- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,251
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
First off, I have no idea how "folks on welfare vote for welfare". By what mechanism do you think this happens? SNAP is a longstanding social program, going back to 1939. Secondly, those dollars are spent at GROCERY CHAINS, so are those beneficiaries of federal dollars also going to be excluded from "voting on welfare", whatever the hell that means?That is the uncomfortable elephant in the room isn't it though? That people on welfare should not be able to vote on how much welfare they will receive? I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty in determining how that would be implemented, but that is the issue just the same. Those who vote to receive welfare are doing so at the expense of others because it is those others who give up their resources to provide the welfare. Those on welfare only benefit.
This is getting back to the same argument implied by you previously, that if we cut food benefits to households with food insecurity, we will somehow see the creation of jobs. Further, "Able Bodied Adults" receiving SNAP are required to be either employed or in training to receive SNAP. The majority of ABA getting SNAP are employed. I find it draconian that you want to starve and remove franchise from millions of low income US citizens, it is all just so Ayn Rand-ish, but there you are.But I disagree that voting to lower taxes is the same thing. Voting to lower taxes may benefit me, yes, but it also benefits everybody who pays taxes. That is the difference between voting for revision in the tax code as opposed to voting for what others will provide you. Lower taxes may be to the detriment of those on welfare--that has not been shown to be a fact but it is an argument that is made. But it is not at the EXPENSE of those on welfare as those on welfare are not required to provide anything to those paying taxes.