- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Losing your vote if on welfare would be a good inducement to get off welfare don't you think?
I think that for many people it isn't a CHOICE.
Losing your vote if on welfare would be a good inducement to get off welfare don't you think?
I don't respond to post that call me amputated dick skin either!:lol:
Are you positive that was their intent? Did they intend property owners because they were property owners, or did they intend property owners because property owners were the primary taxpayers supporting the government?Actually that is precisely the topic. If you don't pay fed taxes maybe you shouldn't vote in fed elections. That is in keeping with the founders original intent.
If you buy a gallon of gasoline, you've paid federal tax. There you go.Paying fed tax should be part of deciding who can vote in fed elections. In my "perfect vote" world if you are in the military you get the vote even if under 21. Serving your country is the ultimate rite of passage that should guarantee the ultimate right to vote.
Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - unknown
If you are receiving welfare, unemployment, food-stamps, an Obama phone, etc. then you don’t get to vote.
People receiving social security, Medicare and veteran benefits are exempt from this.
No. To be honest, I'd bet the percentage of people on welfare who vote is fairly small.Losing your vote if on welfare would be a good inducement to get off welfare don't you think?
The average American citizen, even if they don't pay a net loss to income tax, still pays social security tax, sales tax, excise taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on telecommunications, and all sorts of other ones. Unwieldly? Yeah. Of course. But the notion that anyone who isn't paying income tax, or doesn't own property, is getting a "free ride" is moronic to the Nth degree.
Now that I think of it, a lot of you would probably fit the bill of belonging to a fringe group since you want to remove rights from citizens.
We already do suspend or terminate rights of adult citizens when they prove (legally) to be incapable of managing their own adult affairs. They're assigned public guardians who take over their adult decision-making authority.
That is an astounding thing to claim. How can anyone live in our society without paying some tax when most simple purchases are subject to sales taxes?
That is done on a case by case basis.
I think that for many people it isn't a CHOICE.
Income taxes?:roll:
You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.There are libs pushing for HS students under 18 getting the vote, it just gets worse and worse.
High-schoolers deserve the right to vote | The Forest Lake Times
Poor people in America are MORE likely to be obese. err... no. Here in the U.S. we have a wide gap, sure; but that is not because our poor are so poor, it is because our wealthy are so wealthy. The size of the gap itself is irrelevant. I'll talk about healthcare in Europe, sure. We can talk about the fact that the creation of a single-payer healthcare system causes that single entitlement to dominate and explode government spending until dramatic cuts are forced due to fiscal crises. We can talk about how the American system (thus far, as deeply flawed as it is) produces better survival rates for people with serious illness such as cancer, probably due to the fact that Americans have more consistent access to better treatment for chronic diseases. For a single example, of Americans with Schizophrenia, 60% receive the latest generation of medication - compared to 10% of Germans and 20% of Spaniards. And Europeans still end up paying significant out-of-pocket costs, because the movement on that continent is towards introducing market reforms, not towards increasing government expenditure. Go ahead and bring up the WHO report, which gives us low grades for "fairness" and "equitability" :roll: I'll just point out that the same report lists America #1 at "responsiveness to patients’ needs". :roll: the trust fund rich. 85% of America's millionaires didn't inherit their money - they are first generation rich, mostly successful small business owners. And democrats do make it explicit that they view their support for wealth-transfer programs as an electoral advantage. Yeah... when I look at "who has class" in this society, I see that 85% of America's millionaires are self-made, mostly small business owners, and that the vast majority of our poor have become not just dependent, but developed a sense of entitlement towards that dependency. You can get classless wealthy people, sure; money just makes us better able to express what we already are. But when people point out that the left in this country benefits electorally from having the government encourage destructive behavior, they are absolutely correct.
So is the examination of eligibility for welfare and related public assistance programs.
Are you positive that was their intent? Did they intend property owners because they were property owners, or did they intend property owners because property owners were the primary taxpayers supporting the government?
If the latter, which I suspect is the case... in part because "no taxation without representation" was a popular mantra of the day... then the concept expanded every time the federal government instituted a new tax.
If you buy a gallon of gasoline, you've paid federal tax. There you go.
Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.
Why (automatically) food stamps? For many it's merely a supplement for people who have low-paying jobs and still otherwise pay taxes.
No. To be honest, I'd bet the percentage of people on welfare who vote is fairly small.
You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.
"Most 16- and 17-year-olds (80 percent, according to one survey) work at some point before they graduate. This means they pay income taxes. Paying taxes without a say in how the money is spent is a gross injustice. The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that people should not be taxed if they are not fairly represented in government."
I have no idea why you tag them as "liberals," as their agenda is very specific and seems non-partisan to me -- lower the drinking age, lower the voting age and eliminate curfews.
Maybe you should change it from the GOP to the GOMLP -- the "Get Off My Lawn Party."
Statements like these are precisely why suffrage should be universal.What I would propose if I had the power would be to go back to the original voting law cited in the OP and start from there. First off I would reinstate the vote for blacks and women, that's a no brainer. After that I would consider age, education and contribution to society factors. Where exactly it would end up I'm not sure but I am sure welfare recipients would not get to vote.
You know what cracks me up about your outrage over this? The high schoolers are using exactly the same rationale as you, just to establish their right to vote.
"Most 16- and 17-year-olds (80 percent, according to one survey) work at some point before they graduate. This means they pay income taxes. Paying taxes without a say in how the money is spent is a gross injustice. The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise that people should not be taxed if they are not fairly represented in government."
I have no idea why you tag them as "liberals," as their agenda is very specific and seems non-partisan to me -- lower the drinking age, lower the voting age and eliminate curfews.
Maybe you should change it from the GOP to the GOMLP -- the "Get Off My Lawn Party."
Statements like these are precisely why suffrage should be universal.
You don't get to pick and choose who gets to vote, based on your own assumptions of how those people are going to vote. First you'll disenfranchise TANF recipients, then SNAP recipients, then anyone below the poverty level, then anyone whose income is 50% greater than the poverty level, then anyone who live in cities who tend to vote for Democrats....
And again: The sad thing is that what motivates you is that conservatives and Republicans have no interest in representing the poor, let alone helping them deal with poverty. You might make a good case that an improperly designed safety net results in welfare traps. However, those goals clash with the obviously punitive desire to curtail their rights.
I.e. if you want disadvantaged people to start voting for you, why not stop bashing them like they're subhuman, and figure out policies that can help them deal with or climb out of poverty?
I don't know whether to :roll: or :lol:.Paying a gas tax is for roads. IMO paying an income tax that funds things like a standing army would be a better indication as to if you are contributing to America or leeching from America.
People who are collecting services are not usually mentally challenged. We have social security disability for such things. Welfare is for people who have children and can't work for whatever reason. Maybe they were collecting unemployment benefits and ran out and still can't find a job because the economy is still terrible as far as getting a job goes?
So who determines who is a capable voter and who is not? There will be a test I assume? :roll: God, that even sounds stupid. If this was ever allowed to happen, the government would stripping rights from citizens left and right.
You don't pay fed taxes until you reach a certain income level. Working after school flipping burgers does not reach that threshold, you get virtually all your taxes back. To be a tax payer worthy of voting you should be a net contributor which a very large portion of this society is not. 47% of America pays no income tax and they should not vote until they do.
Why unemployment? Even though submitted by your previous employer(s), it was still a part of the cost of your overall compensation. Hence, you did pay into it yourself.
Why (automatically) food stamps? For many it's merely a supplement for people who have low-paying jobs and still otherwise pay taxes.
I'm not saying you have to be employed to be able to vote. I am saying voting should be commensurate with how independently you manage your own life and affairs. You can be independently broke as hell (meaning your in a **** situation but you're not accepting a status a dependence on the collective), and these people should get a full vote. Some people who accept dependence are only accepting, say, maybe 10% dependence (i.e. they still pay for 90% of their own stuff and manage 90% of their own affairs), and these folks should therefore get 9/10ths of of one vote.
Government administers these welfare programs, and welfare programs are not rights, they're entitlements. Applying for welfare is an act of saying "I can't do it on my own right now, I need to depend on the collective to get by right now," which is akin to a partial reversion to the dependency of being a minor. Minors have rights too, but not the same ones as independent adults, and for good reason. To be consistent, reversion to a status of dependency should be commensurate with reduced rights. That's what being a dependent is all about. That should extend to voting. We don't let minors participate fully in democratic process and for good and obvious reason. Not giving societal dependents full voting power makes total sense too, as a most basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury.
No kidding, what you're missing is that voting IS a right, not to be removed by government force due to arbitrary reasons.
It's not arbitrary, and every other right we have can also be suspended or even terminated by government for valid reasons (and via due process). This would be right along those same lines.