• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mayor Wants To Publish List Of Local Welfare Recipients

While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
 
maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...
As long as those policies are extended to corporations (who are people now) and include those who benefit from tax expenditures, I'd say you have something there.
 
maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...
Well, we are running a deficit, so that probably puts us all in the "moocher" category.

Dude, you need to move to Somalia and create your envisioned libertarian paradise. You can take Alito, Thomas, and Scalia with ya.
 
maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...

Yes; perhaps they should be required to wear a yellow star on their clothes too, for ease of identification.
 
AthenaAwakened said:
ZiprHead said:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/27/maine-mayor-wants-publish-names-and-addresses-welfare-recipients-online

This person apparently wants to be the next Republican bright star.
Click to expand...

And after he publishes the names, then what?
Click to expand...

Probably masturbate furiously.

- - - Updated - - -

maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...

Underseer is getting wicked good at this.
 
maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare. Those on food stamps, Section 8 housing, aid to dependent children, subsidized health insurance, medicaid, student loans, farm subsidies, utility subsidies, rental assistance, home mortgage deductions, dependency deductions, etc. ought to have their names and source of mooching published.

And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'. (And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...

1) You're hurting the innocent kids.

2) What about those who simply have the same name?
 
maxparrish said:
And anyone who mooches more than they pay in taxes should be identified, and banned from voting. Call it the 'parasitic voter exclusion act'.
Click to expand...
You think that if someone loses their job they should loose their right to vote too? You don't think that might be open to exploitation by employers? Do you have any idea how regressive and disgusting this idea really is? You think LIBERALS are trying to destroy the constitution?
(And while we are at it, perhaps any business who sells to, or union employees who are employed by government, should not be allowed to make political donations).
Click to expand...

Also, I thought money was the same thing as speech??? Are you trying to take freedom of speech away from government employees??? I thought conservatives and libertarians loved freedom???

But let's look at your proposal more closely. You want all of a person's disposable political money to be funnelled into a Union's PAC if they are a union member? Won't that just make the unions stronger if the only political monetary expression you allow union members is to donate to their own union? Union members may stop donating to a myriad of political causes they each independently support with and instead just spend the money they set aside for Green, Libertarian, Republican and Democrat candidates and donate it all to their Union.

But you are right. Everyone who benefits from government action should be excluded from making political donations. But who benefits more from a complete road- infrastructure? Corporations, or consumers? Who benefits more from a functional police service Scrooge McDuck in his mansion or Donald Duck sharing a bed with Goofy in a trailer park? The truth is, EVERYONE garners more benefits from the government's services than the amount they paid in taxes compared to the cost of doing it all by themselves. So, EVERYONE should be blocked from political contributions.

But of course nobody should be using their money to influence government policy anyway. Money in politics always leads to corruption.

End money in politics to reduce corruption.
Thanks for the great suggestion Max.:wave2:
 
maxparrish said:
While his idea might pass muster in some States, no doubt the usual Judicial oracles would have one of their epiphanies and discover some new unwritten Constitutional prohibition. They will decree that democracies are not allowed to identify the names of its moochers.
Click to expand...
Primarily because most courts in the U.S. consider "right to privacy" to be protected under the constitution. The State can no more release the names of welfare recipients than it can release the names of cancer survivors or registered democrats. Aside from the violation of the listed people's right to privacy, it would be laughably easy to demonstrate potential harm in the disclosure as well as possible malicious intent by the state itself.

However, the idea is a good one. Rather than the internet shaming of a baker or pizza chef (the makers), we ought to be shaming those on any form of welfare.
Click to expand...
No, we ought not. Primarily because promoting open and public harassment of people who receive government aid is libelous at best.

More importantly, it's probably a narrow minority of Americans who do not receive ANY of those benefits; student loans would basically list anyone with a college degree under the age of thirty, farm subsidies would list nearly every farmer in the country, and I've heard of entire towns whose populations universally receive some kind of mortgage deduction.

Basically it would be an absurdly long and uninteresting list, the publication of which would accomplish nothing except to make the financial situation of hundreds of millions of people a matter of public record. There's no good reason to do that, except to be an asshole.

And anyone who mooches...
Click to expand...
"Mooching" implies taking advantage of someone else's generosity and offering nothing in return. That is a far cry from the situation of welfare recipients, given that most of the things you listed are benefits being received by people who are, in fact, fully employed and simply aren't being paid enough to make ends meet.

Depriving those people of voting rights purely because they're poor would set a new world record in assholism.
 
Bronzeage said:
...someone is missing a great chance to have a voter registration drive. Just the rumor of such a thing would stop this poor shaming project in it's tracks.
Click to expand...

ksen said:
maxparrish said:
While <snip>
Click to expand...

Underseer is getting wicked good at this.
Click to expand...

ZiprHead said:
The job offers to the welfare recipients will start flowing in.
Click to expand...

Three-way tie for funniest posts in this thread (so far). Tell them what they've won, Johnny!
 
Mayor Wants To Publish List Of Local Welfare Recipients
Click to expand...
Fine, as long it names their employers. Since most welfare recipients now actually work, we'd also have a list of the biggest welfare beneficiaries.

- Wal-Mart

- McDonalds

- (etc)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom