1. #36
    Ernie Mccracken
    Ernie Mccracken's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-11
    Posts: 1,987
    Betpoints: 1316

    Rich or poor shouldn't matter, but it'd be nice if voters knew the first thing about political issues.


  2. #37
    neverstoppers23
    neverstoppers23's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-26-09
    Posts: 6,304

    this idea is so unamerican, i don't quite understand it. with a country so rich as ours, we need to help out the poor and needy, its our duty.

    i am on ssi disablity because i had cancer, 28 hour surgery, not to mention the 5 + surgeries i had after that to fix my spine, can't do anything now, sit for long periods, walk more then a few feet, in constant pain. but under your rules, i can't vote because i get government benefits.

  3. #38
    TheCentaur
    TheCentaur's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-28-11
    Posts: 8,109
    Betpoints: 66

    Quote Originally Posted by neverstoppers23 View Post
    this idea is so unamerican, i don't quite understand it. with a country so rich as ours, we need to help out the poor and needy, its our duty.

    i am on ssi disablity because i had cancer, 28 hour surgery, not to mention the 5 + surgeries i had after that to fix my spine, can't do anything now, sit for long periods, walk more then a few feet, in constant pain. but under your rules, i can't vote because i get government benefits.
    Nope, under my rules you get to vote. SSI disability is usually nontaxable, therefore you pay no tax (0 tax). I am talking about people who complete a tax return to get a full refund PLUS other payments and credits from the government.

  4. #39
    Ernie Mccracken
    Ernie Mccracken's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-11
    Posts: 1,987
    Betpoints: 1316

    Quote Originally Posted by neverstoppers23 View Post
    this idea is so unamerican, i don't quite understand it. with a country so rich as ours, we need to help out the poor and needy, its our duty.

    i am on ssi disablity because i had cancer, 28 hour surgery, not to mention the 5 + surgeries i had after that to fix my spine, can't do anything now, sit for long periods, walk more then a few feet, in constant pain. but under your rules, i can't vote because i get government benefits.

    We need to fix the abuse. Most reasonable people have no issues with ssi/disability, but the abusers ruin it for those in legitimate need. There are neighborhoods in just about every major city where you can drive through during the day and see thousands of people doing absolutely nothing. All they seem to know is gaming the system.

    Photo not at all related


  5. #40
    ChalkyDog
    Buy the ticket, take the ride.
    ChalkyDog's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-02-11
    Posts: 9,599
    Betpoints: 12

    Quote Originally Posted by antifoil View Post
    i am against letting people vote that have an IQ below 115.

    these people aren't smart enough to analysis information and make a reasoned decision.
    I was replying to the first sentence of your OP. They already did.

  6. #41
    HauntingTheHoly
    HauntingTheHoly's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-28-10
    Posts: 1,399
    Betpoints: 327

    Quote Originally Posted by ProfaneReality View Post
    Since these people receiving "hand outs" have it so easy, why not join them ?

    I've never understood why people can't stand seeing others receive help. If it bothers you that much, quit your job, and join the glamorous lifestyle of receiving food stamps and other welfare benefits.

    So where do we draw the line, what if a person worked for 30 years but now is receiving medicare, and on dialysis, and would fall into the category of "drain" and is receiving far more than they ever paid into the system. Do they lose their vote ?

    I'm glad I will never be so miserable that I begrudge people receiving help with my tax dollars.

    You are already receiving more bang for your tax dollar buck than one could imagine, but that's not enough for you, you need to go after EVERYONE receiving help, because of the few examples of exploitation that you've seen.

    I really hope you make over 250k a year, so that you actually have a reason to want to create a greater social and economic divide than there already is. But, like 99% of republicans, you probably don't and vote against your own economic interests.
    Unreal burial.

  7. #42
    hankcream
    hankcream's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 06-30-10
    Posts: 1,288
    Betpoints: 2883

    Totally agree with Centaur on this one and its not a matter of rich vs poor, if you don't contribute to the system you shouldn't have the right. I make just under 6 figures and if you calculate the double taxation and built in taxes on the goods I purchase it's close to a 55% tax rate. Why should some jackwagon who sucks the system dry have the same rights as the people funding the system

  8. #43
    dante1
    dante1's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 10-31-05
    Posts: 30,621
    Betpoints: 168

    Quote Originally Posted by neverstoppers23 View Post
    this idea is so unamerican, i don't quite understand it. with a country so rich as ours, we need to help out the poor and needy, its our duty.

    i am on ssi disablity because i had cancer, 28 hour surgery, not to mention the 5 + surgeries i had after that to fix my spine, can't do anything now, sit for long periods, walk more then a few feet, in constant pain. but under your rules, i can't vote because i get government benefits.

    That is correct, you're a bum and not worthy of a vote.

    It isn't bad enough that the poor and disabled are presently disenfranchised and given little or no concern by the politicians. This guy would like to grind them even further into oblivion by stealing their vote. Great idea the very rich would love this it would only give them more power and maybe they can succeed in monopolizing even more of the wealth than they presently do. I will vote for this, btw I can vote under this new rule.

  9. #44
    TheCentaur
    TheCentaur's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-28-11
    Posts: 8,109
    Betpoints: 66

    Quote Originally Posted by ProfaneReality View Post
    Since these people receiving "hand outs" have it so easy, why not join them ?

    I've never understood why people can't stand seeing others receive help. If it bothers you that much, quit your job, and join the glamorous lifestyle of receiving food stamps and other welfare benefits.

    So where do we draw the line, what if a person worked for 30 years but now is receiving medicare, and on dialysis, and would fall into the category of "drain" and is receiving far more than they ever paid into the system. Do they lose their vote ?

    I'm glad I will never be so miserable that I begrudge people receiving help with my tax dollars.

    You are already receiving more bang for your tax dollar buck than one could imagine, but that's not enough for you, you need to go after EVERYONE receiving help, because of the few examples of exploitation that you've seen.

    I really hope you make over 250k a year, so that you actually have a reason to want to create a greater social and economic divide than there already is. But, like 99% of republicans, you probably don't and vote against your own economic interests.
    Quote Originally Posted by HauntingTheHoly View Post
    Unreal burial.
    Unreal burial huh



    Why not join them you ask? Because I, like many people in this country, have no interest in surviving off of government payments.


    What if a person worked for 30 years and is now receiving medicare blah blah blah? A heart wrenching story that has nothing to do with my original post. Medicare and social security are a type of insurance in which some receive more than what they paid in and some less. They paid in though. If you don't understand what it means to pay less than 0 net income tax for the year you should just not comment.

    You say I can't stand seeing others receiving help and I begrudge people receiving it with my tax dollars. This is typical liberal shortsightedness. It would be great if everyone got everything they needed and everyone was happy and able to raise and support a family, but it doesn't work like that. Trying to force it may not seem destructive now and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling for being such a generous human, but the chain reactions and cycles it perpetuates will be our end and a greater evil than the one you perceive as begrudging people receiving help. To refer to the video earlier in this thread, you would ring the bell for one marshmallow.

    Also, "few examples of exploitation"??? Anyone who has ever been near the system or understands it knows it isn't a few and has become a cultural way of life.

    Go ahead and dance around basking in your warm wishes of generosity as Rome burns, I would rather "miserably" try to put out the fire.

  10. #45
    neverstoppers23
    neverstoppers23's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-26-09
    Posts: 6,304

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie Mccracken View Post
    We need to fix the abuse. Most reasonable people have no issues with ssi/disability, but the abusers ruin it for those in legitimate need. There are neighborhoods in just about every major city where you can drive through during the day and see thousands of people doing absolutely nothing. All they seem to know is gaming the system.

