• 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
Hatuey said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Many historians have studied that phenomenon and what they conclude simply does not support your argument. Most especially in the United States where starvation is rare and foolish given all the public and private resources to prevent it. So it is not hunger that drives welfare. Probably people on welfare include overweight kids and adults more than the general population as a whole.

". . .The "politically correct" theory is that poverty and discrimination is the cause of high crime rates. During my youth in the 1930s and 1940s, black neighborhoods were far safer than today. It would be preposterous to suggest back then there was less poverty and discrimination. . ."--Walter Williams.
Walter Williams
 
AlbqOwl said:
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:"
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?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Gimmesometruth 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. 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.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to show that. My intention was to answer the question suggested by the OP: Should Citizen A, who didn't merit or earn it, be able to vote himself/herself what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired? Can you answer that question without veering off into a related but different topic?

Those who vote for politicians because they promise to keep the freebies coming are doing just that.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you support robbery to feed people that are inclined to kill others if they don't get what they want. So basically if they can't rob me they will kill me, right? Hmm..so the solution is to let them rob me? Seems to me the solution to that situation is to kill the aggressive ****s. :shrug:
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't intend to show that. My intention was to answer the question suggested by the OP: Should Citizen A, who didn't merit or earn it, be able to vote himself/herself what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired? Can you answer that question without veering off into a related but different topic?

Those who vote for politicians because they promise to keep the freebies coming are doing just that.
Click to expand...

The right to to vote is one of the most important rights given to citizens.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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?
Click to expand...
:doh........i don't know how you arrive that these interpreations.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Many historians have studied that phenomenon and what they conclude simply does not support your argument. Most especially in the United States where starvation is rare and foolish given all the public and private resources to prevent it.
Click to expand...
OMG, you are arguing to END WELFARE, you can't seriously be arguing that revolution has not happened because of social supports while arguing for the ending of these same social supports....while saying revolutions have not happened beccause of social supports.....FFS!!!!!!!


So it is not hunger that drives welfare. Probably people on welfare include overweight kids and adults more than the general population as a whole.
Click to expand...
Um, food insecurity drives choice to high fat/low nutrition sources. You are once again making a "soup kitchens cause depressions" argument.

". . .The "politically correct" theory is that poverty and discrimination is the cause of high crime rates. During my youth in the 1930s and 1940s, black neighborhoods were far safer than today. It would be preposterous to suggest back then there was less poverty and discrimination. . ."--Walter Williams.
Walter Williams
Click to expand...
Oh well, falling back to Randian commentators.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
By the constitution and by birth as an American citizen.
Click to expand...

wrong.... the constitution does not grant any rights.

the constitution grants power to the federal government only, along with the bill of rights rights which places restrictions on the federal government not to infringe on recognized rights of the constitution.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The right to to vote is one of the most important rights given to citizens.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't intend to show that. My intention was to answer the question suggested by the OP: Should Citizen A, who didn't merit or earn it, be able to vote himself/herself what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired? Can you answer that question without veering off into a related but different topic?

Those who vote for politicians because they promise to keep the freebies coming are doing just that.
Click to expand...

You don't know why anyone voted for any politician, unless they each specifically told you that they voted for that politician for the promised "freebies". I'm willing to bet that in reality, people don't vote for that one single thing, not the vast majority anyway.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong.... the constitution does not grant any rights.

the constitution grants power to the federal government only, along with the bill of rights rights which places restrictions on the federal government not to infringe on recognized rights of the constitution.
Click to expand...

The government cannot govern without the support and consent of its citizens.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Many historians have studied that phenomenon and what they conclude simply does not support your argument. Most especially in the United States where starvation is rare and foolish given all the public and private resources to prevent it. So it is not hunger that drives welfare. Probably people on welfare include overweight kids and adults more than the general population as a whole.

". . .The "politically correct" theory is that poverty and discrimination is the cause of high crime rates. During my youth in the 1930s and 1940s, black neighborhoods were far safer than today. It would be preposterous to suggest back then there was less poverty and discrimination. . ."--Walter Williams.
Walter Williams
Click to expand...

Your article simply has nothing to do with reality. People who are hungry are more likely to engage in populist revolutions. This is true and your argument simply doesn't refute that. I can cite hundreds of examples of revolts occurring because they are supported by starving masses. Taxes as we have them today, ensure that the poor aren't persuaded into mass revolts and start knocking on the doors of private communities. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
Your article simply has nothing to do with reality. People who are hungry are more likely to engage in populist revolutions. This is true and your argument simply doesn't refute that. I can cite hundreds of examples of revolts occurring because they are supported by starving masses. Taxes as we have them today, ensure that the poor aren't persuaded into mass revolts and start knocking on the doors of private communities. :shrug:
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
You don't know why anyone voted for any politician, unless they each specifically told you that they voted for that politician for the promised "freebies". I'm willing to bet that in reality, people don't vote for that one single thing, not the vast majority anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is non sequitur to the argument made.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

If everyone has the right to vote then they all have the ability to trample the rights of other.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The government cannot govern without the support and consent of its citizens.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't intend to show that.
Click to expand...
It is the intermediary step between voting and getting said benefit.



My intention was to answer the question suggested by the OP: Should Citizen A, who didn't merit or earn it, be able to vote himself/herself what Citizen B legally and ethically earned or acquired?
Click to expand...
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?

Can you answer that question without veering off into a related but different topic?
Click to expand...
Oh, once again....THE IRONY!!!!

Those who vote for politicians because they promise to keep the freebies coming are doing just that.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom