• 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
It's funny to see you pad this list with legislation where the chief opposition to the bills were Democrats.

I noticed that, too. Good ole LBJ up there fighting for civil rights was also instrumental in knocking down anti-lynching legislation.
 
No, it makes you a dandy exception on that point.

Nope. You are simply taking the supremely mentally lazy approach of painting your opponents with a broad brush.
 
:shrug: in this country, we have a long history of recognizing that those on public assistance have a strong incentive to vote merely for increased public assistance, rather than good governance.


And wealthy people contribute money to force government to its will tom line their pockets, and that's OK. Wealthy and middle class voters vote for their security as well, some are even swayed by 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. Lets' take their vote away too.

And some welfare recipients might just vote according to their conscience, it is possible one American would do so on day. take his vote away because some other people might vote based on their pocket book?

How about we take away the vote of people who might steal? Or take away the vote of drug users. People who cheat on taxes!

You need to look at that stance, my friend. It's social engineering just like socialists.

The vote is sacrosanct, and cannot be taken away because someone doesn't agree on their voting preferences. That's "democracy" in Cuba or North Korea.
 
I voted no. No one who has not served the country in one form or another or who is not presently a contributing member should not have a vote. I also understand that if everyone does not have a vote, it is just tyranny of one class over another. So even though I vote no, I understand and agree with why it has to be the way it is.
 
What do you mean "pad", and no, democrats were not the "chief" opposition to any of that.

False.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Nay votes: Democrats-17 Republicans-2.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Nay Votes: Democrats-96 (39%) Republicans- 34 (20%)

And so on. You really need to vet your sources better, or stop reading into them "facts" that simple aren't there.
 
whether a person paid federal income tax or not, they are still paying taxes via commerce, like the excise tax on gasoline.

voting is not a natural right. its privilege because it requires a government action for it to take place, since according to constitutional law, all Citizens must be granted the same privilege as others Citizens, a Citizen can only be denied the vote if a state can show its in their interest not to allow someone to vote...and that would be a difficult task in court.
 
Last edited:
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

A more pertinent question, in my view, would be "should people on welfare be allowed to work?" In my view, every able bodied person should be required to seek and hold work while on welfare and should, after a period of time, be weened off welfare as they become a fixture in the employment pool. Prohibiting those on welfare from working while receiving benefits simply serves to imbed them in welfare long term, often creating generations of teat suckers in the same family.

As to your question, every citizen of a country, resident in the country, if not incarcerated, should be entitled to vote.
 
We are doing a good job of pushing an oligarchy.

you are correct,..VERY CORRECT.....because democrat forms of government eventfully turn into oligracies, run by the rich elite.

this is able to take place because democratic forms of government have many factious combinations in them, to lobby government and create laws to benefit themselves, at the expense of the people,the states and the union... because the people are easy lead, beguiled and seduced into doing things not in their interest.

which is WHY the founders created a republican form of government, to hinder factious combinations, but the politicians have destroyed with the help of the un-education population....who have been sold the false idea democracy means liberty, which it does not.
 
you are correct,..VERY CORRECT.....because democrat forms of government eventfully turn into oligracies, run by the rich elite.

this is able to take place because democractaic forms of government have many factious combinations in them, to lobby government and create laws to benefit themselves, at the expense of the people,the states and the union... because the people are easy lead, beguiled and seduced into doing things not in their interest.

which is WHY the founders created a republican form of government, to hinder factious combinations, but the politicians have destroyed with the help of the un-education population....who have been sold the false idea democracy means liberty, which it does not.

Only a republican form of government does not hinder factious combinations. The powerful make sure they will win at any cost, and yes lots of people vote against their best interest.
 
Only a republican form of government does not hinder factious combinations. The powerful make sure they will win at any cost, and yes lots of people vote against their best interest.
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.

how does a republican form of government hinder factious combinations.......by dividing power, where as democracy concentrates power, and make it easy for faction to lobby and control.

in democratic forms of government factions only have to seduce/ beguile. only 1 source of power in 1 central location.

in a republican form of government faction has to seduce /beguile 2 sources of power, which are separated.......1 in Washington, and the others spread across the states.
 
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.

how does a republican form of government hinder factious combinations.......by dividing power, where as democracy concentrates power, and make it easy for faction to lobby and control.

in democratic forms of government factions only have to seduce/ beguile. only 1 source of power in 1 central location.

in a republican form of government faction has to seduce /beguile 2 sources of power, which are separated..1 in Washington, and the others spread across the states.

Ah yes, the Gilded Ages showed us how power was divided:lol:
 
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.

Just because one finds him or herself in a financial bind doesn't mean they stop being a U.S. citizen and should no longer be allowed to participate in the political process. You're is a very ridiculous and ideological notion. Rethink then adjust...
 
Ah yes, the Gilded Ages showed us how power was divided:lol:

you complain that our government has turned into an oligarchy , yet you are not for anything to stop it from happening.

the very thing you are complaining about was stated would happen it democracy ever took over america in federalist 10.......why do you complain, and then refuse to want to correct the problem?
 
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?"

Does it matter? You act as if only Democratic voters ever receive federal assistance. I know plenty of Republicans who have received food stamps, welfare, Medicaid or WIC benefits at some point in their lives. Should their right to vote be striped from them, too?

Let's not act as if this is a liberal or conservative thing. Neither one's race nor political lean matters when you're broke and can't feed yourself or your family.
 
Amazing that it is even asked. How should economic standing and accepting the help offered justify the removal of a democratic right, THE core democratic right.

In this country a natural born Canadian cannot lose his or her right to vote for any reason, ever. Prisoners vote.

And I hold that sacrosanct

As do I in practice. But philosophically, given the gross inequities in responsibility and affect created by government, the one person, one vote concept has created a different kind of injustice. If we could restore the government to the original concept in which no special classes exist and everybody, rich and poor, provides his/her proportional share, then of course the one person one vote model is the only reasonable model.

But when he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on support from Paul and all that . . .



I
 
Just cut all the subtleties and nuances and simply only allow white males who own property and work in the private sector to vote if your desire is for the right wing to win the White House back. :roll:
 
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.

Get over it EB. It may not be your preferred version of republican government in the fine tradition of the 1700's - but it is just the same a republican form of government.
 
As do I in practice. But philosophically, given the gross inequities in responsibility and affect created by government, the one person, one vote concept has created a different kind of injustice. If we could restore the government to the original concept in which no special classes exist and everybody, rich and poor, provides his/her proportional share, then of course the one person one vote model is the only reasonable model.

But when he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on support from Paul and all that . . .



I


Sorry, in a democracy you do not deprive an economic class of people because your system is ****ed, that only makes it more ****ed.

No one seems to have an issue with the millions and millions that flow into election coffers, that is influencing the vote. No one seems to have a problem with the wealthy class buying senators and congressmen, in this case a president.

You don not fix any of that by taking away anyone's vote. You grow a pair and fix the ****ing government. FFS, for ten years now I have been hearing all this defeatist crap about how the system is broke, you can't fix it, and America is allegedly the inventor of Democracy.

Even suggesting denial of the vote based on economic status is out of thew Cuban or North Korean playbook.
 
Heinlein fan?

He didn't include Police and firemen.

And Yes, he proposed a different type of democratic society in which one had to actually do something to earn the privileges that so many now take for granted. If your not willing to fight and risk dying for it, then you don't deserve it.
 
Back
Top Bottom