• 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
If everyone has the right to vote then they all have the ability to trample the rights of other.

C'mon, don't you know that it's the wealthy that are the true victims in today's society?
 
that is correct.....however forced taxation does violate the founding principles of america.

Your understanding of basic political philosophy really leaves so much to be desired. Taxation in every single political system exists under the threat of force. If the founders included taxation within the constitution it was acknowledge that it was under that same threat. As such, FORCED TAXATION has always been a founding principle of America's political system since its inception.

Whatever your emotions might be on the matter, taxes as they are used today ensure that the poor aren't rioting over anything other than some black kid killed. That's a net benefit.
 
I supported my argument with comments from a PhD economist who lived the situation he was commenting on. It has everything to do with reality. Rebut him if you can.

And his situation had nothing to do with what I discussed.
 
you and i cannot in any way shape of form have the ability to create a RIGHT........therefore, you and i can cannot elect someone, and give them the ability to create a right....since you and i do not how the ablity in the first place.

If we feel that the current government has become too corrupt, do we as citizens have the right to reject that government in favor of one more in line with respecting our natural rights?

John Locke must not have been one of your sources
 
Your understanding of basic political philosophy really leaves so much to be desired. Taxation in every single political system exists under the threat of force. If the founders included taxation within the constitution it was acknowledge that it was under that same threat. However, whatever your emotions might be on the matter, taxes as they are used today ensure that the poor aren't rioting over anything other than some black kid killed. That's a net benefit.

wrong.......under original constitutional law.....taxes are placed on commerce...which is a voluntary exchange..there is no forced constitutional taxation until the 16th

forced taxation violates the founding principles of the declaration of independence, ..which is recognized by u.s. federal law.
 
If we feel that the current government has become too corrupt, do we as citizens have the right to reject that government in favor of one more in line with respecting our natural rights?

John Locke must not have been one of your sources

people have a right to alter or abolish their government.....but they cannot create rights for themselves.
 
The theory is that no one votes against their own interests and if snap benefits were facing cuts recipients would be less likely to vote for the cutting candidate and an election may become more competitive.

I have not studied this in any scientific way so I don't have any idea if it's true
Yet here you are, arguing it, not knowing if it is true. I will ask you again, do you think politicians will stop becoming wealthy because SNAP recipients lose their franchise?
 
No question about it. But when an ability to vote includes trampling on the rights of others, it is fair game to question and evaluate that.

No one is trampling on your rights just because politician A makes some promise (that likely won't be kept anyway) promised one out of hundreds of things for a group of people, and some of those receiving vote for that person. That politician might have promised hundreds of different things to hundreds or thousands of different groups, for tons of reasons. That doesn't mean everyone who voted for them did so due to any one or more of those promises specifically.
 
people have a right to alter or abolish their government.....but they cannot create rights for themselves.

And if people can alter or abolish their government, they can also demand that the government give the citizens the right to vote as a condition in order to earn their consent to be governed?
 
wrong.......under original constitutional law.....taxes are placed on commerce...which is a voluntary exchange..there is no forced constitutional taxation until the 16th

forced taxation violates the founding principles of the declaration of independence, ..which is recognized by u.s. federal law.

Original constitutional law? Lol. Taxes are placed on commerce with the threat violence. If you don't pay your taxes, the system goes after you. It's really that simple. The founders understood this. That's how the British crown enforced it, that's how it was always enforced in every system. This absurd notion that they weren't going to enforce taxation through violence is simply anachronistic.
 
Yet here you are, arguing it, not knowing if it is true. I will ask you again, do you think politicians will stop becoming wealthy because SNAP recipients lose their franchise?

I didn't argue it, I explained it for you.

However your hypothetical is an easy answer, if a congressman loses office and has no other influence in Washigton, yes they will lose financially
 
It is the intermediary step between voting and getting said benefit.



That is not what the OP posted, that is what you twisted it, by virtue of your libertarian POV, into.

This is the OP:

Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

Oh, once again....THE IRONY!!!!

I just said:

You have not shown how citizen "A" has directly voted to benefit from SNAP, nor have you shown that any politician has been elected primarily because of a supposed campaign promise on SNAP.

Are you going to answer it this time, or dance around it again?

