• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should welfare recipients be allowed to vote?[W:84]

Should those on welfare or any federal aid be allowed to vote?

  • Yes. Absolutely.

    Votes: 58 77.3%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 17.3%

  • Other?

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Total voters
    75
Gipper said:
Gonna take a long shot and say that felons don't put "future voting rights" as a criterion for whether they commit a crime or not.
Click to expand...

they may not literally, but the fact that the commit them anyway is as good as signing them away
 
Wouldn't it be funny if they had a "true/false" test that required a passing grade of 70% in order to allow the person to qualify to vote:

1. Obama is not an American citizen t/f?
2. Obama is coming for your guns. t/f?
3. Obama is a closet Muslim in secret alliance with Al-Queda. t/f?
4. All poor people are qualified for an "Obama-phone." t/f?
5. America was founded to be a Christian nation. t/f?
6. Liberals and democrats are determined to kill as many babies as possible. t/f?
7. The GOP cares about the middle class as much as they do the upper richer classes? t/f?

..... and so on...
 
No. Because those on welfare will vote for whoever promises big welfare and politicians will start a vicious cycle of big welfare-elections-big welfare.
 
Rocketman said:
I disagree, felons commit crimes knowing they will lose their voting privileges if caught and they do them anyway, in essence they sign off on losing them.
Click to expand...

When someone is punished and they serve their time, the slate needs to be wiped clean. At that point it is over and should no longer be used against them.
 
Kreton said:
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I like Michael Savage but he is wrong on this issue. Elected officials do not just spend tax dollars they also enact laws that effect every citizen. I do understand his point, people are always way too happy and eager to spend tax dollars that they didn't contribute to.
 
Kreton said:
When someone is punished and they serve their time, the slate needs to be wiped clean. At that point it is over and should no longer be used against them.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it is no different than a career that requires a good resume, this is their resume of life.
 
jamesrage said:
I like Michael Savage but he is wrong on this issue. Elected officials do not just spend tax dollars they also enact laws that effect every citizen. I do understand his point, people are always way too happy and eager to spend tax dollars that they didn't contribute to.
Click to expand...

Granted I only heard a small part of one of his shows, but the game seems like an extremist who seems to think only the rich matter. I am not sure what there is to like.
 
Kreton said:
Granted I only heard a small part of one of his shows, but the game seems like an extremist who seems to think only the rich matter. I am not sure what there is to like.
Click to expand...

Its not an issue of thinking that only the rich should should be allowed to vote. Its an issue of whether or not those who do not contribute federal tax dollars should be allowed to decide how those federal tax dollars are spent.Its like your neighbor telling you what kind of meat you can buy, or the bum in downtown telling you that you can not buy a tv. Liberals will generally ignore this fact and spin it as a you hate the poor or want to deny the poor the right to vote. This issue has come up multiple times through out the years on DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ople-pay-more-income-tax-have-more-votes.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...xes-have-right-dictate-much-others-pay-8.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...9-should-those-pay-no-taxes-allowed-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/173743-only-property-owners-should-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ld-people-pay-no-income-tax-allowed-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/45135-should-voting-limited-americans-pay-income-tax.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...e-welfare-you-should-not-have-right-vote.html
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Its not an issue of thinking that only the rich should should be allowed to vote. Its an issue of whether or not those who do not contribute federal tax dollars should be allowed to decide how those federal tax dollars are spent. Liberals will generally ignore this fact and spin it as a you hate the poor or want to deny the poor the right to vote. This issue has come up multiple times through out the years on DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ople-pay-more-income-tax-have-more-votes.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...xes-have-right-dictate-much-others-pay-8.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...9-should-those-pay-no-taxes-allowed-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/173743-only-property-owners-should-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ld-people-pay-no-income-tax-allowed-vote.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/45135-should-voting-limited-americans-pay-income-tax.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...e-welfare-you-should-not-have-right-vote.html
Click to expand...

Income should not be a requirement in order to vote
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Income should not be a requirement in order to vote
Click to expand...

I agree.Elected officials do not do just spending issues.They also create or abolish laws that effect every citizen regardless if they do or do not earn income.
 
jamesrage said:
I agree.Elected officials do not do just spending issues.
Click to expand...
With only 97 days scheduled to work before the elections, the House will do even less than ever, their stated goal.
Cantor began the year with a blank sheet of paper, to represent what is between the GOP ears.
Who are the true welfare recipients in our Nation--try Congress .
 
Voter suppression backed by citizens divided--a lethal duo to freedom-loving Americans .
 
NIMBY said:
Voter suppression backed by citizens divided--a lethal duo to freedom-loving Americans .
Click to expand...

You are not a free speech proponent?
 
scatt said:
Misspeaking is your own fault. A representative, who is a congressman, cannot vote himself/herself a pay raise. A senator can though, sure.
Click to expand...

LOL Representative pay raises don't take effect until after elections. That does not mean they won't get reelected and so they can indeed vote for their own pay raises.
 
iguanaman said:
Representative pay raises don't take effect until after elections. That does not mean they won't get reelected and so they can indeed vote for their own pay raises.
Click to expand...

They are raising the pay of the elected representatives. They are not elected yet....
 
Neomalthusian said:
No, independents have more rights/responsibilities than dependents.
Click to expand...

Then so do the wealthy. They are more equal than others too by your measure. Millionaires should get 100 votes, billionaires 1000 votes.
None of it makes a bit of sense.
 
Tigger said:
The two highlighted ones are definite conflicts of interest
Click to expand...
They are all conflicts of interest. Your arbitrary definition is pointless, the voting process is completely marked by self-interest.

LOL. THEY are the ones who have kicked society in the teeth, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
So it's my girlfriend's fault no one would hire her full-time for four months after graduating from Louisville because she has a Master's degree and employers considered her over-qualified? That's nonsense. That wasn't her fault (and luckily she was able to get a part time job and live with her parents), but if she had gone on government assistence, she wouldn't have kicked anyone in the teeth, she would have been kicked in the teeth by society. Your position is incredibly insensitive and rather out of touch with reality. You seem to think a sustaining job exists for everyone who wants one. It doesn't.
 
iguanaman said:
Then so do the wealthy. They are more equal than others too by your measure. Millionaires should get 100 votes, billionaires 1000 votes.

None of it makes a bit of sense.
Click to expand...

It made sense before you let loose with that little gem. If you had read and understood my previous post, you would see nothing to indicate that votes be weighted according to wealth. Someone could be completely broke but still retain a fully weighted vote. No one would get a vote weighted above 1.00.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It made sense before you let loose with that little gem. If you had read and understood my previous post, you would see nothing to indicate that votes be weighted according to wealth. Someone could be completely broke but still retain a fully weighted vote.
Click to expand...

Because every one should have a equal right to vote
 
Anyone who does not accept the universal right of adult citizens to vote should be the first to give up that right.

So these right-wing extremists who want to deprive poor people the right to vote, particularly poor people of color, should be first in line to give it up themselves.
 
Phys251 said:
Anyone who does not accept the universal right of adult citizens to vote should be the first to give up that right.

So these right-wing extremists who want to deprive poor people the right to vote, particularly poor people of color, should be first in line to give it up themselves.
Click to expand...

Calling most people of color poor is racist. You must be a democrat.
 
scatt said:
Calling most people of color poor is racist.
Click to expand...

That is a blatantly false statement and a red herring. Why should I take you seriously when you can't even properly interpret a written sentence?

You must be a democrat.
Click to expand...

And "Democrat" is a proper noun.

Besides, you imply that you know quite a bit about racism and poverty. Care to elaborate? I'm always open to new ideas, so long as they pass the sanity test.
 
Phys251 said:
That is a blatantly false statement and a red herring.

And "Democrat" is a proper noun.
Click to expand...

It is not racist?

To you it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom