• 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
To which taxes do you refer to? Because I'd like to tell my 100% service connected disabled husband (who served for 20 years) that he shouldn't be able to vote because somebody on the internet says so.

Certain taxes are waived when you reach a certain disability percentage, mainly 100% service connected. That means that the military jacked you up so bad that they are willing to pay you a lot of money for the rest of your life, just because.

Call it punitive damages, if you'd like.

Either way, I'm sure that he'd rather pay property tax, and ad velorum tax, and NOT be disabled as a result of his military career.

Excluding veterans. :)
Of course I think veterans should always have the right to vote!
I guess I should have worded that better.
I just hate the idea of welfare abusers voting in the guy who will continue to let them abuse the system. But I guess there is nothing that we can really do about that.
 
Literally do they? Literally?

Well, I guess infants don't. But anyone who has paid for anything does, unless they live in one of the very few places that has no state or local sales taxes.
 
I don't like the idea of only certain people being allowed to vote anyway.

Smacks of the fat rich white guys, who were the only ones allowed to vote, before the 15th and 19th amendment.

All citizens should be able to vote, despite their station in life.
 
Well, I guess infants don't. But anyone who has paid for anything does, unless they live in one of the very few places that has no state or local sales taxes.

Neither do the ghetto people who abuse welfare & don't even try to tell me they do..
 
Democracy is government by THE PEOPLE, Not just a select few.
 
Neither do the ghetto people who abuse welfare & don't even try to tell me they do..

You're missing my point.

Sales taxes are taxes. Payroll, excise, Social Security -- all taxes. The number of people who pay no taxes is exceedingly small.
 
Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?

Excluding veterans. :)
Of course I think veterans should always have the right to vote!
I guess I should have worded that better.
I just hate the idea of welfare abusers voting in the guy who will continue to let them abuse the system. But I guess there is nothing that we can really do about that.

Ah yes. Veterans...the "only good disabled people" bit. **** those other other guys and gals who were disabled beforehand and working while on SSDI and Medicaid.

That's classy.
 
Why? When majority rules is what goes, what's going to hold them back?

So you'd deny the vote to people simply because you don't like the way they might vote? Do you see anything wrong with that picture?

In any case the poor aren't a majority even if they all did manage to vote as a block. They're elected representatives are constrained by the Constitution, the Executive and the Judiciary. And finally the reality is money is power and is what makes the world go roud and by virtue of being poor the poor have very little power.
 
I think that isn't so much an issue though as is the fact that more than 49% of American households were receiving some sort of direct government benefit in 2012--Mitt Romney actually underestimated a bit with his 47%--and that number has no doubt increased since then especially as more government subsidies kick in for Obamacare. That is our reality. And all any politician has to do to scare people into not voting for somebody is to convince them that his/her opponent will take away those benefits. Even people who know the benefits are not good for the country overall are reluctant to be the patsy who gives up his benefit when everybody else gets to keep theirs.

It becomes a vicious circle of inadequacy vs dependency, but it keep a huge segment of the population voting for those benefits.

View attachment 67183527
Who receives government benefits, in six charts - The Washington Post

Most of that 49% are seniors on Medicare and Social Security. They split their votes between both parties. Most poor people that get means tested benefits don't actually vote. As I stated earlier, the reason why we have a safety-net in this country is not because poor people are going to the polls and voting for it, its because the upper middle class and the wealthy believe we should have one.
 
What do yu count as unearned? If I get into an accident not my fault that results in me being unable to work after paying into federal taxes for years (and state taxes my whole life) I think it's fair to get some benefits then

What you describe should be covered by insurance. Also, in times of limited resources, sorry, your SOL if the line gets cut to short. Your still behind Retirements and Veterans Disabilities.

You can "what if" anyway you want. That doesn't change the fact that the country is deep in debt, accrued after the establishment of socialistic instruments. The country had very little debt before FDR. WWII added more which was eventually paid down but then grew back after "the war on Poverty" and the start of the welfare system and Medicaid. You give an example of a person injured. How many of those are out there vs the number that have never held a taxpaying job in their lives and have only suckled from the public teat?

How many of those who have never paid taxes in their lives also vote constantly for upping their benefits which they have never done a single thing to earn and have never contributed to our nation in a positive way? And how many no longer have jobs because they were stupid enough to vote the left which drove their jobs out of the country?

"He ain't heavy, he's my brother" sounds great until you realize the one doing the riding keeps getting fatter and fatter but never shoulders any of the burden.
 
And yet there are people who are actually deserving of a hand up, most especially those who have spent their lives being a benefit to society and who, for whatever reason, fall on hard times. And certainly those who stepped up to risk everything in the service of their country in the military are deserving of whatever they were promised when they signed up. But neither should we have a government that goes to the highest bidder of what he or she promises in freebies and benefits.

And that is the real elephant in the room with this thread topic--obviously one that most or all of the leftwingers and even a lot of conservatives find too politically incorrect and uncomfortable to acknowledge.

You mean Union Idiots that helped drive jobs out of the Country and increased the costs to the rest of us? What about the idiots that vote for the Environmental agenda, again killing jobs and raising costs to all? Or those to lazy to get themselves qualified for a new career, but instead cry about benefits from the government and low pay? If they lost their job and ended up at minimum wage at Walmart, but are not using their time and resources to qualify for better employment, then they lazy stupid morons. And if they stay at that level for very long, they are incredibly stupid lazy morons. If they are too lazy to do the most they are able to to help themselves, then tough petunias and I will gladly spit upon them as they lay dying in the street.

As to the second bolded line, refer back to my post #94 of this thread.
 
Most of that 49% are seniors on Medicare and Social Security. They split their votes between both parties. Most poor people that get means tested benefits don't actually vote. As I stated earlier, the reason why we have a safety-net in this country is not because poor people are going to the polls and voting for it, its because the upper middle class and the wealthy believe we should have one.

Which missed the point I was making entirely.
 
You mean Union Idiots that helped drive jobs out of the Country and increased the costs to the rest of us? What about the idiots that vote for the Environmental agenda, again killing jobs and raising costs to all? Or those to lazy to get themselves qualified for a new career, but instead cry about benefits from the government and low pay? If they lost their job and ended up at minimum wage at Walmart, but are not using their time and resources to qualify for better employment, then they lazy stupid morons. And if they stay at that level for very long, they are incredibly stupid lazy morons. If they are too lazy to do the most they are able to to help themselves, then tough petunias and I will gladly spit upon them as they lay dying in the street.

As to the second bolded line, refer back to my post #94 of this thread.

No that isn't what I meant. I think I'm going to give up though because I am obviously not communicating well on this subject.
 
It's funny to see you pad this list with legislation where the chief opposition to the bills were Democrats.

... true, this should have pointed out that the proponents of these pieces of legislation were progressives/liberals and the opponents were conservatives, as those philosophies aligned with parties based more on geography pre-1965 than Democratic/Republican
 
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.

You don't know this.

Plus, those with plenty of wealth prefer to vote themselves both a) ways to maintain their current wealth by any means necessary and b) ways to increase their own wealth, even if through particularly corrupt means.
 
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

Yes.
Withholding the right to vote from people who do not contribute to society is a tempting thought, but it is also fatally flawed.

Determining eligibility to vote on the basis of income will logically segment the voter base into income blocks. As you have already withheld the right to vote from the lowest income block, what is to stop you (over time) from withholding voting rights from the next-lowest block, and the next lowest and so forth, until only the largest income bracket is allowed to vote? It can also be done indirectly, by having a political majority pushing another income bracket into a position where they are unable to sustain themselves without aid, and voila they're out of the picture. All it takes is simple math and applied will. The same goes for systems based on IQ, education levels, etc. and I suspect few people would find the long term outcome desirable.

If you are truly concerned about people not contributing to society, have them perform community service in return for their benefits.
(Of course taking into consideration that they can't perform regular work, as that would constitute state-owned cheap labor undercutting the private sector work force.)
 
Most of that 49% are seniors on Medicare and Social Security. They split their votes between both parties. Most poor people that get means tested benefits don't actually vote. As I stated earlier, the reason why we have a safety-net in this country is not because poor people are going to the polls and voting for it, its because the upper middle class and the wealthy believe we should have one.
Yep.

5
 
Yes, some of the Founders criticized democracy. Some of the Founders also owned slaves. Their personal feelings does not change what system we have (or supposed to have) today.



I am not talking specifically about direct democracy... only the broader term which includes representative democracy.

Interesting Franklin perspective.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)
 
If you don't believe the "vote for more welfare" example, perhaps you can explain California, where Republicans aren't even a blip on the legislative radar any more, and more than 30% of the nations public assistance dollars are spent.

This is a misleading stat. If you look at just the volume of people then of course California will be singled out because of it's overall population size. The correct way to analyze it is by calculating the percentage of the state population on welfare. California is not even in the top 10. In fact, most of the top 20 states are dominated by conservative legislators.
 
This is a misleading stat. If you look at just the volume of people then of course California will be singled out because of it's overall population size. The correct way to analyze it is by calculating the percentage of the state population on welfare. California is not even in the top 10. In fact, most of the top 20 states are dominated by conservative legislators.

LOL. The correct way?

California has roughly 12% of the nations population, and accounts for over 30% of the combined total spent on public assistance by all states in the U.S.. You're so far off, you're not even in the solar system.

Is California the welfare capital? | UTSanDiego.com

That California has a lot of people on welfare was not a secret. In addition to its size, the state has a long history of heavy focus on social services, in part because of years of Democratic dominance in Sacramento.

But the size of California’s welfare rolls is disproportionate when you consider the state has only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some of it has to do with the benefits being more generous than in many other states, but experts also point to various economic and social factors.

There’s more to support the notion that this is the welfare state. California:

• Pays out one of the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638.

• Continues aid for children even when the parents lose eligibility.

• Provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training.

Of course then there are the benefits that don't get measured.

So, explain how the theory of voting for more welfare doesn't apply to California?
 
Back
Top Bottom