Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you think people on welfare need to give a drug test?

Page 12 of 14 [ 215 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,438

25 May 2012, 2:11 am

Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

25 May 2012, 6:53 am

There's a powerful current out there promoting the idea that we ought to go back to a system where only people of means could vote because, they say, they "contribute" and thus have a stake whilst poor people do not. Actually, the stakes for the poor are far higher. Bad or malicious policy can mean enslavement or death. Tilt the balance more against them and you'll find people in debt slavery in larger numbers. It's my opinion that many wealthy people want to have a captive pool of debt slaves so they can take a free lunch off them. To do this they need to find a way to disenfranchise their potential victims as much as possible. That is of course a brutal attack that deserves a response.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 6:58 am

Xenu wrote:
Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.


I think you should lose the right to vote as well then.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 May 2012, 7:02 am

visagrunt wrote:
It is a relatively simply matter to ensure that GAI is not inflationary by the way that you manage the clawback from earners.

Make no mistake, GAI is a redistribution of wealth--the wealthy are contributing in order to ensure an income distribution to those who do not earn.

If you simply printed money to hand out, then, yes, it would be inflationary and distortive. But that's not how GAI would function in a well-designed system.

Sounds like a plan. When do we get started? ;)

But, yes, "in a well-designed system." I still suspect what would happen even if you didn't print more money and abolished the Fed is having a baseline of wealth would push "overachievers" to make up the difference in their profits in revaluing goods and services, or that "clawback" you mentioned. Two things would have to happen: 1) a LOT of regulation that few people right now would agree to, and 2) eliminate the potential for fraud (if we're talking about NIT).

I'm not unconvinced that it would work, btw. I'm just not convinced that it is realizable right now.



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

25 May 2012, 9:43 am

Economically one can look at the "poor" as underfunded consumers. My point is that the poor do, in fact, consume and thus many others are employed in order to produce those goods. To transfer money to the "poor" thus keeps the economy going. The reverse would be to let them starve in which case the economy would spiral downward, not to mention the social upheaval.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 May 2012, 11:26 am

xenon13 wrote:
There's a powerful current out there promoting the idea that we ought to go back to a system where only people of means could vote because, they say, they "contribute" and thus have a stake whilst poor people do not. Actually, the stakes for the poor are far higher. Bad or malicious policy can mean enslavement or death. Tilt the balance more against them and you'll find people in debt slavery in larger numbers. It's my opinion that many wealthy people want to have a captive pool of debt slaves so they can take a free lunch off them. To do this they need to find a way to disenfranchise their potential victims as much as possible. That is of course a brutal attack that deserves a response.

yeah...

And the right to vote in the USA isn't going anywhere.

I do, however, think that people who are actively engaged in criminal activity should not be allowed to vote. Any system of checks and balances is going to pick up quickly on unjust laws and procedures to decriminalize them, so as long as those are retroactive and the people committing entrapment kinds of crimes who aren't guilty of any other crimes deserve a voice.

But criminals who would be prone to voting out sufficient law and order? They shouldn't get a voice, and I don't understand why anybody would want them to have any say. Sometimes things should just plain be out of the question.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 11:57 am

AngelRho wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
There's a powerful current out there promoting the idea that we ought to go back to a system where only people of means could vote because, they say, they "contribute" and thus have a stake whilst poor people do not. Actually, the stakes for the poor are far higher. Bad or malicious policy can mean enslavement or death. Tilt the balance more against them and you'll find people in debt slavery in larger numbers. It's my opinion that many wealthy people want to have a captive pool of debt slaves so they can take a free lunch off them. To do this they need to find a way to disenfranchise their potential victims as much as possible. That is of course a brutal attack that deserves a response.

yeah...

And the right to vote in the USA isn't going anywhere.

I do, however, think that people who are actively engaged in criminal activity should not be allowed to vote. Any system of checks and balances is going to pick up quickly on unjust laws and procedures to decriminalize them, so as long as those are retroactive and the people committing entrapment kinds of crimes who aren't guilty of any other crimes deserve a voice.

But criminals who would be prone to voting out sufficient law and order? They shouldn't get a voice, and I don't understand why anybody would want them to have any say. Sometimes things should just plain be out of the question.


What sort of criminals are we talking...and I am of the opinion every citizen has the right to vote, does getting arrested and charged with a crime remove someones citizenship? And what law in order are you worried of these criminals voting out?


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

25 May 2012, 12:05 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Sounds like a plan. When do we get started? ;)

But, yes, "in a well-designed system." I still suspect what would happen even if you didn't print more money and abolished the Fed is having a baseline of wealth would push "overachievers" to make up the difference in their profits in revaluing goods and services, or that "clawback" you mentioned. Two things would have to happen: 1) a LOT of regulation that few people right now would agree to, and 2) eliminate the potential for fraud (if we're talking about NIT).

I'm not unconvinced that it would work, btw. I'm just not convinced that it is realizable right now.


I prefer actual transfers to individuals rather than NIT. The problem with NIT is that it is always backward looking, whereas GAI deals with the issue that people must cash-manage their food, clothing and shelter today.

I don't see that much regulation is required, at all. You need the statutory authority to appropriate funds and to effect the transfers to individuals, and you need to introduce statutory authority to classify the income for tax purposes. Since everybody gets the GAI, the tax forms can be built with the GAI already in place. And since everyone gets it, no one can be claiming not to get it.

Remember, too, that with GAI, there is downward pressure on wages. If you are getting $20,000/yr from the government, then a wage of $4/hr gives a worker an income of $28,000.


_________________
--James


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

25 May 2012, 12:05 pm

double post


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Last edited by Delphiki on 25 May 2012, 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

25 May 2012, 12:06 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
There's a powerful current out there promoting the idea that we ought to go back to a system where only people of means could vote because, they say, they "contribute" and thus have a stake whilst poor people do not. Actually, the stakes for the poor are far higher. Bad or malicious policy can mean enslavement or death. Tilt the balance more against them and you'll find people in debt slavery in larger numbers. It's my opinion that many wealthy people want to have a captive pool of debt slaves so they can take a free lunch off them. To do this they need to find a way to disenfranchise their potential victims as much as possible. That is of course a brutal attack that deserves a response.

yeah...

And the right to vote in the USA isn't going anywhere.

I do, however, think that people who are actively engaged in criminal activity should not be allowed to vote. Any system of checks and balances is going to pick up quickly on unjust laws and procedures to decriminalize them, so as long as those are retroactive and the people committing entrapment kinds of crimes who aren't guilty of any other crimes deserve a voice.

But criminals who would be prone to voting out sufficient law and order? They shouldn't get a voice, and I don't understand why anybody would want them to have any say. Sometimes things should just plain be out of the question.


What sort of criminals are we talking...and I am of the opinion every citizen has the right to vote, does getting arrested and charged with a crime remove someones citizenship? And what law in order are you worried of these criminals voting out?

If the speed limit is 40 and you drive over that than you are engaging in a criminal activity


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 12:08 pm

Delphiki wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
There's a powerful current out there promoting the idea that we ought to go back to a system where only people of means could vote because, they say, they "contribute" and thus have a stake whilst poor people do not. Actually, the stakes for the poor are far higher. Bad or malicious policy can mean enslavement or death. Tilt the balance more against them and you'll find people in debt slavery in larger numbers. It's my opinion that many wealthy people want to have a captive pool of debt slaves so they can take a free lunch off them. To do this they need to find a way to disenfranchise their potential victims as much as possible. That is of course a brutal attack that deserves a response.

yeah...

And the right to vote in the USA isn't going anywhere.

I do, however, think that people who are actively engaged in criminal activity should not be allowed to vote. Any system of checks and balances is going to pick up quickly on unjust laws and procedures to decriminalize them, so as long as those are retroactive and the people committing entrapment kinds of crimes who aren't guilty of any other crimes deserve a voice.

But criminals who would be prone to voting out sufficient law and order? They shouldn't get a voice, and I don't understand why anybody would want them to have any say. Sometimes things should just plain be out of the question.


What sort of criminals are we talking...and I am of the opinion every citizen has the right to vote, does getting arrested and charged with a crime remove someones citizenship? And what law in order are you worried of these criminals voting out?

If the speed limit is 40 and you drive 41 or higher than you are engaging in a criminal activity


Yes so I am wondering if the poster I was responding thinks everyone who commits a crime should be barred for voting or was being more specific.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,438

25 May 2012, 1:07 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.


I think you should lose the right to vote as well then.


I'm not thieving from other Americans to support my refusal to make good decisions in life.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 1:13 pm

Xenu wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.


I think you should lose the right to vote as well then.


I'm not thieving from other Americans to support my refusal to make good decisions in life.


Well from my perspective I wouldn't be thieving from anyone anyways, taxation is perfectly legal...but yeah some of us aren't so lucky in life and depend on the social safety net to help us out, I don't feel like I deserve to have my right to vote taken away if I use any welfare which I plan to since for the time being I really don't have another option.

And if you think everyone struggling financially is there because of 'bad' decisions you truly are a bit on the ignorant side.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,438

25 May 2012, 1:28 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.


I think you should lose the right to vote as well then.


I'm not thieving from other Americans to support my refusal to make good decisions in life.


Well from my perspective I wouldn't be thieving from anyone anyways, taxation is perfectly legal...but yeah some of us aren't so lucky in life and depend on the social safety net to help us out, I don't feel like I deserve to have my right to vote taken away if I use any welfare which I plan to since for the time being I really don't have another option.

And if you think everyone struggling financially is there because of 'bad' decisions you truly are a bit on the ignorant side.


It's theft to use our tax dollars for abusing a safety net. It's called a safety net for a reason and you aren't supposed to live off it. Do you know how many programs there are for poorer or disabled people to get free college? Therefore there is no reason to say it's not because of bad decisions. Also it should be mentioned that most (not all but most) people on welfare tend to be pretty damn unintelligent and easily manipulated so they just vote for whoever has the prettier commercials, it's why (and many others) also think there should be a simple IQ test you have to take when you register to vote. Just a simple reading comprehension test or something.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 1:32 pm

Xenu wrote:
It's theft to use our tax dollars for abusing a safety net. It's called a safety net for a reason and you aren't supposed to live off it. Do you know how many programs there are for poorer or disabled people to get free college? Therefore there is no reason to say it's not because of bad decisions. Also it should be mentioned that most (not all but most) people on welfare tend to be pretty damn unintelligent and easily manipulated so they just vote for whoever has the prettier commercials, it's why (and many others) also think there should be a simple IQ test you have to take when you register to vote. Just a simple reading comprehension test or something.


OK well since I cannot go to college or get a job because of my PTSD what the hell do you expect me to do huh? I am so sick of ignorant people acting like someones inferior garbage just because they don't have f****ing money to live on. I mean what happens when your disability interferes with going to college?....and no nothing like that was available to me when I did go to college. I'm not going to just lay down on a street and die somewhere just so I don't waste your bloody resources. And for someone dissing on those on welfare you haven't made any very intelligent arguments. People on welfare should have their right to vote taken away? what the hell kind of garbage is that?


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 25 May 2012, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,438

25 May 2012, 1:43 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Xenu wrote:
Yes, I also think they should lose the right to vote as well.


I think you should lose the right to vote as well then.


I'm not thieving from other Americans to support my refusal to make good decisions in life.


Well from my perspective I wouldn't be thieving from anyone anyways, taxation is perfectly legal...but yeah some of us aren't so lucky in life and depend on the social safety net to help us out, I don't feel like I deserve to have my right to vote taken away if I use any welfare which I plan to since for the time being I really don't have another option.

And if you think everyone struggling financially is there because of 'bad' decisions you truly are a bit on the ignorant side.


It's theft to use our tax dollars for abusing a safety net. It's called a safety net for a reason and you aren't supposed to live off it. Do you know how many programs there are for poorer or disabled people to get free college? Therefore there is no reason to say it's not because of bad decisions. Also it should be mentioned that most (not all but most) people on welfare tend to be pretty damn unintelligent and easily manipulated so they just vote for whoever has the prettier commercials, it's why (and many others) also think there should be a simple IQ test you have to take when you register to vote. Just a simple reading comprehension test or something.


OK well since I cannot go to college or get a job because of my PTSD what the hell do you expect me to do huh? I am so sick of ignorant people acting like someones inferior garbage just because they don't have f****ing money to live on. I mean what happens when your disability interferes with going to college?....and no nothing like that was available to me when I did go to college. I'm not going to just lay down on a street and die somewhere just so I don't waste your bloody resources. And for someone dissing on those on welfare you haven't made any very intelligent arguments. People on welfare should have their right to vote taken away? what the hell kind of garbage is that?


There is online college you know. But anyways I have severe depression, bipolar, and asperegers and honestly possibly PTSD as well from being beat as a kid, s**t is hard and disabilities affect me going to college as well but I have to force myself through it being I don't want to be viewed as a waste on society, I want to be able to contribute and not steal and I want to be successful in the future. I understand that people have issues that make things more difficult for them but it's not an excuse to just not do it at all. And also you are 22 years old, these things are available now so there is no excuse not to try now. And I've made nothing but intelligent and logical argument, people who don't contribute don't have a right to make decisions that affect the general public.