INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on December 08, 2010, 05:34:55 PM
-
I heard this on TV the other day and I think it makes sense.
If you recieve more money from the Governmnet than you've paid in, you shouldn't have the right to vote, because if you do, you will simply vote to take more money from the government for yourself.
A good example of this is the AARP and other old-fogie groups. They are the most powerful political lobby in Washington DC, and between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaide, they take the most money.
-
Retired people have paid into Social Security for many years if they are drawing Social Security money out now, and even if someone is disabled and drawing Social Security Disability, either they (or a parent, if the person was disabled before 21) has paid into Social Security for years to entitle them to this payment now.
Even if this were not the case, to vote yes that people in this situation should lose their voting rights would make it a sort of crime to be poor.
I wonder if the people you saw on TV who are making this argument would like to return to a system where only white male landowners are permitted to vote?
-
I heard this on TV the other day and I think it makes sense.
If you recieve more money from the Governmnet than you've paid in, you shouldn't have the right to vote, because if you do, you will simply vote to take more money from the government for yourself.
A good example of this is the AARP and other old-fogie groups. They are the most powerful political lobby in Washington DC, and between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaide, they take the most money.
I agree with Callaway and will add:
Fallacies
1) Under a democracy you cannot "simply vote to take more money from the government for yourself". In a democracy the individuals vote on each matter directly. America has a republic form of government where we elect individuals to (ideally) vote for the best interests of America as a whole.
2) Medicaid is not an age related subsidy. It is asset/income driven. And is a joint Federal/state program.
An Aside: I again thank everyone in America who has pays into Social Security and Medicare. Thanks to your contributions she receives Social Security (disabled before 21, on her father's account), SSI (to bring her up to the minimum Social Security benefit amount), paid Medicare premiums, assistance with her prescriptions ($7,000+ so far this year at market price) and Medicaid (pays what Medicare doesn't.) Her bill for 3 days in the hospital in October was $11,480+, of which she will pay only a minimal amount if anything. Lest you think she is "faking it", she has 5 documented medical conditions starting from 7 months old which taken as a whole preclude her from meaningful employment.
Oh and yes, she is a registered voter. I made sure of that.
-
Retired people have paid into Social Security for many years if they are drawing Social Security money out now, and even if someone is disabled and drawing Social Security Disability, either they (or a parent, if the person was disabled before 21) has paid into Social Security for years to entitle them to this payment now.
But Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The people drawing off of it now will take out more money than they paid in. Where does that extra money come from?? you and me and our children and their children, untill the system finally collapses. You and I probably won't see a single dime of the money we paid in. Socail Security has done this :ATM: to us.
Even if this were not the case, to vote yes that people in this situation should lose their voting rights would make it a sort of crime to be poor.
No, it wouldn't make it a crime, it would just prevent people from voting to get "free" stuff from the government.
I wonder if the people you saw on TV who are making this argument would like to return to a system where only white male landowners are permitted to vote?
Ad-Hominem!!! >:(
-
The same person (ie. you) would happily beg for benefits if the shit hit the fan. :thumbup:
-
Fallacies
1) Under a democracy you cannot "simply vote to take more money from the government for yourself". In a democracy the individuals vote on each matter directly. America has a republic form of government where we elect individuals to (ideally) vote for the best interests of America as a whole.
I don't recall making the claim that America is a pure Democracy. People who want to suck off of the government teat generaly form lobby groups. These lobby groups then pressure politicians, by virtue of their numbers (voting blocs), to do what's in the short term intrest of the lobby group, NOT the country as a whole.
2) Medicaid is not an age related subsidy. It is asset/income driven. And is a joint Federal/state program.
Yes, but the majority of people drawing off of it are old folks.
An Aside: I again thank everyone in America who has pays into Social Security and Medicare. Thanks to your contributions she receives Social Security (disabled before 21, on her father's account), SSI (to bring her up to the minimum Social Security benefit amount), paid Medicare premiums, assistance with her prescriptions ($7,000+ so far this year at market price) and Medicaid (pays what Medicare doesn't.) Her bill for 3 days in the hospital in October was $11,480+, of which she will pay only a minimal amount if anything. Lest you think she is "faking it", she has 5 documented medical conditions starting from 7 months old which taken as a whole preclude her from meaningful employment.
Oh and yes, she is a registered voter. I made sure of that.
I cartianly don't begrudge help for those who need it, I simply think the programs we have in place now, are ineficcient drains on the US taxpayer.
-
They can't even successfully prevent convicted criminals from voting in restricted states, so it sounds messy. The majority of people don't vote anyway, so can't see any reason to prevent those who care enough to vote from doing so.
-
No. If they did that the next step would be the more you paid in the more your vote would be worth what a mess that would be.
-
I don't recall making the claim that America is a pure Democracy. People who want to suck off of the government teat generaly form lobby groups. These lobby groups then pressure politicians, by virtue of their numbers (voting blocs), to do what's in the short term intrest of the lobby group, NOT the country as a whole.
No you stated that they will vote to take more money from the government. That is not forming a lobby group. It takes money to lobby. Poor people and most people with illnesses/handicaps do not have money to hire lobbyists.
If AARP were that effective, then Congress would not have voted down the $250 one-time Social Security payment today. And AARP would be pressuring for a change that would allow Social Security increases based on current year index increases. As the law stands now Social Security increases are not allowed when the CPI falls below the previous high figure. The increases only begin again when the CPI passes the previous high CPI value (2008 in this instance. Remember the fuel spike? That's the reason 2008 CPI spiked).
The majority of people drawing off of Medicaid are not old folks. You do not get Medicaid if your social security benefit check is more than the Social Security minimum check.
-
No. If they did that the next step would be the more you paid in the more your vote would be worth what a mess that would be.
Already know my vote isn't worth anything, so therefore a step ahead of them.
-
No. If they did that the next step would be the more you paid in the more your vote would be worth what a mess that would be.
Already know my vote isn't worth anything, so therefore a step ahead of them.
Then the argument would be why then does it even matter voting at all. In Connecticut the recent governors race was decided by a very slim margin and some of the local elections even less. Votes do matter especially on a local scale which has the most influence on your day to day affairs
-
Then the argument would be why then does it even matter voting at all.
Agreed.
-
People in the government, and all their employees are paid by the government too. As are people in the army. Will they lose their right to vote too?
-
So college students and people serving in the armed forces shouldn't vote?
-
I voted YES!
Then I read the question.
-
I voted YES!
Then I read the question.
You, sir, should lose your right to vote in I2 polls! :zoinks:
-
Scrappy. That is the biggest load of shit I've read in a while, and I hope you're just winding us all up. I totally agree with Callaway and Queen Victoria, and all the rest of the people who have replied.
Surely the point of a democracy is that everyone has a voice. I know it doesn't really work like that in practice, but any attempt to take more power away from the poor, and give it to the rich is a massive FAIL in my eyes.
If you give more voting power to the rich then they will simply vote for less help for the poor, and more tax breaks for the rich.
:angrydance: :angrydance: :angrydance: :angrydance:
-
^Right. People vote in their own interest, rich or poor. Why would they not?
-
^Right. People vote in their own interest, rich or poor. Why would they not?
TBH not everybody does. I know I wouldn't if I ever got off my arse and bothered voting. I think it's important to protect the weakest in society, rather than voting for something that benefits myself to the detriment of many others.
I know that sounds rather sanctimonious, but it's one thing to vote for what you know is right. It's another to behave in that way. IRL I am happy to do things that are wrong, if they benefit myself.
I know that is pretty contradictory. I'd be hard pushed to explain myself if I had to :laugh:
-
I'm in the middle when it comes to this. Everyone can vote, but I feel no need to tend to the people who are poor purely out of laziness. If you honestly can't get a job, have a disability etc. only then you deserve some form of help.
-
I'm in the middle when it comes to this. Everyone can vote, but I feel no need to tend to the people who are poor purely out of laziness. If you honestly can't get a job, have a disability etc. only then you deserve some form of help.
Although in the short term you might be right, I can't help but feel that in the long term refusing to help the "lazy" has dire consequences. Remember, these people have children, and placing a whole generation of children into poverty because you disapprove of their parents attitude will only create a huge problem 13-25 vyears down the line.
If you don't help the parents, then the children will grow up impverished, turn to crime, forsake education, and end up worse than their parents.
Maybe it's best to keep the people that you call lazy out of poverty, but without the luxuries we take for granted. Give them the chance to raise decent kids. For a while I lived in South Lanarkshire, which is one of the most impoverished parts of Scotland. Neds, or as you probably call them, chavs ran around the streets causing all sorts of problems. These kids caused problems for everyone, rich or poor. I went to college for a short time with siome of them, and some of them were nice kids, but they had terrible parenting. They really had no chance in life. Some of them could barely read, and would almoost beg for the money to buy a bag of chips at lunch time.
I know it's tempting to punish the people you feel deserve it, but do remember that in doing so you're also punishing the next generation who have done nothing to deserve it.
And BTW. If you hadn't guessed. My dad is a huge Socialist, and done his best to raise me as one. He failed, and he resents me because of it, but some of his views have rubbed off on me :LOL: :LOL:
-
TBH not everybody does. I know I wouldn't if I ever got off my arse and bothered voting. I think it's important to protect the weakest in society, rather than voting for something that benefits myself to the detriment of many others.
That's true and know some poor don't always vote in their own economic favor. Someone who agrees with democratic economics, might not agree with that party's stance on many civil libery issues. After thinking about it, people most likely find civil issues more important.
-
Politically I suppose I'm more central, taking views from both the left and right areas of the spectrum. I try to see both sides of the story, in other words. Although I'm largely apathetic about politics and more worry about human nature's ability to fuck things up.
The only help the lazy should get is to help get motivated and get jobs, so they'll have no excuse. As for things like bad parenting and bad environments, only they can help themselves. The children of bad parents can easily prove them wrong and improve the community by setting up businesses etc. Over time, problem solved.
-
TBH not everybody does. I know I wouldn't if I ever got off my arse and bothered voting. I think it's important to protect the weakest in society, rather than voting for something that benefits myself to the detriment of many others.
That's true and know some poor don't always vote in their own economic favor. Someone who agrees with democratic economics, might not agree with that party's stance on many civil libery issues. After thinking about it, people most likely find civil issues more important.
That is right, especially in America I think. Over here the poor tend to vote Labour, and the rich vote Conservative. That is just a generalization as there are other parties, especially outsided of England. I find Conservative to be vulgar, and resent them. Although, I am Scottish, and Conservative are really hated in Scotland, because of policies they had in the 80's.
I think know what you mean. In America the Democrats should be the party of the poor, but a lot of poor won't vote for them because they hate their views on civil issues such as gay marriage, and a lot of things that I can't even think of.
Politically I suppose I'm more central, taking views from both the left and right areas of the spectrum. I try to see both sides of the story, in other words. Although I'm largely apathetic about politics and more worry about human nature's ability to fuck things up.
The only help the lazy should get is to help get motivated and get jobs, so they'll have no excuse. As for things like bad parenting and bad environments, only they can help themselves. The children of bad parents can easily prove them wrong and improve the community by setting up businesses etc. Over time, problem solved.
If you're brought up by useless parents who don't help you to achieve your potential, then your chances of setting up a business is pretty low. It's not that easy to go from impoverished upbringing to success. I know that sonme people will manage it, but the vast majority of people won't. What you suggest will only create an even bigger gap between rich and poor, when I think we should be looking to make that gap smaller.
Morally I can see your point, but on a practical level I think it only leads to more problems for society.
-
But the resources are there, all they need to do is stay in school and make something for themselves.
It would be very slow and gradual, but I simply don't see throwing money at them and general being patronizing to solve it quicker. That alone caused the rift between the rich and poor. :dunno:
-
But the resources are there, all they need to do is stay in school and make something for themselves.
It would be very slow and gradual, but I simply don't see throwing money at them and general being patronizing to solve it quicker. That alone caused the rift between the rich and poor. :dunno:
In some ways I do agree with you, but I've had plenty of friends who have come from disadvantaged families, and none of them have achieved real sucess, as in running their own business, or having a really good job. I've known a lot of people from disadvantaged families because it was always a big priority of my dads that we go to a state school.
Do you really think that if both of your parents are put into total poverty, admittedly due to their own laziness,or stupidity, that the majority of chilldren are going to find their way out of it, or do you not think they're likely to follow their parents into a life of hopelessness?
-
I voted YES!
Then I read the question.
Could I get you to vote to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide?? :LOL:
-
But the resources are there, all they need to do is stay in school and make something for themselves.
It would be very slow and gradual, but I simply don't see throwing money at them and general being patronizing to solve it quicker. That alone caused the rift between the rich and poor. :dunno:
In some ways I do agree with you, but I've had plenty of friends who have come from disadvantaged families, and none of them have achieved real sucess, as in running their own business, or having a really good job. I've known a lot of people from disadvantaged families because it was always a big priority of my dads that we go to a state school.
Do you really think that if both of your parents are put into total poverty, admittedly due to their own laziness,or stupidity, that the majority of chilldren are going to find their way out of it, or do you not think they're likely to follow their parents into a life of hopelessness?
I think some people have a drive that pushes them out of that cycle, but unfortunately it's rare, but infinitely possible.
I thought you yourself Butterflies came from some disadvantage, and it was only that your Uncle/Aunt/Cousin took you under their wing and gave you some direction and money to play with that you were able to thrive?
-
But the resources are there, all they need to do is stay in school and make something for themselves.
It would be very slow and gradual, but I simply don't see throwing money at them and general being patronizing to solve it quicker. That alone caused the rift between the rich and poor. :dunno:
In some ways I do agree with you, but I've had plenty of friends who have come from disadvantaged families, and none of them have achieved real sucess, as in running their own business, or having a really good job. I've known a lot of people from disadvantaged families because it was always a big priority of my dads that we go to a state school.
Do you really think that if both of your parents are put into total poverty, admittedly due to their own laziness,or stupidity, that the majority of chilldren are going to find their way out of it, or do you not think they're likely to follow their parents into a life of hopelessness?
I think some people have a drive that pushes them out of that cycle, but unfortunately it's rare, but infinitely possible.
I thought you yourself Butterflies came from some disadvantage, and it was only that your Uncle/Aunt/Cousin took you under their wing and gave you some direction and money to play with that you were able to thrive?
I wouldn't say I came from a disadvantaged family. By most standards we were probably pretty much normal, but my aunt and uncle are extremely wealthy and were able to give me the chances that I would never have had off my parents.
My Uncle, who's my Dads brother has tried to help my parents, and tried to buy them houses, or businesses, or just give them money, but my dad has weird attitudes and refused all offers of help. He is very much a Socialist, and resents my uncle for marrying into money.
TBH I don't understand his attitude, and I thnk it is much better to have a good quality of life than cliingng on to some weird attitude. I've even tried myself to offer my parents a better quality of life, but they'd rather live by their principles than accept help. I don't understand it. My dad in particular is hugely biased against money.
-
Only the really dedicated should vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9eHI3ieQk