Who says we have to let welfare trash vote?

[joale]

Not really. Once you factor in the child tax credit, I believe you can fall pretty near zero net income tax.

So? Am I a deadbeat who is not paying his fair share?

You're a deadbeat if you don't want to pay more taxes, so others can get their food stamps. Why don't you want to pay your fair share? It's reasonable and common sense redistribution. Whats so wrong with voting yourself an Obama-phone and 'free' healthcare?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio"]Obama-phone[/ame]

 

[BigShow]

One problem I see is the welfare system is, it is designed to hold you down. I will give my own personal example. In the 90s I had a hard time finding some jobs, the local factories did not want to hire me as I have asthma and they had bad experience with asthmatics in their factory's. I worked odds and ends jobs where I could and for my fathers own business and had no health insurance. I rode/ride ATVs and crashed and compression fractured 2 discs in my back T 11 and 12. I could not stand up for 6 weeks let alone walk, no trip to the hospital because lack of insurance. After I could walk my father took me to the welfare office and helped me apply for health care assistance, I received it because I had a rejection letter from one of the factories stating they could not justify hiring me due to my asthma. I could have received food stamps also but turned them down. Now here is in my mind the system holds people down: the stipulations for me to keep the insurance card was I could not make more than $200 2 months in a row. Now as I am recuperating from my injury I could not work much, but once I was able to work but still receiving therapy and DRs care I had to watch how much I made a month to keep the insurance. Now to me we need to help those who are trying to help themselves and the system needs set up to do that. Like help those that have a job but do not make enough to support themselves and or a family, or their job does not provide health care. Like for example in order to receive help you must hold a job and work X amount of hours a week to prove you are trying, or to be learning a education/trade that will better yourself in the near future. Also provide day care assistance for single parents so they can work the hours they can. Do not or can not hold a job then tough poopoo. Now I am not implying this to those injured/sick that can not in fact work.

 

[Indy317]

Same goes for welfare, theft is theft.

As to those of us who are or were public servants, be it police, fire or military, dog catcher, mayor, governor, mailman... sorry but no vote for you either. We're on the public dole? No vote. Come off the dole, back to the polls you can go.

If you take money from the citizens, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And anyone whose paycheck is partially derived from government taxes, be it direct government subsidies or contract work, no vote for them either. Anyone who has used the taxpayer subsidized court system, no vote either. So add doctors, nurses, public higher ed employees, hospital workers, government contract research workers, Dell and Apple employees (their computers seem popular with government entities), highway construction workers, pro-sport players/owners/employees, anyone who has purchased a Government Motors or Chrysler vehicle after the bailout/gov takeover, anyone with a 401(k) or other investments that didn't get to go to $0.00 as they should have due to the various economic bailouts, anyone who has taken out government backed student loans, anyone who has taken VA or FHA home loans, live rural but have electric thanks to the government, are served by the Tenn. Valley Authority, have received assistance from any of the above groups (including police, fire, EMS), work in FCC protected TV/Radio, anyone who uses government lands to derive a profit of any sort (ie: Outfitters that use national or state parks, people who train others in shooting at government range), etc..

Basically, about 95-99% of the people shouldn't be voting under your logic. 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.

To save America, we need to cut a lot. Put tolls on every public road, non-mandated pay-for-service police, fire, ems, and education services, pay for the true cost of civil litigation in the court system, and pay for your own patent and copy-rite enforcement and stop using government for your muscle in that area. This is only a start.

 

[Sailor]

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.

I did not take the time to read all the replies. I am sure there are some like this. No matter how prepped you think you are we are all one step away from disaster and being in a situation where we may someday need help from our fellow man. People like you with no compassion will be the downfall of this country. How arrogant of you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Not really. Once you factor in the child tax credit, I believe you can fall pretty near zero net income tax.

So? Am I a deadbeat who is not paying his fair share?

If you are paying nothing in income tax then you are not paying your fair share because you would still be getting the benefits of SS, maedicare, etc..

 

[steveh_131]

If you are paying nothing in income tax then you are not paying your fair share because you would still be getting the benefits of SS, maedicare, etc..

First of all, this is hypothetical. I do pay income taxes, unfortunately

But if I was at zero thanks to the child tax credit, what should I do? Should I send in a check anyways, in order to not be a moocher?

 

[dhnorris]

First of all, this is hypothetical. I do pay income taxes, unfortunately

But if I was at zero thanks to the child tax credit, what should I do? Should I send in a check anyways, in order to not be a moocher?

No, don't send them money it only makes them think you have more.

Here's something I was thinking about after another $200 trip to the grocery store, how much are food prices being supported by food stamps? If 40,000,000 people have little care how much a food item costs doesn't that keep prices artificially high? Those of us who don't get food stamps know of people that do and it seems that if nothing else they may be consuming a tad more than they should. Two carts in front of me,giant ass, processed foods nine times out of ten times, EBT.

 

[AtTheMurph]

The government, especially at the federal level, should not be engaging in acts of redistribution of wealth for ostensibly charitable reasons. It is authorized to spend tax money on a limited number of things, and this is not one of them. That said, I still see a significant difference between reclaiming one's own money and taking that of others. I further see the notion of disenfranchising people as a huge danger to the republic and a guaranteed short trip to a feudal society in which only the select few at the top enjoy any measure of freedom.

You are living under a mistaken assumption that any Federal entitlement program is really a forced savings plan. They are not. What you or anyone else pays into SSI is nothing more than a tax. It is not a contribution for which you can expect a return.

With no entitlement programs there would be no need for the OP to be written as there would be no "Welfare Trash".

Bastiat wrote well over 150 years ago:

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

 

[Bunnykid68]

First of all, this is hypothetical. I do pay income taxes, unfortunately

But if I was at zero thanks to the child tax credit, what should I do? Should I send in a check anyways, in order to not be a moocher?

No, absolutely not. I have been telling people I know they should get divorced just so one of them would qualify. You know, work to make the system unsustainable as soon as possible.

 

[88GT]

I don't really buy into this. This guy didn't invent the system. He has to live under it just like the rest of us, and take the good with the bad. For now he gets some good, I see no issue with taking it.

Voting for this nonsense is most certainly theft, however.

Okay, so he's in possession of stolen property, knowing it was stolen. How does that change anything?

 

[steveh_131]

Okay, so he's in possession of stolen property, knowing it was stolen. How does that change anything?

Some one is going to get it. Why not him?

 

[88GT]

Some one is going to get it. Why not him?

That's a different issue. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get it. I simply commented on the contradiction in his statement that he would do anything short of a crime to feed his family. If he doesn't see it as a crime, doesn't see it as taking something from someone else by force so other people can be bought and paid for, fine. He can take it and use it with a free conscience.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are living under a mistaken assumption that any Federal entitlement program is really a forced savings plan. They are not. What you or anyone else pays into SSI is nothing more than a tax. It is not a contribution for which you can expect a return.
.

You are new here, so I am going to exercise a small modicum of understanding, with an emphasis on small. I was engaged in addressing the situation of one member receiving undue excoriation in one situation. Aside from the Kenyan's 99 week special, unemployment is funded by a direct assessment on that particular worker's payroll--money that would otherwise be available for raises, bonuses, or prolonged employment which the free market would force in due time. You may wish to note that this payroll assessment always exceeds the maximum amount paid out, and that it is paid out from money collected in the immediate past, not from decades past, and it indeed paid out of relatively current assessments, not general taxation, again with the exception of Obama's seemingly-indefinite extensions, which is extraneous to this discussion and the specific situation that was the focus of the previous discussion.

Please note that I did not make any reference to any form of Social Security. I am going to assume that you are as uninformed as you apparently believe I am. Social Security had already sustained a few minor raids, but was converted from a funded program to a ponzi scheme funded by incoming funds rather than original investment plus interest when Lyndon Johnson pushed legislation through congress to begin the program of federalized 'assistance' to those below an arbitrarily established standard of living not as a return of money rightfully theirs, but taken from those who produce.

You have put words in my mouth. Don't let it happen again.

 

[steveh_131]

That's a different issue. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get it. I simply commented on the contradiction in his statement that he would do anything short of a crime to feed his family. If he doesn't see it as a crime, doesn't see it as taking something from someone else by force so other people can be bought and paid for, fine. He can take it and use it with a free conscience.

I suppose we disagree on where the real crime took place.

The initiation of force by the government to take the money was theft. The initiation of force by any voter who votes for more money grabs is theft. Playing to win in the same system that we're all under isn't really theft, to me.

I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm only maybe 65% sure that I disagree with you

 

[Lex Concord]

If you are paying nothing in income tax then you are not paying your fair share because you would still be getting the benefits of SS, maedicare, etc..

But SS and Medicare taxes are separate from income taxes. There is no minimum threshold, and you cannot negate those taxes without receiving a net surplus (requiring the EIC, maybe you meant this?) on income taxes to offset the SS and Medicare taxes paid.

 

[MolonLabe7]

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.

I could not agree more good sir... They are obviously going to vote themselves a paycheck so they can sit on their hands for the next 4 years...

 

[Bunnykid68]

But SS and Medicare taxes are separate from income taxes. There is no minimum threshold, and you cannot negate those taxes without receiving a net surplus (requiring the EIC, maybe you meant this?) on income taxes to offset the SS and Medicare taxes paid.

The EIC is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[jath08]

I could not agree more good sir... They are obviously going to vote themselves a paycheck so they can sit on their hands for the next 4 years...

Not another one. Here we go all over again.

 

[dross]

I suppose we disagree on where the real crime took place.

The initiation of force by the government to take the money was theft. The initiation of force by any voter who votes for more money grabs is theft. Playing to win in the same system that we're all under isn't really theft, to me.

I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm only maybe 65% sure that I disagree with you

I agree with your distinction. If I qualified for any sort of assistance, I would take it. I would look at it as retrieving some of my stolen funds.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I could not agree more good sir... They are obviously going to vote themselves a paycheck so they can sit on their hands for the next 4 years...

Here we go again. While I don't particularly like people to be able to vote for a living, this is a failure of of all three branches of government to follow the Constitution, not a voting rights issue.

Since it seems that some people still have difficulty understanding this, let me try a new way of breaking it down for you. If we accept the notion in principle that some people should be disenfranchised for receiving government money and/or other forms of aid, we have opened a chasm in the notion of equality before the law, and have also opened the door for having ourselves disenfranchised. You have apparently failed to grasp that when we allow this, a new feudalism will assuredly follow, and it is highly unlikely that you will be nearly rich enough to be a patrician. Simply put, if we allow this door to be opened, all that will have to be done is dividing federal revenue by the number of taxpayers and if your personal tax payments are below that mean, then you are deemed to be a net recipient by virtue of your contribution being less than your share of services received, and you, sir, will promptly and involuntarily become a non-voter.