a Mexican/American child, I would have nothing to worrying about as far as surviving is concerned.

Just give me all the $$$ I have already paid into SS and Medicare.........that would help.

Because of course, voting is a privelege.

reply to post by Champagne


Thank you for making it so clear why food stamps and other safety nets are needed. I think those who don't want them to be there would think differently if they encountered such circumstances in their own lives. They just need practice in putting themselves in other people's shoes.

Where there is always a difficulty is with weeding out those that don't necessarily need something like food stamps but who are good at using the system to get it. This tends to mean that draconian and upsetting conditions are placed on everyone. Probably not everyone would agree with me, but I think there are too many rules for decision-makers to follow, rather than too few. The more rules you have, the stiffer you have to be with people to find out whether they fit into them or not, and the more people fall through the net who should be helped, because their situations are unusual. Common sense and integrity among decision-makers seem like better tools to me.

Originally posted by Anthony2
reply to post by Champagne

 

Thank you for making it so clear why food stamps and other safety nets are needed. I think those who don't want them to be there would think differently if they encountered such circumstances in their own lives. They just need practice in putting themselves in other people's shoes.

The definition of political and economic conservatism, can almost exclusively be reduced to an inability to apply the Golden Rule. Compassion depends on our ability to see ourselves in the positions of others; the Right are defined by nothing else as much as their refusal to do that.

The people that demand drug testing are morons....first of all, when florida did this it was a waste of money, second urine tests only catch weed smokers, users of others including liquor can pass those tests easier.

You just want to demonize the less fortunate. Demand drug testing for your congressmen who cause a ton of problems before you label everyone on p.a. an addict.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


I think all Americans should loose their right to vote, they have proven themselves enough now to be incompetent for the job.

reply to post by petrus4


This is why the IQ levels of the people that steer that way are so low...the ignorant cannot see life for anything except for what's inside their little box.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by caf1550

 

Of course you are still a human being. Being able to vote has nothing to do with you being a human being. Voting requires responsibility, and thus far, most votes are just farms to reap for special interests.

There's a reason why the founding fathers only wanted white land owning males to vote. And while the social pretexts to this clause are extinct, the reasoning is not. In 1790, the only people who deserved to vote were white land owning males, because these were the people whom were educated, usually worldly and having spent some time in Europe, and intelligent people. Thank God the world has changed from this cultural construct, but the context remains. Today, there are only a few, maybe 10%-25% of the population, whom are responsible and educated enough to vote.

The reason I said only government workers and military is more or less because of the cultural context of the times. Soldiers are slowly but inevitably becoming a political bloc in and of themselves as the international superpower that is the United States secures its power. Government workers tend to understand the population better than politicians or social organizers also. (bear in mind I do not consider a politician a government job. I consider it a civil service). Government workers deal with the people whom are on aid. So they can judge more thoroughly who deserves and who does not.

Thus the soldier and the federal employee become the two axis on which society runs. One from within, the other to outside.

Honestly it seems more sensible to hold a general election once or twice a century to construct who should vote and who should not. Because the way things are now, most votes are simply cows to the slaughter.

What a load of laughably ignorant bull#.

You and Adolf Hitler would have been two peas in a pod.

Hell no. I'm on food stamps because I'm " learning disabled" according to government guidelines. So when that happened I'm taking every advantage I can get while in the system. Who is this moron to tell me I'm not aloud to vote. It's my god given right.