• 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
phattonez said:
pages%20in%20CFR.jpg


"Freedom"
Click to expand...

Red Herring more like it.
 
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...

Yeah, that's what it's all about. Which party they vote for.

Maybe it's because Democrats don't say they don't have the same rights as everyone else.
 
Yes if they are US citizens who are legally registered to vote and can show valid ID.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.
Click to expand...

What does one thing have to do with the other? People on welfare can't be informed?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Red Herring more like it.
Click to expand...

How is that a red herring? Tell me how I am supposed to look at that and conclude that this represents a nation of freemen?
 
phattonez said:
How is that a red herring? Tell me how I am supposed to look at that and conclude that this represents a nation of freemen?
Click to expand...

It's a red herring because you took my comment and addressed it with something that absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The irony is the opposite is happening.
Click to expand...

You're right to point out that both are happening. I don't like that either can use taxpayer money to fund their party agenda. But I'm not aware of any other system :( sad face. Seems like reducing federal/power and taxes isn't so crazy a solution if both are problematic, or if allowing one necessarily means you're going to get the other.
 
Mach said:
You're right to point out that both are happening. I don't like that either can use taxpayer money to fund their party agenda. But I'm not aware of any other system :( sad face. Seems like reducing federal/power and taxes isn't so crazy a solution if both are problematic, or if allowing one necessarily means you're going to get the other.
Click to expand...

One party wants to allow the wealth to continue in one direction without any redistribution of taxes and the other wants some redistribution via taxation. That is our two party system.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.
Click to expand...

So we should keep conservative Christians from voting? I must say that I'm surprised to hear that proposed from your side.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It's a red herring because you took my comment and addressed it with something that absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to answer the question. Got it.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
Click to expand...

Ah go back to the good old days when only landowners could vote.
bring back debtors prisons.
Open up more company towns.
Child labor laws, throw them out as well, lowers the welfare bill right?

My, we are in desperate need of a sarcasm font.
 
JANFU said:
Ah go back to the good old days when only landowners could vote.
Click to expand...

Would be far better than what we have now.

Child labor laws, throw them out as well, lowers the welfare bill right?
Click to expand...

Productivity ends child labor, not laws.
 
phattonez said:
Why? You know what we didn't have back then when the vote was limited? A government that collects 50% of the country's income.
Click to expand...

Why? Because every citizen has a right to determine how the country is run. Because the country can only work if the people - all the people - are educated on the issues and exercise their voting rights.

Taxes are too high but what does that have to do with voting? Why is that a justification for not letting the poor vote?
 
Gaius46 said:
Why? Because every citizen has a right to determine how the country is run. Because the country can only work if the people - all the people - are educated on the issues and exercise their voting rights.
Click to expand...

This country worked just fine when half of the population could not vote.

Taxes are too high but what does that have to do with voting? Why is that a justification for not letting the poor vote?
Click to expand...

Because the poor, naturally responding to incentives, will vote to enrich themselves, whether it is ethical or good for the long term outlook of the country.
 
E
phattonez said:
This country worked just fine when half of the population could not vote.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to reconcile your idea that disenfranchising and taking away voting rights from millions of people increases anyone's liberty.
 
phattonez said:
Would be far better than what we have now.



Productivity ends child labor, not laws.
Click to expand...
Did you miss my sarcasm?
Or are you for what I posted. if so post that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
E

I'm struggling to reconcile your idea that disenfranchising and taking away voting rights from millions of people increases anyone's liberty.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that mob rule safeguards liberty?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe said:
As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on.
Click to expand...
 
phattonez said:
This country worked just fine when half of the population could not vote.



Because the poor, naturally responding to incentives, will vote to enrich themselves, whether it is ethical or good for the long term outlook of the country.
Click to expand...

Do not the rich also vote to enrich themselves? Don't many people vote their own self interest?

So we should disenfranchise blacks, women and white guys who aren't homeowners?

And btw I'd point out that we were a slave nation back then. Not my idea of "worked just fine"
 
Gaius46 said:
Do not the rich also vote to enrich themselves? Don't many people vote their own self interest?
Click to expand...

Yes, many do vote in their own self-interest. I do not support democracy by any means. At least with a narrower voting base the poor won't just vote to confiscate wealth from productive sectors of society in order to enrich themselves. Yes, if only the rich vote, they can enrich themselves, but in doing so they will face the threat of revolt from the poor. When the poor vote themselves more money, what are the rich going to do about it?
 
phattonez said:
I meant what I wrote.
Click to expand...
Many classes of citizens.
Care to divide them up?
What levels. So many to pick from.
Something out of Chung Kuo.
 
Montecresto said:
But for the right, it's only about money.
Click to expand...

Practically every law that elected officials create is about money.Laws cost money to enforce. Laws can effect the pocket books of certain individuals. This whole not wanting welfare recipients to vote idea is due to the fact these people tend to vote for democrats.Money is merely an excuse to try to deny these people the right to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom