• 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
AlbqOwl said:
That is the uncomfortable elephant in the room isn't it though? That people on welfare should not be able to vote on how much welfare they will receive? I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty in determining how that would be implemented, but that is the issue just the same. Those who vote to receive welfare are doing so at the expense of others because it is those others who give up their resources to provide the welfare. Those on welfare only benefit.
Click to expand...
First off, I have no idea how "folks on welfare vote for welfare". By what mechanism do you think this happens? SNAP is a longstanding social program, going back to 1939. Secondly, those dollars are spent at GROCERY CHAINS, so are those beneficiaries of federal dollars also going to be excluded from "voting on welfare", whatever the hell that means?

But I disagree that voting to lower taxes is the same thing. Voting to lower taxes may benefit me, yes, but it also benefits everybody who pays taxes. That is the difference between voting for revision in the tax code as opposed to voting for what others will provide you. Lower taxes may be to the detriment of those on welfare--that has not been shown to be a fact but it is an argument that is made. But it is not at the EXPENSE of those on welfare as those on welfare are not required to provide anything to those paying taxes.
Click to expand...
This is getting back to the same argument implied by you previously, that if we cut food benefits to households with food insecurity, we will somehow see the creation of jobs. Further, "Able Bodied Adults" receiving SNAP are required to be either employed or in training to receive SNAP. The majority of ABA getting SNAP are employed. I find it draconian that you want to starve and remove franchise from millions of low income US citizens, it is all just so Ayn Rand-ish, but there you are.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
First off, I have no idea how "folks on welfare vote for welfare". By what mechanism do you think this happens? SNAP is a longstanding social program, going back to 1939. Secondly, those dollars are spent at GROCERY CHAINS, so are those beneficiaries of federal dollars also going to be excluded from "voting on welfare", whatever the hell that means?

This is getting back to the same argument implied by you previously, that if we cut food benefits to households with food insecurity, we will somehow see the creation of jobs. Further, "Able Bodied Adults" receiving SNAP are required to be either employed or in training to receive SNAP. The majority of ABA getting SNAP are employed. I find it draconian that you want to starve and remove franchise from millions of low income US citizens, it is all just so Ayn Rand-ish, but there you are.
Click to expand...


your sentence makes it sounds as if snap has been on going since the 30's and its not correct.
 
ernst barkmann said:
your sentence makes it sounds as if snap has been on going since the 30's and its not correct.
Click to expand...
As per usual, you have brought nothing to the table other than your beliefs.

The first US food stamp program was implemented in 1939. What you infer, incorrectly or correctly, is not my responsibility.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
As per usual, you have brought nothing to the table other than your beliefs.

The first US food stamp program was implemented in 1939. What you infer, incorrectly or correctly, is not my responsibility.
Click to expand...

as stated... but you did not answer........your sentences eludes to that the snap program has been an on going program since 1939.......that is not correct.

so you are using deception
 
ernst barkmann said:
as stated... but you did not answer........your sentences eludes to that the snap program has been an on going program since 1939.......that is not correct.

so you are using deception
Click to expand...
As per usual, you have to put words in others mouths to make a pedantic point, I did not write "on going".

Your stupid persnickety focus upon the continuity of the program, if you want to restrict it to 1961, still makes it a "long standing program", so you have gained nothing....as usual.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
As per usual, you have to put words in others mouths to make a pedantic point, I did not write "ongoing".

Your stupid persnickety focus upon the continuity of the program, if you want to restrict it to 1961, still makes it a "long standing program", so you have gained nothing....as usual.
Click to expand...

lets straighten you out!

first i did say you said anything..........i made the point that your sentence, by the way it is written makes it sound as if snap has been an ongoing program since 1939.


here is what you said.......SNAP is a longstanding social program, going back to 1939

long-stand·ing

adjective: longstanding
having existed or continued for a long time.



so i stated that is not correct..snap has not existed or been a continued program since 1939........


understand what you are posting...when you post
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
lets straighten you out!first i did say you said anythingi made the point the your sentence,by the way it is written makes it soundas if snap has been an ongoing program since 1939.
Click to expand...
Again, for the second time, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU INFER......FFS!


here is what you saidSNAP is alongstandingsocial program, going back to 1939long-stand·ingadjective: longstandinghaving existed or continued for a long time.so i stated that is not correct..snap has not existed or been a continued program since 1939understand what you are posting.
Click to expand...
Your stupid persnickety focus upon the continuity of the program, if you want to restrict it to 1961, still makes it a "long standing program", so you have gained nothing....as usual.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, for the second time, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU INFER......FFS!


Your stupid persnickety focus upon the continuity of the program, if you want to restrict it to 1961, still makes it a "long standing program", so you have gained nothing....as usual.
Click to expand...

so in other words ..........you were trying to "buff people" into thinking snap has been around as a program of the federal government since 1939.

what i gained is you have no knowledge of things you post....example...when you stated i said force taxation was unconstitutional........you did not know what you were posting.
 
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...

I vote for democrats and I've never collected a cent in welfare
 
ernst barkmann said:
so in other words ..........you were trying to "buff people" into thinking snap has been around as a program of the federal government since 1939.
Click to expand...
"Buff"?

For someone so pedantically concerned with precise language.....oh, never mind, you won't, once again, understand the irony.
 
roguenuke said:
They don't get to vote directly on how much welfare they receive though. In fact, the wealthy, especially those with interests in keeping their own working costs low, have more influence via campaign funding and lobbying on how much people on welfare get than anyone actually on welfare.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The politicians enrich themselves greatly while in office. And those who promise lots of freebies, goodies, and gratuitous money get the vote from those who hope to receive it. No politician who depends on the welfare vote and/or low income vote to keep his seat is going to stop promising those freebie or delivering on at least some of his/her promises.
 
Hatuey said:
Why do I have a lot of money and don't feel like I'm being stolen from? It's crazy. I pay taxes because they keep many people - good and bad - from starvation and death. Sure, some abuse that but in general, it ensures the survival of our species and various groups important to our collective knowledge and humanity.
Click to expand...

Wait..so if some people starved to death that would endanger the species?? Sorry, but if ten people in a group die in a car crash or whatever the rest of the group survives just fine. Sure, maybe a few guys that died are pretty important, but there is plenty of people around to take their place. These people we are talking about are poor, and while it might be really insensitive to say, not terribly important or terribly hard to replace.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
First off, I have no idea how "folks on welfare vote for welfare". By what mechanism do you think this happens? SNAP is a longstanding social program, going back to 1939. Secondly, those dollars are spent at GROCERY CHAINS, so are those beneficiaries of federal dollars also going to be excluded from "voting on welfare", whatever the hell that means?

This is getting back to the same argument implied by you previously, that if we cut food benefits to households with food insecurity, we will somehow see the creation of jobs. Further, "Able Bodied Adults" receiving SNAP are required to be either employed or in training to receive SNAP. The majority of ABA getting SNAP are employed. I find it draconian that you want to starve and remove franchise from millions of low income US citizens, it is all just so Ayn Rand-ish, but there you are.
Click to expand...

The argument is not merit or who gets what or how it is determined who gets what.

The argument is whether Citizen A should be able to vote to benefit himself/herself from what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired. So few seem to be able to focus on that one simple concept. I believe the reason for that is because the concept is so uncomfortable to acknowledge when one is also defending the social welfare agenda.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I disagree. The politicians enrich themselves greatly while in office. And those who promise lots of freebies, goodies, and gratuitous money get the vote from those who hope to receive it. No politician who depends on the welfare vote and/or low income vote to keep his seat is going to stop promising those freebie or delivering on at least some of his/her promises.
Click to expand...
So let me understand this, these supposed politicians who are getting rich from being in office are directly receiving these vast sums......from the poor?
 
Henrin said:
Wait..so if some people starved to death that would endanger the species??
Click to expand...

Nope, however, there are enough people starving already who would to make the prospect of more starving people, a real danger to our species. The human species doesn't do well when it's starving. It starts fighting itself and becoming unstable. Taxes ensure the opposite. They ensure that enough people are fed so that they don't engage in populist revolutions.

Sorry, but if ten people in a group die in a car crash or whatever the rest of the group survives just fine. Sure, maybe a few guys that died are pretty important, but there is plenty of people around to take their place. These people we are talking about are poor, and while it might be really insensitive to say, not terribly important or terribly hard to replace.
Click to expand...

Your absurd understanding of my statement leaves much to be desired. However, that simply isn't what I'm saying. My approach is like saying that I don't object to taxes because of all the people that they provide for.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So let me understand this, these supposed politicians who are getting rich from being in office are directly receiving these vast sums......from the poor?
Click to expand...

No, they are receiving vast sums by virtue of holding their elected or appointed seats in government. It provides them all kinds of opportunity to enrich themselves, others who are then obligated to them, family members, etc. Catering to the 'poor' just keeps some of them in those seats.

For a really good perspective about all this, I recommend Peter Schweizer's book "Extortion:"
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So let me understand this, these supposed politicians who are getting rich from being in office are directly receiving these vast sums......from the poor?
Click to expand...

No, they throw Sheckels at the poor to keep them in power, where they can sell influence to the rich.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The argument is not merit or who gets what or how it is determined who gets what.

The argument is whether Citizen A should be able to vote to benefit himself/herself from what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired. So few seem to be able to focus on that one simple concept. I believe the reason for that is because the concept is so uncomfortable to acknowledge when one is also defending the social welfare agenda.
Click to expand...
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. Further, you keep sidestepping the fact that owners of grocery chains, those that PROFIT from SNAP spending, are not going not "lose their vote" under your plan. Again, huge contributors that lobby Congress for contracts DIRECTLY cannot lose their franchise. This argument is just beyond stupid.
 
AlbqOwl said:
That is the uncomfortable elephant in the room isn't it though? That people on welfare should not be able to vote on how much welfare they will receive? I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty in determining how that would be implemented, but that is the issue just the same. Those who vote to receive welfare are doing so at the expense of others because it is those others who give up their resources to provide the welfare. Those on welfare only benefit.

But I disagree that voting to lower taxes is the same thing. Voting to lower taxes may benefit me, yes, but it also benefits everybody who pays taxes. That is the difference between voting for revision in the tax code as opposed to voting for what others will provide you. Lower taxes may be to the detriment of those on welfare--that has not been shown to be a fact but it is an argument that is made. But it is not at the EXPENSE of those on welfare as those on welfare are not required to provide anything to those paying taxes.
Click to expand...

The OP doesnt ask if welfare people should be able to vote on welfare issues, the Op asks is they should be able to vote ever.


Specific groups like senior citizens get to vote on if a levy should be approved for senior citizen centers. Those who are not old enough have to pay that levy even though they wont be going to the senior citizen center and receive any services. We dont charge just certain people taxes everyone pays the tax. There specific product and service taxes but there isnt a requirement to but those products and services. Owners of motels get to vote on lodgers tax changes.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, they throw Sheckels at the poor to keep them in power, where they can sell influence to the rich.
Click to expand...
You just proved my point, their supposed accumulation of wealth is not coming from the poor. Is the argument going to become so convoluted that politicians becoming wealthy will end if SNAP recipients have their franchise revoked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom