• 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
rabbitcaebannog said:
A minor is not at all the same as an adult. There are lots of things adults are allowed to do that children can't. Hint: it has nothing to do with paying taxes
Click to expand...

Does it have to do with other laws?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
A minor is not at all the same as an adult. There are lots of things adults are allowed to do that children can't. Hint: it has nothing to do with paying taxes
Click to expand...

Being subject to taxes definitely has something to do with the social/political/legal rights and responsibilities of being an adult. Something separates minors from adults. What is it? Hint, Gimmesometruth has already told us a couple posts ago.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Being subject to taxes definitely has something to do with the social/political/legal rights and responsibilities of being an adult. Something separates minors from adults. What is it? Hint, Gimmesometruth has already told us a couple posts ago.
Click to expand...

The answer is maturity.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
If you mean things like when they can legally drink or fight in a war....yes. They lack the maturity to make such decisions. All of this has nothing to do with OP.
Click to expand...

I thought so.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I imagine you are trying to say something, and when you have it worked out, let me know.
Click to expand...

It is not outlandish to suggest that the same assumptions that separate childhood from adulthood also separate some adults from other adults. Some adults need society (other adults) to survive. They are thus for all intents and purposes society's dependents. Since dependents typically don't get to vote (because, duh, they're dependents) it is not outlandish to suggest their voting rights be discounted relative to those adults who are having to be the providers.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It is not outlandish to suggest that the same assumptions that separate childhood from adulthood also separate some adults from other adults. Some adults need society (other adults) to survive. They are thus for all intents and purposes society's dependents. Since dependents typically don't get to vote (because, duh, they're dependents) it is not outlandish to suggest their voting rights be discounted relative to those adults who are having to be the providers.
Click to expand...

That is called a s t r e t c h.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Some adults need society (other adults) to survive.
Click to expand...
Whew...now I did not see that one coming!

Thank goodness we don't need to depend on other peop....er...adults, we are, after all, totally AUTONOMOUS beings, not needing farmers, doctors, soldiers, scientists, wives, husbands.....we can do everything ourselves....ABSOLUTELY! It does not take a village, it only takes oneself (too seriously)!
 
Neomalthusian said:
It is not outlandish to suggest that the same assumptions that separate childhood from adulthood also separate some adults from other adults. Some adults need society (other adults) to survive. They are thus for all intents and purposes society's dependents. Since dependents typically don't get to vote (because, duh, they're dependents) it is not outlandish to suggest their voting rights be discounted relative to those adults who are having to be the providers.
Click to expand...

You are a dependent.
 
AlbqOwl said:
What you think I understand and what I understand is irrelevant to this discussion as is abortion, LGBT issues, or any other issues of the week.

My argument is focused on one single concept which I believe is within the context and intent of the OP: The morality (or the ethics or the rightness or wrongness or the consequences) of people being able to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

Focus on that and we can have a discussion.
Click to expand...

Uh-uh. You said: "And I will never agree to vote for government in which pragmatism trumps moral convictions." and I'm calling you on that statement. YOUR morality is not the same as everyone else's. Do you want to see what life is like in a nation ruled by moral convictions instead of pragmatic government? Go read "The Handmaid's Tale". Or go read about life under the Puritans. Or life under ISIS.

That, ma'am, is what happens when people are ruled by one set of morals, wherein other sets of morals are not tolerated.
 
Henrin said:
Why does the government have to play a role in societal issues? Why can't the government only concern itself with rights?
Click to expand...

I know how you right-libertarians try to make everything black and white. "Does it violate my natural born rights? No, then it's okay. Yes, then government should step in." Unfortunately, issues are often not that simple. Let's take air pollution. I believe I have a right to breathe clean air. I'm sure you do, too. However, we live in a fossil-fuel dominated world. If we were to ban all fossil fuels immediately then our economy would crash. Still, I am involuntarily breathing in their pollutants. In severe cases, some people may develop lung cancer. It is not an easy issue to resolve, and that is why we need government regulation of air quality to strike a balance between one extreme and the other.
 
WCH said:
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?"
Click to expand...


That isn't always true. I've known plenty of people that voted Republican. Kentucky has a lot of very poor areas and Obama didn't do good in many of the rural areas that are on welfare. Although historically the last 80 years, Kentucky has always voted for the winning candidate. A more appropriate question may be "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat, as long as the candidate isn't black?"
 
JohnWOlin said:
That isn't always true. I've known plenty of people that voted Republican. Kentucky has a lot of very poor areas and Obama didn't do good in many of the rural areas that are on welfare. Although historically the last 80 years, Kentucky has always voted for the winning candidate. A more appropriate question may be "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat, as long as the candidate isn't black?"
Click to expand...

Maybe there are lots of Independents in KY. ;)

I know there are than a few poor folks.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

if means the have run out of an argument, and switch to confrontation based on their feelings.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution. (wiki)
Click to expand...

that is correct, but madison is making the argument, how can money be given to Haitians, then the constitution does not permit giving money to people.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Um, it's already been established that the wealthiest among us vote themselves subsidies.
Click to expand...

they do not vote themselves anything, they hire people to lobby congress for what they desire, and the ability of lobbying congress is because the congress has become a democratic body...which faction thrives in.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution does not permit giving money to people.
Click to expand...
Of course, the USC prohibits Congress from spending, whether it is foreign aid or domestic social programs. SNAP is un-constitutional. You used to make standing on your head arguments, now your fundamentalist POV has gone off into nether regions.
 
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.
Click to expand...
According to your logic, should rich people have more leverage in the vote?
 
idea_steed said:
According to your logic, should rich people have more leverage in the vote?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My logic is strictly focused on the problem we have with those who have no dog in the fight and who will suffer no negative consequence from their vote and/or those who hope to profit at the expense of others with their vote. Degree of profit and negative consequence is of little importance.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Of course, the USC prohibits Congress from spending, whether it is foreign aid or domestic social programs. SNAP is un-constitutional. You used to make standing on your head arguments, now your fundamentalist POV has gone off into nether regions.
Click to expand...


the constitution is clear.. it states what powers are delegated to the the federal government, and their are NO powers of the federal government into the personal life's liberty and property of the people, ..those are state powers.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Not at all. My logic is strictly focused on the problem we have with those who have no dog in the fight and who will suffer no negative consequence from their vote and/or those who hope to profit at the expense of others with their vote. Degree of profit and negative consequence is of little importance.
Click to expand...

:) i have read your post over and over on the point you are making, however some people are not able to grasp your simple premise.
 
ernst barkmann said:
:) i have read your post over and over on the point you are making, however some people are not able to grasp your simple premise.
Click to expand...

Well that is true. But I wonder why it is that those who can't grasp it are nevertheless dead certain I am not only wrong, but evil. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom