Who says we have to let welfare trash vote?

[SkullDaddy.45]

Seriously.

The 1st, 15th, 19th and 26th amendments deal with voting issues. IF Im not totally wrong the felons issue its a states rights issue and the 14th amendment possibly.

In my world anyone who uses or lives in section 8 housing, EBT card, WIC, or any other welfare device. Anyone who is on SS and has not reached retirement age. These people forfit their right to vote since they contribute nothing to the greater good of the nation.

My son is 23 yrs. old and has been handicaped since birth. He will never be able to care or live on his own. we never asked to receive any goverment help until just last year, mainly cause of me and my wife getting older, ya see when you have a child like mine you have a overwhelming need to stay alive forever to care for your child. But we know thats not going to happend, so we are now setting things up so our daughter can care for him after we are gone. Guess the only suggestion i can make to you is this, drop to your knees and thank god you live in your lil warped world where you judge people and their worth by how much or little they have, cause you wouldnt last a day in my world, and i hope you never have to.

 

[GREEN607]

Tried to rep ya' SD.45....... but got the 'not yet' mssg. I'll get ya' later tho, made a note to do so.

 

[Hohn]

Having a mandatory 10 year military service would cost more to maintain than all of the social programs combined. We're already going broke because of what we spend on the army now.

That's hilarious. It's the MILITARY spending that's breaking us, not out of control entitlements.

Uh huh. got it.

 

[warriorbob]

Wow as a soldier I'm a waste? I don't deserve to vote? F*** that. I work my ass off for wages most of you would turn your nose up at and as guard I don't get housing or health insurance. Nice to know how we fall on your scale. I hope to god you people don't ever truly need us I'd hate to offend by wasting tax payer money while I pull your children out of a flood or as I bring you food and water after a tornado!

 

[Hohn]

Sorry so long...

There is a point to which restricting the right to vote may have some merit. But to whom? Why?


Our Founders initially limited the right to vote to landowners. Not because they were a bunch of elitists that thought the common man unworthy to participate, but because they understood that giving a say to those who have no stake can end up promoting a narrow interest to the exclusion of the broader public interest.

We have come to the point where the vast majority of Americans have at least some connection to a "narrow" interest. Perhaps you have MS like my sister in law, so you would oppose cutting help to certain kinds of people with medical cases.

Perhaps, like me, you are a Vet so you might oppose cutting the GI Bill that is paying for my schooling.

Perhaps you're like my folks, approaching the age where they can collect SS and enroll in Medicare after working hard for a very long time. You might oppose cuts to these programs.


Take your pick of which "interest" you are:
- military member opposing defense cuts
- teacher opposing cuts to education
- student opposing cuts to college loans
- researcher opposing cuts to global warming research
- AIDS patient opposing cuts to research
- welfare momma opposing cuts to child care benefits
- so on, so on....

The list is endless, really, because we have decided that there is no good deed the government should not be promoting. There is no hardship "the government" should not try to remedy.

We've decided that, collectively, everything is important and deserves Federal funding and action.

This is not without risk, because when everyone is "important' then no one is. We end up forfeiting the legitimacy of what we hold in common when we plunder to cater to what we have that makes us different-- makes us worthy or entitled to the public money.


This will be our undoing.

For one, the public money is for PUBLIC uses-- things we all benefit from. Things like infrastructure, a Navy, etc. How many public dollars actually go to public interests (national parks, military, etc) versus private individual interests? Clearly the vast majority is now wealth redistribution-- whether you "paid in" as a distributor to 'earn the right' to be a distributee matters not to the fact that is still wealth redistribution. Welfare is it, but so it social security and medicare. So is every crop subsidy. So is every tax credit or deduction. So it every business writeoff. They are all forms of wealth redistribution.

The child tax credit make the infertile pay more in tax. Should we be punishing those whose reproductive abilities are compromised? What is the basis for taking more wealth from the barren and giving to those with kids? This is wealth redistribution in a sense.

The renter pays more than the homeowner because the latter gets a mortgage interest deduction to lower his tax. This raises taxes on the renter (usually of lower income) and lowers them for the (usually middle class) homeowner. This is also wealth redistribution.

So it goes.


There is a proper role to be played by charity, and I hope that we each have the generosity to be charitable to those in need.

But charity cannot come from government. Charity cannot be voted into existence. Charity comes from willing heart freely giving, not being compelled by the power of a police state to pay the redistributed tax.

How is it that we believe that a cosmic good can exist after we FIRST commit the cosmic evil of taking by force the property of one to give to another? It's a fallacy to believe that you can do evil in the name of good and have that truly be good on balance.

