Mother of 3 doesn't work because she's "proudly raping the Government"...

[lspencer534]

As widely known, NY, where the woman claims to reside, can be a haven for people looking to scam the government. In fact, in 2015, the Cato Institute found that the NYS welfare system is more generous than that of Sweden or France.

"In New York, a mother with two children under the age of five who participates in six major welfare programs ... would receive a total benefits package with a value of more than $27,500 per year," reported The New York Post. "New York is much more generous than such well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even Sweden ($22,111)."

In other words, the incentive for getting off government assistance is nowhere in sight, as this Brooklyn "welfare queen" makes painfully clear.

WARNING: NSFW!!! LANGUAGE!

"Got my own s***. Mother of three kids by myself — f*** it — and I don't pay taxes," says the woman in an Obamaphone-type post. "Lick my a**."

"Welfare b**** have more than you, b****! You workin' 9 to 5, b****! You still ain't got s***!" she continues, before bragging about having "Jordans on my feet all day, b****."

"I ain’t working at no cash register, no f***ing Target, no f***ing sneaker store. You can kiss my a** before I stoop that low," the woman continues, finding herself increasingly amusing.

As she brags about "raping the government," the single (crazy, right?) woman curses out the President of the United States, because why not.

"F*** Trump, f*** the government, I’m gonna rape this s*** sittin' on my a***! I’m so gucci!" she says, clearly on a roll now. "The white man can kiss my ***!"

“Respect the f***ing game," she asserts.

SMH: Brooklyn mother of 3 doesn't work because she's "proudly raping the government" MUST SEE - YouTube

[04 commemorative]

What an ass

[Kerrmudgeon]

Too bad she has reproductive capability. Should have been sterilized at puberty.

[mrvette]

Turn her into a farm/field worker....HOW?? easy, remove ALL forms of .gov assistance.......should be done across the board, then the Ca. farmers can quit bitching about a local labor shortage.....

[JRD77VET]

Seems to be a good example of working ( abusing ) the system.

Since it's our money being spent, let's get a couple rule changes.

Drug testing. One positive gets you one month of no benefits. Second gets you removed for one year. Third gets your permanently removed.

Can't take care of your children because you went "hot" on the test? Child Services will remove them until you show income.

Nicotine is known to be harmful. Not only will nicotine products be forbidden to purchased using any government funds, all government assisted housing will be completely smoke free areas. Both inside and on the grounds.

Stores caught accepting government funds for tobacco products will lose the ability to accept government funds.

If you get assistance, you will either work or volunteer a set number of hours a week. Don't show or fail to work to expectations? Lose of assistance.

Harsh? Yes it is but if you the money I worked so hard to EARN that you get for free, you will abide by the rules.

edit--

let's add 69camfrk suggestion of
Add mandatory implant birth control for women on public assistance. I don't like paying for litters of kids.....

and another one

forfeiture of voting rights while on government assistance. Since you're getting all your funds to survive from the government, you should should forfeit voting rights otherwise it would seem your vote was being "bought".

[69camfrk]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

Seems to be a good example of working ( abusing ) the system.

Since it's our money being spent, let's get a couple rule changes.

Drug testing. One positive gets you one month of no benefits. Second gets you removed for one year. Third gets your permanently removed.

Can't take care of your children because you went "hot" on the test? Child Services will remove them until you show income.

Nicotine is known to be harmful. Not only will nicotine products be forbidden to purchased using any government funds, all government assisted housing will be completely smoke free areas. Both inside and on the grounds.

Stores caught accepting government funds for tobacco products will lose the ability to accept government funds.

If you get assistance, you will either work or volunteer a set number of hours a week. Don't show or fail to work to expectations? Lose of assistance.

Harsh? Yes it is but if you the money I worked so hard to EARN that you get for free, you will abide by the rules.

Add mandatory implant birth control for women on public assistance. I don't like paying for litters of kids.....

[OddBall]

Disgusting human being from a disgusting culture brought to you by the Liberal Left.

[JRD77VET]

let's add 69camfrk suggestion of
Add mandatory implant birth control for women on public assistance. I don't like paying for litters of kids.....

and another one

forfeiture of voting rights while on government assistance. Since you're getting all your funds to survive from the government, you should should forfeit voting rights otherwise it would seem your vote was being "bought".

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by 69camfrk

Add mandatory implant birth control for women on public assistance. I don't like paying for litters of kids.....

I think it was New Jersey that seriously floated this idea about 30 or 40 years ago. ACLU killed it.

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

let's add 69camfrk suggestion of
Add mandatory implant birth control for women on public assistance. I don't like paying for litters of kids.....

and another one

forfeiture of voting rights while on government assistance. Since you're getting all your funds to survive from the government, you should should forfeit voting rights otherwise it would seem your vote was being "bought".

On face value that sounds good, but I don't think you want to encroach that far into voting rights. Once you start rationalizing conditions to nullify someones vote, then there will be more and more conditions.
Not being a legal citizen, and being a felon, should be the only reasons to be ineligible to vote. And of course, not being old enough to vote.

[VITE1]

In 1965, 25 percent of black children and 5 percent of white children lived in families with a single mother.
Since 2003, around 50 percent of black children have been raised by unmarried mothers. The comparable rate for whites has sat around 18 to 20 percent since the mid-1990s.
In 1960, just 5 percent of births were to unmarried mothers. That number had reached 41 percent for all races by 2010 and had reached 72 percent for blacks by 2010.

When you reward moronic behavior with Welfare you get more of it. It's time to start limiting all forms of means tested welfare , or better yet get rid of it, and let nature take it's course.

Males raised by single mothers have the highest propensity for crime and is the number one contributor to higher crime rates regardless of race, socioeconomic background or religion.

Most of our current financial, educational and industrial problems can be directly attributed to the Welfare state. And there are many millions of Americans who want to expand it. Idiots.

[WalkerInTN]

At 40 hours per week & 52 weeks, that's over $13 an hour.

[onedef92]

What a piece of work...

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by OddBall

Once you start rationalizing conditions to nullify someones vote, then there will be more and more conditions.

That slope has gone the exact opposite direction throughout the history of the US.

With few exceptions, originally voting was limited to white male land-owners.

I certainly don't agree with the "white" and "male" requirements, but I'm not so sure that the land owner requirement was entirely a bad thing. "Land owner" may not translate all that well into modern times, but the base theory still stands. I personally believe that people who are net takers should not be able to vote. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't pay taxes, you have absolutely no right to make decisions for the rest of us.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by VITE1

When you reward moronic behavior with Welfare you get more of it. It's time to start limiting all forms of means tested welfare , or better yet get rid of it, and let nature take it's course.

THAT, Right there, is what's needed. Just DO IT!
Nobody will starve.

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

That slope has gone the exact opposite direction throughout the history of the US.

With few exceptions, originally voting was limited to white male land-owners.

I certainly don't agree with the "white" and "male" requirements, but I'm not so sure that the land owner requirement was entirely a bad thing. "Land owner" may not translate all that well into modern times, but the base theory still stands. I personally believe that people who are net takers should not be able to vote. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't pay taxes, you have absolutely no right to make decisions for the rest of us.

That statement is not Benjamin Franklin's. It has been incorrectly attributed to Frédéric Bastiat, but it's not his either; although his sentiments are well in line with the quote. Anyway the core of the statement has a hell of a lot of truth to it. And that's why we have checks and balances and a living constitution.

But as tempting as it is, you can't invalidate a vote on condition. Once you do that, you have given that citizen's voting power to the government. Voting will then be a privilege and not a right. And once the conditions start, they don't stop. They will continue to erode away citizen's rights and determine who has the privilege of voting until only a few are allowed to vote. Democracy will be dead at that point, and an aristocracy will have replaced it.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by OddBall

That statement is not Benjamin Franklin's. It has been incorrectly attributed to Frédéric Bastiat, but it's not his either; although his sentiments are well in line with the quote. Anyway the core of the statement has a hell of a lot of truth to it. And that's why we have checks and balances and a living constitution.

Were there conditions placed on voting when this country was founded?

Why?

Originally Posted by OddBall

Democracy will be dead at that point...

The US is not a democracy and voting IS a privilege.

Are those under 18 allowed to vote?

Why not?

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Were there conditions placed on voting when this country was founded?

Why?



The US is not a democracy and voting IS a privilege.

Are those under 18 allowed to vote?

Why not?

Yes. There were US citizens ineligible to vote on the basis of color and sex.

14th amendment established the right to vote. At least for white males 21 and over. (sections 1 and 2)
15th amendment established all men had the right to vote.
19th amendment established all women had the right to vote.
23rd amendment extends the right to vote in the presidential election to folks residing in the District of Columbia
24th amendment prohibits vote conditioning by use of a poll tax
26th amendment set the minimum age to 18. But it is still your right.

The US is a democracy and Voting IS a right.

Also note, that it is a right only to Legal US Citizens. It is not a God-given right to anyone, it is a right granted by this nation to it's citizens.




14th

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

15th

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

26th

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by OddBall

Yes. There were US citizens ineligible to vote on the basis of color and sex.

Ok.

You showed various Amendments to the Constitution. I am very familiar with those and of course I have no argument whatsoever with what they say. However it does not at all address my point of voting requirements when the country was FOUNDED.

The earliest Amendment dealing with voting, the 14th, didn't come about until 1868. Where was it originally stated that citizens of the US had the right to vote? Can you find that in the Constitution?

No you can't, because it is not there. Who was allowed to vote was left as a state issue. The founders of this nation had absolutely zero intention of every person being allowed to vote. In addition to sex and color, you seem to forget that an overwhelming majority of states limited voting to land owners. You are acting as if voting restrictions are some wild new idea that people are trying to push, which is absolutely false.

If it is your stance that "democracy will be dead" if there are restrictions on voters, then it was dead from the moment we started.

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Ok.

You showed various Amendments to the Constitution. I am very familiar with those and of course I have no argument whatsoever with what they say. However it does not at all address my point of voting requirements when the country was FOUNDED.

The earliest Amendment dealing with voting, the 14th, didn't come about until 1868. Where was it originally stated that citizens of the US had the right to vote? Can you find that in the Constitution?

No you can't, because it is not there. Who was allowed to vote was left as a state issue. The founders of this nation had absolutely zero intention of every person being allowed to vote. In addition to sex and color, you seem to forget that an overwhelming majority of states limited voting to land owners. You are acting as if voting restrictions are some wild new idea that people are trying to push, which is absolutely false.

If it is your stance that "democracy will be dead" if there are restrictions on voters, then it was dead from the moment we started.

What point are you trying to make?
What difference does it make of the voting requirements when the country was founded? The later amendments were put in place to guarantee the voting rights of all the citizens, and the constitution as it exist today is what we live by. You have the right to vote now, whether your ancestor had that right or not is irrelevant.

I'm not stating that voting restrictions are a wild new idea, i'm stating that they are a very bad idea. It is damn near the same as identity politics. What that does is hand over to the government the power to assess the value of a citizen and that person's worthiness to vote on whatever criteria it wishes. When the government has that control, then whoever is in power will use that control to suppress votes, as was done before the 14th amendment. That's why those amendments came about, and thank God they did.

You'll notice that I use the term "citizens". That is because the liberal left uses this same argument to try to gain a voting block of illegals. They can emotionally charge the hell out of it, but the fact still remains; illegals aren't citizens. If you allow illegals to vote, then you might as well allow everyone on the planet to vote.


TxAg,
You're right, it is a Constitutional Republic. But the term "Democracy" is easier to wield. I've also heard it as a constitutional federal representative democracy.

And yes, voting is a right that can be thrown away along with your other rights, such as your example of convicts.
I agree with this.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by OddBall

What point are you trying to make?
What difference does it make of the voting requirements when the country was founded?

My point was in the very 1st post that you quoted.

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

"Land owner" may not translate all that well into modern times, but the base theory still stands. I personally believe that people who are net takers should not be able to vote. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't pay taxes, you have absolutely no right to make decisions for the rest of us.

"Pay taxes" was a simplified version while sitting on my phone in a meeting. I do believe that retirees, veterans, disabled who are LEGITIMATELY unable to work (not the I stubbed my toe disability asshats), etc should be allowed to vote as well.

Those who contribute nothing, end up with refunds on taxes they didn't pay to begin with, on welfare, etc... nope. You contribute, you get a vote. You sit on your ass and take, you don't.

You are of course free to disagree.

When the country was founded simply gives precedence and context.