People living off of gov. assistance should not vote.

  • 169 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

Unless they are a vet or something along those lines.

I know I'll be called a racist by the (EDIT DUE TO MODS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CRYING) but let me clarify why I think this.

I never really thought about it until here lately after being around one of my neighbors. I moved next door to him a couple years ago and he claims disability. How he gets away with this is totally beyond me...I have seen him do his yard work, wood construction, get drunk regularly, pick up a small fridge full of frozen fish, come home with black eyes after getting in fights...you name it. Yet while able to do these things claims he can not work...though he does from time to time doing odd jobs around the neighborhood when he's low on beer money. On top of that, after hurricane Ike he got a new home because his turd of a house was damaged during the storm. And it's not a POS....see we live on Bolivar peninsula (somewhat small but decent area on the beach), close to Houston/Galveston and he got a brand new beach house and insisted he "needed" a lift (average of about $12k after installation) attached to the home that we have never seen him use even once. He got it...all of it. We needed a lift for my home because my father-in-law is in a wheel chair and so visiting is really difficult but then so is dropping $12k.

Anyway, I know for a fact this man could absolutely work. For two years I have watched him and some others in the area that are just like him take advantage of the system. They all tend to hang out drinking and having a good time but none of these guys and ladies work. Life is all about having a good time and letting the government pay for it and they have no shame about it either. To give you an idea of how he thinks, he told me the other day that the home owners association was on his butt about cleaning up around his home....he told me they need to come do it because he shouldn't have to. Amazing....

And he will proudly tell you he is a democrat supporter....because "the republicans don't care about people like him".

And I just thought to myself...."how many people are out there just like this guy and why should they be allowed to vote at all"

Most people vote for who they believe will benefit them most and I get that but then most also contribute to society. In this situation though one party is getting votes only because the voter wants to continue to get a free ride. Though being in Texas his vote is void really but what about all the people in so many other states?

I have never had a personal problem with the guy and we get along fine so far but I have to be honest and say I would have no problem stripping him of his right to vote.

There are people who really need help and then there are these parasites...

And by the way he's white...so don't pull the race card on me, it does not apply.

#2 Posted by thegerg (14692 posts) -

How much support is too much?

#3 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

Does he even vote?

Is there a way to unanimously report him for fraudulent behavior?

Sadly, this happens a lot in the US, I see it quite often in my town (I even know one woman in particular that does it right now). It disgusts me knowing that I struggle everyday to make ends meet, yet there's these people raping the system and getting away with it. I'm with you on this, I am. However, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it.

#4 Posted by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -

it happens, but the majority of people on government assistance really do need the help.

#5 Posted by one_plum (6331 posts) -

The only thing I get out of this is that there should be more severe checks for fraud.

#6 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Does he even vote?

Is there a way to unanimously report him for fraudulent behavior?

Sadly, this happens a lot in the US, I see it quite often in my town (I even know one woman in particular that does it right now). It disgusts me knowing that I struggle everyday to make ends meet, yet there's these people raping the system and getting away with it. I'm with you on this, I am. However, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it.

I thought about reporting him but I just don't want to deal with him if he thinks it might have been me.

The way I see it, either the government needs to crack down on these people or take away their right to effect the elections. Because as it stands a party can literally buy votes and that is what's happening now. It's just wrong on so many levels....

As far as "How much support is too much?"....I don't know.

Maybe people who pay so much % to taxes from their income would be eligible to vote...I don't know. I'm really just thinking out loud and don't even pretend to have the answers. I just know that at the moment it's jacked up.

#7 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

it happens, but the majority of people on government assistance really do need the help.

How do you know that?

I'm in no way saying they are all frauds but what % of them are? Who would really know?

#8 Posted by Master_Live (14041 posts) -

Report him.

#9 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

it happens, but the majority of people on government assistance really do need the help.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe on a nationwide level, but there's a lot of things I see around here that I'm pretty sure don't qualify as a necessity for those on government assistance. Perfect example is the food bought at the supermarket that's really not necessary using WIC or food stamps. A LOT of people abuse the system in that regard.

