• 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
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote and understand what I am saying?

Towhich...

AlbqOwl said:
This is such a difficult question when it is evaluated objectively and outside of partisan propaganda, political correctness police action, and other emotion-charged responses.

I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who pay no federal taxes would have ability to vote for people who pledge to raise taxes on everybody else.

I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are little or not at all affected by increases in property taxes have ability to vote on initiatives that will raise those taxes for property owners.

And I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are supported by the rest of us have ability to vote for those who pledge to keep the gravy train going for those who are supported and thereby increase the burden on those of us who are footing that bill.

It is the righteous sense that those who pay the bills should be the ones to vote on how much of those bills they are willing to pay.

And that righteous sense is made very difficult weighed against the concept of one citizen, one vote.

Yours was an "us -v- them" argument based strictly on financial aspects where the right to vote isn't just a matter of figures on a ledger. There are many other issues that are impacted one way or another by one casting his/her vote as they see fit. Not all of them are monetary in nature. Thus, I stand by my comment (less the personal jab):

Objective Voice said:
Just because one finds him or herself in a financial bind doesn't mean they stop being a U.S. citizen and should no longer be allowed to participate in the political process.

But I still think you should rethink then adjust...
 
Democracy is the best system we have in order to solve societal issues. I'm sorry but you don't live in a bubble.

democracy was a form of government does not secure indivdual liberty


The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.
 
Last edited:
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 style of libertarian are you? Are you just a Communist with a libertarian label? Or are you a libertarian of the Austrian variety?
 
Democracy is the best system we have in order to solve societal issues. I'm sorry but you don't live in a bubble.

Democracy may precisely be the worse system we have in order to solve societal issues. It's like letting the students decide how the class should be run. It is lawlessness.
 
What makes you think that those with wealth wouldn't vote for even more wealth?

They probably would, but they would be held back by a few things. First, those who are being stolen from would have major objections and threaten to overthrow the system. Second, if those in power can keep that power for a long time and can even pass it on to their children, then they will be interested in the long term economic health of the system instead of just stealing at the present at the expense of long term health (as commonly happens in democracy). Those with a long-term vested interest care about preserving the long term wealth of the country, but evil motives (so that they can steal more wealth for longer instead of a lot just right now) in this case would at least be less harmful than the short term oriented outlook common to democracies.
 
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.

We'll save this debate for another day. Suffice it to say, I doubt the majority of the voters knew that their elected members to Congress would bring such a bill to the House or Senate floor (let alone take it up for a vote). If folks knew in advance that their privacy would be even remotely violated in this way before casting their vote, it's doubtful many would have voted the bill's drafters and subsequent supporters into office. Of course, we have to take into account domestic events in a post-9/11 America at the time. People wanted to feel safe and secure from terrorism hitting our shores. Catch-22...maybe. But the right to vote isn't restricted to votes on monetary policy alone. There are many other issues that affect the lives of the public-at-large. Taxes of any sort and entitlement spending are just two of thousands of other issues voters should be concerned about.
 
This is allowed to vote.





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.


You're confusing a pledge to assist those in the middle-class (income/tax bracket) with people seeking handouts. All the woman in the video said (essentially) is that she voted for Obama because he would do things to help lesson the economic burden she was experiencing. Doesn't mean she was expecting some federal handout. You read too much into her statement, sir.

Now, was she naive to believe he'd provide the kind of help she hoped would come? Well, gas prices are down now. Many people can now refinance their homes thanks to the HARP program the Obama Administration devised. So, I'd say from her perspective her vote was properly cast.
 
We'll save this debate for another day. Suffice it to say, I doubt the majority of the voters knew that their elected members to Congress would bring such a bill to the House or Senate floor (let alone take it up for a vote). If folks knew in advance that their privacy would be even remotely violated in this way before casting their vote, it's doubtful many would have voted the bill's drafters and subsequent supporters into office. Of course, we have to take into account domestic events in a post-9/11 America at the time. People wanted to feel safe and secure from terrorism hitting our shores. Catch-22...maybe. But the right to vote isn't restricted to votes on monetary policy alone. There are many other issues that affect the lives of the public-at-large. Taxes of any sort and entitlement spending are just two of thousands of other issues voters should be concerned about.

And the vast majority of the public have shown themselves irresponsible when it comes to most issue. Why else do we run such large deficits that we can never pay back? It's because politicians are trying to win votes and have absolutely no regard for the long term health of the people they represent.
 
You're confusing a pledge to assist those in the middle-class (income/tax bracket) with people seeking handouts. All the woman in the video said (essentially) is that she voted for Obama because he would do things to help lesson the economic burden she was experiencing. Doesn't mean she was expecting some federal handout. You read too much into her statement, sir.

I'm reading too much into the statement? She wants a free house and free gas. It really is that simple.

Now, was she naive to believe he'd provide the kind of help she hoped would come? Well, gas prices are down now. Many people can now refinance their homes thanks to the HARP program the Obama Administration devised. So, I'd say from her perspective her vote was properly cast.

To the detriment of the long term prospects of the country. Specifically with housing, this has happened.

fredgraph.jpg
 
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

Absolutely. There's no reasonable explanation as to why they shouldn't. Becuase they gain a benefit from the government? So does every single other american. I understand the issues brought up by the likes of Ben Franklin and de Tocqueville as it relates to the faltering of democracy once it's discovered one can in essence vote themselves money, "welfare" is not the only means in which this occurs and limiting voting based singularly on that seems less an effort to restore democracy or legitimacy and instead simply a calculated partisan plan abscent any honest desires for liberty.
 
Absolutely. There's no reasonable explanation as to why they shouldn't. Becuase they gain a benefit from the government? So does every single other american. I understand the issues brought up by the likes of Ben Franklin and de Tocqueville as it relates to the faltering of democracy once it's discovered one can in essence vote themselves money, "welfare" is not the only means in which this occurs and limiting voting based singularly on that seems less an effort to restore democracy or legitimacy and instead simply a calculated partisan plan abscent any honest desires for liberty.

You say there's no reasonable explanation, and then list a very reasonable explanation and then disregard it for no good reason.
 
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

Unfortunately, yes, they should be allowed to vote.

Sadly, this right has been exploited by the slavery class of politicians who use government assistance to chain people to government largess controlled by the politicians. These bastards should be viewed as modern day slave owners. Sadly, the next group to be exploited by the soulless pols are equally enslaved to the empty promises they have perfected.
 
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
No. In fact, we should hold them in internment camps, chained to spikes driven deep in the ground, only to be fed and/or let out after they get a full-paying job AND pay back some of the tax money that we lavishly spent on them while they were choosing to sit idle.
 
You say there's no reasonable explanation, and then list a very reasonable explanation and then disregard it for no good reason.

Zyph's point would highlight the folly of Jacksonian democracy, which would implicate the ability of 99% of the existing voting pool to vote.

The upper classes institute public policies which extend their influence and power against the entity of the state, the middle class does the same but has interest in being secure from the exploitation of the upper classes, and the lower classes have interest in securing themselves from all three.
 
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

That's nice, but it's not the definition of the word "republican."
 
Towhich...



Yours was an "us -v- them" argument based strictly on financial aspects where the right to vote isn't just a matter of figures on a ledger. There are many other issues that are impacted one way or another by one casting his/her vote as they see fit. Not all of them are monetary in nature. Thus, I stand by my comment (less the personal jab):



But I still think you should rethink then adjust...

And I think you should re-read what I wrote again and again until you can see what is actually there and is actually said. And what is actually there is not a suggestion that people in a financial bind should lose their rights.
 
No. In fact, we should hold them in internment camps, chained to spikes driven deep in the ground, only to be fed and/or let out after they get a full-paying job AND pay back some of the tax money that we lavishly spent on them while they were choosing to sit idle.

Because liberty can only happen with universal suffrage democracy, right?
 
Youre saying all white males who have property and work in the private sector are right wing conservatives? Puh-lease. :roll:

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills. I never said that.
 
That's nice, but it's not the definition of the word "republican."
oh..sorry it is..our government was created as a republican form of government which is "mixed government".

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, defines a constitution in which the form of government is a combination of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, making impossible their respective degenerations (anarchy, oligarchy and tyranny).[1] The idea was popularized during classical antiquity in order to describe the stability, the innovation and the success of the Republic as developed within the Roman Constitution. It is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers because in such a system some issues are decided by many (democracy), some other issues by few (aristocracy), and some other issues by a single person (monarchy)


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html
 
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.

Where do you get the fiction that the senator was representing the state legislature? You make up this nonsense which is not at all true. The senator represented the state - and that includes ALL of the people in that state no matter if the legislature appointed the senator.
 
Absolutely. There's no reasonable explanation as to why they shouldn't. Becuase they gain a benefit from the government? So does every single other american. I understand the issues brought up by the likes of Ben Franklin and de Tocqueville as it relates to the faltering of democracy once it's discovered one can in essence vote themselves money, "welfare" is not the only means in which this occurs and limiting voting based singularly on that seems less an effort to restore democracy or legitimacy and instead simply a calculated partisan plan abscent any honest desires for liberty.

But. . . .there is one other argument to be made. (Disclaimer: I am not uncharitable or unsympathetic to the poor. I devote a great deal of my time and talent and personal resources up close and personal with the poor.)

You may bend over backwards to accommodate the guest in your home and that makes you a good and gracious host. But how would you feel about it if that guest then assumed power to dictate to you what his sleeping accommodations will be, what food and drink you will serve at whatever expense, and that his every need be met?

How is that different from those who cannot or will not work for what they have dictating to those who must provide for them how much the others will provide?
 
Where do you get the fiction that the senator was representing the state legislature? You make up this nonsense which is not at all true. The senator represented the state - and that includes ALL of the people in that state no matter if the legislature appointed the senator.

if you cant figure that out you are sad.:(....a representative represents the people/body that put him into office.

the state legislature puts the senator into office, ..the people do not put him into office.

the senates job before the 17th, was to check the power of the federal government, block the collective captivity of the people in the house, protect rights of the people, and to maintain the states powers.
 
Last edited:
if you cant figure that out you are sad.:(....a representative represents the people/body that put him into office.

the state legislature puts the senator into office, ..the people do not put him into office.

The Constitution DOES NOT SAY THAT. You just made it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom