• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....what she said was:

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, about paying my mortgage...."

This was not a comment about social services, it was a comment about economic recovery in 2008. Lots of folks in 2008 were worried about not making enough to pay mortgages and for gas.

But hey, context, details, understanding and comprehension.....who needs 'em when unattributable quotes supposedly from 18th century Scots will do.
Click to expand...




from the very woman in the video....and questions posed to her.

did obama pay for your gas?.....absolutely not.

did obama pay your mortgage?....absolutely not.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Hmmm and oddly enough gas prices have gone way down from the high.
Click to expand...

yes.... they have drilling in the u.s has increased and the ability to frag is producing also, causing prices to go down however that does have a side effect of job lose.
 
ernst barkmann said:
from the very woman in the video....and questions posed to her.

did obama pay for your gas?.....absolutely not.

did obama pay your mortgage?....absolutely not.
Click to expand...
Huur...duur. She is a soccer Mom, a nurse with 2 children.....she never used SNAP or TANF.

Again for the hard of understanding, she was WORRIED about NOT being able to pay her mortgage fuel bills, she never expected a POTUS to do it, she was never on welfare. She was hoping the economy would improve to alleviate her concerns, it was about economics, not welfare.

Frigging bag of hammers argument.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes.... they have drilling in the u.s has increased and the ability to frag is producing also, causing prices to go down however that does have a side effect of job lose.
Click to expand...

Wait a second here what are you trying to say now? You want higher gas prices because of job losses?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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)!
Click to expand...

FreedomFromAll said:
You are a dependent.
Click to expand...

There are varying degrees of dependence. Many posts ago within this thread I acknowledged that most recipients of welfare are not 100% dependent on government assistance for all things, thus rather than losing the vote entirely that it be weighted.
 
Neomalthusian said:
There are varying degrees of dependence. Many posts ago within this thread I acknowledged that most recipients of welfare are not 100% dependent on government assistance for all things, thus rather than losing the vote entirely that it be weighted.
Click to expand...

because I'm sure county elections offices would really love to audit W-2s and benefit statements for each ballot cast, and how would you do this without attaching a name to the ballot and doing away with secret ballots?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
because I'm sure county elections offices would really love to audit W-2s and benefit statements for each ballot cast, and how would you do this without attaching a name to the ballot and doing away with secret ballots?
Click to expand...

I don't know, the discussion has thus far been more theoretical than procedural.
 
Neomalthusian said:
There are varying degrees of dependence. Many posts ago within this thread I acknowledged that most recipients of welfare are not 100% dependent on government assistance for all things, thus rather than losing the vote entirely that it be weighted.
Click to expand...

SO you want voters to qualify to vote. That sounds a bit too authoritarian for my tastes.

ANd as I stated some posts a go, this drive to disfranchise voters is nothing but a attempt at a power grab. It is pretty obvious the hyper partisan accusation going on here. Conservatives believe that most of the Democrats are leeches and that barring democrats/welfare addicts then the Republican party will be able to dictate what and how things go. It is naive to have such a position, since if we start disfranchising groups of voters it will not stop there. It just really gives Conservatives a bad image (since this masturbatory pipe dream will go nowhere).
 
If the rationale is that people who are on welfare are dependent on the government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to vote, then should military personnel, civil servants, political office holders, etc. also be barred from voting?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Huur...duur. She is a soccer Mom, a nurse with 2 children.....she never used SNAP or TANF.

Again for the hard of understanding, she was WORRIED about NOT being able to pay her mortgage fuel bills, she never expected a POTUS to do it, she was never on welfare. She was hoping the economy would improve to alleviate her concerns, it was about economics, not welfare.

Frigging bag of hammers argument.
Click to expand...
:2razz:.....

we were not even talking about snap here, and she never expressed the ability not be able to pay....:lol:
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
:2razz:.....

we were not even talking about snap here, and she never expressed the ability not be able to pay....:lol:
Click to expand...
Sure, when a person expresses that they were worried about paying their mortgage....somehow to you, it is "never expressing the inability to pay".
 
LeoVlaming said:
If the rationale is that people who are on welfare are dependent on the government and therefore shouldn't be allowed to vote, then should military personnel, civil servants, political office holders, etc. also be barred from voting?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a good comparison. Welfare means the government grants you basic needs but you don't need to work to pay back. The military personnel and civil servants work for their payment. In other words, those are their jobs rather than social welfare.
 
idea_steed said:
I don't think that is a good comparison. Welfare means the government grants you basic needs but you don't need to work to pay back. The military personnel and civil servants work for their payment. In other words, those are their jobs rather than social welfare.
Click to expand...

I take your point. But if dependence on government is the rationale then people who rely on government for their job and thus for their livelyhood are certainly comparable. As are those who receive a pension from government.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
SO you want voters to qualify to vote.
Click to expand...

Children and other dependents don't qualify to vote, for reasons having to do with their inability to provide for themselves. This concept would involve grouping those receiving significant need-based assistance in the same category as those to whom, due to their dependence, we already do not extend the voting privilege.

ANd as I stated some posts a go, this drive to disfranchise voters is nothing but a attempt at a power grab. It is pretty obvious the hyper partisan accusation going on here. Conservatives believe that most of the Democrats are leeches and that barring democrats/welfare addicts then the Republican party will be able to dictate what and how things go. It is naive to have such a position, since if we start disfranchising groups of voters it will not stop there. It just really gives Conservatives a bad image (since this masturbatory pipe dream will go nowhere).
Click to expand...

Whatever all that means.

In democratic republics, voting has long gone hand-in-hand with being subject to the taxation levied by those being voted for. When a minority are net contributors and the majority are net-beneficiaries, you have a system that will eventually destabilize (majority's tyranny). Middle and upper-middle class young adults get reamed the hardest currently, because seniors and near-seniors have most of the votes and most of the money, and the lower classes also have a large and increasing number of the votes. We have high income taxes, low capital gains taxes, low inheritance taxes, we keep honoring toxic defined benefit pensions including the senior benefit programs that won't provide any net benefit to generations X and Y, and we continue growing the welfare state. The middle class young adults get the brunt of all of this; their burden is beyond disproportionate. They are underrepresented and exploited.
 
Last edited:
Holy cow......this is a real poll?
 
Wow......what nonsense. People on welfare still pay taxes. How long before you want to institute a wage based requirement?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Children and other dependents don't qualify to vote, for reasons having to do with their inability to provide for themselves. This concept would involve grouping those receiving significant need-based assistance in the same category as those to whom, due to their dependence, we already do not extend the voting privilege.
Click to expand...
SO not really qualify as much as be disenfranchised because you think they are being childish. Awe the irony.

Whatever all that means.
Click to expand...
It was short a simple and to the point. I suspect that you want to ignore that you want to disenfranchise American voters.
In democratic republics, voting has long gone hand-in-hand with being subject to the taxation levied by those being voted for. When a minority are net contributors and the majority are net-beneficiaries, you have a system that will eventually destabilize (majority's tyranny). Middle and upper-middle class young adults get reamed the hardest currently, because seniors and near-seniors have most of the votes and most of the money, and the lower classes also have a large and increasing number of the votes. We have high income taxes, low capital gains taxes, low inheritance taxes, we keep honoring toxic defined benefit pensions including the senior benefit programs that won't provide any net benefit to generations X and Y, and we continue growing the welfare state. The middle class young adults get the brunt of all of this; their burden is beyond disproportionate. They are underrepresented and exploited.
Click to expand...

Thats great and all but the government disenfranchising American voters is tyranny itself.

Dont worry about those middle class kids, they should just go get a job. Speaking of disenfranchising voters, it would probably be a good idea to raise the voting age. Not that I advocate it, but those kids really have no clue what they are doing. Remember the HOPE campaign? All those first time voters thought Obama was going to fix everything lol. SO I am not really concerned with the laughable under represented kiddies. But then by your logic we should take their voting rights away too.

Another thing. If you start hacking away at American voters who becomes the majority that is voting then? You just told people they cant vote so now the rest that can vote are dictating to those disfranchised voters. It all sounds familiar for some reason. Oh I remember it was in pre ww2 Germany when Jews became send class citizens. You wouldnt be a neo nazi kid would you?
 
It is very sad that there are actually a few people in this country that want to return to a system where essentially only property owners are allowed to vote. You would think that in the 21st century we would be past this. Obviously, America still has a few people that just don't seem to get it.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
SO not really qualify as much as be disenfranchised because you think they are being childish. Awe the irony.
Click to expand...

Other than age, what is the difference between a person 18+ years of age who is 95% dependent on other adults to meet his/her basic needs a teenager under age 18 who is 95% dependent on adults to meet his/her basic needs?

Thats great and all but the government disenfranchising American voters is tyranny itself.
Click to expand...

Do you consider it tyranny that 17-year olds can't vote? Why do you think they should or shouldn't be able to vote?

disneydude said:
It is very sad that there are actually a few people in this country that want to return to a system where essentially only property owners are allowed to vote. You would think that in the 21st century we would be past this. Obviously, America still has a few people that just don't seem to get it.
Click to expand...

Is it disenfranchisement when an elected leader must opt out of a vote due to conflict of interest? Is it disenfranchisement that people less than 18 years of age cannot vote?
 
Of course people on welfare should be aloud to vote.
Anyone that says otherwise is clueless as to what this Nation is all about.

I am curious though, with all of the disguised welfare we give big business and big oil, would this mean that anyone who owns stock in these companies can not vote either?

On another note, it is a humorous irony that while only a Republican could come up with something like this... almost every person on welfare I have known are also Republicans.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Other than age, what is the difference between a person 18+ years of age who is 95% dependent on other adults to meet his/her basic needs a teenager under age 18 who is 95% dependent on adults to meet his/her basic needs?
Click to expand...
Children are not adults. And that ends your childish comparison.


Do you consider it tyranny that 17-year olds can't vote? Why do you think they should or shouldn't be able to vote?
Click to expand...
No 17-year olds are still legally children. The further you get from 17 the better you understand why they cant vote.



Is it disenfranchisement when an elected leader must opt out of a vote due to conflict of interest? Is it disenfranchisement that people less than 18 years of age cannot vote?
Click to expand...
What country are you from? I mean here in the States politicians can vote for themselves. They even make a photo op out of casting their vote.




And no kids should not vote. DO you think that is is wrong that we ban kids from voting? Is this something that you want changed? How old are you?
 
disneydude said:
It is very sad that there are actually a few people in this country that want to return to a system where essentially only property owners are allowed to vote. You would think that in the 21st century we would be past this. Obviously, America still has a few people that just don't seem to get it.
Click to expand...

It's the 21st century. You think we would have learned by now that universal suffrage democracy is a terrible idea.
 
Yes people on welfare should be allowed to vote. But I think we need to raise the voting age to 21. 25 would be preferable but that will never happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom