• 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 people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    120
Why do liberals think tax cuts are welfare? How in the hell is keeping more of what you earn welfare?

Is it a government program that benefits them? Are we not supposed to talk about people voting in their interest, or is that only bad if it's not for Republicans?
 
Is it a government program that benefits them? Are we not supposed to talk about people voting in their interest, or is that only bad if it's not for Republicans?

What are you talking about? A tax cut is the government allowing someone to keep more of their money, while welfare is the government using the tax system to provide people with assistance. I wish liberals like yourself would learn that a tax cut is NOT welfare.
 
Really, insults?

The idea of mobdemocracy deserves to be insulted.

The thread IS about denying people the vote. You post said NOT ONE WORD you did not support it

I'm not sure exactly what that second sentence was intended to mean, however, I voted "other", and stated I can see some merit in the idea.

and you insult me as taking your position out of context.

only because you did. :shrug:
 
What makes you think that the states no longer have a voice in government? That is absurd in the extreme and a denial of simple reality.

simple...... because before the 17th, the senator was the representative of the state legislature, he submitted any legislation he received to vote on to his state legislature, who read the bill and directed him how to vote on it.

all powers per federalism which was established by the constitution, laid powers in the federal government, while all others powers remained with the states, when the federal government creates any legislation which is not part of the delegated powers of congress, then it automatically is steeping into states powers, the states since they controlled the senate had the power to kill any bill which would violate the separation of powers.....keeping a check on federal power, maintaining the states powers, and preventing democracy from taking hold in america.
 
What are you talking about? A tax cut is the government allowing someone to keep more of their money, while welfare is the government using the tax system to provide people with assistance. I wish liberals like yourself would learn that a tax cut is NOT welfare.

So tax cuts isn't using the tax system to help certain groups?
 
simple...... because before the 17th, the senator was the representative of the state legislature, he submitted any legislation he received to vote on to his state legislature, who read the bill and directed him how to vote on it.

all powers per federalism which was established by the constitution, laid powers in the federal government, while all others powers remained with the states, when the federal government creates any legislation which is not part of the delegated powers of congress, then it automatically is steeping into states powers, the states since they controlled the senate had the power to kill any bill which would violate the separation of powers.....keeping a check on federal power, maintaining the states powers, and preventing democracy from taking hold in america.

What a horrible misunderstanding of what happened!

Where in the pre 17th Amendment Constitution were Senators required to send all bills to state legislatures? Where were they required to vote a certain way?
 
you complain that our government has turned into an oligarchy , yet you are not for anything to stop it from happening.

the very thing you are complaining about was stated would happen it democracy ever took over america in federalist 10.......why do you complain, and then refuse to want to correct the problem?

No, some where concerned the majority of people would take over the government. That is not at all the issue. The wealthy have hijacked the political system. That is the issue.
 
So tax cuts isn't using the tax system to help certain groups?

I suppose that can be the intent behind certain tax cuts. It is however still not welfare since the money was merely not taken.
 
I suppose that can be the intent behind certain tax cuts. It is however still not welfare since the money was merely not taken.

So only certain people of a certain income level should be allowed to manipulate the tax system to their benefit?
 
No, some where concerned the majority of people would take over the government. That is not at all the issue. The wealthy have hijacked the political system. That is the issue.

Isn't that the expected outcome though? If you allow people to pit their interests against each other and pension the government for favors sooner or later the party with the most to offer will win.
 
Isn't that the expected outcome though? If you allow people to pit their interests against each other and pension the government for favors sooner or later the party with the most to offer will win.

Most of the forefathers didn't like the idea of political parties.
 
The idea of mobdemocracy deserves to be insulted.



I'm not sure exactly what that second sentence was intended to mean, however, I voted "other", and stated I can see some merit in the idea.



only because you did. :shrug:

We are done here.

There was no need for insults, I made none toward you.

I did not kow you were so arrogant
 
Isn't that the expected outcome though? If you allow people to pit their interests against each other and pension the government for favors sooner or later the party with the most to offer will win.

Now you're just arguing against voting altogether.
 
We are done here.
There was no need for insults, I made none toward you.
I did not kow you were so arrogant

You accused me of fascism and created hyperbolic strawmen. If you do that in the context of reacting emotionally to an imagined position rather than rationally to an actually presented one, I'm going to point that out to you.
 
So only certain people of a certain income level should be allowed to manipulate the tax system to their benefit?

I don't recall ever suggesting anything like that.
 
What a horrible misunderstanding of what happened!

