• 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
Fine then. Please feel free to just scroll over my posts or is there a way to put people on ignore here? If so please put me on ignore. Then you won't feel so much effrontery and won't be so astounded. I will do the same. I generally feel pretty much vindicated when folks start attacking me instead of what I post. It's a dead giveaway that I probably got it right. :)
I am attacking what you posted and for your lack of posting an answer to a question you decided to flip and use on another poster....who you thought was me. It is the entirety of it, not only the content, but the process.
 
I do not believe it is an impossibility. I believe we once had a system in which people were not allowed to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others. I would like that system restored. In such a system, if you vote for taxes to be raised, you are voting for your own taxes to be raised too and not just the other guy. In such a system, if you vote for the government to provide you with a certain benefit, everybody gets the same benefit without respect for demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

And I will never agree to vote for government in which pragmatism trumps moral convictions.

I see the problem. You want to turn back the clock to a version of America that never ****ing existed.
 
That is our entire system. Only one group is winning the game.

But winning and losing is a different subject. I am focused on the ethics of whether Citizen A has a 'right' to demand that Citizen B support Citizen A and the ethics of Citizen A being able to vote on how much of Citizen B's resources Citizen A will be able to take.

That is the elephant in the room that so far nobody has been willing to address at face value. Not even the conservatives who apparently mostly voted "yes' in the poll options but who won't touch that question with a ten foot pole. It is a very politically incorrect question and extremely uncomfortable for the intellectually honest to address. (The intellectually dishonest will change it into something else they can more easily condemn.)

I know this mostly by the amount of abuse I am taking on this thread because I'm sticking to that particular concept. :)
 
Almost as damned sad state of affairs as when basic rights are confused with an issue of what one Citizen can demand of another's property and evenmoreso when that is interpreted as the poor are useless and just suck up resources.

I read the posts. I gave my opinion. You live in a Democracy. If you want special treatment based on wealth, well Russia is a perfect example.
 
I see the problem. You want to turn back the clock to a version of America that never ****ing existed.

It didn't? I believe you won't find any semblance of federal welfare in the early years of the USA, and you'll be hard put to find any of the Founding Fathers who thought such was allowed by the U.S. constitution.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”--James Madison.
 
I have a hard time equating 'patriotic duty' with the incentive to vote for the guy who promises the most freebies.
It sounds like you want to disenfranchise the entire Democratic party.

You cannot possible control who votes over a opposing parties platform.

You dont see a problem with that?
 
I read the posts. I gave my opinion. You live in a Democracy. If you want special treatment based on wealth, well Russia is a perfect example.

No, I do not live in a Democracy. Nor do you if you live in the USA. We live in a representative republic. And I don't believe I have ever in my life said I want special treatment based on wealth. I am darn sure I have not argued that in this thread.
 
And I don't believe I have ever in my life said I want special treatment based on wealth. I am darn sure I have not argued that in this thread.
No, you want special treatment for those without certain levels of wealth.
 
No, I do not live in a Democracy. Nor do you if you live in the USA. We live in a representative republic. And I don't believe I have ever in my life said I want special treatment based on wealth. I am darn sure I have not argued that in this thread.
Still a democracy.
My Bad- I should have stated- if those who want special treatment............................It was directed to those that think like that.
 
Last edited:
And now gentlemen, (and ladies if any are present), I believe I have stated my case. And the arguments are becoming tediously circular and it gets boring correcting the mischaracterizations of my arguments.

So I will leave you at this point. If anybody is brave enough to wade on the concept of whether one Citizen should have the ability to vote benefits for himself at the expense of others, we can revisit that. But so far nobody has been that brave.

Ya'll all have a good afternoon and evening.
 
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”--James Madison.

The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution. (wiki)
 
And now gentlemen, (and ladies if any are present), I believe I have stated my case. And the arguments are becoming tediously circular and it gets boring correcting the mischaracterizations of my arguments.

So I will leave you at this point. If anybody is brave enough to wade on the concept of whether one Citizen should have the ability to vote benefits for himself at the expense of others, we can revisit that. But so far nobody has been that brave.

In theory, no, but our laws are already deeply this way. Even more so than need-based welfare is the senior pension programs (Social Security and Medicare). These are structured to be paid by the subsequent two generations and we are now at the tipping point where future beneficiaries will get less from the program than they have to pay into it, whereas all prior generations got more from the program than they had to pay in. Considering seniors vote in higher proportions than any other demographic, both parties cater to them and therefore we are throwing most of our social spending dollars at the seniors who, generally speaking, need it least.
 
In theory, no, but our laws are already deeply this way. Even more so than need-based welfare is the senior pension programs (Social Security and Medicare). These are structured to be paid by the subsequent two generations and we are now at the tipping point where future beneficiaries will get less from the program than they have to pay into it, whereas all prior generations got more from the program than they had to pay in. Considering seniors vote in higher proportions than any other demographic, both parties cater to them and therefore we are throwing most of our social spending dollars at the seniors who, generally speaking, need it least.
So the answer, once again, is to disenfranchise the elderly.
 
So the answer, once again, is to disenfranchise the elderly.

Most of our social spending goes to the least needy demographic. The answer is not to "disenfranchise the elderly," it's to stop trying to administer social programs as defined benefit pensions. This isn't working, we've known for decades it isn't working, yet we've done nothing. Why? Because seniors vote. You have no problem with that?
 
Most of our social spending goes to the least needy demographic. The answer is not to "disenfranchise the elderly," it's to stop trying to administer social programs as defined benefit pensions. This isn't working, we've known for decades it isn't working, yet we've done nothing. Why? Because seniors vote. You have no problem with that?
I see you have decided not to reference the OP, to ignore the context of the debate, and have decided to try to turn this into yet another "SS is killing us, I tells yah!". This thread is not about modifying social programs, it is about:

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?
 
And now gentlemen, (and ladies if any are present), I believe I have stated my case. And the arguments are becoming tediously circular and it gets boring correcting the mischaracterizations of my arguments.

So I will leave you at this point. If anybody is brave enough to wade on the concept of whether one Citizen should have the ability to vote benefits for himself at the expense of others, we can revisit that. But so far nobody has been that brave.

Ya'll all have a good afternoon and evening.
You believe in graduated rights. Those with more have more, those with less have less.
Taking a vote away is removing the cornerstone of a democracy.
Once you start removing or restricting rights, well it leads to more restrictions.
To think otherwise is simplistic at best.
 
I see you have decided not to reference the OP, to ignore the context of the debate, and have decided to try to turn this into yet another "SS is killing us, I tells yah!". This thread is not about modifying social programs, it is about:

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?

When one of our elected council members has a conflict of interest, she or he doesn't (can't) vote on it. Minors don't vote because they are dependent on others. Two examples of people not able to vote because of either dependency or conflict of interest.

If people do not pay much or any federal taxes and receive a great deal of federal assistance dollars just to get by, they are essentially dependents, to put it one way, or have a conflict of interest, to put it another way. This is not at all outlandish. They have petitioned to society to be provided for as a dependent because they can't provide for themselves. Same as minors can't vote, maybe they shouldn't vote either.

However given that few people are 100% reliant on federal assistance for their basic needs, I'm not sure it would make sense for people to typically lose 100% of their voting power. Maybe the weight of a vote should correspond to the degree of dependence or independence of the voter.

If the discussion becomes about the effectiveness of our social spending, which I think that is a relevant sub-topic, then we have to ask why we're throwing most of our money at the most privileged demographic.
 
When one of our elected council members has a conflict of interest, she or he doesn't (can't) vote on it. Minors don't vote because they are dependent on others. Two examples of people not able to vote because of either dependency or conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest is based on an idea that person can benefit at a much, much greater extent than another, that is very different than voting for something nearly ANYONE can benefit from. Should those that could benefit in the future due to economic loss also be barred from from voting for a politician because that politician supports, among a huge host of other programs, SNAP? Complete nonsense. Further, those under 17 are not adults....and are already disenfranchised from voting for SNAP....but then you guys are arguing for declining benefits for them anyway.....so it is pretty pointless.

If people do not pay much or any federal taxes and receive a great deal of federal assistance dollars just to get by, they are essentially dependents, to put it one way, or have a conflict of interest, to put it another way. This is not at all outlandish. They have petitioned to society to be provided for as a dependent because they can't provide for themselves. Same as minors can't vote, maybe they shouldn't vote either.
Because, of course, the reasons minors are not voting is due to "dependency". Right....you got it.

However given that few people are 100% reliant on federal assistance for their basic needs, I'm not sure it would make sense for people to typically lose 100% of their voting power. Maybe the weight of a vote should correspond to the degree of dependence or independence of the voter.
Perhaps we should create a Department of Special Disenfranchisement to come up with all sorts of convoluted stop the vote schemes. It is a sure fire way to a better society.

If the discussion becomes about the effectiveness of our social spending, which I think that is a relevant sub-topic, then we have to ask why we're throwing most of our money at the most privileged demographic.
A good diversion is always recommended.
 
Conflict of interest is based on an idea that person can benefit at a much, much greater extent than another, that is very different than voting for something nearly ANYONE can benefit from.

Infinite shades of gray here. It's only a conflict if the person stands to gain to a much much greater extent than others? What about only one "much?" You're trying to draw a line in the sand. Taxation and representation should go hand in hand. We have people who have full representation but no taxation. This is basically the opposite problem of taxation without representation. The founders had things to say about both problems.

Should those that could benefit in the future due to economic loss also be barred from from voting for a politician because that politician supports, among a huge host of other programs, SNAP? Complete nonsense. Further, those under 17 are not adults....and are already disenfranchised from voting for SNAP....but then you guys are arguing for declining benefits for them anyway.....so it is pretty pointless.

Seems like you're getting carried away a little here. No one votes for SNAP, and minors are not "disenfranchised from voting for SNAP." Disenfranchised is the deprivation of a right. Minors have never voted, they have never had that right, they are not taxpayers, they do not provide for themselves, they cannot contract legally with others, and so forth.

Because, of course, the reasons minors are not voting is due to "dependency". Right....you got it.

Minors don't have the rights/duties/privileges adults have. This bothers you?

Perhaps we should create a Department of Special Disenfranchisement to come up with all sorts of convoluted stop the vote schemes. It is a sure fire way to a better society.

A good diversion is always recommended.

I see I'm late to this discussion, but it looks like it already has you so overly emotional that you can't seriously discuss the matter. You're quickly letting fly with sarcasm.
 
Infinite shades of gray here. It's only a conflict if the person stands to gain to a much much greater extent than others? What about only one "much?" You're trying to draw a line in the sand. Taxation and representation should go hand in hand. We have people who have full representation but no taxation. This is basically the opposite problem of taxation without representation. The founders had things to say about both problems.
The Founders believed only White male property owners should vote, that slave ownership was correct...yadda yadda. They are dead and buried, it is 2015. WAKE UP.



Seems like you're getting carried away a little here. No one votes for SNAP, and minors are not "disenfranchised from voting for SNAP." Disenfranchised is the deprivation of a right. Minors have never voted, they have never ahd that right, they are not taxpayers, they do not provide for themselves, they cannot contract legally with others.
I did not bring up minors.....DERP!



Minors don't have the rights/duties/privileges adults have. This bothers you?
What bothers me is trying to equate SNAP beneficiaries to minors.



I see I'm late to this discussion, but it looks like it already has you so overly emotional that you can't seriously discuss the matter. You're quickly letting fly with sarcasm.
I get that way when folks post REALLY stupid argument about an essential right being removed and keep their comments really myopic.
 
First I have not said anybody should not be allowed to vote.

And I have to present no evidence in order to present and ask questions about a specific concept. You know, that concept than only one or two has yet addressed?

Then how would your proposition work? There is no real way to separate them without having something damn near like a House of Lords and House of Commons, and even then some politicians would have to be voted on jointed. Plus there will never be anything to vote on if people can't vote on things that affect them. Almost everything has some affect on people in any group.
 
Infinite shades of gray here. It's only a conflict if the person stands to gain to a much much greater extent than others? What about only one "much?" You're trying to draw a line in the sand. Taxation and representation should go hand in hand. We have people who have full representation but no taxation. This is basically the opposite problem of taxation without representation. The founders had things to say about both problems.

What did they say about taxes and voting?
 
The Founders believed only White male property owners should vote, that slave ownership was correct...yadda yadda. They are dead and buried, it is 2015. WAKE UP.

Women generally didn't pay taxes back then either. They were regarded as dependents. Dependents don't vote.

I did not bring up minors.....DERP!

What bothers me is trying to equate SNAP beneficiaries to minors.

This isn't even coherent.

I get that way when folks post REALLY stupid argument about an essential right being removed and keep their comments really myopic.

It's not myopic. There are adults with varying degrees of dependence on others for survival. On the extreme end of the spectrum, consider profoundly physically and mentally disabled adults. Some are unable to even express a preference in voting. If an adult is adjudicated disabled and has no rights or responsibilities because of that dependence, why do you regard this disabled person's right to vote so essential? And then there are many more adults who are less dependent, but still somewhat dependent on society's other adults to get by. Where on this spectrum should the right to vote be drawn? Or should no such line be drawn? Should we regard voting rights as sacrosanct such that being 18+ years from birth means you absolutely can vote?

It's a philosophical argument. I am of the opinion that what underlies the voting privilege is being subject to the mandatory contribution to public goods and services provided by the level of government for which one would vote. I am not subject to New York taxes and similarly cannot vote in New York elections.
 
How do you feel about women voting? You never answered my question about founding fathers and taxes/voting.

Are you contemplating whether I might be of the opinion that only men should be able to vote? Don't get too excited. To the extent that a person, woman or man, is an autonomous adult, subject to taxes collected by a government, such a person must be allowed to vote in elections to that government (taxation with representation).
 
Back
Top Bottom