#10 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@one_plum said:

The only thing I get out of this is that there should be more severe checks for fraud.

I agree 100% but it's not happening...

#11 Edited by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@Allicrombie said:

it happens, but the majority of people on government assistance really do need the help.

How do you know that?

I'm in no way saying they are all frauds but what % of them are? Who would really know?

"It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on “welfare” (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found “improper payment” levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either “eligibility and payment calculation errors” or “documentation errors”), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/

#12 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

@one_plum said:

The only thing I get out of this is that there should be more severe checks for fraud.

Bingo, unfortunately this is difficult to do so don't count on anyone trying to make a serious effort at it.

#13 Posted by deeliman (2363 posts) -

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

#14 Edited by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

I don't think there is a way to really get a count.

I know someone personally who's wife gets about $50k a year (due to mental issues) from the government and her husband brings home close to 100k. I personally don't think if he makes that much that she should get that $50k but they do....

There are so many variations of situations that I don't think it's even possible to get a real number.

#15 Edited by dave123321 (33636 posts) -

Focus on the fraud issues and improving the systems structure and issues. Don't make some wide vote ban that hurts the vast majority of the good guys

#16 Edited by achilles614 (4847 posts) -

There was this nasty person that lived in my area growing up. He was a grown man living on disability yet he was working under the table for a company while also selling large amounts of cocaine...people in the area knew he did it, but I was still shocked for how long it went on. He's in prison now, which is good because this guy was batshit insane.

#17 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

#18 Edited by deeliman (2363 posts) -

@BSC14 Just because you don't think she should get 50k if her husband makes 100k doesn't mean that she's a fraud or that she is abusing the system.

#19 Posted by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

I don't think there is a way to really get a count.

There are so many variations of situations that I don't think it's even possible to get a real number.

lmao

I just linked you the numbers three posts up.

#20 Posted by dave123321 (33636 posts) -

Just maybe try to appeal to those who need assistance. Don't try to throw them out of the game.

#21 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:


That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

I think you need to look up the term "disenfranchisement".

You readily admit that your 'solution' has nothing to do with the 'problem', so in fact you have no point.

#22 Posted by lostrib (33438 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

but you are suggesting that the right be taken away?

#23 Posted by bforrester420 (1258 posts) -

it happens, but the majority of people on government assistance really do need the help.

This. Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, shut the fuck up. You lost your argument when you went full dumb-ass and called people "libtards".

BTW, in which field is your college education, TS?

#24 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@BSC14 Just because you don't think she should get 50k if her husband makes 100k doesn't mean that she's a fraud or that she is abusing the system.

I was not saying it was fraud. I said I personally don't think she should get it. But look at what else I said.... "I don't think there is a way to really get a count. / There are so many variations of situations that I don't think it's even possible to get a real number."

The point there was that it's subjective and hard to get a real number.

#25 Edited by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@BSC14 said:


That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

I think you need to look up the term "disenfranchisement".

You readily admit that your 'solution' has nothing to do with the 'problem', so in fact you have no point.

I'm not suggesting that it would cure the fraud problem...I'm saying they should not be allowed to effect an election.

#26 Posted by lostrib (33438 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

@BSC14 said:


That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

I think you need to look up the term "disenfranchisement".

You readily admit that your 'solution' has nothing to do with the 'problem', so in fact you have no point.

I'm not suggesting that it would cure the fraud problem...I'm saying they should not be allowed to effect an election.

right, but you are still suggesting that you take away their rights?

#27 Edited by dave123321 (33636 posts) -

It's scary that people are so open to taking away people's rights at the drop of a hat

#28 Edited by bforrester420 (1258 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations, such as religious organizations, are able to affect elections, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like their influence.

#29 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

I said I personally don't think she should get it.

No one asked you, and no one cares what you think.

Disability is notoriously hard to get on, and they do review each case every few years.

#30 Posted by deeliman (2363 posts) -

@BSC14 To do what you suggest means that you have to find out who are frauds, which is not an easy task at all. Unless you are suggesting that everyone on welfare is a leech, and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

#31 Posted by lostrib (33438 posts) -

It's scary that people are so open to taking away people's rights at the drop of a hat

Yes, we should take a poll. Who are worse, those that take government assistance or those who want to take away the right to vote?

#32 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

I'm not suggesting that it would cure the fraud problem...I'm saying they should not be allowed to effect an election.

I don't think you should be allowed to vote because you obviously fail at democracy.

And it's 'affect', not 'effect'.

#33 Posted by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

@BSC14 Just because you don't think she should get 50k if her husband makes 100k doesn't mean that she's a fraud or that she is abusing the system.

I was not saying it was fraud. I said I personally don't think she should get it. But look at what else I said.... "I don't think there is a way to really get a count. / There are so many variations of situations that I don't think it's even possible to get a real number."

The point there was that it's subjective and hard to get a real number.

LOL

according to TC: numbers are subjective

ok

#34 Posted by lostrib (33438 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations, such as religious organizations, are able to affect elections, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like their influence.

You know what, we should add some sort of test before people can vote. Like a literacy exam. Or perhaps a poll tax, so that if they pay it we know they are able to contribute to society.

#35 Posted by bforrester420 (1258 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@bforrester420 said:

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations, such as religious organizations, are able to affect elections, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like their influence.

You know what, we should add some sort of test before people can vote. Like a literacy exam. Or perhaps a poll tax, so that if they pay it we know they are able to contribute to society.

From an idealistic standpoint, I would love that!

#36 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations should be able to affectelections, such as religious organizations, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like something.

Not that it has anything to do with this topic but I'm a structural engineer for petrochemical company in Houston. That's said what would it matter? You have to approve of my education before my opinion counts I guess?

Also I grew up dirt poor...literally had half a roof over my head as a kid so I have been there. Maybe you need to get info before spouting off and running your mouth.....mr "shut the fuck up". I have been in those shoes...was for years.

And this is a forum...so you might not care about my opinion but only an idiot would bitch about someone posting an opinion on a forum.

By the way I pay taxes you moron so that's why I care....I pay a lot of taxes. Beside you libtards don't have an issue taking away protected rights like guns so don't preach to me.

#37 Posted by lostrib (33438 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@bforrester420 said:

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations, such as religious organizations, are able to affect elections, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like their influence.

You know what, we should add some sort of test before people can vote. Like a literacy exam. Or perhaps a poll tax, so that if they pay it we know they are able to contribute to society.

From an idealistic standpoint, I would love that!

lol, yes we would all love if people were actually informed when they vote, but unlike TC, Iyou're intelligent enough to know why such a thing is an awful idea

#38 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Not that it has anything to do with this topic but I'm a structural engineer for petrochemical company in Houston. That's said what would it matter? You have to approve of my education before my opinion counts I guess?

Also I grew up dirt poor...literally had half a roof over my head as a kid so I have been there. Maybe you need to get info before spouting off and running your mouth.....mr "shut the fuck up". I have been in those shoes...was for years.

And this is a forum...so you might not care about my opinion but only an idiot would bitch about someone posting an opinion on a forum.

By the way I pay taxes you moron so that's why I care....I pay a lot of taxes. Beside you libtards don't have an issue taking away protected rights like guns so don't preach to me.

#39 Edited by deeliman (2363 posts) -

I like how tc automatically labels anyone who disagrees with him as a liberal, or libtard, as he put it.

#40 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

I'm not suggesting that it would cure the fraud problem...I'm saying they should not be allowed to effect an election.

I don't think you should be allowed to vote because you obviously fail at democracy.

And it's 'affect', not 'effect'.

lol..."effect".

My bad...you're right my opinion no longer matters.

#41 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

lol..."effect".

My bad...you're right my opinion no longer matters.

He sees the light, people. It's okay, we can all go home now.

#42 Edited by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Not that it has anything to do with this topic but I'm a structural engineer for petrochemical company in Houston. That's said what would it matter? You have to approve of my education before my opinion counts I guess?

Also I grew up dirt poor...literally had half a roof over my head as a kid so I have been there. Maybe you need to get info before spouting off and running your mouth.....mr "shut the fuck up". I have been in those shoes...was for years.

And this is a forum...so you might not care about my opinion but only an idiot would bitch about someone posting an opinion on a forum.

By the way I pay taxes you moron so that's why I care....I pay a lot of taxes. Beside you libtards don't have an issue taking away protected rights like guns so don't preach to me.

Yes, lol....I'm being a bad ass for responding rudely to a rude comment.

#43 Posted by bforrester420 (1258 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@bforrester420 said:

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

Really stupid idea that wouldn't solve this issue at all, if it's even that much of an issue, I don't know how many people on welfare are frauds.

So it's a stupid idea but you don't even know if it's an issue or how many people are frauds?

Think it's a stupid idea? Ok...

I prefer to not let leaches like this effect the outcome of who is put in office.

That said I was not suggesting that taking away that right would fix fraud, just that they should not be allowed to effect an election.

Who cares what you think? The right to vote is a constitutionally protected right. I don't like that tax-exempt organizations should be able to affectelections, such as religious organizations, but I'm not going to petition to have their rights infringed upon because I don't like something.

Not that it has anything to do with this topic but I'm a structural engineer for petrochemical company in Houston. That's said what would it matter? You have to approve of my education before my opinion counts I guess?

Also I grew up dirt poor...literally had half a roof over my head as a kid so I have been there. Maybe you need to get info before spouting off and running your mouth.....mr "shut the fuck up". I have been in those shoes...was for years.

And this is a forum...so you might not care about my opinion but only an idiot would bitch about someone posting an opinion on a forum.

By the way I pay taxes you moron so that's why I care....I pay a lot of taxes. Beside you libtards don't have an issue taking away protected rights like guns so don't preach to me.

No, I'm only trying to assess the education level of someone who would have such a hair-brained idea. You certainly don't write like someone with an especially high level of education. I'm skeptical of your claims, but I've known many otherwise intelligent people who are intolerant and not particularly empathetic.

If you've been in those shoes, did your parents receive government assistance? If so, were they/you not better off for having that social safety net? My issue with such ideas is that they affect those who genuinely need the assistance and those that it helps to get back on their feet. Would you punish the majority of aid recipients just to smite the minority that game the system?

Nobody is trying to take away your guns. Paranoid much? Libtards...the use of that word speaks volumes about your closed-mindedness.

#44 Posted by dave123321 (33636 posts) -

Using libtards and assuming people who find your idea moronic and dangerous are liberal makes you seem like a stubborn person who is unwilling to listen to views that oppose yours.

#45 Posted by BSC14 (3610 posts) -

@deeliman said:

I like how tc automatically labels anyone who disagrees with him as a liberal, or libtard, as he put it.

Really?

Where did I say everyone was a libtard that did not agree? No....but chances are high that the libtards would find that offensive and point it out.

#46 Edited by dave123321 (33636 posts) -

@BSC14: you are the one who started up on using libtards in the OP. We can only make reasonable assumptions

#47 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12807 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Yes, lol....I'm being a bad ass for responding rudely to a rude comment.

There's a difference between being a dick and being a child about it. Being a dick is an art, one of subtlety, subversion and doublespeak. Being a child is an innate ability that takes no skill and requires only an excuse.

#48 Posted by deeliman (2363 posts) -

You throw the waord libtard around a lot in every discussion you have, so yeah, you do label pretty much everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal. You don't have to outright say "Everyone who disagrees with me is a liberal!" to do so.

Are you suggesting that I am a liberal?

#49 Posted by bforrester420 (1258 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@deeliman said:

I like how tc automatically labels anyone who disagrees with him as a liberal, or libtard, as he put it.

Really?

Where did I say everyone was a libtard that did not agree? No....but chances are high that the libtards would find that offensive and point it out.

Here's a nice, handy list of the good things Liberalism has done for our society:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/150-achievements-of-liberalism-that-conservatives-seek-to-destroy/

#50 Posted by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Yes, lol....I'm being a bad ass for responding rudely to a rude comment.

There's a difference between being a dick and being a child about it. Being a dick is an art, one of subtlety, subversion and doublespeak. Being a child is an innate ability that takes no skill and requires only an excuse.

shhhh this is getting good. =p