• 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
Well that is true. But I wonder why it is that those who can't grasp it are nevertheless dead certain I am not only wrong, but evil. :)

"you are evil because you have no compassion, no feeling in your soul for other people, because you want to deny them the basic necessities of life"




This is why it is impossible to discuss problems with people who's thinking process comes from how they feel about something instead of using reason.
 
Last edited:
"you are evil because you have no compassion, no feeling in your soul for other people, because you want to deny them the basic necessities of life"

This is why it is impossible to discuss problems with people who's thinking process comes from how they feel about something instead of using reason.

You left out the part where I worship the rich, want to deny everybody else their rights, want to invade bedrooms and wombs, want to take science out of the schools, and cram religion down everybody's throats. So of course I hate poor people. (Especially if they are black.) :)
 
You left out the part where I worship the rich, want to deny everybody else their rights, want to invade bedrooms and wombs, want to take science out of the schools, and cram religion down everybody's throats. So of course I hate poor people. (Especially if they are black.) :)

yes this is a constant theme...on the accusation list
 
the constitution is clear.. it states what powers are delegated to the the federal government, and their are NO powers of the federal government into the personal life's liberty and property of the people, ..those are state powers.
Non-sequitur, the claim you made is that the USC prohibits spending:

the constitution does not permit giving money to people.

Prove it.
 
Non-sequitur, the claim you made is that the USC prohibits spending:

the constitution does not permit giving money to people.

Prove it.

the constitution does not grant the federal government power into the life's liberty and property of the people........BECAUSE .....those powers are going to be the most vast powers there are, and the federal government powers are few and defined.

the federal government giving handouts to the people, involves them directly into the life's of the people.......the federal government powers are external on the union, while state powers are internal to the union.

no where in article 1 section 8 does the federal government have such power.


federalist 45-

FEDERAL POWERS"


The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


STATE POWERS:

Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
the constitution does not grant the federal government power into the life's liberty and property of the people.
Still waiting for you to prove that the USC PROHIBITS spending.

You have not PROVEN it, especially when you cite The Federalist Papers.
 
please post where i stated the constitution prohibits the government to spend money.
It is such a waste of time responding to you. You reply to a post about Madison complaining about Congressional SPENDING on "constituents" (when in reality it was monies for French refugees) with this jem:

"the constitution does not permit giving money to people."

...and you wonder how I came up with "Congress is prohibited from spending"? As I said, this is complete waste of time because you apparently can't remember what is posted from day to day nor can understand the meaning of the words on the page, but I will write this slowly in hopes it will get through. When a person says: "does not permit", most sentient beings understand this to mean "prohibited", ie, not permitted. It is that simple. And when it is added to "the constitution does not permit", again, you are making the claim the USC prohibits, in this case, Congress spending monies for relief...or broader....welfare. I asked you to prove this.....you did not.....and then you suddenly get confused about the ORIGINAL POINT OF CONTENTION. What is wrong, did you slip and hit your head? I have no idea how it is that you have suddenly become confused about what you replied to over the last 2 days (yesterday and today), but there you are. I'm having a hard understanding why it is that I am having to explain to you what you have been debating with me....but there you are, you seem to lose track and get confused a lot in our debates......even when the comments and replies to all of this are still existing and all one has to do is to go back and review if anything is forgotten.

So what it the deal, why can't you do this?

Further, just to clarify this confused (by you) argument about spending:

“Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
 
It is such a waste of time responding to you. You reply to a post about Madison complaining about Congressional SPENDING on "constituents" (when in reality it was monies for French refugees) with this jem:

"the constitution does not permit giving money to people."

...and you wonder how I came up with "Congress is prohibited from spending"? As I said, this is complete waste of time because you apparently can't remember what is posted from day to day nor can understand the meaning of the words on the page, but I will write this slowly in hopes it will get through. When a person says: "does not permit", most sentient beings understand this to mean "prohibited", ie, not permitted. It is that simple. And when it is added to "the constitution does not permit", again, you are making the claim the USC prohibits, in this case, Congress spending monies for relief...or broader....welfare. I asked you to prove this.....you did not.....and then you suddenly get confused about the ORIGINAL POINT OF CONTENTION. What is wrong, did you slip and hit your head? I have no idea how it is that you have suddenly become confused about what you replied to over the last 2 days (yesterday and today), but there you are. I'm having a hard understanding why it is that I am having to explain to you what you have been debating with me....but there you are, you seem to lose track and get confused a lot in our debates......even when the comments and replies to all of this are still existing and all one has to do is to go back and review if anything is forgotten.

So what it the deal, why can't you do this?

Further, just to clarify this confused (by you) argument about spending:

“Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”

so in other words you cannot show me saying "the constitution prohibits government from spending money".

so you give up your quest on finding me wrong and move on to something else.
 
Since welfare payments are already inherently unconstitutional, under any paradigm in which we are assuming they continue to exist, we can place any stipulations we want on accepting such payments.

Preventing voting is a reasonable stipulation on being on the public dole, since it can be assumed that those on the public dole will probably vote for giving themselves a raise.
 
Since welfare payments are already inherently unconstitutional, under any paradigm in which we are assuming they continue to exist, we can place any stipulations we want on accepting such payments.

Preventing voting is a reasonable stipulation on being on the public dole, since it can be assumed that those on the public dole will probably vote for giving themselves a raise.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
 
so in other words you cannot show me saying "the constitution prohibits government from spending money".

so you give up your quest on finding me wrong and move on to something else.
as I said, it was a complete waste of time to explain to you how it is that I (or any sentient being) understood that when you respond to complaints about Congressional spending (on welfare) with:

the constitution does not permit giving money to people.

...that you are in fact arguing that Congress is PROHIBITED from spending (on welfare).

But then, after all, you are not required to keep the context of the debate or what anyone has posted, in mind. When you are challenged, DIRECTLY, on your claims, you can't keep them straight, understand the counter or acknowledge the very obvious progression of argument.


All you do is "get confused"....and the debate gets diverted. It is a wonderful ploy...and question become:

How's that going?
 
as I said, it was a complete waste of time to explain to you how it is that I (or any sentient being) understood that when you respond to complaints about Congressional spending (on welfare) with:

the constitution does not permit giving money to people.

...that you are in fact arguing that Congress is PROHIBITED from spending (on welfare).

But then, after all, you are not required to keep the context of the debate or what anyone has posted, in mind. When you are challenged, DIRECTLY, on your claims, you can't keep them straight, understand the counter or acknowledge the very obvious progression of argument.


All you do is "get confused"....and the debate gets diverted. It is a wonderful ploy...and question become:

How's that going?

as has been posted before your complete lack of constitutional knowledge is terrible, and you do not make yourself look good, trying to use it.
 
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
"There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having written any part of the text.[10] In fact, it actually comprises two parts which didn't begin to appear together until the 1970s."

But hey, who cares, it is all rhetoric, it sounds authentic, and gosh darn it, simple minded folks need stuff like this to make it sound like they understand foundations of US ideology.....even when it supposedly (not) comes from a 18th century Scot.
 
"There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having written any part of the text.[10] In fact, it actually comprises two parts which didn't begin to appear together until the 1970s."

But hey, who cares, it is all rhetoric, it sounds authentic, and gosh darn it, simple minded folks need stuff like this to make sound like they understand foundations of US ideology.....even when it supposedly (not) comes from a 18th century Scot.

it is however true...

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
 
as has been posted before your complete lack of constitutional knowledge is terrible, and you do not make yourself look good, trying to use it.

This point wasn't a matter of the USC, it was in fact a matter of memory, logic and context.....of which, you failed on all points.
 
it is however true...

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
It was a myth created by someone in the 1970's that hasn't come "true" at all. If a man doesn't like the taxes, he can move.

Somalia is wonderful this time of year.
 
It was a myth created by someone in the 1970's that hasn't come "true" at all. If a man doesn't like the taxes, he can move.

Somalia is wonderful this time of year.

it has come true. by voting for politicians.....woman thinks obama is going to pay her bills.



how can you move on if federal direct tax is everywhere?
 
Last edited:
it has come true. by voting for politicians.....woman thinks obama is going to pay her bills.



how can you move on if federal direct tax is everywhere?
So let me get this straight, you are trying to support the truthiness of a made up quote falsely attributed to a 18th century Scot about "tyranny" by referring to a single confused American?

If this is supposed to be a display of your use of superior logic, I will simply allow it to be.

:applaud
 
so let me get this straight, you are trying to support the truthiness of a made up quote falsely attributed to a 18th century scot about "tyranny" by referring to a single confused american?

If this is supposed to be a display of your use of superior logic, i will simply allow it to be.

:applaud

what this video is saying is, that people vote for politicians for the intention that the politician is going to give them something.
 
what this video is saying is, that people vote for politicians for the intention that the politician is going to give them something.

LOL....what she said was:

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

This was not a comment about social services, it was a comment about economic recovery in 2008. Lots of folks in 2008 were worried about not making enough to pay mortgages and for gas.

But hey, context, details, understanding and comprehension.....who needs 'em when unattributable quotes supposedly from 18th century Scots will do.
 
Not at all. My logic is strictly focused on the problem we have with those who have no dog in the fight and who will suffer no negative consequence from their vote and/or those who hope to profit at the expense of others with their vote. Degree of profit and negative consequence is of little importance.
Everyone votes for people who promise benefits, which, I think, is the common sense. Citizens who are not on welfare may want better working conditions whereas those who are on welfare want more welfare. For me, those are the same.

Your original argument centers around that people on welfare do not pay tax. However, they still contribute to the society to some degree. They consume goods or services, and that is what powers the economy.
 
Well that is true. But I wonder why it is that those who can't grasp it are nevertheless dead certain I am not only wrong, but evil. :)
No you are not evil. You just sort of ignore that liberty and equality are the bases of the society, at least according to the constitution. The government will not be dumb to deprive those on welfare of voting because that would mean capitalism is not good. The rich will not allow that to happen. If they want the result of vote to be in their favor, they can just spend some money to satisfy those in need. However, if the current system is challenged or even toppled, they lose control. The right to vote is so vital.
 
Back
Top Bottom