Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

sorry no its not....... the 17th, changed it

ernst barkmann said:

sorry no its not....... the 17th, changed it

Click to expand...

You really do not know what a republican form of government is if you believe for one moment that election of US Senators is all it took to change.

There is really no point to barring them from voting. The vast majority of those that support welfare are not on welfare themselves and like those on welfare will not allow any movement to be made towards the elimination of the welfare state. Until we get to the point where the welfare supporters are not interested in growing the welfare state the only direction this country will take is further dependence on the state.

haymarket said:

You really do not know what a republican form of government is if you believe for one moment that election of US Senators is all it took to change.

Click to expand...

since the states, no longer have a voice in the government, and cannot place a check on federal power........yes the 17th changed our form of government in a very big way.

Fearandloathing said:

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.

Click to expand...

The vote is not sacrosanct. Taking away criminals' right to vote is fine - we do it already with felons, as we should. If you demonstrate that you cannot be trusted, you should not then be trusted with exercising authority over the global hyperpower.

As for money in politics, getting rid of that is simple (if not easy). Get politics out of money.

Jetboogieman said:

This question is brought up largely because many conservatives believe people on welfare would just "vote themselves more welfare" and I don't believe that to be true.

In some cases yes... But most people want purpose in their life and a good job can provide that and so if you're sitting on welfare and can't find a job, who do you pick?

The people who will preserve the welfare system and claim they can also provide jobs.

Or the people who call you a lazy leeching bum and promise to tear down your only source of income whilst seemingly giving larger and larger tax breaks to the rich?

Click to expand...

People will vote in their own best interest. So, yes, when it is perceived that a "safety net" that is presently helping to meet one's basic survival needs and is keeping one financially afloat (even temporarily), people do vote FOR the party they believe is willing to continue rendering aid and AGAINST those who wish to pull the plug and leave them to fend for themselves against terrible odds. THIS is what we saw as the outcome during the 2012 presidential election. Had less to do with supporting the incumbent and more to do with "Well, the other side is talking about ending the federal assistance I'm currently receiving but they've offered no alternative".

While it is true that some people will use welfare and other federal entitlement programs as a life-time crutch, it is also true that there are far more who will only use these programs as a temporary bandaide until they're able to get back up on their feet. IMO, the only way to stop the abuse is to place comprehensive restrictions/term limits on benefits received AND make job placement/retraining part of the process. Some stated already do this, but their enforcement measures don't go far enough. Indiana, for example, does require those receiving unemployment benefits to certify that they've applied for at least 3 jobs between monthly benefits. Does the state call each potential employer to confirm that the benefit recipient has, in fact, submitted a job application with their business? I don't know. But I do know that once those benefits run out, the unemployed person is left with no other choice but to pound the pavement a little harder. But that's only one part of the solution.

The other part is getting assistance/coaching/training to actually find a job ASAP with a salary sufficient enough to get the individual completely off the dole. This part is largely what's missing. Fix this and you're "welfare leach" problem (as some people see it) pretty much goes away.

I agree, the CEO and board of any corporation that gets bailouts or huge tax cuts should be barred from voting.

Or were we not supposed to talk about that welfare?

phattonez said:

It's nothing to do with abuse necessarily. Why should those who have no capital to protect have a say in how the capital of a country is distributed?

Click to expand...

Because not all issues dealing with government deal strictly with taxes. There are so many other issues that are involved that affect peoples lives whether they are welfare recipients or not. Take the NSA/Patriot Act, for example. Are you saying that a law abiding U.S. citizen who happens to be on welfare but uses a computer at a public library would not be subject to having their online activity monitored by the NSA? I think not. Remember: It's not just about personal cell phone use.

Take the partisan, anti-government, anti-tax blinders off for a second and think this one through.

ernst barkmann said:

since the states, no longer have a voice in the government, and cannot place a check on federal power........yes the 17th changed our form of government in a very big way.

Click to expand...

Changed it, but didn't make it non-republican.

DVSentinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

The author? He was opposed to that.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

Click to expand...

Oh, and this quote by him describes minarchism. I don't know if that is what he supported, but that is what it describes none the less.

I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces — with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.

Click to expand...

At the time I wrote Methuselah’s Children I was still politically quite naive and still had hopes that various libertarian notions could be put over by political processes… It [now] seems to me that every time we manage to establish one freedom, they take another one away. Maybe two. And that seems to me characteristic of a society as it gets older, and more crowded, and higher taxes, and more laws.

Click to expand...

So true. It's sad, but states only ever get more powerful and more oppressive as they age.

rocket88 said:

I agree, the CEO and board of any corporation that gets bailouts or huge tax cuts should be barred from voting.

Or were we not supposed to talk about that welfare?

Click to expand...

Why do liberals think tax cuts are welfare? How in the hell is keeping more of what you earn welfare?

Only people of Jewish descent living in Southern California should be allowed to vote.

rocket88 said:

Changed it, but didn't make it non-republican.

Click to expand...

the founders created a republic......in the time of the founders there is no such thing as a democratic republic..its an oxymoron to the founders...they created a "mixed government" of divided power to prevent faction from taking over and controlling government.

however because people have been sold into the false idea democracy means liberty....the oligarchy running american government will continue.

Objective Voice said:

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...

Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote and understand what I am saying?

phattonez said:

The point is that those with little wealth would prefer to vote themselves more wealth, even to the detriment of the long term health of the country, even though it would be immoral.

Click to expand...

What a foolish notion. No one who is poor casts their vote on the believe that who they're voting for will someday help to make them rich! That's crazy! People don't vote that way....well, poor people don't anyway. If anything, you could say sometimes individuals/the majority of the population will cast their vote along the lines of "self preservation" (See 2012 presidential election where federal supported health care was threatened and job creation by the Republican candidate was called into question). But the only voters who tend to throw their support firmly behind a candidate seeking long-term political favors are rich people or corporate lobbyist. No one else has such long-term lofty goals. Everyone else thinks of the "here and now" when voting.

phattonez said:

"Freedom"

Click to expand...

So...you showed a graph of how the tax code has continued to increase over time. And that proves what exactly? Just how many of those tax rules apply to the poor or lower-middle class folks compared to how many were written to give a distinct tax advantage to the rich?

Keep in mind I begrudge no one for being rich. I'm just saying the tax code wasn't written for the poor nor the middle-class. Yeah, there are a couple of bones thrown in there for the little guys, but overall the tax code is really for the rich.

cpwill said:

The vote is not sacrosanct. Taking away criminals' right to vote is fine - we do it already with felons, as we should. If you demonstrate that you cannot be trusted, you should not then be trusted with exercising authority over the global hyperpower.

As for money in politics, getting rid of that is simple (if not easy). Get politics out of money.

Click to expand...

Then you are not a democracy. Period.

You take away a man's right to vote for life because he was once busted with a joint.

You want welfare recipients to be denied the vote because you want different results. Period.

This is social engineering mixed with Fascism

haymarket said:

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:

Click to expand...

How very stereotypical of you...

Fearandloathing said:

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.

Click to expand...

I wish just once people could see and argue the concept that is being argued instead of the existing situation and law or worse on political correctness and/or what is 'polite to say'. I am NOT arguing that people lose their vote. I am arguing that it is unjust when the system allows people to vote themselves advantages and benefits at the expense of others who will be disadvantaged and receive no benefit. In my sense of justice that is wrong and should not stand. And yes, it requires a change in government and the law.

Fearandloathing said:

Then you are not a democracy. Period.

Click to expand...

Excellent. I have no desire to live in a democracy. Dangerous, stupid, things.

You want welfare recipients to be denied the vote because you want different results. Period.

Click to expand...

I never said I wanted welfare recipients to be denied the vote. I said I can see some merit in the argument. But thank you for demonstrating the intellectual depth of your position.

This is social engineering mixed with Fascism

Click to expand...

:lamo

ernst barkmann said:

since the states, no longer have a voice in the government, and cannot place a check on federal power........yes the 17th changed our form of government in a very big way.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that the states no longer have a voice in government? That is absurd in the extreme and a denial of simple reality.

PoS said:

How very stereotypical of you...

Click to expand...

And truthful and accurate just the same. I believe in calling a spade a spade and if its a reeking pile of manure - saying it is. And that is what the idea behind this poll is.

haymarket said:

And truthful and accurate just the same. I believe in calling a spade a spade and if its a reeking pile of manure - saying it is. And that is what the idea behind this poll is.

Click to expand...

Youre saying all white males who have property and work in the private sector are right wing conservatives? Puh-lease. :roll:

AlbqOwl said:

I wish just once people could see and argue the concept that is being argued instead of the existing situation and law or worse on political correctness and/or what is 'polite to say'. I am NOT arguing that people lose their vote. I am arguing that it is unjust when the system allows people to vote themselves advantages and benefits at the expense of others who will be disadvantaged and receive no benefit. In my sense of justice that is wrong and should not stand. And yes, it requires a change in government and the law.

Click to expand...

Well, the thread IS about denying people the vote and you seem to support that as a means to fix the problem.

I did not take your post out of context, nor did I sideline it.

I remain steadfast, the vote is sacrosanct. We have talked before about the American system. It is indeed ****ed. But it can be changed.

cpwill said:

Excellent. I have no desire to live in a democracy. Dangerous, stupid, things.



I never said I wanted welfare recipients to be denied the vote. I said I can see some merit in the argument. But thank you for demonstrating the intellectual depth of your position.



:lamo

Click to expand...

Really, insults?

The thread IS about denying people the vote. You post said NOT ONE WORD you did not support it...and you insult me as taking your position out of context.

Nice.