Where in the pre 17th Amendment Constitution were Senators required to send all bills to state legislatures? Where were they required to vote a certain way?


senators received their appointment to the senate by the state legislature.......just like you vote for your congressman he is supposed to be someone who represents you.

the senator was picked by the state legislature, and represents them....

he votes on how his state directs him to vote, if not he would be asked to resign, and will not be reappointed to that position....i know of no senator appointed more then twice in the 18 century.

the senator was picked from among his own legislature, who knows the people of that legislature and the problems of the state....that is what under "mixed government" why the senate is referred to as aristocracy.

the duty of the states is to preserve their state powers , place a check on federal power expansion by knowing and understanding the bills coming before the senate.....and to block the collective captivity of the people in the house.
 
senators received their appointment to the senate by the state legislature.......just like you vote for your congressman he is supposed to be someone who represents you.

the senator was picked by the state legislature, and represents them....

he votes on how his state directs him to vote, if not he would be asked to resign, and will not be reappointed to that position....i know of no senator appointed more then twice in the 18 century.

the senator was picked from among his own legislature, who knows the people of that legislature and the problems of the state....that is what under "mixed government" why the senate is referred to as aristocracy.

the duty of the states is to preserve their state powers , place a check on federal power expansion by knowing and understanding the bills coming before the senate.....and to block the collective captivity of the people in the house.
....and that is when we had Robber Barons. A much cheaper way for them to control the system.
 
Now you're just arguing against voting altogether.

Not really. I'm arguing for a government of limited scope that doesn't heed the peoples call for government action when it reaches beyond the governments set scope. If liberals and conservatives for that matter respected the borders of their control we wouldn't have the situation rabbit described in the first place.
 
I am sure if welfare recipients voted for right wingers you would have no problem with them.

Bad assumption. I would have a problem with them voting no matter what.

That is a irrelevant question. No one would give their pin number to anyone regardless of how trust worthy that person is or isn't.

It's totally relevant. If you don't trust them with your pin number, then why do you trust them with deciding how much of your income is taken, or to decide your rights, or whether you are guilty of a crime.

Using that logic those who support outsourcing shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans and has a negative impact on their pocket book. Those who support Israel shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how we give some our tax dollars to that country.Those who think we should help those in the middle east against ISIS should not be allowed to vote seeing how that will cost us money.Those who want border security should not be allowed to vote seeing how that costs us money.Those who want amnesty should not be allowed to vote seeing how they will effect the wages of Americans who work those jobs. People who want police, fire departments and other infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how those things cost us money.People who want public roads should not be allowed to vote seeing how those things cost us money to build and maintain. I could go on and on about things that cost tax payers money.

Now you're getting it. :) This is why the Founding Fathers so vehemently opposed democracy.
 
The author? He was opposed to that.



Oh, and this quote by him describes minarchism. I don't know if that is what he supported, but that is what it describes none the less.






So true. :( It's sad, but states only ever get more powerful and more oppressive as they age.

Until the next revolution at least partly cleanses them. If history has taught us anything, it is that there will always be a next revolution.
 
Most of the forefathers didn't like the idea of political parties.

How is it a consequence of political parties when both parties are doing the same thing?
 
Nope. You are simply taking the supremely mentally lazy approach of painting your opponents with a broad brush.

Of course it was a broad brush, but they aren't my opponents, and there's almost always an exception for every rule, and on this issue you prove that nicely.
 
No, some where concerned the majority of people would take over the government. That is not at all the issue. The wealthy have hijacked the political system. That is the issue.

that is correct, because power is not divided........then power is divided it makes if more difficult for factious combinations to function.

democracy makes it very easy for faction to operate because power is in 1 central location..Washington ....to lobby......republican government does not, because for faction to operate it must lobby in 2 places Washington and across the states.

under the current system......faction has to lobby 435 in the house 100 in the senate, to get what it wants out of government.....under a republican system faction has to lobby 435 in the house, but 7000 in the state legislatures...across the states, making it more difficult to get what faction wants.
 
People with little aren't the only ones voting their pocketbook. The wealthy do too. Look what the Chamber of Commerce has spent to lobby to legalize undocumented workers? They spend a lot of money for influence so business folks can get cheap labor. They sure don't have the best interest of the country only their profit margin.

I didn't say that only the rich voting was good, but it is certainly better than letting the poor vote money for themselves. The state is a parasite on a productive economy, and a smaller franchise is able to get away with less because a government that represents less of the people will not be tolerated to intrude on the lives of many people.
 
How is it a consequence of political parties when both parties are doing the same thing?

Mainly because both parties are pretty similar with only a very few differences. Instead of people discussing issues they fight about political parties which is so very true. Both major parties are controlled by money and moneyed interest. One party may throw out some crumbs in the hope that stability continues rather than political unrest.
 
Back
Top Bottom