    Photo not at all related




    i agree with you there is some abuse in ssi disability, but at the same time, it takes forever to get on it. it took me. 1.5 years to get it, and my case was clear as it can be. had a 28 hour surgery that took out my whole sacrum basically, nerve damage in leg, pain pills everyday, using a cane to get around. then had 3 more surgeries on my spine, for spinal fusions to fix the spine. but i still got denied the first two times, and then i had to hire an attroney because the next step is going to court. and they make you sign a contract to pay them 25 percent of backpay no matter what.

    what happpend to me was, my case was decided off the bench, only like 1 percent of cases are decided like that, and they only go that way if you had obvious medical condition, and loads of medical records. but i still had to wait 1.5 years, and now they are saying my case is so clear i don't need to see a judge?

    and the wait to see a judge in wisconisn is 1 year,and then you have to wait a few months just to get their ruling. so people who are really desprite for the money are f;d.

    and it seems like people with inside power, and are not truely hurt are the ones who get accepted on the first try.

    my oncologist muskelskelton was telling me about a patient of his who had to loose his leg to cancer, and was still under going chemo, and he still got denied on the first try for ssi.

    but without ssi, and medicaid. i would be in loads of debt. under my mothers plan for presciptions its 25 dollars for generic a month 50 for brand name. under medicaid hmo its 3 dollars and 1 dollars. i am on 8 pills currently now. not only that all my doctor visits, medicaid now will pick up what my mothers insurance doesn't. medicaid to me is just as valuable as the ssi.

    there is a-lot of waste with food stamps, and ssi. but over-all they do help the needy. yes, you can say people are lazy and just don't want to work with food-stamps. but i would rather have people abuse the food stamp system then to not have it at all. a country as rich as ours, needs to do everything in its power to help the needy, and the people who never had the fair chance as others. i don't know what its like to be black, or to be a minority only they do. and there is an heriit disadvantage to them even today in our system. they mostly live in the poorer areas, which means they don't get the best schools or the best teachers. their parents mainly their father is not there, they don't see anyone who has went to college and has set an example for them that education is the best way to get out of the ghetto.

    you are just simplifying the problem way to much.

  11. #46
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 4,571
    Betpoints: 3591

    Quote Originally Posted by HoulihansTX View Post
    What you are recomending would just create more social inequities. In other words, those living in high socioeconomic status would work to make sure those living in lower socioeconomic status' stay there. Creating more glass ceilings, hardships, virtual caste system.
    That's absolutely false. For years only white male landowners were allowed to vote, yet that is the time when the middle class was created, the time America came to be known as the land of opportunity, and we had our greatest economic growth.

  12. #47
    icancount2one
    Let's go NickFolian Dynamite!
    icancount2one's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-05-10
    Posts: 1,507
    Betpoints: 571

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    That's absolutely false. For years only white male landowners were allowed to vote, yet that is the time when the middle class was created, the time America came to be known as the land of opportunity, and we had our greatest economic growth.
    Wrong again. The middle class became the strongest in the 1950s, when women, non land-owners and northern non-whites had the vote.

    Non-coincidentally, the top tax bracket was far higher, and the AFL-CIO was one of the most powerful organizations in the country.

  13. #48
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 4,571
    Betpoints: 3591

    Quote Originally Posted by icancount2one View Post
    Wrong again. The middle class became the strongest in the 1950s, when women, non land-owners and northern non-whites had the vote.

    Non-coincidentally, the top tax bracket was far higher, and the AFL-CIO was one of the most powerful organizations in the country.
    But you're ignoring the trend. The middle class was stronger in the 1950s then it was in the 1920s, and the 1920s had a stronger middle class then the 1880s. But the trend was up, unlike now. Our greatest period of economic growth was actually 1870-1890.

    And as far as the tax rates go, everyones' rates were higher in the 1950s...but the tax burdon is shouldered more by the wealthy now then it was back then, and we had far less social programs back then. In fact, due to many more available loop-holes and writ-offs, it was so common for wealthy people to pay nothing in federal income tax in the 1950s that the government passed a 10% flat tax that only applied to people making inflation adjusted incomes of over $450,000+ a year. We've seen union membership drop in proportion with the regulations put on by the government.

First 12
Top