• 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
What types of welfare? Veterans benefits? Disaster relief aide? Social security? Disability benefits? Student loans? Scholarships? Should we not allow those who drive on public roads to vote because they are receiving a benefit from the government?

State welfare programs..
 
So they are free to vote themselves more money and benefits at the expense of my Liberty....

Some families of military service members are on food stamps. More than a few men and women separate from the military and are unable to find jobs paying a living wage. Far too many Americans, even middle class Americans, are one catastrophe away from needing government assistance. One nasty lingering illness to a family member can far too often does send the family into deep financial water.

Your answer is no doubt that they should get a job or get a better job or get a second job or that they should have saved more money, or should have planned for the unexpected. If it was that easy I have no doubt most of them would have.

Compare the costs and quality of education and healthcare in the US to other western countries. Compare per capita child poverty. After you do all that tell us how the voting poor have had such an unbelievable advantage in spending your "freedom".

It is amazing that you aren't ashamed to have posted what you have.
 
Some families of military service members are on food stamps. More than a few men and women separate from the military and are unable to find jobs paying a living wage. Far too many Americans, even middle class Americans, are one catastrophe away from needing government assistance. One nasty lingering illness to a family member can far too often does send the family into deep financial water.

Your answer is no doubt that they should get a job or get a better job or get a second job or that they should have saved more money, or should have planned for the unexpected. If it was that easy I have no doubt most of them would have.

Compare the costs and quality of education and healthcare in the US to other western countries. Compare per capita child poverty. After you do all that tell us how the voting poor have had such an unbelievable advantage in spending your "freedom".

It is amazing that you aren't ashamed to have posted what you have.

Not at all, it had for everyone, between outsource and mass immigration the American worker is being crushed...

Yes, some of the people they elect do pass laws which violate all of freedoms, that is wrong and fundamental evil that those elected officials do that.
 
There's no poll option for "yes and **** you for asking".
 
No, absolutely not. People on welfare being able to vote typifies the worst aspect of democracy. In fact, I would go much further and say that those who are making minimum wage ought not to vote. Universal suffrage is not the incontestable good that it's made out to be.
 
Yes.The laws our elected officials make effect every citizen in this country regardless if they are welfare of if they are the 1% and if you think only people on welfare vote for their interests then you are mistaken.

But for the right, it's only about money.
 
Not everyone on welfare is abusing the system. Instead of advocating taking their vote away, why don't you demand your representatives to reform the system making it harder to be abused. We don't need 50 programs for the same thing and 25 programs for another. The hundreds of programs need to be consolidated to stop the double dipping. Programs we have had for 40 years which have not produced what they were sold to the people they would do, need to be removed.
 
We did away with property requirements voting, poll taxes and all that nonsense a long time ago. It should stay dead and buried.

Why? You know what we didn't have back then when the vote was limited? A government that collects 50% of the country's income.
 
Not everyone on welfare is abusing the system. Instead of advocating taking their vote away, why don't you demand your representatives to reform the system making it harder to be abused. We don't need 50 programs for the same thing and 25 programs for another. The hundreds of programs need to be consolidated to stop the double dipping. Programs we have had for 40 years which have not produced what they were sold to the people they would do, need to be removed.

It's nothing to do with abuse necessarily. Why should those who have no capital to protect have a say in how the capital of a country is distributed?
 
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.

Should we exclude talk radio listeners too then? I mean if we are going to excluded low info voters, that is a pretty broad net.
 
This question is brought up largely because many conservatives believe people on welfare would just "vote themselves more welfare" and I don't believe that to be true.

You don't believe that to be true? And you provide no argument for that belief? Okay.
 
Not only should those people be allowed to vote on whatever they want, wherever they want, so should everyone! Why should it matter if you've entered the U.S. illegally, or if you're just here for a couple weeks from Japan on vacation, or are a felon, or a member of ISIS, or even if you're only ten years old? Voting is a fundamental right--except for greedy people--and it's high time Americans completely rid themselves of this outdated notion that only those with some skin in the game should be able to vote. We're not living in the days of powdered wigs and muskets, where George Jefferson and Sam Adams and all those other old white slaveowners called the shots.

You're driving through another state and happen to hear about a local water district having an election on some policy that affects farmers in a small valley? Go ahead and just drop in, for the hell of it, and cast your ballot! If the farmers whose crops depend on the outcome don't like you sticking your nose into something that will never affect you one iota, who cares? Or, maybe you're outraged by the fact some other state allows shops to close on Sundays, or allows businesses to refuse service to homosexuals. Just go there on election day and vote--and if the state's residents don't like it, that's just too damned bad. So what if they have to live with the result, and you don't?

I think all of us who know what's best for the common good not only have the right to meddle in other people's lives, but also to vote ourselves a share of whatever they worked to earn. All of us, of course, except for the selfish people who already have grabbed more than they can spend. Those one-percenter facists should forfeit their right to vote. Screw that constatution the teabaggers are always yammering about, and screw that do-nothing congress. We can't let that diddly little crap stand in the way of progress! Let our president just issue a proclamation that no one he decides already has more than his fair share can vote on anything any longer, and that's that.
 
You don't honor living in a democratic society? Why would anyone want the alternative?

It's not as if there is only one alternative to democracy (totalitarianism). There are many systems of government. I just don't understand why I should prefer mob rule (democracy) to the rule of a tyrant (totalitarianism). At least a tyrant would care about securing the long term wealth of the country in order to benefit himself and his descendants. A politician only cares about getting elected and benefiting himself only as long as he is in office, and as such only cares about the short-term, even if it means the detriment of the long-term.
 
It's not as if there is only one alternative to democracy (totalitarianism). There are many systems of government. I just don't understand why I should prefer mob rule (democracy) to the rule of a tyrant (totalitarianism). At least a tyrant would care about securing the long term wealth of the country in order to benefit himself and his descendants. A politician only cares about getting elected and benefiting himself only as long as he is in office, and as such only cares about the short-term, even if it means the detriment of the long-term.

You don't like our system? What would you prefer?
 
It's nothing to do with abuse necessarily. Why should those who have no capital to protect have a say in how the capital of a country is distributed?

because a man's worth is not measured by how much he has. At any day any of us could wake up and discover we lost it all. Stuff happens.
 
because a man's worth is not measured by how much he has. At any day any of us could wake up and discover we lost it all. Stuff happens.

The point is that those with little wealth would prefer to vote themselves more wealth, even to the detriment of the long term health of the country, even though it would be immoral.
 
You don't like our system? What would you prefer?

I personally am a voluntaryist. I support subsidiarity and believe that our current governments are too large and powerful and are actively destroying our wealth and liberties.
 
The point is that those with little wealth would prefer to vote themselves more wealth, even to the detriment of the long term health of the country, even though it would be immoral.

The irony is the opposite is happening.
 
lol voting is not the issue.
Politicians being able to use taxpayer money to hand out to their constituents is. That should be stopped, but you stop it at the source (no taxes), or alternatively you stop it the next step down which is that they cannot use public funds in that way. Doing away with their right to vote, that's like shooting an elephant to to kill a fly on its trunk. It kills the fly, but 6 metric tons of innocent elephant flesh with it :)
 
The irony is the opposite is happening.

pages%20in%20CFR.jpg


"Freedom"
 
Back
Top Bottom