Government cannot GIVE to another without first taking from one. It cannot guarantee a "right to healthcare' unless it enslaves someone else with the obligation to provide that. How can it be that we claim that poverty infringes upon our liberty, but that compelling a person to provide something without compensation is not a deprivation?



Where did we come to believe the lie that a social safety net only exists in the form of a government program? Was there no charity 150 years ago? Did we not have orphanages? Did we not take care of those who needed it-- freely, and without the heavy hand of government?

I submit to you that government did not invent charity, and that charity cannot come from government.

Once we buy into the lie that the tax base can be used for people that "deserve" some help, there is no means to justify a limit on that We all have some manner of "legitimate" claim to public funding.


There should be no federal charity. There should be no state charity, either. Charity is the role of private citizens using their own funds. What passes as charity from government is actually doing violence to the concept of liberty and private property rights.


Why is it that people would have a headache with the law forcing you to give $300 a month to the Salvation Army, but don't think twice about the same law going through a gov't 'charity'? It baffles me.


Government "charity' also undermines the recipient of that benefit. No longer is there an actual group or individual to be thankful to-- nope, it's just a check from the faceless group known as 'government.' Individual charity makes people more thankful. Government checks make people entitled.

It's one thing for me to drop a card in my neighbor's door with a check and a well wish for his hardship and quite another for the city to tax me to give him the money. Not different for me only-- but radically different for him, as well. It undermines his appreciation to have it come from "government" instead of from me. It deprives me, as the giver of the money, of the satisfaction of his appreciation.

In short, it ruins both of us by making me less giving and him less appreciative.

Maybe we'll get to a time when we can ask a neighbor for help instead of taxing someone 5 states away to take their money for the same purpose, and we'll build relationships with each other and a stronger society.

But we will have to overcome our government and those who want to use the evil of a "good deed" in order to do so.

H

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

the objection i have to the OP thread was the statement about S.S. I have paid into this for over 35 yrs now, we all know im not going to get 35 yrs worth of my money back out of it, so i dont think its charity im getting, its more like getting screwed!

 

[Fred78]

It would really be nice if the people that need jobs could go to the private sector like the fellow says, except for one thing the jobs seem to be quite a swim away like maybe china

 

[Prometheus]

My son is 23 yrs. old and has been handicaped since birth. He will never be able to care or live on his own. we never asked to receive any goverment help until just last year, mainly cause of me and my wife getting older, ya see when you have a child like mine you have a overwhelming need to stay alive forever to care for your child. But we know thats not going to happend, so we are now setting things up so our daughter can care for him after we are gone.

First, I'm sorry to hear about your son. It's a tremendous responsibility to undertake, caring for someone who cannot take care of themselves.

However, advocating the murder of your fellow Americans so you and then your daughter can care for him completely negates that.

Guess the only suggestion i can make to you is this, drop to your knees and thank god you live in your lil warped world where you judge people and their worth by how much or little they have, cause you wouldnt last a day in my world, and i hope you never have to.

Seems like you wouldn't last too many more days without advocating government men with guns stealing money so you can support yourself and your family.

Again, advocating extortion, murder and theft is no way to get the moral high ground.

the objection i have to the OP thread was the statement about S.S. I have paid into this for over 35 yrs now, we all know im not going to get 35 yrs worth of my money back out of it, so i dont think its charity im getting, its more like getting screwed!

Your getting stolen money. That is what you are getting. The money you allegedly paid in? It's all gone. All of it.

Every penny you get right now is stolen from someone currently working.

Getting charity? lol, no, you are the recipient of stolen property.

Charity would be noble, because it was freely given to someone deemed to be in actual need.

 

[Prometheus]

Anyone who gets even one penny of benefit from government is on the "public doll." That penny was stolen from someone else for the benefit of another.

Now we're getting to the crux of the issue and it's why America is, unless something drastically changes, doomed.

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

 

[Shelly1582]

.



Seems like you wouldn't last too many more days without advocating government men with guns stealing money so you can support yourself and your family.

You best hope you never have to go through what this man and his wife have been through (not to mention their son)! You have no idea how difficult it is to lift, bathe, change, and feed someone of that size, apparently. That is a full time job in itself! Let alone to see those plans you had for your child become unattainable. That is a strong man you are degrading and judging! You expect someone in his position to say no thank you to what? Government sponsored medicaid because it could hurt his pride and it offends you? You will ALWAYS pay taxes! Would you truly prefer your tax money line the pockets of rich business men rather than to help those like this man keep their child out of a facility, that would most likely be gov funded any darn way? Reading this thread shows why private charity rather than government won't work. Many of the posters lack even an inkling of compassion for their fellow man. Churches are overburdened as it is, even with the gov programs.

I realize if it still existed I'd get negative rep out the*** for this post but good grief that was beyond rude.

 

[mistap]

To read some of these posts, and I've only read 3 pages worth, you'd think those criticicizing the Welfare State and what it's doing to our country were actually advocating for EUGENICS.

The original premise was that if you're receiving assistance, you should not be able to vote for the guy giving it to you.

I mean, whose A__ does not get chapped when they read about the Congress voting themselves another pay raise?

 

[GREEN607]

First, I'm sorry to hear about your son. It's a tremendous responsibility to undertake, caring for someone who cannot take care of themselves.

However, advocating the murder of your fellow Americans so you and then your daughter can care for him completely negates that.



Seems like you wouldn't last too many more days without advocating government men with guns stealing money so you can support yourself and your family.

Again, advocating extortion, murder and theft is no way to get the moral high ground.



Your getting stolen money. That is what you are getting. The money you allegedly paid in? It's all gone. All of it.

Every penny you get right now is stolen from someone currently working.

Getting charity? lol, no, you are the recipient of stolen property.

Charity would be noble, because it was freely given to someone deemed to be in actual need.

Once again, you sir, make me want to puke!!! (in your lunch)

 

[Prometheus]

Would you truly prefer your tax money line the pockets of rich business men rather than to help those like this man keep their child out of a facility, that would most likely be gov funded any darn way?

I'd prefer that money wasn't stolen from people at gun point and given as 'charity' to anyone. theft is theft, it doesn't matter how "deserving" the person or cause.

Reading this thread shows why private charity rather than government won't work.

And there it is, you're a socialist.

Thanks for outing yourself.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's hilarious. It's the MILITARY spending that's breaking us, not out of control entitlements.

Uh huh. got it.

Lol, someone give this guy a chart. The military IS breaking us. Calculate the shortfall between what people pay in to the SSA vs what is taken out to pay for it, then consider that the military doesnt pay "in" anything, and you'll understand the simplicity of the economics.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd prefer that money wasn't stolen from people at gun point and given as 'charity' to anyone. theft is theft, it doesn't matter how "deserving" the person or cause.



And there it is, you're a socialist.

Thanks for outing yourself.

tricky devil

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lol, someone give this guy a chart. The military IS breaking us. Calculate the shortfall between what people pay in to the SSA vs what is taken out to pay for it, then consider that the military doesnt pay "in" anything, and you'll understand the simplicity of the economics.

What do you do with the fact that wisely spent or not, spending on the military is constitutionally authorized where Social Security and 'entitlements' are not?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What do you do with the fact that wisely spent or not, spending on the military is constitutionally authorized where Social Security and 'entitlements' are not?

What difference that makes, I do not know, as the Constitution allows for laws to be passed by the federal govt.

 

[Shelly1582]

I'd prefer that money wasn't stolen from people at gun point and given as 'charity' to anyone. theft is theft, it doesn't matter how "deserving" the person or cause.



And there it is, you're a socialist.

Thanks for outing yourself.

I prefer "compassionate human " but call it what you want

 

[IndyDave1776]

What difference that makes, I do not know, as the Constitution allows for laws to be passed by the federal govt.

Yes, but specifically limited to an enumerated list of functions. Redistribution of wealth is not one of those functions. Forced 'investment' is not one of those functions. Originally, there were some who opposed ratification of the Tenth Amendment by virtue of considering it redundant as they considered it perfectly clear that the federal government did not have the authority to do anything not specifically authorized in the constitution. Today, the concept of limited government is completely ignored as the federal government spreads through our lives like cancer, only far more malignant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, but specifically limited to an enumerated list of functions. Redistribution of wealth is not one of those functions. Forced 'investment' is not one of those functions. Originally, there were some who opposed ratification of the Tenth Amendment by virtue of considering it redundant as they considered it perfectly clear that the federal government did not have the authority to do anything not specifically authorized in the constitution. Today, the concept of limited government is completely ignored as the federal government spreads through our lives like cancer, only far more malignant.

You'd be surprised to know that the concept of "limited govt" has only ever existed, in America, in paper.... Most certainly never in practice. I'm rapidly coming to the belief that many of the founders were with hypocrites or simply wrote down things to make people happy, without ever having any intention of seeing put to good use.