40 Million Americans (12%) Receive SNAP Benefits

[St. Louis Hawk]

No vote if on public assistance

No need to bring farmers and corporate America into this now.

 

[scotchtiger]

Good.

The link also says that snap recipients dropped by 13% with the new work requirements. That is such common sense legislation. It’s shocking the Democrats opposed something so logical that was even championed by Bill Clinton.

 

[MTTiger19]

No vote if on public assistance

This is the answer imo. If you’re on tax payer funded subsidies you get no vote. Why should you?

 

[MTTiger19]

The link also says that snap recipients dropped by 13% with the new work requirements. That is such common sense legislation. It’s shocking the Democrats opposed something so logical that was even championed by Bill Clinton.

They get voted in by giving away tax money that they’ve confiscated from working people. You’re surprised they opposed this?

 

[MTTiger19]

No need to bring farmers and corporate America into this now.

If they’re on welfare, no vote - white, brown, black, lib or conservative - doesn’t matter. No vote.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Folks I have been spending my time on more valuable to me aspects of life like wife , children and grandchildren

You are seeing one of my very limited appearances. But please keep fighting for the right and being right

 

[JWolf74]

Folks I have been spending my time on more valuable to me aspects of life like wife , children and grandchildren

You are seeing one of my very limited appearances. But please keep fighting for the right and being right

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

This is the answer imo. If you’re on tax payer funded subsidies you get no vote. Why should you?

That is a very slippery slope that could have dramatic unintended consequences. Once you say voting rights are governed by wealth what is to stop them from drawing the line in a different place

• Only those with no debt at all can vote
• Only those who own land can vote
• Only those who create jobs / have employees can vote
• Only those from states who are net givers into federal coffers can vote. If you live in a net recipient state (e.g. much of the South) you can’t vote
• And so on and so forth

Seems like pretty bad idea if you ask me. I’m all for getting people off aid, this is not the stick to use.

 

[MTTiger19]

That is a very slippery slope that could have dramatic unintended consequences. Once you say voting rights are governed by wealth what is to stop them from drawing the line in a different place

• Only those with no debt at all can vote
• Only those who own land can vote
• Only those who create jobs / have employees can vote
• Only those from states who are net givers into federal coffers can vote. If you live in a net recipient state (e.g. much of the South) you can’t vote
• And so on and so forth

Seems like pretty bad idea if you ask me. I’m all for getting people off aid, this is not the stick to use.

I disagree. Do you let your 10 year old tell you how to manage your finances at home? Does any sane person manage their personal finances by allowing people that don’t contribute to their finances to tell them how to spend their money.

 

[jimneffer]

I disagree. Do you let your 10 year old tell you how to manage your finances at home? Does any sane person manage their personal finances by allowing people that don’t contribute to their finances to tell them how to spend their money.

so, if individuals who are "net takers" of federal funds would be ineligible to vote, why shouldn't states who are "net takers" also be ineligible?

 

[MTTiger19]

That is a very slippery slope that could have dramatic unintended consequences. Once you say voting rights are governed by wealth what is to stop them from drawing the line in a different place

• Only those with no debt at all can vote
• Only those who own land can vote
• Only those who create jobs / have employees can vote
• Only those from states who are net givers into federal coffers can vote. If you live in a net recipient state (e.g. much of the South) you can’t vote
• And so on and so forth

Seems like pretty bad idea if you ask me. I’m all for getting people off aid, this is not the stick to use.

Speaking of the South, I know you Yankees love punching down. Why is that these dumb southerners can teach their children in public schools to read at about 1/2 the cost yall teach them to be illiterate? How’s that work?

 

[MTTiger19]

so, if individuals who are "net takers" of federal funds would be ineligible to vote, why shouldn't states who are "net takers" also be ineligible?

So now individuals are the same at states. Got it.

 

[jimneffer]

So now individuals are the same at states. Got it.

the same logic would apply. if you aren't a net contributor, why get a say in how things are run?

 

[MTTiger19]

the same logic would apply. if you aren't a net contributor, why get a say in how things are run?

Here. Good grief. There’s major differences between a state and an individual. Just like there’s major differences between men and women.

Defense installations and contracts (often concentrated in specific states for strategic or historical reasons)

Retirement and disability payments (Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits) that follow where retirees live

Disaster relief, agricultural supports, infrastructure, research grants, and Medicaid matching funds

A state can be a “net taker” in a given year because it hosts military bases, has an older population, or received hurricane aid, not because its residents are freeloaders. The ranking also flips depending on whether you count only direct taxes paid or also the economic activity generated by federal dollars.

 

[jimneffer]

Here. Good grief. There’s major differences between a state and an individual. Just like there’s major differences between men and women.

Defense installations and contracts (often concentrated in specific states for strategic or historical reasons)

Retirement and disability payments (Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits) that follow where retirees live

Disaster relief, agricultural supports, infrastructure, research grants, and Medicaid matching funds

A state can be a “net taker” in a given year because it hosts military bases, has an older population, or received hurricane aid, not because its residents are freeloaders. The ranking also flips depending on whether you count only direct taxes paid or also the economic activity generated by federal dollars.

sure. run whatever analysis you want. you can make similar arguments or distinctions for what qualifies an individual as a "taker".

but once we establish that, if we're going to bar "taker" individuals from voting, i think we should also bar "taker" states.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Speaking of the South, I know you Yankees love punching down. Why is that these dumb southerners can teach their children in public schools to read at about 1/2 the cost yall teach them to be illiterate? How’s that work?

Who am I punching down on? I just said many of the net receipient states are in the south - which is factually true.

Using your own logic: since those states are net welfare states why should those states have any say in the union. South Carolina is a net donor state as is mine (Illinois). We give more money to the feds than we receive. Why should we allow people who are taking our tax dollars have a say on how those dollars are used?

Or, we can recognize that the minute we put liimitations on voting rights we create a system where those who have voting rights can manipulate the system to get even more power and disenfranchise those without.

So yeah, your idea...not smart. You can read into that whatever you want about the state of education in your area, but it is possibly more a reflection of your individual mental capacity.

 

[firegiver]

This is the answer imo. If you’re on tax payer funded subsidies you get no vote. Why should you?

Cool so you hate democracy.
I usually find that libertarians and right wingers do. They prefer authoritarianism. But many deny or don't understand that thats what they are arguing for.

 

[scotchtiger]

so, if individuals who are "net takers" of federal funds would be ineligible to vote, why shouldn't states who are "net takers" also be ineligible?

Well, it's the individual "net takers" that create the state dynamic.

Medicaid, rental assistance, child nutrition, CHIP (medicaid for kids), childcare grants and TANF account for 73% of all federal subsidies to states. The VAST majority being for Medicaid. This is money being redirected to the poor. Yes, there a lot of poor people in the south. Many are concentrated in blue counties and districts (ex. look at Jim Clyburn's district in SC). We will happily redistribute these folks if you like.

Federal funding to states/localities	FY2023​
Medicaid	$615.8B​
Federal highway aid	$47.7B​
Rental assistance	$29.6B​
Child nutrition	$29.1B​
Disaster assistance	$23.8B​
Child-care block grants	$22.9B​
Education Stabilization Fund	$19.4B​
Education for disadvantaged students	$17.9B​
CHIP	$17.6B​
TANF	$16.5B​

 

[Rifler]

Well, it's the individual "net takers" that create the state dynamic.

Medicaid, rental assistance, child nutrition, CHIP (medicaid for kids), childcare grants and TANF account for 73% of all federal subsidies to states. The VAST majority being for Medicaid. This is money being redirected to the poor. Yes, there a lot of poor people in the south. Many are concentrated in blue counties and districts (ex. look at Jim Clyburn's district in SC). We will happily redistribute these folks if you like.

Federal funding to states/localities	FY2023​
Medicaid	$615.8B​
Federal highway aid	$47.7B​
Rental assistance	$29.6B​
Child nutrition	$29.1B​
Disaster assistance	$23.8B​
Child-care block grants	$22.9B​
Education Stabilization Fund	$19.4B​
Education for disadvantaged students	$17.9B​
CHIP	$17.6B​
TANF	$16.5B​

So let's cut Medicaid funding by 50% and allow it to be just exorbitant,.. instead of stupidly out of control.

 

[MTTiger19]

So let's cut Medicaid funding by 50% and allow it to be just exorbitant,.. instead of stupidly out of control.

Those are the only options right? Deer lawd.

 

[MTTiger19]

Well, it's the individual "net takers" that create the state dynamic.

Medicaid, rental assistance, child nutrition, CHIP (medicaid for kids), childcare grants and TANF account for 73% of all federal subsidies to states. The VAST majority being for Medicaid. This is money being redirected to the poor. Yes, there a lot of poor people in the south. Many are concentrated in blue counties and districts (ex. look at Jim Clyburn's district in SC). We will happily redistribute these folks if you like.

Federal funding to states/localities	FY2023​
Medicaid	$615.8B​
Federal highway aid	$47.7B​
Rental assistance	$29.6B​
Child nutrition	$29.1B​
Disaster assistance	$23.8B​
Child-care block grants	$22.9B​
Education Stabilization Fund	$19.4B​
Education for disadvantaged students	$17.9B​
CHIP	$17.6B​
TANF	$16.5B ​

 

[MTTiger19]

Well, it's the individual "net takers" that create the state dynamic.

Medicaid, rental assistance, child nutrition, CHIP (medicaid for kids), childcare grants and TANF account for 73% of all federal subsidies to states. The VAST majority being for Medicaid. This is money being redirected to the poor. Yes, there a lot of poor people in the south. Many are concentrated in blue counties and districts (ex. look at Jim Clyburn's district in SC). We will happily redistribute these folks if you like.

Federal funding to states/localities	FY2023​
Medicaid	$615.8B​
Federal highway aid	$47.7B​
Rental assistance	$29.6B​
Child nutrition	$29.1B​
Disaster assistance	$23.8B​
Child-care block grants	$22.9B​
Education Stabilization Fund	$19.4B​
Education for disadvantaged students	$17.9B​
CHIP	$17.6B​
TANF	$16.5B​

The fact that this must be explained is wild. Oh well.

 

[scotchtiger]

Cool so you hate democracy.
I usually find that libertarians and right wingers do. They prefer authoritarianism. But many deny or don't understand that thats what they are arguing for.

I'm not supporting his position. But you have to admit, it's pretty weird for someone to be able to vote to take money for themselves from someone else. That's what entitlement seekers who want higher taxes on earners are doing. I don't have the answer for how to fix it, but that's a problem.

 

[nytigerfan]

I'm not supporting his position. But you have to admit, it's pretty weird for someone to be able to vote to take money for themselves from someone else. That's what entitlement seekers who want higher taxes on earners are doing. I don't have the answer for how to fix it, but that's a problem.

This is exactly why senators and congressional members from welfare states like South Carolina should not be allowed to vote on any bills. Those of us who are bankrolling those ****** welfare states are tired of it, and we feel like we should have more say in what happens in the country. And I don't care which citizens in your state are driving your state to be a welfare state. That's irrelevant. Manage your **** better, and maybe we'll give you a voice again.

I love this idea.

 

[MTTiger19]

Who am I punching down on? I just said many of the net receipient states are in the south - which is factually true.

Using your own logic: since those states are net welfare states why should those states have any say in the union. South Carolina is a net donor state as is mine (Illinois). We give more money to the feds than we receive. Why should we allow people who are taking our tax dollars have a say on how those dollars are used?

Or, we can recognize that the minute we put liimitations on voting rights we create a system where those who have voting rights can manipulate the system to get even more power and disenfranchise those without.

So yeah, your idea...not smart. You can read into that whatever you want about the state of education in your area, but it is possibly more a reflection of your individual mental capacity.

We can agree to disagree I suppose. As you point out I’m too stupid to understand. Good thing people like you are in charge, things are going great.

 

[MTTiger19]

Cool so you hate democracy.
I usually find that libertarians and right wingers do. They prefer authoritarianism. But many deny or don't understand that thats what they are arguing for.

I hate people sitting on their *** collecting checks from people that don’t sit on their ***. I hate seeing 80-90% of HS grads being illiterate in many blue cities. I hate that 51% of the country is on some form of welfare. I hate I need a ID to buy a liquor drink but not to vote. That’s what I hate. I guess I’m a Nazi.

 

[Finance85]

Over 22 million adults ages 25 - 54 are not working. Over 19 million in the same age group are not working by choice.

Unfortunately we don't have statistics for ages 19 - 24, or 56 - 67.

Approximately 91% of adults in the US have graduated from high school or GED.
UNESCO ranks the US 31st in education (through secondary).

The US is ranked 9th in tertiary education at 51%.

 

[SB_SB]

sure. run whatever analysis you want. you can make similar arguments or distinctions for what qualifies an individual as a "taker".

but once we establish that, if we're going to bar "taker" individuals from voting, i think we should also bar "taker" states.

And if a state wants to be able to vote, then they need to step up and provide the resources and money so they're not a taker state. Those poor states can tax their rich and help fund the takers.

 

[baltimorened]

This is exactly why senators and congressional members from welfare states like South Carolina should not be allowed to vote on any bills. Those of us who are bankrolling those ****** welfare states are tired of it, and we feel like we should have more say in what happens in the country. And I don't care which citizens in your state are driving your state to be a welfare state. That's irrelevant. Manage your **** better, and maybe we'll give you a voice again.

I love this idea.

here's a better idea..get the federal govenment of of the distribution business. Cut federal taxes, let the states fund all these programs out of state generated taxes.

Why, just for example is the federal government paying for rental assistance, child care grants CHIP for example? If a state decides to provide rent assistance let them pay for it...

 

[Rastafarian]

I'm not supporting his position. But you have to admit, it's pretty weird for someone to be able to vote to take money for themselves from someone else. That's what entitlement seekers who want higher taxes on earners are doing. I don't have the answer for how to fix it, but that's a problem.

It’s also what the wealthy and corporations do. They want to take our tax dollars and use it to increase their own profitability. look at how Amazon was negotiating massive tax breaks over HQ2.

They also expect our tax dollars to secure their property. Retailers complain about shoplifting. Well, why don’t they spend their own money on more security? Developers are constantly asking for investment by communities. Why do so many communities give tax breaks to sports teams owned by billionaires when they build a new stadium?

Lost tax revenue is no different than entitlement waste IMO. The other day I learned that the increase in the federal deficit is equivalent to the bush and trump tax cuts.

And what sucks is that us people in the middle are the ones constantly getting screwed by both sides.

 

[Rastafarian]

This is exactly why senators and congressional members from welfare states like South Carolina should not be allowed to vote on any bills. Those of us who are bankrolling those ****** welfare states are tired of it, and we feel like we should have more say in what happens in the country. And I don't care which citizens in your state are driving your state to be a welfare state. That's irrelevant. Manage your **** better, and maybe we'll give you a voice again.

I love this idea.

I love that idea too. I have always liked the “small fed govt” approach because it would make donor states like NY and CA even stronger and welfare states like SC weaker.

Let the fed govt focus on defense and interstate commerce, and then allow the states to compete. And we can vote with our feet.

 

[fatpiggy]

I love that idea too. I have always liked the “small fed govt” approach because it would make donor states like NY and CA even stronger and welfare states like SC weaker.

Let the fed govt focus on defense and interstate commerce, and then allow the states to compete. And we can vote with our feet.

Talk dirty to me @Rastafarian . You are closet MAGA you just don't know it.

 

[MTTiger19]

I love that idea too. I have always liked the “small fed govt” approach because it would make donor states like NY and CA even stronger and welfare states like SC weaker.

Let the fed govt focus on defense and interstate commerce, and then allow the states to compete. And we can vote with our feet.

NY and CA are so strong they’re hemorrhaging their tax paying population to places like SC. I’d say people are voting with their feet right now.

 

[nytigerfan]

NY and CA are so strong they’re hemorrhaging their tax paying population to places like SC. I’d say people are voting with their feet right now.

what state do you live in?

 

[firegiver]

The fact that this must be explained is wild. Oh well.

The fact that almost all other western democracies have handled health care costs with social programs and have far less bankruptcies and longer life expectations, is so wild in context to the platitudes splashed up on the wall in here.
Yall's lack of empathy is your super power when it comes to these discussions so I'll appeal to your bottom line. Preventive care is cheaper than hospital visits. Taking away the poors ability to get preventive care, means they will go to hospitals with emergency situations and cost the tax payer even more. Or, you could just kill them. Which I suppose is an option for you but not for Dr's who swore a hippocratic oath.

But hey, I'm sure the super smart folks who blame the poor for all their grievances have this all figured out. Maybe suicide booths?

 

[firegiver]

I hate people sitting on their *** collecting checks from people that don’t sit on their ***. I hate seeing 80-90% of HS grads being illiterate in many blue cities. I hate that 51% of the country is on some form of welfare. I hate I need a ID to buy a liquor drink but not to vote. That’s what I hate. I guess I’m a Nazi.

Then stop falling for political tactics and fund education. Fund the IRS to investigate tax fraud, fund the government to find medicaid, SNAP, SS and medicare fraud.

Because you hating someone abusing the system, is making you blind to the good the system does.

 

[firegiver]

I'm not supporting his position. But you have to admit, it's pretty weird for someone to be able to vote to take money for themselves from someone else. That's what entitlement seekers who want higher taxes on earners are doing. I don't have the answer for how to fix it, but that's a problem.

Right, well isn't that what lobbyists do as a profession? With far greater impact and far greater money on the line??

 

[baltimorened]

Right, well isn't that what lobbyists do as a profession? With far greater impact and far greater money on the line??

what is it exactly that you think lobbyists do? I was one, and I'm trying to reconcile my activities with what you think they are...

 

[Finance85]

here's a better idea..get the federal govenment of of the distribution business. Cut federal taxes, let the states fund all these programs out of state generated taxes.

Why, just for example is the federal government paying for rental assistance, child care grants CHIP for example? If a state decides to provide rent assistance let them pay for it...

This ^

It should be a state function.

 

[SB_SB]

This ^

It should be a state function.

While I agree for the most part, we know what would happen. The Republican states would provide zero assistance other than a bus service to ship poor people to democrat states.