• 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 welfare recipients be allowed to vote?[W:84]

Should those on welfare or any federal aid be allowed to vote?

  • Yes. Absolutely.

    Votes: 58 77.3%
  • No.

    Votes: 13 17.3%
  • Other?

    Votes: 4 5.3%

  • Total voters
    75

Kreton

Doesn't know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
13,350
Reaction score
6,591
Location
Across the street from the family across the stree
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?
 
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage.

Oh, I'll bet what he had to say was a model of tempered reasoning and moderation.

He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?

All citizens should have the right to vote. Period.
 
Yes, they have the right to vote.


Funny enough, most older Americans are on medicaire and social security and tend to vote republican. Some people don't really think about things before they start to rant.
 
Yes, they have the right to vote.


Funny enough, most older Americans are on medicaire and social security and tend to vote republican. Some people don't really think about things before they start to rant.

The term welfare generally refers to the 70+ gov't "safety net" programs that are based on low household income/size, not simply any gov't entitlement. SS/Medicare are based on age and disability status but not on household income/size.
 
The term welfare generally refers to the 70+ gov't "safety net" programs that are based on low household income/size, not simply any gov't entitlement. SS/Medicare are based on age and disability status but not on household income/size.

I guess I didn't think it through much, but still it's a kind of federal aid, yes?
 
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?

His argument probably has been around since the inception of our country. It always has been feared that once people who rely on government largess instead of working and caring for themselves would vote for the candidates and party who promise to continue to let them live off the government and those who work. That their vote will not be cast for the candidate or party that they think is best for the country, but only for the candidate and party who will promise to continue to give them free stuff.

Perhaps not in these words, but that is the meaning they of their words from guys like Savage. His and their fear is you will have one party representing productive members of society and one party representing the unproductive of society. The leeches in their view. They see the minority of those on welfare that are perfectly satisified being on welfare and letting others cater to their needs without even trying to improve themselves. They see those on welfare as having made bad decisions in their lives and have done many wrong things and done wrong actions and are now being rewarded for those wrong decisions and actions they chose themselves.

What they do not see are the ones who go on welfare for a short time, survive and then move up and off of welfare and become productive citizens. I am not defending guys like Savage, just explaining their view. Chances are none of these who hold views like Savage have ever went through tough times. Have never needed help from others.

Savage and his like are a very small minority. But he does raise a good question, how long should anyone be on welfare or on unemployment insurance. Why do some become satisified with just being on the public dole and are willing to live their entire life on the dole instead of trying to find work? Should there be a cut off, a time period? Are we rewarding a ton of bad choices some of these people make in their life with no consequences for making those bad choices.

I think these questions need to be talked about. How can we take care of the people who need it without making welfare become a life of choice?

I am the type of person who usually believes there has to be a happy medium. That somehow we can make sure the poor are well taken care of, those on welfare receive what they need and somehow come up with a system or scheme where welfare and living off other does not become a life style. I haven't the faintest idea how to accomplish this.
 
I guess I didn't think it through much, but still it's a kind of federal aid, yes?

No more so than a federal civilian/military retirement check. What of those with "special needs'' children funded by federal education funds? Obviously many folks receive more in federal benefits than they pay in federal taxes or we would not have a national debt. The idea that voting, or any other constitutional right, be tied to one's financial status is scary. The rich already have electoral super powers, via campaign cash, and thus get extra attention from elected representatives; at least let the politicians have to keep lying to get the votes of the ignorant and poor. ;)
 
Savage is bonkers, but he's not the only one on the extreme right going all-out class warfare like this.

No more so than a federal civilian/military retirement check. What of those with "special needs'' children funded by federal education funds? Obviously many folks receive more in federal benefits than they pay in federal taxes or we would not have a national debt. The idea that voting, or any other constitutional right, be tied to one's financial status is scary. The rich already have electoral super powers, via campaign cash, and thus get extra attention from elected representatives; at least let the politicians have to keep lying to get the votes of the ignorant and poor. ;)


But I thought social security was a giant ponzi scheme where you're paying for someone else's benefits, not your own. NO VOTES FOR OLD PEOPLE!
 
Last edited:
These beliefs are why I'm very happy with courts blocking majority rule where those laws are unconstitutional. There's always a Fred Savage who thinks a segment of the population shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?

Savage is another cartoon character on radio, creating a complete schtick, that most of his pathetic listeners believe is real and sincere. He is just another hack, but unlike most talk show hosts, he actually went to colllege, has a doctorate in nutrition or something. But his show, like his fake name Savage is just a fraud, he throws out red meat to ignorant rubes who love him and believe his act.
 
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?

He's a nut case whose training is in nutrition. Lots of us who are familiar with his nuttery think he is a left wing POE
 
He's a shock jock pure and simple.
 
No. Welfare recipients and others whose main/primary source of income is Government-based should NOT be allowed to vote as it is a significant conflict of interest.
 
He's a nut case whose training is in nutrition. Lots of us who are familiar with his nuttery think he is a left wing POE

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was a schtick, or at least an amped up version of himself. I know people who know Rush Limbaugh, and they say his non-media personality is absolutely nothing at all like what he puts on the air.
 
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was a schtick, or at least an amped up version of himself. I know people who know Rush Limbaugh, and they say his non-media personality is absolutely nothing at all like what he puts on the air.

I have never met Rush or "Dr Savage". But here in Cincinnati we have a guy who is probably better known than Savage named "Willie Cunningham or Bill Cunningham'. I have been a live guest on his show, I know him personally and I was once was a lecturer at the local law school on 2A issues and BC-who had a good reputation as a trial attorney prior to becoming a talk show host-appeared as well.

and yeah on air personalities are often different than the person in real life.
 
I was flipping around the radio yesterday and came across a guy named Michael Savage. He was pretty excited and screaming about "Why should those on welfare be allowed to vote". His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say. Use the right to vote to encourage those lazy leeches to get off of their asses and get a job.

I had heard of this guy but I don't think I've ever listened to him before. I have heard Rush and Hannity before but this guy seemed extreme even in comparison to those guys. Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote. Taking power away from people and handing it solely to the upper classes. And he was talking about this should be one of the platforms of the Republican party.

What do you think?
When I saw the title of this thread, I knew I wanted to add "how about rich people on welfare, or people on any kind of government assistance"... and you already had that in the poll, so good job, excellent poll. But I do not agree with your post itself, I believe people on any kind of government assistance should NOT be allowed to vote, because eventually THE SYSTEM ENDS UP VOTING FOR ITSELF - and THAT is what happened to America - ALL THESE ANTI ESTABLISHMENT TROLLS, most of them are a PART of establishment now, they are a fraud opposition, the REAL opposition is BURRIED, OBSCURED. I am NOT against government employees, but they already have too much power, and them being able to obtain more power by giving out welfare and benefits that they take from society, gives them even more power, which, they are not even in control of, because the top government officials are all puppets to international bankers.

Oh, and the reason why majority in your poll voted to allow those on government hand outs to vote, is because majority ARE on government hand outs, if that would not be the reason why, then majority would also favor to allow the rest of the WORLD to vote as well, not just police it - so they are absolute hypocrites in my view.
 
These beliefs are why I'm very happy with courts blocking majority rule where those laws are unconstitutional. There's always a Fred Savage who thinks a segment of the population shouldn't be allowed to vote.

What did the kid from The Wonder Years ever do to you?
 
What? How so?

The same way that allowing Congress to vote on its own pay raises is a conflict of interest. Allowing people to vote for individuals who they know will provide them with a significant financial gain is a conflict. Regardless of whether it's the heads of major corporations or Social Security/Welfare recipients.
 
The same way that allowing Congress to vote on its own pay raises is a conflict of interest. Allowing people to vote for individuals who they know will provide them with a significant financial gain is a conflict. Regardless of whether it's the heads of major corporations or Social Security/Welfare recipients.

Most Americans vote with their interests in mind. Rich people vote for what they think will be in their best interests, so does the middle class. By your twisted ass logic, why let anyone vote?
 
No. Welfare recipients and others whose main/primary source of income is Government-based should NOT be allowed to vote as it is a significant conflict of interest.
Uhh, I'm not sure you understand the concept of voting...everyone who votes can be said to have a conflict of interest.

If I'm a small business man, I'd vote for the candidate who would keep my taxes low. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a teacher, I vote for a candidate who promises to put more money into education. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a software engineer, I vote for a candidate who promises to increase copyright law. Conflict of interest.
I'm an elected government official, I vote for myself. Conflict of interest.

I could go on and on, but the idea we shouldn't let a certain segment of the population vote because society has kicked them in the teeth is absurd and very dangerous thinking.
Maybe not those incarcerated, but for those who are free and following the law, why not?
 
Most Americans vote with their interests in mind. Rich people vote for what they think will be in their best interests, so does the middle class. By your twisted ass logic, why let anyone vote?

Voting is an act of aggression, yes.
 
I selected "Other" because I think the vote should be weighted according to the degree of dependence the person has on the state or others. Welfare might make up 10% of one person's needs vs. 95% of another person's needs. I don't think it makes sense to completely eradicate civic participation among anyone who gets help, I just think the votes should weigh a little less to the extent that one relies on government for basic needs.
 
Back
Top Bottom