• 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
Are you aware that amendments are added to the Constitution to change things that the Framers originally did not add, or were not in approval of? The Constitution was written in 1787 by a bunch of rich white guys. It was amended to allow people of color to vote in 1870 (but blacks still had to fight for years to vote) and it was amended in 1920 for women to be able to vote.

It should be noted that neither group you mentioned was ever constitutionally barred from voting. Originally the only reason women couldn't vote was because they didn't own property, which was a social issue, not a legal issue.
 
Last edited:
No, you don't know any of that. In fact, the very fact that people on welfare vote for all different kinds of people, including those who would like to end welfare proves you wrong.

I said nothing in the part you responded to last about the poor. Why did you go back to the poor? I was talking about the wealthy, those not on the welfare programs that we know people really mean when they say "should those on welfare not be allowed to vote?".

So this is just totally a coincidence, right?

517-24.gif
 
When will you get it through your head that the Supreme Court can say just about anything it wants to say and if they declare what constitutes a republican form of government is a political question - as is almost everything that comes before the Congress in one way or the other - that is perfectly fine.

That finding in no way shape or form supports your ridiculous claims about the 17th Amendment violating a republican form of government. In fact, since it was done via Constitutional Amendment it only makes it even more definitive that those who did so believed they were NOT violating the Constitutional mandate for a republican form of government. Every Congressman who voted for the 17th Amendment did so believing they were not violating that mandate. Every state legislative official who voted to ratify it believed it did not violate the Constitutional mandate.

Of course it is a political question and it was answered very clearly, very definitively and very loudly. And the answer given says YOU ARE WRONG in your beliefs.

You really have never gotten the point EB that ANYTHING in the CONSTITUTION can be changed through the Amendment process. And that includes what constitutes a republican form of government. And if the 17th Amendment changed that from the views of Madison or anybody else - it does not matter because the Constitution gives us the right to do just that. And if todays form of what constitutes a republican form of government violates the precepts and beliefs of madison or any other Founding Father or even ALL of the Founding Fathers - it is right and proper since it was done via the very mechanism of Amendment they gave us.

Now you can either accept that as reality or you can deny reality and dwell in a self imposed dissociative state of delusion.
:2razz:
 
Except I didn't give a good reason for it; it being disallowing just people on Welfare from voting.

If you want to say the notions form de Tocqueville and Franklin are legitimate reasons to deny people the ability to vote, then the only reasonable choice would be to disallow anyone who is gaining a benefit from the government to be disallowed to vote.

Here here!

There's no reasonable explanation for JUST disallowing those obtaining a welfare check to do it....but not disallowing everyone who works for any business or university that recieves government funding in some fashion to vote. To disallow anyone who has a government college loan from voting. To disallow anyone who is a government employee from voting. To disallow employees of government contractors from voting. And on and on.

Utilizing elections as a means of voting into power those who will use the coffers of the United States to give you more money in some fashion is not an endevour limited in scope to those recieving welfare.

So if you're going to say the notions I mentioned are "legitimate reasons" to limit who can vote, the only reasonable choice is to evenly enforce said limitation. Otherwise, you're not actually limiting peoples votes for those reasons...you're limiting them for purely partisan political reasons. You'd be using those political philosophers and figures words simply as cover in an effort to obfuscate your true purpose and dishonestly paint your effots as some noble cause of liberty when it's really standard fare political jockying.

You detailed a good plan. Let's do it. None of these people should be voting.
 
I'm not arguing with you, nor am I debating you. When you pull quotes from LBJ, then you've already made up your mind, and not much will change it.

Lol, and you call me ideologically entrenched, yet you won't even discuss the matter!
 
So this is just totally a coincidence, right?

517-24.gif

And yet your graphs clearly show that there are still people who vote for Republicans in the lowest brackets, just as there are still people who vote for Democrats in the highest brackets. This is because people do not fit into small little stereotypical boxes that you try to put them in. They are simply not all the same. And that includes when it comes to what their values are.

You claimed that everyone would vote for more wealth if given the opportunity. Yet there are those on Welfare who vote to stifle their income by voting for people who would like to limit, reduce, or completely do away with Welfare programs for the poor.
 
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?

The United States is not your "home". YOU, or any other individual citizen...is not the "sole" owner. Those who do not pay taxes into the system (which, in and of itself, is a dishonest misnomer) are not "guests", they are co-owners whether or not you like it. The fact that you see that analogy as legitimate inherently indicates a flaw in your thinking.

I'd perhaps be more understanding if people were somehow claiming that this stance should be taken across the board. That not only that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, but that the WEIGHT of ones vote should somehow inherently be tied to how much taxes they pay. Indeed, the guy paying millions of dollars into taxes is being forced to "provide" things like roads, schools, police, national protection, etc for YOU and others who are likely not providing anywhere near the same level as him....should we allow his vote to count 100 times yours for electoral purposes while we're simultaneously disallowing those on welfare from voting?

Will those on welfare often try to vote for what's going to be best for their life and their situation, not what's necessarily "best for the country"? Absolutely. Guess wha. Middle class or upper class people, paying a good bit of taxes, are going to be doing the same thing. That's what voting is. And that's a right as a CITIZEN people should have...and not one that should be taken away simply because you think that the way THEY benefit of the government is inherently bad, but the way YOU benefit from the government is perfectly okay.
 
And yet your graphs clearly show that there are still people who vote for Republicans in the lowest brackets, just as there are still people who vote for Democrats in the highest brackets. This is because people do not fit into small little stereotypical boxes that you try to put them in. They are simply not all the same. And that includes when it comes to what their values are.

They are about 3x more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. 300%!

You claimed that everyone would vote for more wealth if given the opportunity. Yet there are those on Welfare who vote to stifle their income by voting for people who would like to limit, reduce, or completely do away with Welfare programs for the poor.

Is a 300% relative frequency not very telling? Or are you trying to obfuscate?
 
Most of that 49% are seniors on Medicare and Social Security.

And it's not like either major party has indicate any significant desire to remove Social Security for those recieving it CURRENTLY, which are a large part of that 49%.

Those people paid into the program. Both sides largely agree, you don't strip that away from them.

Even the Republicans wanting to see Social Security done away with, it's generally talked about from a sense of it ending for those in their 30's and younger right now from what I've seen. Which makes the notion of pointing out that 49% and suggesting they won't vote for one party because that party will take their thing away a bit ridiculous when it comes to social security. Indeed, it'd probably be more people in the 51% that would be saying "NO!" in terms of the attempts to end social security in the fashion it's usually talked about, because of a desire by them to see it in the future.
 
I'm talking about all taxes. There are people that depend entirely on another person and never buy anything or buy things with someone else's money.

Sure there are. They are called children and they can't even vote.
 
Why? How does being an American citizen mean that you get the right to decide how the government interferes in the lives of others?
That standard applies to literally everybody. I don;t care who you are or how much in taxes youpay, what gives you the right to vote on anything that affects me?


No, everyone does not pay taxes.
Yes, they do.


Income taxes. Not everyone pays income taxes.
Taxes are taxes, a revenue stream.


I'm talking about all taxes. There are people that depend entirely on another person and never buy anything or buy things with someone else's money.
OMG! That's the finest hair splitting I have ever seen.

Even if they don;t spend the money them self, someone else does in their stead.


They are about 3x more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. 300%!

Is a 300% relative frequency not very telling? Or are you trying to obfuscate?
*IF* they vote at all, which is less likely... historically. Not as significant as you're trying to portray.
 
That standard applies to literally everybody. I don;t care who you are or how much in taxes youpay, what gives you the right to vote on anything that affects me?

Now you're getting it. :)

*IF* they vote at all, which is less likely... historically. Not as significant as you're trying to portray.

They are less than half as likely to vote as higher income groups. That doesn't make up for the 300% greater propensity to vote Democrat.
 
Yes, they do.

OMG! That's the finest hair splitting I have ever seen.

Even if they don;t spend the money them self, someone else does in their stead.

So someone that depends on another person to survive is still paying taxes? Since when?
 
So this is just totally a coincidence, right?

517-24.gif

I actually find the graph amazingly interesting, but not at all surprising.

First, there's a steady downward trend for Republicans in all five categories in 2009. That doesn't really surprise me given the "wave" feeling of the Obama election back then. I imagine it's changed a bit since then.

Second, what's more interesting to me is looking right around 2004. And the numbers don't shock me. There's a big split between both in the lowest, with Democrats on top. It closes a bit in the second and then by the middle picture things are pretty much dead even. Meanwhile, from the other end, it's a similar big split at the highest, but with the Republicans on top. And it closes a bit in the second to last picture as it moves to the middle.

So in general, one could suggest that those with less money tend to more towards Democratic policies and those with money moeny tend more towards Republican policies.

Neither of those things are bad. And the flawed premise of this thread is that seemingly those in the first two boxes are somehow voting for people who will use the government to help them and thus shouldn't be able to vote.....but that somehow those on the other side should be able to vote because they're not doing that?

Ridiculous.

People from the lowest quintile to the highest are likely going to vote for the individual who is most likely going to push for the government to do things that will help themselves. Few people truly vote for a purely alturistic purpose.

Someone in the lowest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into welfare. On the flip side, someone on the highest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into defense so their government contracting job can continue to make bank. In both instances, they're attempting to vote for someone that will use the government to funnel the tax payers money into a direction that will benefit them. That's what voting is for many people, and that's true regardless of which quintile they are a part of.

Attempting to stop that from happening on one side, but not the other, is not some defense of liberty or an attempt to make the system fair or to stop "takers"....it's simply a pathetic political ploy to disenfranchise those who disagree with you politically.
 
Sure there are. They are called children and they can't even vote.

Or stay at home moms, losers that still live with their parents, trust fund babies, etc.
 
Here here!

You detailed a good plan. Let's do it. None of these people should be voting.

Add in anyone obtaining social security, anyone set to earn social security under the current laws, anyone on disability (including veterans), anyone on medicare, anyone with a child in public schools, anyone recieving a government pention (military included).

I'd have to keep thinking. There's a lot of people who have the potential to use their vote to control the purse strings of the government in a fashion that benefits them financially.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure if you actually follow that line of thinking we'll wind up with a country where there's no one of legal voting age that actually can vote.
 
I actually find the graph amazingly interesting, but not at all surprising.

First, there's a steady downward trend for Republicans in all five categories in 2009. That doesn't really surprise me given the "wave" feeling of the Obama election back then. I imagine it's changed a bit since then.

Second, what's more interesting to me is looking right around 2004. And the numbers don't shock me. There's a big split between both in the lowest, with Democrats on top. It closes a bit in the second and then by the middle picture things are pretty much dead even. Meanwhile, from the other end, it's a similar big split at the highest, but with the Republicans on top. And it closes a bit in the second to last picture as it moves to the middle.

So in general, one could suggest that those with less money tend to more towards Democratic policies and those with money moeny tend more towards Republican policies.

Neither of those things are bad. And the flawed premise of this thread is that seemingly those in the first two boxes are somehow voting for people who will use the government to help them and thus shouldn't be able to vote.....but that somehow those on the other side should be able to vote because they're not doing that?

Ridiculous.

People from the lowest quintile to the highest are likely going to vote for the individual who is most likely going to push for the government to do things that will help themselves. Few people truly vote for a purely alturistic purpose.

Someone in the lowest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into welfare. On the flip side, someone on the highest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into defense so their government contracting job can continue to make bank. In both instances, they're attempting to vote for someone that will use the government to funnel the tax payers money into a direction that will benefit them. That's what voting is for many people, and that's true regardless of which quintile they are a part of.

The point is that people vote for what personally benefits them, which is exactly the problem with democracy. I'm for shrinking the franchise as much as possible, so that we can separate the government from society. I don't want people to assume that we get the government that we voted for with democracy. If they don't like the government, then they should fight against it, not pathetically accept it because the majority has spoken. Mob rule does not make rule ethical.

Attempting to stop that from happening on one side, but not the other, is not some defense of liberty or an attempt to make the system fair or to stop "takers"....it's simply a pathetic political ploy to disenfranchise those who disagree with you politically.

As far as it goes, I'd rather live under a political system that agrees with me personally instead of being forced to go along with one that I disagree with entirely.
 
You're being obtuse. You'll have to do that by yourself. Carry on.

How am I being obtuse? Someone buying you something doesn't mean that you paid taxes, but that likely they paid taxes in order to provide you with whatever it is.
 
They are about 3x more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. 300%!

Is a 300% relative frequency not very telling? Or are you trying to obfuscate?

Doesn't matter how much more likely. All that matters is that there are still some who do vote Republican, which proves you wrong.
 
The point is that people vote for what personally benefits them, which is exactly the problem with democracy.

I agree that people vote for what personally benefits them.

PEOPLE.

Not just welfare reciepients.

Which is why I disagree with limiting JUST welfare recipients from voting. And it's why I say attempts to do such, and only such, are dishonest when they're attempted to be presented as some means of protecting libtery or the integrity of the country or as a means of stopping people from "voting to benefit themselves".

As far as it goes, I'd rather live under a political system that agrees with me personally instead of being forced to go along with one that I disagree with entirely.

Well first...as I've told all the people who bitch about the constitution or not being "modern" with some of our laws or other things.

No one is "forcing" you to live in this country.

Second, I expect that everyone would rather live under a political system that agrees with them. And I expect that most people will try to turn the US into such a system; on both sides of the political spectrum.

I at least have a modicum of respect for those that will acknowledge that what they want isn't in line with the constitution, the political philosohpies the government is built on, or other such thing...but it's what they want, and thus they're pushing for it.

That's far better than those who attempt to dishonestly hide their intent, their views, thier purposes, and fraudulently try to sheath themselves in the flag, in the constitution, or in the notions of liberty or freedom. Or who act as if their arguments make logical sense in relation to those things, when in reality they only make logical sense as it relates to their ACTUAL political plans.

If someone wants to come out and say "Hey, I don't want to let Welfare recipients vote because they tend to vote Democrat and I don't want Democrats in control" then I could at least have some respect for that. I wouldn't agree, and I'd think that argument is a horrible one...but I can at least respect they're being honest.

But if someone wants to come out and say "I won't want Welfare recipients to vote because they're 'takers' who will just use their vote to put into power those who will give them more money" then I've got little to no real respect for that, because it's inconsistent bull**** due to their focus on only one of a MULTITUDE of classes of people who could be percieved as "takers" and who use their vote to put into power those who will cause government money to flow into their pockets.
 
The United States is not your "home". YOU, or any other individual citizen...is not the "sole" owner. Those who do not pay taxes into the system (which, in and of itself, is a dishonest misnomer) are not "guests", they are co-owners whether or not you like it. The fact that you see that analogy as legitimate inherently indicates a flaw in your thinking.

I'd perhaps be more understanding if people were somehow claiming that this stance should be taken across the board. That not only that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, but that the WEIGHT of ones vote should somehow inherently be tied to how much taxes they pay. Indeed, the guy paying millions of dollars into taxes is being forced to "provide" things like roads, schools, police, national protection, etc for YOU and others who are likely not providing anywhere near the same level as him....should we allow his vote to count 100 times yours for electoral purposes while we're simultaneously disallowing those on welfare from voting?

Will those on welfare often try to vote for what's going to be best for their life and their situation, not what's necessarily "best for the country"? Absolutely. Guess wha. Middle class or upper class people, paying a good bit of taxes, are going to be doing the same thing. That's what voting is. And that's a right as a CITIZEN people should have...and not one that should be taken away simply because you think that the way THEY benefit of the government is inherently bad, but the way YOU benefit from the government is perfectly okay.

My argument in no way suggested that any person's vote should count more than any other person's vote.

My argument is based strictly on the ethics of Citizen A being able to vote for Citizen B to support him/her. My argument is based strictly on the ethics of those who will incur no consequence of any kind from their vote having ability to vote for how much in taxes others will pay, etc.

My argument is purely philosophical, but it goes to the very heart of what the structure of our social contract and resulting government should be. There is an injustice in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom