Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you're living off the largess of others (the taxpayers), you should take what you're given and be grateful.
So you're saying that anyone who is low-income (temporarily or permanently, for whatever reason) doesn't deserve representation and doesn't have equal citizenship to you, for instance?
When you're living off the largess of others (the taxpayers), you should take what you're given and be grateful. If you're truly disabled that's one thing, but if you're simply poor -- why is the state government taking care of you?
How is rent $72/mo for somebody unless you're living with 10 other people (and I'm not talking your own children)?
The state should make getting handouts as difficult and humiliating as possible to basically encourage those receiving them to stop or move out of state to somewhere with larger coffers. Too many people receiving them feel no shame and rather a sense of entitlement. We need to change the ratio of people paying to receiving and if we can't do that by growing the economy in the state then we should do it be reducing those who are doing the taking. I'm hoping the Republicans work on both sides of that ratio to improve things.
Pretty much. If you want my feelings on the matter, I think you should lose the right to vote in any year that you are not paying income taxes and are receiving government subsidies. Those who are not paying into the system should not have a say in how government funds are being distributed. This leads to voting blocks which simply vote themselves money at the expense of others. There's a real concern that in just a few years there will be more people feeding off the system than contributing to it and when that happens the system will ultimately collapse.
Unfortunately, the Constitution won't allow for the taking away of a person's right to vote but how about this? Everybody gets one vote whether they pay taxes or not but those that pay taxes get one additional vote and one vote after that for each 10K paid.
The same type of thing should be invoked for property tax votes. Everybody gets 1 vote but property owners should get additional votes based on how much they'll be forced to pay. Is it really fair during school millage elections that the person renting an apartment and paying practically nothing in property taxes gets equal voting representation as the person who will be paying 10-100x as much as the result of a millage increase. The main reason these millage increases get approved year after year is that they don't affect the majority in the same manner and a minority ends up picking up a majority of the bill.
So I guess I'm a proponent of a form of census suffrage instead of equal suffrage. It's not a new concept -- colonial America worked this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summer22
So you're saying that anyone who is low-income (temporarily or permanently, for whatever reason) doesn't deserve representation and doesn't have equal citizenship to you, for instance?
Pretty much. If you want my feelings on the matter, I think you should lose the right to vote in any year that you are not paying income taxes and are receiving government subsidies. Those who are not paying into the system should not have a say in how government funds are being distributed. This leads to voting blocks which simply vote themselves money at the expense of others. There's a real concern that in just a few years there will be more people feeding off the system than contributing to it and when that happens the system will ultimately collapse.
Unfortunately, the Constitution won't allow for the taking away of a person's right to vote but how about this? Everybody gets one vote whether they pay taxes or not but those that pay taxes get one additional vote and one vote after that for each 10K paid.
The same type of thing should be invoked for property tax votes. Everybody gets 1 vote but property owners should get additional votes based on how much they'll be forced to pay. Is it really fair during school millage elections that the person renting an apartment and paying practically nothing in property taxes gets equal voting representation as the person who will be paying 10-100x as much as the result of a millage increase. The main reason these millage increases get approved year after year is that they don't affect the majority in the same manner and a minority ends up picking up a majority of the bill.
So I guess I'm a proponent of a form of census suffrage instead of equal suffrage. It's not a new concept -- colonial America worked this way.
Perhaps a coronation, while we're at it.
All I can say is that I am damned glad there was help when I needed it, it was humiliating, which just fueled many of the social problems you decried, and did not solve the problem as you note. I was stubborn enough to pull myself up by my bootstraps anyway, but for most, it simply fuels the negative self-esteem and prevents their success in escaping the system.
I'm thankful that if and when I am disabled from the rare disease I have (a very likely and unfortunate result of the years our broken healthcare system was incentivized to ignore my symptoms and break it's contractual obligations, with no legal recourse available to me) I will have support available should I need it. I'm fighting hard, but it's a battle I may not ultimately win.
I have been blessed to be able to help others navigate their way to self-sufficiency... The way they are treated for receiving aid is always the biggest hurdle I have to overcome on their path to being tax-paying citizens.
Sane people do in fact feel bad for taking aid. The false bravado you see as "entitlement" is nothing more than an attempt to not allow the need for help to completely devastate you. People are awful. My husband and I used to take foster kids. We'd have several of different ages and races, and people would make the most awful assumptions because the kids qualified for WIC, so obviously I had lots of different baby daddies. The horrible things they'd say in front of the kids....
