• 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
False.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Nay votes: Democrats-17 Republicans-2.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Nay Votes: Democrats-96 (39%) Republicans- 34 (20%)

And so on. You really need to vet your sources better, or stop reading into them "facts" that simple aren't there.

You're not going to deny the democratic initiative of the civil rights act!!

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[9][10] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
 
....and that is when we had Robber Barons. A much cheaper way for them to control the system.

tell me, if you have corruption..which will always exist......where would you want it......on a national level or state level?

government which is closer to the people is more responsive to the people, easier to control, and root out corruption then it is on a national level.
 
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.
Yeah, the Robber Barons showed us:2razz:
 
Yeah, the Robber Barons showed us:2razz:

so your are going to complaint the rich and powerful control government...yet you want to do nothing about it, and continue with what we have...even though americans have been warned by the founders over 200 years ago.
 
Because not all issues dealing with government deal strictly with taxes. There are so many other issues that are involved that affect peoples lives whether they are welfare recipients or not. Take the NSA/Patriot Act, for example. Are you saying that a law abiding U.S. citizen who happens to be on welfare but uses a computer at a public library would not be subject to having their online activity monitored by the NSA? I think not. Remember: It's not just about personal cell phone use.

Take the partisan, anti-government, anti-tax blinders off for a second and think this one through.

If people did not vote for the people who voted for that act, then they might be a little more outrage about this spying being forced on them without their consent.
 
Well, the thread IS about denying people the vote and you seem to support that as a means to fix the problem.

I did not take your post out of context, nor did I sideline it.

I remain steadfast, the vote is sacrosanct. We have talked before about the American system. It is indeed ****ed. But it can be changed.

What I 'seemed to be supporting' in your opinion is not what I was supporting. I intend all of my posts to be considered as the full context of my argument and not a cherry picked line here and there.

And if you believe that the sanctity of the vote makes it okay for Citizen A to be able to vote to be supported by Citizen B with no benefit whatsoever for Citizen B, well okay. I accept that as your position. But I personally have a huge problem with that. And that is what I was arguing. And I believe that is the discussion that the OP was intended to inspire.
 
Last edited:
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.

I asked for evidence that it ever worked the way you described. I assume you have only your assumptions.
 
What a foolish notion. No one who is poor casts their vote on the believe that who they're voting for will someday help to make them rich! That's crazy! People don't vote that way....well, poor people don't anyway.

This is allowed to vote.



If anything, you could say sometimes individuals/the majority of the population will cast their vote along the lines of "self preservation" (See 2012 presidential election where federal supported health care was threatened and job creation by the Republican candidate was called into question). But the only voters who tend to throw their support firmly behind a candidate seeking long-term political favors are rich people or corporate lobbyist. No one else has such long-term lofty goals. Everyone else thinks of the "here and now" when voting.

That's exactly the problem. People think only about here and now, and thus forget about long term consequences. They vote for welfare, even though the long term effect of the subsidization of poverty is to create more of it. They vote for social security even though the long term effect of it is to impoverish those who are currently working. It's exactly the lack of long term thinking that is the problem.
 
So...you showed a graph of how the tax code has continued to increase over time. And that proves what exactly? Just how many of those tax rules apply to the poor or lower-middle class folks compared to how many were written to give a distinct tax advantage to the rich?

Keep in mind I begrudge no one for being rich. I'm just saying the tax code wasn't written for the poor nor the middle-class. Yeah, there are a couple of bones thrown in there for the little guys, but overall the tax code is really for the rich.

Then explain this:

Heritage said:
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
 
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.

And again, you show little concept for what a "republican" form of government is. You don't Get to redefine words to suit you.
 
I asked for evidence that it ever worked the way you described. I assume you have only your assumptions.

again..... ask yourself a simple question...who is your congressmen supposed work for?.......answer the people in your district who put him into office..

since the senator is put into office by the state legislature...then who does he work for?.........answer...... the state legislature.
 
again..... ask yourself a simple question...who is your congressmen supposed work for?.......answer the people in your district who put him into office..

since the senator is put into office by the state legislature...then who does he work for?.........answer...... the state legislature.

Right, you have your own assumptions and no evidence. As I said.
 
And again, you show little concept for what a "republican" form of government is. You don't Get to redefine words to suit you.

really.............you need to read the founders.




The Federalist No. 40

On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained

New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.


a mixed constitution is balanced government.........democracy is not a balanced government
 
:shrug: in this country, we have a long history of recognizing that those on public assistance have a strong incentive to vote merely for increased public assistance, rather than good governance.



I spent a couple of months on unemployment benefits. If you include EITC (which some do), I've gotten that pretty much every year I've filed taxes. I think there is some merit to the idea.

Unemployment benefits are paid for by employers...their not freebees created by the government. In other words they there is a revenue collected to create unemployment benefits. There aren't any revenues collected other than what taxpayers contribute via their federal income tax for food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.

But the well can run dry - and employer payments no longer meet the demands and the government has to decide if they want to use general revenue funds to keep it going.
 
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, you haven't proven the rule. I posit that those who want to deny those on welfare the vote are the exception and I am more representative of the rule.
 
No but, when you get off welfare, please step into the booth.

A better question might be, "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat?"

Start a thread, we need to know who's on Welfare around here. :lol:
 
Most corporate welfare recipients don't need to vote. They just buy the candidates that give them the most welfare.

Then vote out the politician.
 
again..... ask yourself a simple question...who is your congressmen supposed work for?.......answer the people in your district who put him into office..

since the senator is put into office by the state legislature...then who does he work for?.........answer...... the state legislature.

Of course the 17th amendment screwed that up.
 
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.

Exactly how would we determine whether someone is "informed" enough to vote? And who gets to make that determination?
 
In fact, I would go much further and say that those who are making minimum wage ought not to vote.

Most ridiculous statement I've read all day.

It's those kinds of comments that make me hesitate in saying "I'm a libertarian."
 
What if we don't honor that?

Democracy is the best system we have in order to solve societal issues. I'm sorry but you don't live in a bubble.
 
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.

What makes you think that those with wealth wouldn't vote for even more wealth?
 
These kinds of polls are so stupid. Welfare is a small federal outlay in the scheme of things. So why just single them out. Why not include everyone on Social Security and Medicare considering that those are huge federal outlays and most people on those invariably get more in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes for them. So why not just exclude everyone over 65 from voting as well if you don't want people on the dole voting?

People are not given a choice as to whether they pay into the Social Security and Medicare pools. They don't have to apply for the benefits they helped pay for, but they have no choice but to pay.

So that is a very different thing from welfare.

Evenso, as one who is drawing Social Security that comprises a large lion's share of my income, I can justify in my own mind voting for those who pledge to preserve my Social Security and Medicare benefits that I was forced to pay into and have really no alternative to go to. But at the same time, since I am now fully retired and am no longer paying into the system, it is difficult for me to justify having a vote to increase my Social Security and/or Welfare benefits at your expense.

I just can't figure out any realistic way to restrict the vote to those who have to pay the bills.
 
Back
Top Bottom