Who says we have to let welfare trash vote?

[Phil502]

Unemployment costs the employer about 250 dollars per employee.
SS is a safety net for the elderly to be able to live when they can no longer work. How easy is it to save enough to make it very far, no ones investments are getting much interest now, I don't begrudge the elderly from collecting some money to keep them going, it's a worthy cause in most cases.

 

[RedneckReject]

I'm usually the person that reads the entire thread before posting anything but the OP was just way too out there for me. Clearly this is from someone who has most likely never been in the situation in which some temporary help is needed. Although I do not agree with laziness and CHOOSING not to work in order to have your way paid, not everyone on assistance is that way. I personally do not have an Obamaphone, am not on section 8, etc, etc, but I do know a few people that are. They are good hardworking people with jobs who cannot make ends meet otherwise.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Why should having "big pensions" or being "rich" prevent one from collecting what was taken from them by force throughout their lives? if these people have "big pensions" or are "rich", that tells me that they more than likely worked really hard for a long time and and therefore, had a LOT of money taken from them by the government to set aside for "their" retirement.
I believe that at this point we probably are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 47% don't pay income tax. 10,000 Baby Boomers are retiring each day and are demanding their part of what has already been taken from them over the course of their lifetime, but has been spent. SS is broke. SS Disability is exploding and being paid to people that have not contributed even remotely to what they are taking out. Unemployment is being paid out WAY more than intended, with no work requirements (at least FDR made people work) EBT cards can purchase junk food and Big Gulps, and the "less fortunate" get free cable and cell phones while over half the school children are on free/reduced meals. The Fed is printing money to prop up the stock market, and then market levels are "promoted" by a complicit media in this MassCharade to lull everyone into thinking that all is well, and all the while we are amassing so much debt on the backs of our children as to be criminal.
I'm not saying that those that truly, TRULY need help shouldn't be helped. But, we seem to keep overlooking the most basic question, why does it have to be government that provides this charity? Individuals and social groups used to provide these things, at an uninflated cost that was affordable and left markets intact.
We were warned centuries ago, by those that had studied centuries of previous governments and history and had learned the pattern, that government "philanthropy" and "benevolence with other peoples money" is the greatest alibi of all tyrants! They even CLEARLY AND PLAINLY left us written Law to try to protect us from this tyranny. However, one thing they could never do was protect us from ourselves.
How many tens of trillions of dollars have been mis-allocated by government for the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, all of the Bailouts, border enforcement, government run education, healthcare, welfare, SS, etc. etc., etc.? EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING the government has involved itself in is either A) broke, B) unaffordable by the middle class or is C) being propped up with printed dollars/debt on the backs of our children! EVERYTHING! Government intervention distorts prices, creates inflation and then, more "need" for "more help" and eventually collapses the society under it's own weight of debt!

Bread and circusses ......
Who is John Galt!

So if we sit back and do nothing society will collapse, if we make people uncomfortable and rearrange things society might have a chance...I agree with you that all those things you wrote about either needs to go or be restructured. Some are easy to just get rid of some, are not. Why would it hurt to re-write SS and let people 35 and younger start taking the money they would normally pay in SS taxes and put it in a retirement fund. Why not take SS disability and put it in a different fund. Why not take the SS of those who are getting very lucrative pensions and who really do not need the money to live on. Also those who are millionaires and billionaires do not really need the money. Yes they all might have earned it but something has got to give. The system is very unfair as it is..especially for women...because they did not make as much as men. The people between 35 and 65 could pay a portion to a retirement account and SS based on their age. The government could take the money spent on the war on drugs and put it into SS to keep it afloat for the next 35 years. That way everyone has a chance...if you are on welfare and never worked, it should be known you better get your butt to work. Families might have to start taking care of their elderly parents like they use to before SS.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Always glad to see the "protectors of liberty" so very quick to remove the liberties of others.

Maybe I am just tired, but I am missing your point. Who are the protectors of liberty in this thread wanting to remove peoples liberties.

 

[techres]

Maybe I am just tired, but I am missing your point. Who are the protectors of liberty in this thread wanting to remove peoples liberties.

Many if not most of those of those posting how they think the right to vote should be removed from fellow citizens are also people who describe themselves as defenders of 2A rights at the very least.

It is very easy to talk about taking other rights, and easy to excuse it as necessary because XYZ. Especially because XYZ is now suddenly an emergency of massive proportions.

Funny thing, that's exactly what the gun banners do.

It's not a right they like. It's actually something they despise. They see an emergency that just has to trump a right and then they head to take away the right.

To some extent, at least they are honest.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Many if not most of those of those posting how they think the right to vote should be removed from fellow citizens are also people who describe themselves as defenders of 2A rights at the very least.

It is very easy to talk about taking other rights, and easy to excuse it as necessary because XYZ. Especially because XYZ is now suddenly an emergency of massive proportions.

Funny thing, that's exactly what the gun banners do.

It's not a right they like. It's actually something they despise. They see an emergency that just has to trump a right and then they head to take away the right.

To some extent, at least they are honest.

I see what you are saying now, but I see what some of them are saying. You have people voting for our stuff that we worked our asses off for.

Us, as gun owners are not trying to deny someone of something, but those that have not and do not contribute anything vote for what is ours so that they may have it. We want everyone to have the same freedoms we have, we just do not wish to be the lone sheep voting against a few wolves about what's for dinner.

Maybe that is how the OP should have phrased this, if you are not working for dinner, you do not get to vote for what's for dinner.

 

[smknabel]

Without disclosing my entire personal history, I have been struggling with a myriad of health issues for the last 3ish years, and during that time my family has been off and on government assistance because my illness has made me completely unable to work…hell do anything. In the last 2 years, I really haven't even gone to hang out with friends because I feel so bad.
I tell my story, to say, I agree some people on these programs abuse them. Those people should be punished. Not EVERYone on the programs abuse them.

I just challenge you to really think about what you are saying and try to really think through the ramifications of your statements.

 

[John Galt]

So if we sit back and do nothing society will collapse, if we make people uncomfortable and rearrange things society might have a chance...I agree with you that all those things you wrote about either needs to go or be restructured. Some are easy to just get rid of some, are not. Why would it hurt to re-write SS and let people 35 and younger start taking the money they would normally pay in SS taxes and put it in a retirement fund. Why not take SS disability and put it in a different fund. Why not take the SS of those who are getting very lucrative pensions and who really do not need the money to live on. Also those who are millionaires and billionaires do not really need the money. Yes they all might have earned it but something has got to give. The system is very unfair as it is..especially for women...because they did not make as much as men. The people between 35 and 65 could pay a portion to a retirement account and SS based on their age. The government could take the money spent on the war on drugs and put it into SS to keep it afloat for the next 35 years. That way everyone has a chance...if you are on welfare and never worked, it should be known you better get your butt to work. Families might have to start taking care of their elderly parents like they use to before SS.

You appear to be hanging on to the false hope that government actually cares and wants to help people! Allowing government the power to redistribute our wealth is bad enough, but to ask for and even encourage it is begging to be ruled!
For starters, think of the sheer magnitude of the inefficiency of government and the waste involved with government first collecting (confiscating) our property and then redistributing (helping) those that have been determined to "need" it. Next, please keep in mind the incentive for those involved in this system to expand this system. Once government starts paying for "needs", more "needs" are going to surface. When looting becomes easier than labor, looting wins most every time! This applies at the Wall Street level as much as it does the individual welfare level.
Again, I am not being cold and heartless. I give A LOT of money to people that I truly believe need help, and I am by no means very wealthy. I just happen to believe in Karma. People who I think that, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times and need a little help. But guess what, 100% of that charity goes towards its intended purpose and there is zero incentive for others to take advantage of this type of system.
The problem I currently see is that there are too many people profiting from our current out-of-control-inevitably-to-become-unsustainable system. Too many are making too much money redistributing wealth to those that are conditioned to accept/be dependant upon this confiscated wealth. It took (I'm rough guessing here) about 100 years (1913 - creation of the Fed, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment) to get to the EndOfTheRoad, and we won't fix it over night. But, I do know one thing, Good wins in the End, it just depends on how bad we choose to make it for ourselves!

 

[lucky4034]

I've said for a long time that the voting system in America is designed to eventually fail. Voting is in essence to decide where tax money is ultimately spent..... So why is it that votes aren't distributed by how much tax you contribute?

Whether you contribute to the tax pool or are a complete beneficiary of it... you get 1 vote. That is ridiculous. Pay 1million in taxes... 1 vote. Receive 100k in tax benefits... 1 vote.

A better system would be to start by giving every one 1 vote... and then for every 10k you pay into the system, you get 1 additional vote. Pay 100k? get 11 votes.... (1 initial vote + 10 contribution votes) ... or at least something along those lines.

You should receive votes based on contribution!!!

.......This system would be a great place to start solving some of our tax problems. It would put a strain on free loaders to start paying their fair share. It would also put a strain on the wealthy business men who cheat the system.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've said for a long time that the voting system in America is designed to eventually fail. Voting is in essence to decide where tax money is ultimately spent..... So why is it that votes aren't distributed by how much tax you contribute?

Whether you contribute to the tax pool or are a complete beneficiary of it... you get 1 vote. That is ridiculous. Pay 1million in taxes... 1 vote. Receive 100k in tax benefits... 1 vote.

A better system would be to start by giving every one 1 vote... and then for every 10k you pay into the system, you get 1 additional vote. Pay 100k? get 11 votes.... (1 initial vote + 10 contribution votes) ... or at least something along those lines.

You should receive votes based on contribution!!!

.......This system would be a great place to start solving some of our tax problems. It would put a strain on free loaders to start paying their fair share. It would also put a strain on the wealthy business men who cheat the system.

If we were to do such a thing, we would end up with an oligarchy which would almost certainly be an enemy of liberty since those 10% at most who would control the government would have more to gain by steamrolling the rest of us than by being exemplars of liberty and freedom, at least in terms of those being applied to everyone.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

If you want to take these programs away from people and let voluntary charity and providence provide or let them starve to death, I'll vote for that.

I can't support taking away people's voting rights. I'm not willing to participate in that kind of country.

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

To the OP...Wow! In your world do blacks or jews get to vote? How about gays? Women?...please spare us Nazi propaganda BS threads like this one. Some things should be better kept to yourself, that includes any hatred and bitterness issues you suffer from.

 

[bmbutch]

I see what you are saying now, but I see what some of them are saying. You have people voting for our stuff that we worked our asses off for.

Us, as gun owners are not trying to deny someone of something, but those that have not and do not contribute anything vote for what is ours so that they may have it. We want everyone to have the same freedoms we have, we just do not wish to be the lone sheep voting against a few wolves about what's for dinner.

Maybe that is how the OP should have phrased this, if you are not working for dinner, you do not get to vote for what's for dinner.

Well said. While I don't have any great solution, it's frustrating to be working 6-days a week, knowing your hard earned money is forcibly being given to many (not all) who choose not to work.

It sickens me when I'm at a check out line, see somebody whip out their "EBT cards or assistance checks, pay for a huge cart full of food, then pull out cash to buy their booze & cigarettes. Then, watch them go get in a SUV, that looks brand new.

What's the answer? Well, doing what were doing now isn't, that would be the definition of insanity.

I can say, since the last election, I've heard more "if you don't pay taxes, you don't vote" talk / support than ever before. Normally said with venom, people are getting fed up supporting the people described above.

Hopefully, somebody smarter than I, will come up with a fix to save this sinking ship.

 

[Lex Concord]

I just challenge you to really think about what you are saying and try to really think through the ramifications of your statements.

Note that I did not advocate for removing the vote, but removing the programs. I believe that all citizens, natural born or naturalized, who live under a system of government have the right to vote for the makeup of that govenrnment.

My family has struggled with health issues too. We have been blessed to be able to be on our own.

I'm not saying that many people on assistance don't need or deserve help; I just challenge people to reconsider the premise that the only way help can be delivered is via funds forcefully confiscated from their neighbors via government.

How can a bureaucrat in D.C. judge whether a person in Dubuque deserves assistance? How can one in Indianapolis effectively judge whether a person in Hagerstown needs it? They can't.

My point is that if we continue the enormous entitlement system, run by force and at least partially run for the purposes of political ends, we cannot be a republic.

I believe that, given half the funds used by government for these ends, private charities could carry the load of those who are truly in need through no fault of their own, and could do so without the risk of freeloaders being able to vote to essentially enslave the active producers.

 

[Lex Concord]

Lol, great reference, I was actually thinking Roman Empire.

I had that in mind too...I just thought the "Starship Troopers" reference would resonate more with the younger, more-recently-publicly-educated crowd

 

[LP1]

Good people would not.

But do we want to, at the point of a government agents' gun, forcibly remove money from one person to do it?

Absolutely. Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilized society. If private charity alone was capable of dealing with the problem, such programs would never have been necessary. Some people know how to share, some people need to be taught, and unfortunately, some need to be forced.

 

[Lex Concord]

Unfortunately, as seen with this last election...the majority of our country wants their free stuff instead of freedom...There are many who are entitled to these benefits, there are just as many who use it to keep from working. We have to make some changes in SS or it will disappear. I would say start with those who are around 35 and let them take their SS tax money and put it in a retirement account. Those who have big pensions should not be allowed to collect SS. Those who are rich should not collect SS.

Cookie, it will disappear, changes or not. The only questions are timing, and do we dismantle it thoughtfully or allow it to implode on its own.

Further, how do you define "big pension"? If we block those folks from collecting, even though they paid in, it is a clear admission that the system is about theft from one set (mostly younger) to give to another set (mostly older). Your proposed changes would just serve to bake a little class warfare into the cake.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Absolutely. Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilized society. If private charity alone was capable of dealing with the problem, such programs would never have been necessary. Some people know how to share, some people need to be taught, and unfortunately, some need to be forced.

Ahhhh...nothing like the threat of force by armed law enforcement officers that can relieve you of liberty or legally earned property, to wring out the proper amount of charity from people. Any way you want to spin it, whether by a thug mugging an innocent pedestrian downtown or by a group of people pulling a certain lever in a voting booth, forcibly transferring wealth from one person to give to another, no matter how benevolent your intentions are, is theft. Just because you hire an intermediary to do it, doesn't change the fact. And the fact you'd write, in effect, that we need the government to teach and/or force people to do something that may conflict with whatever self-interest(s) they may have seems to conflict with desires to keep the government out of other areas of peoples' lives. You can't have it both ways.

 

[lucky4034]

If we were to do such a thing, we would end up with an oligarchy which would almost certainly be an enemy of liberty since those 10% at most who would control the government would have more to gain by steamrolling the rest of us than by being exemplars of liberty and freedom, at least in terms of those being applied to everyone.

Not necessarily true...

They are 1% for a reason and thats because there aren't many of them. Don't get caught up in the 10k per vote thing... I just randomly threw a number out there. Someone much smarter than me could come up with a fair system.

The fact is... we live in a system of checks and balances. Socialism checks Corporatism and the middle class gets caught in the tug of war even though as a whole... the middle class is contributes the most!

Our system now rewards laziness.... besides, you could argue with live in an Oligarchy now and just don't know it.

 

[John Galt]

Absolutely. Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a civilized society. If private charity alone was capable of dealing with the problem, such programs would never have been necessary. Some people know how to share, some people need to be taught, and unfortunately, some need to be forced.

WOW, just ...... WOW! Karl Marx, and so many other tyrannical Statists, would be sooooooo proud!