People living off of gov. assistance should not vote.

Make a poll, tc

@BSC14:

We basically live in a post scarcity society, and if you are not educated getting a higher end job is basically impossible. Instead what you need to do (and I'm including your neighbor in this concept) is to get two or more part time minimum wage jobs (jobs that can likely already be performed by machines) that in no way will fulfill you as a human. Other people, like your neighbor, have found a way around this and achieve a level of happiness that you yourself have been unable to replicate.

Your response to this new found way of surviving in the world is to get irrationally angry at those that accomplish it, and advocate for methods that you hope will result in the taking away of said happiness.

I like you tc, you're a classy dude.

So because I get foot stamps and medical through the state, I shouldnt vote? Thats a bit much

Maybe it is a bad idea....I know it would obviously not be fair to those who are not frauds. The problem is that it's not addressed so then these people are allowed to vote for a free ride....what is the answer because we know damn well nothing will ever be done.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm all about helping those who need it. It's just that I don't believe anyone will ever address it. And I pay a crap ton of $$ and I look next door and see that crap....yeah it pisses me off.

And being educated dose not make someone a better person...kim jong un is well educated.

My family did not take assistance from the government, my step father worked two jobs as a security officer making crap money but getting us in a decent neighborhood. Unfortunately we did not have the money to keep the house up and pay the bills. We did have to borrow money from family regularly....fortunately I have done well enough to not live anything like that but I do know what it's like.

I just mentioned the gun thing as a response to the protected right statement. There are a large number of people who would love to take guns away...they are the libtards I was talking about and yes there are some here. I personally don't even own a gun.

I'm a liberal who owns a bigger arsenal than the local National Guard.

Generalizations, lol...

People should assume the internet is more than America.

Wrong answer....and way to ignore the principles this country was founded on. I hope you are not from the US.

@LJS9502_basic: I really hope hes not from Canada >_>.

What I get angry about is that I pay for them to have that life, my job pays very well but why should so much of what I work for go to people like this?

I don't have a problem with guns either, per se, and I tend to identify more with liberals than conservatives, particularly on social issues. That said, I'll never understand why people feel the need to own assault weapons and I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable knowing everyone around me is carrying. I don't trust 90% of the population to use a firearm responsibly with a cool head, in public, should the need arise.

If he's not....we can work out a deal. You get him....sounds fair. :p

I'm from the US.

I don't think this country's principles were founded on mooching off the government either.

Your dad's case of working two jobs kinda proves my point, and it's even worse these days. Those without a college education can work 2 or more jobs, which is the socially respectable thing to do (but life is admitedly crappy for those people), or they can do what your neighbor is doing and actually enjoy their life. Yeah your neighbor isn't doing the sort of thing that earns respect, but he doesn't come home every night wishing life didn't suck so much either.

@LJS9502_basic: I'm lucky i guess.

Look at what I said....I did not say all liberals and did not say all liberals were libtards...

"There are a large number of people who would love to take guns away...they are the libtards I was talking about"

I suppose you could help him get pell grants for college (again tax payer money, but whatever), and try to ensure he can get a higher paying job one day, but I don't think people are interested in the two to three minimum wage job alternative that you are angry about them not taking.

Of course it would be deliciously ironic if he went to work at a place like Walmart and still needed government assistance.

You would spend less time explaining yourself if you didn't throw out insults/generalizations.

I own guns simply because I like them. I love the feeling of a powerful recoil, I love the sound, I love the mechanics, I love the way they look and feel. I love developing the skill and discipline necessary to use them well (it's not all point and shoot...if you want to be any good with them, you have to pay a lot of attention to and have control of your own physiology).

Not addressed so not important....

Now see you're assuming that I would have a problem with that situation...not at all.

If he were working at walmart and trying his best and still needed assistance I would absolutely have not one issue with him needing / getting help. I would totally respect that.

Yeah the socially respectable thing to do is all about how you feel. You don't care about the person living a crappy life, you simply care about how your money is being spent. Are you honestly surprised that people like your neighbor don't find that to be enough of a motivation?

You feel so strongly about this, yet you are not willing to report him. Think about that.

I agree with your first post...you're right, it is ignoring the principles this country was founded on. But I also see the country/people being taken advantage of and don't see that as fair either.

You're so wrong! The whole Boston Tea Party thing was because we were being taxed...to pay for the solders werequested to protect us from the natives!

Look it up.

If that's how you see it then fine. I see it as everyone should do their best before dipping into the pockets of others. I don't find it acceptable to expect to be taken care of if you don't try. The attitude of "why work if they will take care of me" is just a dishonest way to live.

Yes it's about my money, your money....and money that could go to people who really need it and not someone who is doesn't want to grow up.

No what I'm saying is the idea was not to be a lazy bastard and not work expecting to be taken care of.

In the old days many states did stipulate that only property-owners could vote. I think that was also the way it was in the French Republic after the French Revolution.

I don't think disqualifying people who are welfare recipients (especially if only for a short amount of time) or limiting the vote to property-holders is a good idea. Those people still are affected by political decisions, and thus should have some say. I could see however limiting votes on property taxes to property holders or only allowing tax-payers to vote on referenda that would affect tax rates.

Bro this country was founded by lazy bastards

@BSC14: yeah, uhm no. Everyone has a right to vote, so you're wrong here mate. Unless he's caught for scamming the goverment, and put in jail. There's not a lot of logic going on there. You're also generalizing, not everyone's like him you know...

The two people I know who are on disability would love to work. But seeing as how they got blown up in Iraq/Afghanistan to protect your right to come on here and complain about them, that's not really in the cards. And you don't think these brave men should not be able to vote? /eyeroll

There are also people on disability who are physically functional, but their mental ailments would make maintaining employment difficult. People with certain circadian dysfunctions, for instance.

The rule stick for disability isn't that you can't do any work, it's that you can't maintain gainful employment due to some physical or mental ailment.

The first line I wrote was "Unless they are a vet or something along those lines".

And the rest of my post?

I'm not generalizing at all...I said "There are people who really need help and then there are these parasites"

And I agree....mann I hate to agree with you...but yes it would be better if the right were taken away only if busted taking advantage. Problem is nothing is really being done about it. Well at least as far as I see.

I don't disagree at all. Those people in some cases are worse off than someone who can't walk. I can completely understand that.

Look we have douchebags here in Norway aswell, but you can't refuse them to vote. You can punish them severely, but that's about all you can do

Racist? You do realize that the greatest group that receives welfare are whites, right? And that the greatest number of welfare recipient states are located within southern red states, right? If anything this would harm the right far more........Furthermore how do you define parasites, under your very broad classification we could classify all those senior citizens on social security..

In all honest I agree. I do get all kinds if annoyed and go off but when I stop and really think about it removing someone's right to vote is obviously extreme.

I don't know...it's messed up.

That does not surprise me at all. I see tons of white people all over these small towns in Texas who receive government assistance. A huge number of them...so I'm right there with you. I just said that because it seems like SOME people call racism for everything.

It's not a broad classification at all...I said "There are people who really need help and there are these parasites"

These parasites being people like my neighbor...I thought it was pretty obvious. And obviously I'm not talking about people on SS....those people only get a fraction of what they put in as it is.

"If that's how you see it then fine. I see it as everyone should do their best before dipping into the pockets of others. I don't find it acceptable to expect to be taken care of if you don't try. The attitude of "why work if they will take care of me" is just a dishonest way to live.

Yes it's about my money, your money....and money that could go to people who really need it and not someone who is doesn't want to grow up."

@BSC14:

Let me state that moochers will continue to exist no matter what. That being said today society's alternative to mooching for those without higher education is a really crappy choice, and frankly it often involves government assistance.

Leaving people with only the option of multiple crappy jobs combined with your tax dollars doesn't actively help them (nor you tbh), it is only about making you feel slightly better.

That's not what the constitution says /thread.

Are you suggesting that people who don't have an education should not have to work and should be supported because they don't want to work for a lower salary?

If they can work they should because that $$ could go to someone who can't work.

Oh i agree, it's FUBAR. But you can't someone's rights away just because they're a douchebag. Don't know if criminals can vote in the US, but i think they should be able to

That is a bad argument since the Constitution can be changed. Better to argue on the merits of whether the OP argument in principle is good or bad policy.

Basically you need to advocate for something that provides people with better alternatives than simply living off welfare if you want to live in a society where people work for a living. I say this because people are not buying into that position in life if they don't have to do so, and they will never have to so long as we insist on taking care of the poor.

Wow.

This is exactly like another terrible mentality some people advocate.

"There are black people who are cool and then there are thugs who are n******."

You can't be serious....

First you ask me to take "libtard" out of my first post, then you quote it AND compare it to racism?

I feel bad now....please remove the word libtard from your post it's offensive.

Your complaint is a valid one while simultaneously being absurd.

That is an interesting dichotomy.

Yeah OP, the situation with your neighbors stinks and I've seen the same situation many times. I have some folks in my extended family who can absolutely work and just mooch instead. One in particular because of a minor injury during a car accident she now is considered disabled and lives off of welfare. This injury doesn't stop her from going out and partying/dancing all night, hanging out with friends, and all sorts of other activities.

Someone mentioned above giving these people better alternatives/incentive; I think that's asinine. For a person who is lazy, doesn't want to work, and just wants to party, what better way is there than a check from uncle Sam, free/reduced housing, and no job responsibilities?