We were a hard-working, self-supporting, middle class couple. There are a few very good reasons kids in foster care get WIC, but we stopped using it, and eventually, stopped being foster parents.
I find compassion, understanding and leadership works wonders in helping people learn how to become contributing members of society. Much more effective than shame, which has the opposite effect.
Location: At the end of the road, where the trail begins.
760 posts, read 2,441,997 times
Reputation: 353
LOL!!! Well let's just go way back into our history and only allow male landowners to vote
(kidding)
I do agree that reforms need to be made. It was created to help those who would be horrified to accept assistance (the down on their luck's)....... now it's become an expected right and even a necessary entitlement to many people's minds.
I think the the SNAP system needs to be completely re-worked and their entire application process needs to be revised. I go to a college in Michigan where it's actually considered "cool" to have a bridge card. When you happen to talk about the bridge card services with a group of people, most of the time, 9 out of 10 of them have a bridge card and will ask the one person who doesn't "why the hell not?!"
When my roommate applied for her bridge card, she didn't even have to go to an office for an interview. She simply filled out an application and her card with $200 a month in grocery allowance came in the mail. My roommate has class only two days a week and could easily get a job instead of signing up for her "free grocery money", however since getting money with no work involved is easier, that's what she and thousands of my fellow students do each month. What gets me is that she can afford her daily cigarettes, weed and alcohol, but groceries? Out of the question.
I just think it's ridiculous. Yes, people who are struggling to make ends meet working one or multiple jobs or trying to support their children should be given this temporary assistance opportunity, but college kids who can pay for all of their other expenses and aren't even working a part time job? Absolutely not.
at the very least, can't they do something similar to the federal WIC program in which there is a list of fairly healthy foods that you are allowed to purchase and nothing else? I was in line at Kroger a few days ago next to an able-bodied young 20-something woman who was using her bridge card to buy a 20 oz. Mountain Dew and a bag of chips. The next day my paycheck stub came in the mail and I saw that almost 1/3 of the money that I worked hard to earn was taken out so that people like her can drink Mountain Dew on my dime. If I'm going to go to work to support people like this, I would at least like to know that I'm not providing them with the means to get fatter and more unhealthy.
Sparrow_temp has an excellent point. Back in the early days of European settlement in this country, when Jamestown, VA was being settled by the English, Capt. John Smith made it a law that those who didn't work and contribute to the better good of the society didn't eat. It wasn't a new principle, it's also in the Bible, in the Book of Proverbs, I believe. He wasn't trying to be mean or condescending, he was just wise enough to know that a society can't flourish when part of its population won't contribute when they are perfectly able to do so. Now, if someone is truly physically disabled, that's one thing, and I don't mind supporting them if they truly aren't able to work, although there are jobs that don't require much physical effort, such as a lot of desk jobs. I also realize that a lot of the able bodied people on relief don't have any decent job skills to get a job with or just simply can't find a job in this economy. I'd much rather pay for the government to set up job training and even create jobs for people so that are required to be productive than pay for them to sit on the couch and eat junk food. I realize that that description doesn't fit everyone on aid, but I'm afraid it describes far too many of them.
Can they also outlaw energy drinks being purchased with food stamps while they're at it? There's a certain gas station I end up in every now and then...person in line in front of me almost invariably has a Monster or a Red Bull being paid for (at convenience store prices) with my tax dollars. At least get them at Aldi where their brand costs half the price, gosh.
That is a lie because you can not buy energy drinks with food stamps, unless the store itself is crooked in which case it doesn't matter what law they pass.
I understand tax payers not wanting their taxes abused and I am not opposed to tougher restrictions, however as I said some of the restrictions, such as not being able to withdraw cash will hurt and prevent people, such as myself from obtaining the very items the cash assistance is suppose to be used for. No matter what restrictions you put on it some people will find away to get around them. Your not worried about politicians ripping off millions from hard working Americans but you are worried that someone is abusing a set income limit they receive from the government. I appropriate the help I get from the government, being disabled, but some of these restrictions, such as not being able to withdraw cash to pay rent. You can not stop all the abuse and I don't think people like me should be punished for those that do abuse the system. As it stands if you get caught abusing the system you will get a large fine and have to reimburse all the money you received. As grateful as I am for the money I get, for I would have nothing without it, it really isn't enough to live off. I receive $265 a month in cash benefits to pay for rent and all other needs. If it wasn't for section 8 i wouldn't be able to pay rent. Any of you try to live off $265 a month? It is hard, I'm happy to receive it as I said but we aren't talking a lot of money. If someone receives the $500 max they have to have a lot of kids. In fact you can only receive cash assistance if you have children or are disabled, and you have to go through a lot to prove you are disabled, and you have to go through a program, which does drug test you, that helps people with disabilities find work and if they deem you unable to work, (which you see a bunch of doctors of all types before that will be claimed) you HAVE to have a case open with social security, which will send you to even more doctors to prove your disability. Its not easy to get , its not a lot, and most people who get on it, do indeed need it as you will make much more if you do work and it will be easier to get.
Now they should do something about people having a ton of kids and collecting benefits but you can't do that without sterilizations, which is against our human rights.
Before my disability I was a hard working, tax paying citizen. If I had my choice I would be again. I don't want to be homeless again though, because I can not pay rent. What good is the cash assistance if I have no place to live. Its horrible being homeless , and once you are it is so hard to get out because to get a job you need transportation (without cash you can't use the bus either), an address , and a phone. When I was younger and found myself homeless I was forced to be a stripper because of those reason's I could not get a job. Very few have that option and a lot of homeless are mentally ill or war veterans, or just having a rough time with this economy. Yes, their are a lot of drug addicts that slip by in the system, but not all are. I was homeless because I couldn't afford an apartment on a minimum wage job nor find a job that gave enough hours to pay for a place and necessities or even just rent on the income I received nor find a roommate, this lead to homelessness which lead to loss of the job. The homelessness lead to the disability. The system isn't a great place to be and is a last resort for some, now they want to put people like me back in that situation, because SOME abuse the system and even after these restrictions will continue to do so.
Pretty much. If you want my feelings on the matter, I think you should lose the right to vote in any year that you are not paying income taxes and are receiving government subsidies. Those who are not paying into the system should not have a say in how government funds are being distributed. This leads to voting blocks which simply vote themselves money at the expense of others. There's a real concern that in just a few years there will be more people feeding off the system than contributing to it and when that happens the system will ultimately collapse.
Unfortunately, the Constitution won't allow for the taking away of a person's right to vote but how about this? Everybody gets one vote whether they pay taxes or not but those that pay taxes get one additional vote and one vote after that for each 10K paid.
The same type of thing should be invoked for property tax votes. Everybody gets 1 vote but property owners should get additional votes based on how much they'll be forced to pay. Is it really fair during school millage elections that the person renting an apartment and paying practically nothing in property taxes gets equal voting representation as the person who will be paying 10-100x as much as the result of a millage increase. The main reason these millage increases get approved year after year is that they don't affect the majority in the same manner and a minority ends up picking up a majority of the bill.
So I guess I'm a proponent of a form of census suffrage instead of equal suffrage. It's not a new concept -- colonial America worked this way.
Sparrow I agree with you completely. I have argued this point with others many times. Why should someone living off the hard work of others get the same say in our goverment that those who produce something do? I believe that only those who contribute (pay taxes) should be able to vote. If you are recieving asssitance in any given year you should not be able to vote in that years elections. Common sense tells where we are headed. People on assistance vote for those who support more programs. The more programs we have, the higher the tax burden on those who produce. (work) As taxes rise, the economy contracts and people lose their jobs. These new jobless call for more programs to help them as well. This is a never ending negative feedback loop, and the end result is socialism. Our founding fathers are criticized for only allowing land owning white males to vote. Is that an archaic view, yes of course but the intent is good. They wanted to make sure only those who had a stake in this country had the vote. They knew what would happen to our goverment and economy if everyone had a say. They knew the have nots would simply vote to redistirbute the wealth, and our productivity and economic developement would have stopped cold. The masses would demand entitlements from the goverment until all the wealth of this nation was squandered. I am not calling for a return to only allowing land owning males to vote, but a return to the intent of the founding fathers. Only those who produce (work), only those who have a stake in the nation should have a say in how its run. I realize that is not going to happen in the near future, but one day the socialist policies and attitudes that are prevalant today are going to fail and at that point Americans will be open to a restoration of a true republican democracy and capitolism. Capitolism is not perfect, and its not truley fair but niether is life. Capitolism rewards hard work and enginuity, and it has provided a high standard of living for MOST people in this nation. Do some fall through the cracks yes, but under all other economic systems ALOT more live in poverty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