If a person is receiving SNAP then he or she benefits himself/herself by voting for the person who will ensure SNAP benefits. The person receiving SNAP benefits does not pay for them. Persons ineligible for SNAP benefits pay for them.
 
And if people can alter or abolish their government, they can also demand that the government give the citizens the right to vote as a condition in order to earn their consent to be governed?

if the people want government to give them the vote..it would be a privilege of government, and a privilege cannot override a right.
 
There is no robbery. Taxes are justified in the constitution. :shrug:

I suppose if you want to get picky over word choice the proper word for it is theft.
 
I didn't argue it, I explained it for you.

However your hypothetical is an easy answer, if a congressman loses office and has no other influence in Washigton, yes they will lose financially
Bjebus, I wrote "politicians", not a singular "politician". Absolutely dishonest responses avoiding the point will be ignored.
 
I suppose if you want to get picky over word choice the proper word for it is theft.

Nope, I'm not getting picky. It's codified and justified in the nation's most supreme document. It's not robbery, theft or any other synonym because they all require the action to be a crime. Taxation is not a crime in any form. :shrug:
 
Original constitutional law? Lol. Taxes are placed on commerce with the threat violence. If you don't pay your taxes, the system goes after you. It's really that simple. The founders understood this. That's how the British crown enforced it, that's how it was always enforced in every system. This absurd notion that they weren't going to enforce taxation through violence is simply anachronistic.

wrong, commerce is voluntary transaction, no one forces commerce on you

article 1 section 8 clause 1 deals with commerce.....states are taxed and the money send to Washington...per the constitution.

commerce taxes are indirect taxes, ..income tax is a direct tax.
 
The government cannot govern without the support and consent of its citizens.

I don't recall a government ever giving giving up its power willingly, but I do recall revolutions going badly and the same ruling body continuing on like they were.
 
I don't see where the OP includes 'ever'. I see the OP offering an interesting question to answer and pretty much leaves it up to those discussing it to interpret what 'voting' might mean or include.

And everybody doesn't pay all the taxes they want imposed on everybody else. Everybody doesn't benefit from government programs targeted for specific special interest groups. Of course the less prosperous are all for the more prosperous paying all the taxes. But is that a fair system when the less prosperous then benefit from what the more prosperous pay for?

Or is the more fair way to have everybody chip in for the benefits they receive? And those who cannot or will not do that will be at the mercy of those who do but are not given power to demand that others support them?

lol no the word never was never used. But the OP as I said didn't mean just on welfare issues the intent was all voting. "Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?"


I see that you want to all about personal responsibility. Voting is the patriotic responsibility and duty of ALL Americans.
 
Not if the government gives the right to vote in order to secure the citizens consent to be governed.

No government in the history of the world has ever really ruled by the consent of the governed. It's a pretty cool slogan though.
 
Not if the government gives the right to vote in order to secure the citizens consent to be governed.

government cannot give you a right

natural rights and privileges are the only thing stated in the constitution...government creates privileges and only government is to honor privileges.. not the people.

natural law is recognized by federal law.
 
And his situation had nothing to do with what I discussed.

It has everything to do with whether poor people are more likely to act out in discontent. The evidence suggests that just isn't the case, or at least poverty is not the reason for the acting out. And I think the issue of 'hunger' is a non starter because that is extremely rare in the USA and is pretty much entirely unnecessary when it does happen.
 
If a person is receiving SNAP then he or she benefits himself/herself by voting for the person who will ensure SNAP benefits. The person receiving SNAP benefits does not pay for them. Persons ineligible for SNAP benefits pay for them.
You did not answer the question, you simply repeated your contention. This is not a debate, it is simply you repeating unsubstantiated Randian rhetoric.

EDIT:

I already stated that the majority of ABA SNAP recipients work, so yes, they contribute to their own benefits, and when their benefits end and they continue to work, they pay into the system.
 
Last edited:
wrong, commerce is voluntary transaction, no one forces commerce on you

And that's irrelevant to taxation itself because taxation has never been a voluntary matter. Neither sovereigns nor modern states have ever taxed subjects and citizens under anything other than the threat of force. To claim so is absolutely revisionist. To believe the FFs thought in such terms? Ridiculous at best considering they created their new system by pulling the little bits of other systems that they liked. If you can name such a system at any period in recorded human history, I'll concede the opposite.

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom