[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Julia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At the core of these issues it seems like people are actually in agreement, but it is the method of implementation that is cause for disagreement. I certainly agree that it is ideal for people to be able to contribute to society and sustain themselves.

Agreed

Is your position that social welfare in its current form (except for public services) is ineffective in solving the problem of poverty? The people receiving this direct assistance will tend to vote to sustain an approach that is ineffective and ultimately not in their long-term best interest. Is it your position that these people should not be allowed to vote because they will perpetuate their own state of poverty on a larger scale as a result?

It is my position that the current system is ineffective, as it creates a dependent and perpetuating class of poverty. The system does work for those who have a disdain for receiving public funds, but accept them because there is no alternative, and continue to work to get away from it, but there are sufficient numbers that don't wish to move away that the system needs reform.

However, like Social Security, there are enough on the system that want it to be sustained and increase their benefits that it becomes politically impossible to make any real change. Thus, one needs to change the political landscape in some way such that reforming and improving these programs is possible.

	If that is your position then what do you think of the role of educating people to vote in their actual long-term best interest? That seems to be the underlying issue, rather than cutting off their access to representation.

Unfortunately, most people don't care what someone else thinks their long term interest is, and no amount of education is going to change their minds. They want their money, and no one had better mess with it. For good and/or bad, the average human being doesn't naturally look at its own life dispassionate and logically.

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you really think they're homeless because some government program didn't have enough money?

do you really think that denying the vote will be incentive enough to encourage a measurable amount of homeless people to setup their own households?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	do you really think that denying the vote will be incentive enough to encourage a measurable amount of homeless people to setup their own households?

No. What I think it would do is create a political climate where real reform and change is possible, because those receiving public assistance wouldn't have the political power to prevent it, and politicians would be paying more attention to those who pay for these programs.

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is my position that the current system is ineffective, as it creates a dependent and perpetuating class of poverty. The system does work for those who have a disdain for receiving public funds, but accept them because there is no alternative, and continue to work to get away from it, but there are sufficient numbers that don't wish to move away that the system needs reform.

if this is true, then it seems the the problem is a matter of perspective, or culture even. maybe we should educate people on the value of working and self-reliance.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, like Social Security, there are enough on the system that want it to be sustained and increase their benefits that it becomes politically impossible to make any real change. Thus, one needs to change the political landscape in some way such that reforming and improving these programs is possible.

what about my education idea?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unfortunately, most people don't care what someone else thinks their long term interest is, and no amount of education is going to change their minds. They want their money, and no one had better mess with it. For good and/or bad, the average human being doesn't naturally look at its own life dispassionate and logically.

so much for my education idea. so, you're not really about helping people change, at all, are you? you can't see that it's in your long-term interest to be selfless and charitable, you just want your money, and nobody better mess with it.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 09:54 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. What I think it would do is create a political climate where real reform and change is possible, because those receiving public assistance wouldn't have the political power to prevent it,

what change? how are you going to effect change? you yourself say no amount of education will change people.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and politicians would be paying more attention to those who pay for these programs.

oh, that change.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if this is true, then it seems the the problem is a matter of perspective, or culture even. maybe we should educate people on the value of working and self-reliance.

I agree that we should. However, people need a motivation in order to be educated. If they are satisfied with their current circumstance, nothing will change.

	what about my education idea?

It lacks a motivational aspect. Those perpetually on welfare are there because it is a comfortable place for them to be. There are already educational materials and opportunities for education and training, but these folks just don't take advantage of them.

	so much for my education idea. so, you're not really about helping people change, at all, are you? you can't see that it's in your long-term interest to be selfless and charitable, you just want your money, and nobody better mess with it.

Not at all. Giving people information and a path is insufficient. Furthermore, the government bureaucrat who would administer the program has no ability to move people into the process.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 12:56 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	what change? how are you going to effect change? you yourself say no amount of education will change people.

Creating motivation. People on welfare assistance should not be comfortable there. They should be motivated, one way or another, to move into a self-sustaining life.

[daydreamer]

^ motivation. i believe education is partly about creating an awareness of alternatives, choices, and those choices create motivation. not the other way around. this is in keeping with the theory of/belief in a democracy, btw.

a simple metaphor: ever ask a 2 year old what they want to eat? get much of an answer? so then, did you try, do you want x to eat? did they say no? did you resort to saying, which do you want to eat, x or y? classic example of the power of choice.

i might point out, giving you "information and a path" - your words - were sufficient to get you out of poverty... sometimes the issue is the information, and the path.

"motivation in order to be educated" such logic sounds on par with the logic behind military draft. people are needed to fight for their country, but they don't necessarily agree, so, let's draft them, and then they'll see... right? i mean, the majority of drafted soldiers, in the end, are thankful for it right? because, having been in combat, they know better than anyone the value of what they were doing, right?

lastly. i dunno who you're hanging out with, apparently, some people who are quite comfortable living on welfare, otherwise where would you get that idea? for pete's sake muzicman, if you're hanging out with them, can't you do something effectual? you're right there !

... i never met someone who was living comfortably, on welfare. ?!?!?!

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	^ motivation. i believe education is partly about creating an awareness of alternatives, choices, and those choices create motivation. not the other way around. this is in keeping with the theory of/belief in a democracy, btw.

Sorry, but unless someone has a motivation to choose the path, they won't.

	a simple metaphor: ever ask a 2 year old what they want to eat? get much of an answer? so then, did you try, do you want x to eat? did they say no? did you resort to saying, which do you want to eat, x or y? classic example of the power of choice.

But if the two year old isn't hungry, they won't choose either.

	i might point out, giving you "information and a path" - your words - were sufficient to get you out of poverty... sometimes the issue is the information, and the path.

No, I was motivated to get out of poverty. I hated being poor.

"motivation in order to be educated" such logic sounds on par with the logic behind military draft. people are needed to fight for their country, but they don't necessarily agree, so, let's draft them, and then they'll see... right? i mean, the majority of drafted soldiers, in the end, are thankful for it right? because, having been in combat, they know better than anyone the value of what they were doing?

That's just silly. The draft doesnt' care whether you agree or not, and it certainly wasn't instituted to make people want to go fight.

	lastly. i dunno who you're hanging out with, apparently, some people who are quite comfortable living on welfare, otherwise where would you get that idea? for pete's sake muzicman, if you're hanging out with them, can't you do something effectual? you're right there !

I do the best I can, but there is a significant mentality resisting change to where they're at. They're comfortable, and that's good enough.

	... i never met someone who was living comfortably, on welfare. ?!?!?!

I know lots of people. One single mom (who IS working to get off welfare) said that she has more food than she knows what to do with. Her apartment rent is paid for, and she has money to cover her other expenses. She's told me that if she didn't really want a particular career, that she could stay on welfare for years.

[darynthe]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just an FYI I did not name this thread. It was split from another thread, and the admin will have to explain him/herself. If you read the OP, the intent is to allow those who pay taxes and don't have their fingers in the public coffers to decide where tax money goes. There are plenty of poor and middle class who receive no government assistance. After thinking for a bit, I would exempt veterans benefits from that statement.

Does the US have Old Age Benefits? In Canada it is an ammount the goverment gives to people over 65 who do not reach a certain threshold of income. You may think of excepting that one too.

However I am not sure I agree with you about the whole issue.

[gwilendiel]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Make a condition of receiving government aid that you give up the right to vote until you're no longer receiving aid. Make all aid optional.

The fact is we are all human beings with rights and to apply limits would be to arbitrarily limit those rights.

Making a choice has nothing to do with it because one cannot judge. Plus there is no precedent.

Also you cannot force somebody to vote.

I suppose I could understand reasons for your question, but I feel any such implementation goes against the establishment. If this were implemented there would likely be war.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 03:03 PM ----------

Also, we all make choices. You CHOOSE to pay taxes. Some people CHOOSE to be able to eat.

Stop choosing to pay taxes and go to jail, and people may stop choosing to eat and then die.

A Hobson's choice is still a choice. There really isn't the difference you are trying to create, IMO

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I was motivated to get out of poverty. I hated being poor.

do you deny that you had choices available to you ? and i'm curious, did you vote during that time? why did you choose the candidates that you did... did you choose bleeding heart liberal candidates that you knew would make more opportunities for you to get a leg up ? you were in college, some of that time right, did you vote for candidates that lowered tuition, made housing affordable for married students, made more educational grants and loans available, changed the interest on student loans and the payback schedule?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's just silly. The draft doesnt' care whether you agree or not, and it certainly wasn't instituted to make people want to go fight.

this is my point exactly. your system is similar. you don't care whether they agree or not, and therefore, it won't motivate people. one of the many reasons your plan is likely not to work better than the plan that is in effect now.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do the best I can,

what do you do for the people on welfare that you know personally? how do you help motivate them?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	but there is a significant mentality resisting change to where they're at. They're comfortable, and that's good enough.

if your plan isn't working with just the people you know, how do you expect it to work nationally?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They're comfortable, and that's good enough.

this is a huge, sweeping, generalization and negative value judgment. is there some way for you to prove to me that those in poverty stay in poverty? numbers won't do it. you can't show me what percentage of the same people who were in poverty 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 years ago, and that they were on welfare that whole time - or can you? which brings another question. how long is too long for you? can you show me that it is due to their lack of motivation, and because they are comfortable? can you tell me how denying the vote will suddenly give them motivation? i still havent read anything about your plan for working on their motivation, apart from denying a vote.

the only motivation i can think of that denying the vote would have, is leverage. you can only have that leverage if there is a threat (like, threat of cutting off services? or doing something they don't want?) so, as a voting member of society, you expect people under threat to also believe that you have their "best" interests in mind? hmm - dilemma.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know lots of people. One single mom (who IS working to get off welfare) said that she has more food than she knows what to do with. Her apartment rent is paid for, and she has money to cover her other expenses. She's told me that if she didn't really want a particular career, that she could stay on welfare for years.

having an apartment paid for, and money for expenses, is not the same thing as being comfortable. but let's say it is... ok she's comfortable... and working to get off welfare... she didn't need your motivation after all. why deny her the vote? since this is someone you actually know, how do you think she'd feel about that? do you think she'd go - "great ! i deserve it ! more motivation for getting off welfare !! because, i didn't already have enough !"

[Nemesis]

Muzicman, speaking of education... what about college and university students who depend on loans to live and continue their education? Surely they're motivated and have the capacity to make informed decisions. Are they deprived of representation like the rest?

I do hope you think carefully about the ramifications of alienating this group before you answer.

[gwilendiel]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Muzicman, speaking of education... what about college and university students who depend on loans to live and continue their education? Surely they're motivated and have the capacity to make informed decisions. Are they deprived of representation like the rest? I do hope you think carefully about the ramifications of alienating this group before you answer.

You bring up a good point. I say if you have to start wondering who to include, that is the sign of a bad idea, when it comes to voting.

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But if the two year old isn't hungry, they won't choose either.

but even if the two year old is hungry, you won't get a yes, agreement, unless you ask the question in the right way - by presenting choices. my outlook is positive, and my approach positive and pro-active, and has a plan to succeed. yours is negative, and as such you have no plan to succeed at all, but you want to dole out punishment. and you claim that the punishment will motivate a positive change... you are so sure the answer is no! before you ask the question, you refuse to see there might be a problem with the way you're going about it.

if you were to suddenly find yourself in the position of being helpless with regard to where your next meal might come from, which 'babysitter' would you prefer? the positive or negative one?

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do hope you think carefully about the ramifications of alienating this group before you answer.

Alienation is the point. Removing the vote from a given population makes it easier for politicians to do things that alienate them with less fear of retaliation. That is the entire reason why people on public assistance should be deprived of the vote: so that they will not inconveniently interfere in the policies that we make concerning them.

Any resemblance between a sheep and two wolves voting on dinner is entirely coincidental.

[dofe]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Alienation is the point. Removing the vote from a given population makes it easier for politicians to do things that alienate them with less fear of retaliation. That is the entire reason why people on public assistance should be deprived of the vote: so that they will not inconveniently interfere in the policies that we make concerning them. Any resemblance between a sheep and two wolves voting on dinner is entirely coincidental.

Under that reasoning, why not take away the vote to corporate executives so that our politicians have an easier time alienating them with less fear of retaliation? This way they will not "inconveniently interfere" in the policies that we make concerning them.

While we're at it, why not take away the vote from soldiers so that our politicians don't have to worry about their interference with national defense decisions? Why not take away the vote from doctors so that they don't interfere with national health care issues?

You see were I'm getting at, hopefully. The entire point of a democratic system is that those who will be affected by government decisions will have a say in the outcome. Taking away the vote for certain segments of the population may seem attractive until you happen to find yourself in that segment.

[Storm]

So, this is confusing. Obviously, everyone pays taxes, but only people who pay a "sufficient" amount should get to vote?

Setting the purpose of rights and a democracy aside, let's think about whether or not denying people who receive directed aid the right to vote would actually result in the elimination of these programs. On the one hand, the poor vote in much smaller numbers than the rich. On the other hand, if you had to buy the right to vote, you'd create an incentive to pass laws making it harder and harder to vote. Bad idea.

If you want to eliminate aid programs, you should be petitioning your government to do so. That's how it works. It's slow and sometimes you don't get what you want, but that's what having a government of the people mean.

[gwilendiel]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Alienation is the point. Removing the vote from a given population makes it easier for politicians to do things that alienate them with less fear of retaliation. That is the entire reason why people on public assistance should be deprived of the vote: so that they will not inconveniently interfere in the policies that we make concerning them. Any resemblance between a sheep and two wolves voting on dinner is entirely coincidental.

Also keep in mind that people other than the ones targeted may disagree. You'd have to get a vote to remove the votes, and the people who you sought to remove them from won't be the only ones voting against.

I say it'd never happen, and if you make it happen, it would be totalitarian and therefore pointless to have votes.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also keep in mind that people other than the ones targeted may disagree. You'd have to get a vote to remove the votes, and the people who you sought to remove them from won't be the only ones voting against.

That's where the demonizing comes in; all you have to do is convince enough people that the population to be disenfranchised is a) not them, and b) made up of undesirable people, such as those that are fat and lazy.

	Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I say it'd never happen, and if you make it happen, it would be totalitarian and therefore pointless to have votes.

And?

The problem with democracy is that it leaves far too much wiggle room for people to do things that I don't like. Creating a large permanent underclass that is dependent on my mercy for its survival is a good start along the path to making sure that the lesser orders dance to my tune.

[gwilendiel]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem with democracy is that it leaves far too much wiggle room for people to do things that I don't like. Creating a large permanent underclass that is dependent on my mercy for its survival is a good start along the path to making sure that the lesser orders dance to my tune.

I hope that's a joke.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If not, just remember. That's what starts wars and revolutions. If, hypothetically, you were such a leader, you'd have to watch your back to make sure a knife (or bullet) isn't stuck through it.

If you want to force people to dance, you've got to have the guns to back it up, and the guts to realize the people might actually kill you (or at least throw you into prison)

[Aronnax]

Why stop at federal aid, Why not tax level? Following that same line of logic the members of society that generate the largest amount of tax revenue should have the most say in how Government is run.

Therefore the top 5% of all earners should control enough votes that they hold majority in all federal elections. What could possibly go wrong?

[JohnDoe]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, this is confusing. Obviously, everyone pays taxes, but only people who pay a "sufficient" amount should get to vote?

This isn't obvious to me. A large number of people pay no income tax.

Setting the purpose of rights and a democracy aside, let's think about whether or not denying people who receive directed aid the right to vote would actually result in the elimination of these programs. On the one hand, the poor vote in much smaller numbers than the rich. On the other hand, if you had to buy the right to vote, you'd create an incentive to pass laws making it harder and harder to vote. Bad idea. If you want to eliminate aid programs, you should be petitioning your government to do so. That's how it works. It's slow and sometimes you don't get what you want, but that's what having a government of the people mean.

The problem with democracy is there is a great tendency for the majority to create policies at the expense of the minority. Its popular to tax the shit out of the upper 30% of the population because the other 70% benefits. If it is right or even economically the best idea is an entirely different question. Democracy rarely works. Having said that, I think it may be the least bad of all of the alternatives
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. What I think it would do is create a political climate where real reform and change is possible, because those receiving public assistance wouldn't have the political power to prevent it, and politicians would be paying more attention to those who pay for these programs.

Are you seriously suggesting that the problem today is that the government pays too much attention to all those welfare voters, and not enough to all the wealthy people? (Even though your statement was in response to a question about homeless people, I'm assuming you know homeless people can't vote.) There are very few targets as cheap and easy for politicians to take shots at than people on public assistance. Reagan's completely fictional "welfare queen," for example.

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2) The current financial crisis began as liberals (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) created demand for bad loans by requiring banks to write a certain percentage of loans that they wouldn't otherwise write, requiring them to take on more bad debts as they increased the number of mortgages written (see the Community Reinvestment Act of 1994.) This created a market for creating these mortgages so they could be sold to banks who needed them.

There's so much wrong with these two statements I don't even know where to start. Suffice it to say that most economists trace the roots of the current financial crisis to the lack of oversight of financial instruments outlined by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999. In fairness, I agree that a mandate to underwrite bad debt was not helpful - there's no shortage of blame to go around. But it certainly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and the politicians in no way did this to help the less fortunate. They did it to help finance and the real estate industry. Bush says so directly in his speech. (By the way, Bush gave the speech linked to about his campaign to extend lending in May 2002; the first five-year arms offered under this expanded lending mandates expired in 2007, starting the wave of foreclosures, with more to follow. I imagine he thought he'd be out of office by the time he might have to deal with it.)

	Originally Posted by Architectonic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So all of those people who work for corporations that receive government aid or protection - including contracts or subsidies, intellectual property laws, licensing etc should give up their vote?

Yeah, still no word on that - corporations can't vote, but if the corporations still exist because of the U.S. government, shouldn't their employees be excluded from voting, too? Don't they have an incentive to vote to continue to receive the billions of dollars in corporate welfare they benefit directly from every year? What about farmers? Without U.S. government subsidies, there would be no such thing as a family farmer anymore, don't they have a incentive to keep that tap flowing?

98% of the people who benefit directly from the federal government live under the complete delusion that they receive nothing from the government at all. They take government assistance with one hand and knit their "government isn't the solution, it's the problem" doily with the other.

[dofe]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	98% of the people who benefit directly from the federal government live under the complete delusion that they receive nothing from the government at all. They take government assistance with one hand and knit their "government isn't the solution, it's the problem" doily with the other.

Thank you for putting that so succinctly. To add to your post, the US tax code offers the wealthy numerous tax loopholes that are simply not available to middle class taxpayers. Like Warren Buffet (second wealthiest man in the world) himself has noted, the tax code is somewhat unfair when his real tax rate is 17% whereas his employees pay 30%.

Until I studied taxation law, I had no idea how much "government assistance" the wealthiest actually received. It was certainly eye-opening.

[SShack]

Not to mention everybody who works for the government. Doesn't that count as public assistance?

Actually ... as a libertarian I'd love it if people who worked for the government couldn't vote. Though, realistically, much of the spending themuzicman likely objects to probably is not subjected to any sort of real vote in the first place, so this solution won't actually fix anything. This bureaucratic juggernaut is not going to be affected whatsoever from taking voting rights away from folks on welfare.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Make a condition of receiving government aid that you give up the right to vote until you're no longer receiving aid. Make all aid optional.

No.

That's just silly.