Mayor Wants To Publish List Of Local Welfare Recipients

[Earl IV]

Can we then publish the names of the 1%, their income, taxes paid and number of jobs created?

 

[marc]

Mayor Wants To Publish List Of Local Welfare Recipients

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)

Or if you really want to stop it, add in a requirement to also publish a list of all licensed gun owners, and let the NRA do the rest.

 

[maxparrish]

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?

I don't want to destroy the Constitution, I want to amend it. And yes, if someone loses their job and ends up being a charity case living on the public dole, they are a dependent on others who foot their bill. You don't get a say on how those people spend their money - and you certainly don't get a vote ordering them to spend their money on you.

(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).

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?...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.

Clearly you don't understand the idea, nor note that I said "perhaps" because I am not settled on this particular notion. HOWEVER, I don't find your particular objections to it to be material to the idea.

The idea is not to restrict money for speech, but donations to federal candidates by suppliers of federal goods, services, and labor.

It is well understood that when a person or organization offers something of value to influence the actions of an official or agency for the purposes of direct gain, or contrary to the officials public duty, it is morally (and legally) wrong, i.e.; it is corruption. It's also understood that public officials and agencies cannot have a conflict of interest in it's public business duty to provide for the common good.

There is a conflict of interest when there is a direct and targeted potential quid pro quo benefit for a business or union. So should they be allowed to participate donating to our elected representatives? If a group sells goods, services, or labor to the government, should they be allowed to fully participate in the democratic process?

(To underscore: I am not speaking of any diffuse indirect benefit to the commons, I am speaking of direct benefit - a potential quid pro quo. And if it is unethical for a company CEO or purchasing agent to take cash from a supplier, or for a board member to take donations from a union then should it not be so for government officials (elected or otherwise)?)

And true, money is speech (and/or many other things) and it may be spent to advocate whatever policy or value a person or organization desires. And such advocacy can include support of benefits to the public, or to an industry, or to a particular business or union. BUT money to candidates is funding to support (or influence) another's job (albeit the person being supported uses the money to 'speak' to others.)

So then, should political donations to elected officials from those selling products, services, and labor to government? At the moment, my inclination is to say no. But it is only an inclination.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or if you really want to stop it, add in a requirement to also publish a list of all licensed gun owners, and let the NRA do the rest.

No, no. The gun licenses were used in Red Dawn by the communists to round up the dumber citizens. Put in a requirement to list all unlicensed guns and their owners.

It'll die before the ink dries. never mind that it's an unworkable requirement, the fact that it'll make things easier for the New World Order and Jade Helm 16 will be enough.

 

[ksen]

I don't want to destroy the Constitution, I want to amend it. And yes, if someone loses their job and ends up being a charity case living on the public dole, they are a dependent on others who foot their bill. You don't get a say on how those people spend their money - and you certainly don't get a vote ordering them to spend their money on you.

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

 

[Deepak]

We all form a circle and point at the poor people.

Don't forget the rocks. You can't have a good stoning without rocks.

And here I thought we had progressed enough as a society where we'd only use rotting garbage

 

[Keith&Co.]

And here I thought we had progressed enough as a society where we'd only use rotting garbage

That's why I throw stones and cabbage in the garbage each week, in case I get invited to a rotting-garbage toss.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

Maybe we'll find out tomorrow. Everyone who loses money because of a government shutdown would be included.
Money from programs, direct salaries, retirement pay, contractors, congress, congressional aides, congressional whores, congressional pimps....

 

[maxparrish]

I don't want to destroy the Constitution, I want to amend it. And yes, if someone loses their job and ends up being a charity case living on the public dole, they are a dependent on others who foot their bill. You don't get a say on how those people spend their money - and you certainly don't get a vote ordering them to spend their money on you.

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

If you your are a mooch, you don't get a vote. The firms workers are not a mooch, the firm may be.

 

[Underseer]

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

If you your are a mooch, you don't get a vote. The firms workers are not a mooch, the firm may be.

How can the firms be mooches?

Why do you hate freedom? What's so great about communism? Didn't you get the memo that communism failed? Remember when the wall came down? If you hate capitalism so much, you should move to a communist country like Canada!

Also, liberals are exactly as bad because they don't believe in Jade Helm 15! How delusional is that? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[laughing dog]

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

If you your are a mooch, you don't get a vote. The firms workers are not a mooch, the firm may be.

Max, but the workers are enabling the firm to mooch and earning a living by doing so. How dare they be permitted to vote to allow the mooching to persist?

 

[Bronzeage]

Does that include workers whose firms rely on government contracts to stay in business? What about politicians?

If you your are a mooch, you don't get a vote. The firms workers are not a mooch, the firm may be.

Suppose, I'm a mooch, but I have 5 sons. If I allow my sons to enlist in the military, would I get some kind of franchise?