Survivalist Forum banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
8,610 Posts
What of those who have worked a long portion of their life and contributed to society, and then are forced to live upon some form of social assistance due to any number of reasons beyond their control?

Do you really want to punish those who want to work, but can't?

Once we start limiting voting to citizens who work and contribute, who's voting rights will be next on the chopping block?
If they have a previous history of working and contributing that is one thing...generational welfare is another thing entirely though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,387 Posts
If they have a previous history of working and contributing that is one thing...generational welfare is another thing entirely though.
While the system is still ripe with abuse, it isn't anywhere as bad as it used to be. States simply can't afford to give out social services benefits like they used to do.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
8,610 Posts
While the system is still ripe with abuse, it isn't anywhere as bad as it used to be. States simply can't afford to give out social services benefits like they used to do.
Actually the Feds reimburse the States for almost 100% of what they pay out. That's why there is no financial incentive for the States to reign in spending.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,387 Posts
Actually the Feds reimburse the States for almost 100% of what they pay out. That's why there is no financial incentive for the States to reign in spending.
Per FMAP statutory language, the federal government only reimburses states for 50% minimum, and 83% maximum for Medicaid expenditures. Though the latest rates budgeted by Congress, are 76% maximum.

While states may technically be reimbursed for TANF, the fact is that the states spend less than an aggregate of 10% from TANF block grants for basic assistance programs. The remainder is used for other state services outside of Social Services, because such is intended to be used for underserved populations.

SNAP is used for more than nutrition, as it used for career training and education. While again it is technically supposed to be reimbursed at 100%, the fact is that it is not, because of the bureaucratic requirements written into the program.
 

·
Only politics *****.
Joined
·
5,414 Posts
Just as long as paying income taxes isn't a requirement. IMO, income taxes are theft pure and simple. They make a mockery of property rights and personal freedom.
Without them, no government whatsoever though. And while some might think pure anarchy right of the strongest is the correct way, you might think differently when larger groups start looking your way. In a way taxes are the only reason you can safely earn your income too. (not saying that it's spent well, but that's another discussion)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,384 Posts
Without them, no government whatsoever though. And while some might think pure anarchy right of the strongest is the correct way, you might think differently when larger groups start looking your way. In a way taxes are the only reason you can safely earn your income too. (not saying that it's spent well, but that's another discussion)
Wrong. Income tax isn't the only form of taxation.

And people like me in the audience who already want minimum gov, no gov is better than oppressive gov, if it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
What of those who have worked a long portion of their life and contributed to society, and then are forced to live upon some form of social assistance due to any number of reasons beyond their control?

Do you really want to punish those who want to work, but can't?

Once we start limiting voting to citizens who work and contribute, who's voting rights will be next on the chopping block?
If you contributed to society (worked your entire life ) then you get social security which is different from getting a free hand out from welfare. You earn social security you don`t earn welfare.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,387 Posts
Without them, no government whatsoever though. And while some might think pure anarchy right of the strongest is the correct way, you might think differently when larger groups start looking your way. In a way taxes are the only reason you can safely earn your income too. (not saying that it's spent well, but that's another discussion)
With the exception of The Revenue Act of 1861 (to repeal in 1872), and The Revenue Act of 1862 (to expiration in 1866) ... both to fund deficits arising from the Civil War and Reconstruction ..., the United States survived and grew quite adequately without 16A, with federal revenue obtained through tariffs and excise taxes.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for including an unapportioned direct tax among the states.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,387 Posts
If you contributed to society (worked your entire life ) then you get social security which is different from getting a free hand out from welfare. You earn social security you don`t earn welfare.
1. Nobody earns welfare. Welfare isn't an entitlement.

2. There are many a person who collect Social Security entitlement benefits, who also receive public assistance.

3. When Social Security was first instituted, there were people that collected the benefit without contributing much, if any at all. That is a free hand-out too.

4. There are even those today that have never contributed a dime to Social Security, but still collect through disability and/or survivor benefits.

5. Many pay more in Social Security taxes, than they'll ever can ever expect to receive back in a full length retirement.
 

·
I say I say
Joined
·
970 Posts
What has bothered me about living in a college town, is that students in 2011 at UM's highest enrollment (who were all of voting age) comprised over 15,000 in a city with 70,000 or so (all ages).
It is a logistical nightmare, but I wish people 18-22 and in college were only allowed to vote in their hometown via absentee ballott. That would keep a significant number if them from affecting local politics when most of them leave after college anyway.
I don't have a great solution to the problem but someone out there does. Essentially a majority of temporary/transient people should not affect local politics as they can and often do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,384 Posts
What has bothered me about living in a college town, is that students in 2011 at UM's highest enrollment (who were all of voting age) comprised over 15,000 in a city with 70,000 or so (all ages).
It is a logistical nightmare, but I wish people 18-22 and in college were only allowed to vote in their hometown via absentee ballott. That would keep a significant number if them from affecting local politics when most of them leave after college anyway.
I don't have a great solution to the problem but someone out there does. Essentially a majority of temporary/transient people should not affect local politics as they can and often do.
That's actually an interesting point.

It does make sense that a kid who's temporarily relocated for school, shouldn't be voting to sway local politics when /, if they are moving away once they graduate.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top