• 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
roguenuke said:
No one is trampling on your rights just because politician A makes some promise (that likely won't be kept anyway) promised one out of hundreds of things for a group of people, and some of those receiving vote for that person. That politician might have promised hundreds of different things to hundreds or thousands of different groups, for tons of reasons. That doesn't mean everyone who voted for them did so due to any one or more of those promises specifically.
Click to expand...

How do you know? What evidence do you have to show that those on welfare do not vote for the politicians who promise to keep taking care of them?
 
Hatuey said:
And that's irrelevant to taxation itself because taxation has never been a voluntary matter. Neither sovereigns nor modern states have ever taxed subjects and citizens under anything other than the threat of force. To claim so is absolutely revisionist. If you can name such a system at any period in recorded human history, I'll concede the opposite.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
the constitution is clear.......only states are direct taxed, which is a tax of force.

indirect taxes are not forced taxes.

the u.s. have no direct taxes until the civl war, by federal law....which was repealed...when the idea of income /direct taxes was considered again in america government it was deemed unconstitutional until the 16th
 
FreedomFromAll said:
lol no the word never was never used. But the OP as I said didn't mean just on welfare issues the intent was all voting. "Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?"


I see that you want to all about personal responsibility. Voting is the patriotic responsibility and duty of ALL Americans.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time equating 'patriotic duty' with the incentive to vote for the guy who promises the most freebies.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You did not answer the question, you simply repeated your contention. This is not a debate, it is simply you repeating unsubstantiated Randian rhetoric.

EDIT:

I already stated that the majority of ABA SNAP recipients work, so yes, they contribute to their own benefits, and when their benefits end and they continue to work, they pay into the system.
Click to expand...

If you don't like my answer, then ask somebody else. I did answer the question.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How do you know? What evidence do you have to show that those on welfare do not vote for the politicians who promise to keep taking care of them?
Click to expand...
Wait, this is YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPORT, you have not done this once at all....period. Further, you are demanding someone to prove a negative.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It has everything to do with whether poor people are more likely to act out in discontent.
Click to expand...

I don't think you actually read the article. It's on what causes poverty in black communities, not whether higher levels of poverty causes violence. I argue that social programs provide an essential role and lower violence because people are less inclined to adhere to violent populist reformers, as well as engage in crime or they risk losing those benefits. This is proven true by the consistent decline of violence in the US and the lack of enduring populist movements in our current system. You claim it's not true because the black community supposedly had lower crime according to some black guy on a weird jewish website. Okay, are you purposely trying to insult my intelligence?
 
AlbqOwl said:
If you don't like my answer, then ask somebody else. I did answer the question.
Click to expand...
No, you did not, and now you are demanding that someone prove the negative of the question which is still before you.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bjebus, I wrote "politicians", not a singular "politician". Absolutely dishonest responses avoiding the point will be ignored.
Click to expand...

LOL then by all means ignore me. That's not really a threat
 
AlbqOwl said:
How do you know? What evidence do you have to show that those on welfare do not vote for the politicians who promise to keep taking care of them?
Click to expand...

You are making the contention that they are doing this, and that is why they should not be allowed to vote (or at least that you see that as a valid reason why some may want to deny them that right). Therefore, you must support it with some evidence. You don't know that this is what happening sand people should not be disenfranchised because you think those people might vote for basically politicians you think are promising them something. You claim this harms others.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wait, this is YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPORT, you have not done this once at all....period. Further, you are demanding someone to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who said it. You did. I was just responding to what you posted.
 
roguenuke said:
You are making the contention that they are doing this, and that is why they should not be allowed to vote (or at least that you see that as a valid reason why some may want to deny them that right). Therefore, you must support it with some evidence. You don't know that this is what happening sand people should not be disenfranchised because you think those people might vote for basically politicians you think are promising them something. You claim this harms others.
Click to expand...

First I have not said anybody should not be allowed to vote.

And I have to present no evidence in order to present and ask questions about a specific concept. You know, that concept than only one or two has yet addressed?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
So, business groups that ask for subsidies should not vote either?
Click to expand...

I haven't said anybody should not vote.

But the question within the basic concept remains: Should Citizen A have ability or power to require Citizen B to furnish Citizen A with whatever it is that Citizen A wants and furnish it at Citizen B's expense, most especially if there is no benefit to Citizen B?

You can apply that concept to just about any scenario you wish to apply it to.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm not the one who said it. You did. I was just responding to what you posted.
Click to expand...
You responded to Rogue, not me, with the negative variant OF THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU.

Not only won't you answer me, you have the audacity to flip the question and demand it be answered by someone else. I have never seen such a display of sheer effrontery in avoiding a question and in nearly the same breath, turning around and posing the negative to another. Absolute non-conscience posting, it is astounding.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't said anybody should not vote.

But the question within the basic concept remains: Should Citizen A have ability or power to require Citizen B to furnish Citizen A with whatever it is that Citizen A wants and furnish it at Citizen B's expense, most especially if there is no benefit to Citizen B?

You can apply that concept to just about any scenario you wish to apply it to.
Click to expand...

That is our entire system. Only one group is winning the game.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't think you actually read the article. It's on what causes poverty in black communities, not whether higher levels of poverty causes violence. I argue that social programs provide an essential role and lower violence because people are less inclined to adhere to violent populist reformers, as well as engage in crime or they risk losing those benefits. This is proven true by the consistent decline of violence in the US and the lack of enduring populist movements in our current system. You claim it's not true because the black community supposedly had lower crime according to some black guy on a weird jewish website. Okay, are you purposely trying to insult my intelligence?
Click to expand...

I read the article, and many others by Walter Williams on the subject. Also I have read many other qualified historians who have written on the subject. And all who approach it from the actual results rather than theory agree that by and large, poverty is not the cause of crime. Williams just happened to be focusing on the black community in that particular piece, but it applies to any other groups you wish to apply it to.

If you want a 'non-black community' illustration look at the State of Alaska for instance. For years now, Alaska has been consistently at or near the top of the list for the most crime-ridden states, especially in the area of violent crimes. Yet Alaska has been consistently near the top in median income and low poverty rates too.

I grew up during a period when, by modern standards, most people were poor. But there was virtually no crime more serious than somebody swiping a donut off the counter at the drug store or stealing corn or watermelons from a farmer's field. (Most of us didn't steal the donut but did steal the corn and watermelons.) Of course in those days, corn sold for a penny an ear and you could buy a huge watermelon for a dime.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
A complete, bald faced, disingenuous lie:
Click to expand...

Try reading that again. Not being allowed to vote oneself benefits at the expense of others is a very different thing than not being allowed to vote.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most of us didn't steal the donut but did steal the corn and watermelons.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that even if you had the money to by the corn and the watermelon, you still would steal it.
 
There is something wrong with a persons thinking when money defines basic rights.
That the poor are useless and just suck up resources.
Dammed sad state of affairs and worse is how prevalent it has become.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You responded to Rogue, not me, with the negative variant OF THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU.

Not only won't you answer me, you have the audacity to flip the question and demand it be answered by someone else. I have never seen such a display of sheer effrontery in avoiding a question and in nearly the same breath, turning around and posing the negative to another. Absolute non-conscience posting, it is astounding.
Click to expand...

Fine then. Please feel free to just scroll over my posts or is there a way to put people on ignore here? If so please put me on ignore. Then you won't feel so much effrontery and won't be so astounded. I will do the same. I generally feel pretty much vindicated when folks start attacking me instead of what I post. It's a dead giveaway that I probably got it right. :)
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So your argument is that even if you had the money to by the corn and the watermelon, you still would steal it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It was fun. And the farmers pretty much expected it and got as much kick out of it as we did. Nobody ever got more than one melon or a few ears for supper. One farmer in particular used to love to lie in wait for us kids to sneak out to the field to steal a watermelon and scare the bejeebers out of us. And then everybody would have a good laugh and the farmer sometimes invited us all in for cookies and ice tea. (We did have the money to buy the corn and watermelon.) If somebody couldn't afford the corn or melons, then all the better that the farmers allowed a bit of gleaning from the fields.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Try reading that again. Not being allowed to vote oneself benefits at the expense of others is a very different thing than not being allowed to vote.
Click to expand...
WTF?

LOL....are you sure about trying to make this tiny semantic fiction the crux of your new dishonest argument? You have been arguing that the poor should not be allowed to vote for those politicians who will keep their benefits in place.....as if that is the entirety of the politicians efforts. Denying a vote for a politician is a denial of influence on a host of issues.

This is some of the most convoluted, wacky posting I have ever read.
 
JANFU said:
There is something wrong with a persons thinking when money defines basic rights.
That the poor are useless and just suck up resources.
Dammed sad state of affairs and worse is how prevalent it has become.
Click to expand...

Almost as damned sad state of affairs as when basic rights are confused with an issue of what one Citizen can demand of another's property and evenmoreso when that is interpreted as the poor are useless and just suck up resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom