• 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
Madison states ...that if everyone can vote, then those with no property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property from those that do.
 
AlbqOwl said:
My argument in no way suggested that any person's vote should count more than any other person's vote.
Click to expand...

I know, which is what I am saying is incongruent. There are citizens paying far more in taxes than others and thus "supporting" thos who pay less, as we would not be able to have the full infastructure we have if those people weren't paying what they're paying. Why is it a binary notion of 0 or 1.

My argument is based strictly on the ethics of those who will incur no consequence of any kind from their vote having ability to vote for how much in taxes others will pay, etc.
Click to expand...

Why is this the only area where you feel that matters? For instance...

Why should those who don't pay taxes NOT have a vote on legislators that will determine how much others will be taxed...but those who aren't in the military be able to have a vote on legislators that will determine how much money we'll spend on the military or if they'll authorize military action or, in the case of the President, will be albe to direct the military?

I agree, there's faults in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others. However, those faults exist across the board. And simply because someone is on welfare does not mean they are not "paying in" to the system. Income Tax is only one method of tax collection.

Now, I've said for some time on this forum, I am in favor of everyone paying at least some amount of income tax. I definitely think there is a problem with regards to the income tax and the politics that can be played with it when everyone doesn't have skin in the game. But I do not believe that removing a fundamental right of citizenship from people based on whether or not they do pay income tax, or whether or not they recieve a particular government benefit, is absolutely wrong and not the correct answer to correct the issue.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
Click to expand...

The fact that such a question would even be asked and debated says a great deal. I would say that even most conservatives would say 'yes!', and of course almost without exception liberals would say 'yes!' And the few who would say 'no' would all be conservative.

And if one will think about it, those on welfare are not the only ones who are not allowed to vote. There's hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of convicted felons who have done their time and paid their debt to society, but are not allowed to vote. And who is it that doesn't want them to vote? Conservatives.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Madison states ...that if everyone can vote, then those with no property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property from those that do.
Click to expand...

And those with little property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property form those that do as well. Those with moderate property will likely also. And same even with those with lots of property.

EVERYONE has the tendancy to use the power of their vote by to gain property that isn't theres. It is a flawed and egotistical thought to believe that somehow those with property are inherently alturistic but those without are not.

The individual making $200k a year using his vote to put a Senator into power who is likely to award his company with the latest missile contract is using the power of his vote to take property (tax revenue) of others and funnel it into his pocket via his company. Simply because he's using his vote to cause other peoples tax money to make him wealthier in a different manner doesn't change that as it's essence, it's still using his vote to get more of the "property" that was taken from others.

Which is why I go back to my earlier statements. My issue here isn't just that it's narrowly and hypocritically focusing in on one particular group of a myriad of potential ones, but that some are laughably attempting to do it under the fraudulent cloak of liberty
 
phattonez said:
Call yourself what you want, it's the same idea.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. While there are anarchist-communists/collectivist-anarchists, anarchy =/= communism. My brand of anarchism (mutualism) was inspired by Proudhon, the father of anarchism and staunch critic of communism and state socialism.

For all his caustic analyses of private property and the political economists, Proudhon is among history’s most outspoken and determined critics of communism... Proudhon’s anticommunism became a leading influence on American individualist anarchism, the centerpiece of which was Benjamin Tucker, publisher of the periodical Liberty.
Man of Paradox: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon | Libertarianism.org
 
Zyphlin said:
And those with little property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property form those that do as well. Those with moderate property will likely also. And same even with those with lots of property.

EVERYONE has the tendancy to use the power of their vote by to gain property that isn't theres. It is a flawed and egotistical thought to believe that somehow those with property are inherently alturistic but those without are not.

The individual making $200k a year using his vote to put a Senator into power who is likely to award his company with the latest missile contract is using the power of his vote to take property (tax revenue) of others and funnel it into his pocket via his company. Simply because he's using his vote to cause other peoples tax money to make him wealthier in a different manner doesn't change that as it's essence, it's still using his vote to get more of the "property" that was taken from others.

Which is why I go back to my earlier statements. My issue here isn't just that it's narrowly and hypocritically focusing in on one particular group of a myriad of potential ones, but that some are laughably attempting to do it under the fraudulent cloak of liberty
Click to expand...


but we already see to many people use their votes, to vote for people who will promise them material goods and services taking it from people who are rich...this is a prominate them in america.

the rich are using the power of government to buy the politicians, not in voting for them...but with their campaign reelection, and lobbying them to vote for certain bills of congress.


in real constitutional law....the power of voting in federal elections, was muted by the fact that the federal government was not to be involved in the personal life's liberty and property of the people..

because the actions of voting for things [the poor] of getting politicians to do things [the rich] which are collective activities, were blocked by the senate which was controlled by the states.
 
phattonez said:
That's not a response to the argument against democracy.
Click to expand...

No, its a response to your "solution."

Your solution is to return to feudalism and allow the lords to rule over everyone else. You rationalize it by saying "the lord would want what is best for his land and people." But history is very clear about what happens: feudalism leads to oppression. If the people revolted or even spoke unfavorably towards their leader then punishment was swift and severe. You cannot have personal freedom and feudalism, it is impossible.

And btw, I don't want "pure democracy" on issues concerning independent freedoms. For basic rights such as speech and personal possession there ought to be a document to protect them. But since we do not live in a bubble we must deal with societal issues where the democratic process must play a role.
 
Zyphlin said:
I know, which is what I am saying is incongruent. There are citizens paying far more in taxes than others and thus "supporting" thos who pay less, as we would not be able to have the full infastructure we have if those people weren't paying what they're paying. Why is it a binary notion of 0 or 1.

Why is this the only area where you feel that matters? For instance...

Why should those who don't pay taxes NOT have a vote on legislators that will determine how much others will be taxed...but those who aren't in the military be able to have a vote on legislators that will determine how much money we'll spend on the military or if they'll authorize military action or, in the case of the President, will be albe to direct the military?

I agree, there's faults in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others. However, those faults exist across the board. And simply because someone is on welfare does not mean they are not "paying in" to the system. Income Tax is only one method of tax collection.

Now, I've said for some time on this forum, I am in favor of everyone paying at least some amount of income tax. I definitely think there is a problem with regards to the income tax and the politics that can be played with it when everyone doesn't have skin in the game. But I do not believe that removing a fundamental right of citizenship from people based on whether or not they do pay income tax, or whether or not they recieve a particular government benefit, is absolutely wrong and not the correct answer to correct the issue.
Click to expand...

Taxes are not the only issue, they are just one that is being argued. I don't want those who have no dog in the fight having a vote as to what kind of healthcare coverage I'm required to have either and double down on that if they are voting for me to subsidize their healthcare while paying more for my own. I don't want those who will not be affected by the vote to be able to vote for what kind of light bulb or toilet I am allowed to buy or what kind of car I am allowed to purchase or what I am and am not allowed to do with my own property. A person's vote should affect that person in the same proportion as it affects another person.

And when we have been so lazy that we have allowed government to assume more power than anybody should believe is healthy for government to have, it becomes a serious problem when that government can keep itself in power and increase its power by bribing one segment of society to keep it in power and that at the expense of the others.

Again, within the context of one man, one vote, that is the elephant in the room that most people find extremely uncomfortable to acknowledge or talk about. So denial that the issue exists is the politically correct way. I, however, am waging a one-woman war against that kind of political correctness.

In my opinion we should restore the government to a system in which we ALL share in the benefits and also the consequences of our vote. And if we have no will to do that, then I think those who pay the bills should be the ones who have the vote.
 
"One nation under the dollar with liberty and justice for all who can pay it"
 
Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?

Phat, I think you have dramatically ignored the history of your suggestions. The entire structure of the early Republic made it more and more likely that such views toward natural rights would not be acknowledged, let alone established in the Constitution, or legislated.

Your assumption that democracy is at fault for keeping the Patriot Act alive is a gross oversimplification. Few of the more entrenched members of society had anything to lose by instituting the law, and had everything to gain. Furthermore, the only reason why the Snowden revelations had any pull whatsoever was because of how the average person started to see their relationship with the U.S. Government. The elites had little to worry about. They weren't losing much at all. The less wealthy you are, the less entrenched you are, the more the Act may harm you., it was poorer members of society who had immigrant connections which stood the most to lose.

Is it going to stick around? Yes. That's because the Act is multifaceted, has many difficult technology concepts involved, and has the legitimate use of keeping America safe from terrorism. But any reasonable person would also understand that the elite have more to gain by having the Act in place than everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
And btw, I don't want "pure democracy" on issues concerning independent freedoms. For basic rights such as speech and personal possession there ought to be a document to protect them. But since we do not live in a bubble we must deal with societal issues where the democratic process must play a role.
Click to expand...

Why does the government have to play a role in societal issues? Why can't the government only concern itself with rights?
 
phattonez said:
I'm reading too much into the statement? She wants a free house and free gas. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what she said at all.

She said:

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

You interpret her words as "I won't have to worry because (once Obama becomes President), I can get federal assistance to subsidize the cost of gas I put in my car and get federal financial assistance with making my mortgage payment."

That last part I can agree with considering how bad the housing market was (re: 'Housing Bubble" burst!), but what I heard was "I won't have to worry about the price of gas because gas prices will start to come down to where gas is affordable" and "I won't have to worry about whether or not I can pay my mortgage because housing assistance is forthcoming". And what came out of that is HARP, a federal program that helps struggling homeowners adjust their mortgage payments so that they can stay in their homes instead of the banks foreclosing on them.

Federal assistance through structured changes in economic policies is the kind of federal assistance this woman was looking for, not a government handout as you've eluded to. BIG difference!
phattonez said:
Sure I can, because politicians make these promises explicitly because they know it will win them votes.

You have to realize that my point is this thread is to critique democracy more than to say that the poor exclusively should not vote.
Click to expand...

That's smoke and mirrors, my friend since the majority comprises a democracy and that majority consists of the 99% towhich at least 50% from this group can be classified economically as "poor to middle-middle-class".

You're passing judgment on a whole lot of people. Who are you to do so and why? Why are you suddenly the self-proclaimed guardian of righteous democracy?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
And I think a chill pill might be in order for some. What you interpreted as what I said and what I actually said are very different. But do have a nice day.
Click to expand...

If I interpreted you incorrectly, please correct me so that we all can understand you clearly. (Re: my post #289)
 
AlbqOwl said:
My argument in no way suggested that any person's vote should count more than any other person's vote.

My argument is based strictly on the ethics of Citizen A being able to vote for Citizen B to support him/her. My argument is based strictly on the ethics of those who will incur no consequence of any kind from their vote having ability to vote for how much in taxes others will pay, etc.

My argument is purely philosophical, but it goes to the very heart of what the structure of our social contract and resulting government should be. There is an injustice in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
That sounds all noble and like, but it's simply not valid. People vote their own interests at the expense others all the time. Why do you think we have "sin taxes"? Why do you think we have exorbitant hotel and rental car taxes? Precisely to make things to our advantage at the expense of others.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
Madison states ...that if everyone can vote, then those with no property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property from those that do.
Click to expand...

Madison didn't foresee the bulk of government funding coming from other than property taxes. Point dismissed.
 
phattonez said:
Bad assumption. I would have a problem with them voting no matter what. .
Click to expand...
Of course it is, that is why every person who was proposed such a moronic idea of denying welfare recipients the right to vote tend to be republican voters.



It's totally relevant. If you don't trust them with your pin number, then why do you trust them with deciding how much of your income is taken, or to decide your rights, or whether you are guilty of a crime.
Click to expand...

Most people do not trust anyone with their pin number.It is not relevant,In societies we pool our tax dollars together for the good of the country to pay for things like national defense, roads and infrastructure and other things.

Now you're getting it. :)
Click to expand...
So you want anarchy.Because practically every law requires funding to enforce.

This is why the Founding Fathers so vehemently opposed democracy
Click to expand...
No they didn't. If they were opposed to democracy no one would be voting.We would be ruled by some inbred little dictators like the people who are ruled by monarchies are. Yes they were opposed to direct democracy.Which is why we have 3 branches of the government and the electoral college and many other things.
 
So, if the poor shouldn't get to vote, because it might adversely affect the rich, who ostensibly pay to support the poor, then shouldn't we also take away the ability of the rich to influence legislation that affects the poor to the rich's benefit?
 
radcen said:
That sounds all noble and like, but it's simply not valid. People vote their own interests at the expense others all the time. Why do you think we have "sin taxes"? Why do you think we have exorbitant hotel and rental car taxes? Precisely to make things to our advantage at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Do people have to stay in hotels or use rental cars? Are not such acts voluntary? So how am I hurting you if I vote for such taxes that are purely voluntary as opposed to voting for taxes that force you to support me? I also pay the 'sin' taxes when I buy a bottle of wine or a pack of cigs (if I drank alcohol and smoked) or when I must stay in a hotel or rent a car. So I am subjecting myself to the same taxes I am voting for everybody else.

That is a very different thing from voting to have you subsidize or pay for my healthcare or house or food or whatever when you benefit in no way at all from that.
 
Zyphlin said:
The United States is not your "home". YOU, or any other individual citizen...is not the "sole" owner. Those who do not pay taxes into the system (which, in and of itself, is a dishonest misnomer) are not "guests", they are co-owners whether or not you like it. The fact that you see that analogy as legitimate inherently indicates a flaw in your thinking.

I'd perhaps be more understanding if people were somehow claiming that this stance should be taken across the board. That not only that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, but that the WEIGHT of ones vote should somehow inherently be tied to how much taxes they pay. Indeed, the guy paying millions of dollars into taxes is being forced to "provide" things like roads, schools, police, national protection, etc for YOU and others who are likely not providing anywhere near the same level as him....should we allow his vote to count 100 times yours for electoral purposes while we're simultaneously disallowing those on welfare from voting?

Will those on welfare often try to vote for what's going to be best for their life and their situation, not what's necessarily "best for the country"? Absolutely. Guess wha. Middle class or upper class people, paying a good bit of taxes, are going to be doing the same thing. That's what voting is. And that's a right as a CITIZEN people should have...and not one that should be taken away simply because you think that the way THEY benefit of the government is inherently bad, but the way YOU benefit from the government is perfectly okay.
Click to expand...

I rarely agree with your posts but :applaud
 
ernst barkmann said:
Madison states ...that if everyone can vote, then those with no property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property from those that do.
Click to expand...

And if everyone can't vote, then those with property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to prevent the acquirement of property by those that don't.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Do people have to stay in hotels or use rental cars? Are not such acts voluntary? So how am I hurting you if I vote for such taxes that are purely voluntary as opposed to voting for taxes that force you to support me? I also pay the 'sin' taxes when I buy a bottle of wine or a pack of cigs (if I drank alcohol and smoked) or when I must stay in a hotel or rent a car. So I am subjecting myself to the same taxes I am voting for everybody else.

That is a very different thing from voting to have you subsidize or pay for my healthcare or house or food or whatever when you benefit in no way at all from that.
Click to expand...
So that's what it's really all about, isn't it? What's in it for YOU.
 
Zyphlin said:
The United States is not your "home". YOU, or any other individual citizen...is not the "sole" owner. Those who do not pay taxes into the system (which, in and of itself, is a dishonest misnomer) are not "guests", they are co-owners whether or not you like it. The fact that you see that analogy as legitimate inherently indicates a flaw in your thinking.

I'd perhaps be more understanding if people were somehow claiming that this stance should be taken across the board. That not only that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, but that the WEIGHT of ones vote should somehow inherently be tied to how much taxes they pay. Indeed, the guy paying millions of dollars into taxes is being forced to "provide" things like roads, schools, police, national protection, etc for YOU and others who are likely not providing anywhere near the same level as him....should we allow his vote to count 100 times yours for electoral purposes while we're simultaneously disallowing those on welfare from voting?

Will those on welfare often try to vote for what's going to be best for their life and their situation, not what's necessarily "best for the country"? Absolutely. Guess wha. Middle class or upper class people, paying a good bit of taxes, are going to be doing the same thing. That's what voting is. And that's a right as a CITIZEN people should have...and not one that should be taken away simply because you think that the way THEY benefit of the government is inherently bad, but the way YOU benefit from the government is perfectly okay.
Click to expand...
I'll take it a step further... the fact that they see their analogy as legitimate indicate a flaw in their character.
 
radcen said:
So that's what it's really all about, isn't it? What's in it for YOU.
Click to expand...

If that is what you got out of my posts, that's too bad. I honestly don't know how to explain it any better, most especially to people who get it that wrong.
 
Nilly said:
And if everyone can't vote, then those with property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to prevent the acquirement of property by those that don't.
Click to expand...

But that has never happened has it. Because in a system like ours in which everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and defended, the more prosperous everybody else is, the more we can prosper. So there is not that much incentive to deny property to anybody else. There was concern on the part of some of the Founders that property would be concentrated in the hands of a few. But in a free market system it just hasn't happened because there is too much profit to be had in buying and selling property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom