• 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!

Written by a 21 year old female from texas !!

Navy Pride said:
I agree with this young lady 100%
Click to expand...

I notice she didn't say anything about:
  • Defense contracts (want a new weapons system, invent it yourself)
  • Government grants or tax advantages to businesses (having trouble with your business, fire your workers or get a loan)
  • Farm aid (can't sell your corn, grow beans)
  • Transportation block grants used to control state governments (having trouble fixing your roads, either make do with fewer roads or raise taxes)
  • Money in politics (having trouble getting elected, represent your constituent's interests)
  • Insider trading amongst politicians (having trouble making money without cheating, go to business school)
  • State aid to public schools (can't afford a better school, stop having kids in a poor district)
  • Public university systems (can't afford a private school, grab a mop)

... which I guess makes this "young lady" yet another meaningless populist ranter. Oh well.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I think her line about "conflict of interest" pretty much goes for every citizen, not just those on welfare. Don't all voters for the most part vote for what they think will benefit themselves personally? I don't get that part.
Click to expand...

What's the problem? Women can't vote on abortion issues, Mexicans can't vote on immigration, poor folk can't vote on welfare issues, gays can't vote on marriage issues and racial minorities can't vote on voter district issues. Leaving only rich, white men to make the rules. Which is how it should be.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Sure it does. In theory, taxpayers have an incentive not to vote themselves too many benefits, because they realize they will have to pay for those benefits through taxes. Sort of like how a child would go on a shopping spree, but the parents know better and don't allow it to happen, and know where the money comes from.



Yeah right, a lot of Republicans are pro-reproduction. These ideas are simply rational controls on runaway welfare statism.
Click to expand...

Alright, I see your point better now, but what you say makes sense only in theory. In practice, we have cases where these benefits are financed through borrowing (which we can do at extremely low rates), or we have cases where the revenue of some states flows elsewhere to the support the benefits in other states.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The vast, VAST majority of taxpayers are not intelligent or forward-thinking enough to even conceive of this.
Click to expand...

Isn't that crazy? That people don't realize they're essentially agreeing to purchase all the wasteful **** their elected officials are buying for us as our representatives?
 
Navy Pride said:
"...you no longer can VOTE! Yes,
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't
welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER][/CENTER]
Click to expand...

If we are going by conflict of interest as justification then the rich shouldn't be able to vote either. Actually no one should be able to.
 
StillBallin75 said:
It becomes an attack on the poor once you take into account the fact that opportunities simply don't exist for everyone. It's nice to be an armchair quarterback andbe able to tell people "go get a job." The reality is that there are many job-seekers who simply aren't able to find opportunity, take the long-term unemployed for instance.
Click to expand...

Yup. There are millions of men and women out there right now who would LOVE to have a job, and can't find one, or can't find one that pays the bills. If you were making 45k a year and lost your job, would you be in any hurry to take a job flipping burgers for maybe 16k?


"My last job was designing hydraulic control systems for chemical plants" vs "my last job was flipping burgers for minimum wage".... might make a diff in an interview...
 
StillBallin75 said:
Alright, I see your point better now, but what you say makes sense only in theory. In practice, we have cases where these benefits are financed through borrowing (which we can do at extremely low rates),
Click to expand...

That still results in a greater tax burden, just not immediately. It's a prospective tax hike.

Fruityfact said:
If we are going by conflict of interest as justification then the rich shouldn't be able to vote either. Actually no one should be able to.
Click to expand...

Read through all the posts already, this has begun to be addressed/clarified. Your statement is a non-sequitur because you're not really grasping her point or rationale.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Yup. There are millions of men and women out there right now who would LOVE to have a job, and can't find one, or can't find one that pays the bills. If you were making 45k a year and lost your job, would you be in any hurry to take a job flipping burgers for maybe 16k?


"My last job was designing hydraulic control systems for chemical plants" vs "my last job was flipping burgers for minimum wage".... might make a diff in an interview...
Click to expand...

Not only that...even if you tried to get that burger-flipping job, you'd probably be rejected for being overeducated or overqualified.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That still results in a greater tax burden, just not immediately. It's a prospective tax hike.
Click to expand...

Of course. But I am arguing that for the most part voters don't really take that into consideration - it's not an immediate concern for most voters and I personally don't believe the average voter really thinks that far ahead.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Yeah right, a lot of Republicans are pro-reproduction. These ideas are simply rational controls on runaway welfare statism.
Click to expand...

So when universal health care coverage is suggested as a rational cost control measure on runaway health costs, why does that become a unconstitutional assault on liberty?
 
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations.
Click to expand...



Are conservatives schizophrenic? One day you guys think government giving women birth control free is evil communism and will destroy the country the next day its mandatory. WTF?
 
Navy Pride said:
I agree with this young lady 100%
Click to expand...

Oh, hey, I almost forgot -- you're a man with a military history, right? Do you get a pension, or health benefits because of your service? That's a government benefit too.

Getting a pension? Get a job.

Getting health benefits? Get your own damn insurance.

I don't care if you feel like you earned it, if someone else's benefits are on the chopping block then so are yours. :)
 
kenvin said:
Are conservatives schizophrenic? One day you guys think government giving women birth control free is evil communism and will destroy the country the next day its mandatory. WTF?
Click to expand...

It's actually not a horrible idea, IMHO. ymmv. (the Norplant part, not the tubal ligation part)
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
So when universal health care coverage is suggested as a rational cost control measure on runaway health costs, why does that become a unconstitutional assault on liberty?
Click to expand...

Because it's not a cost control. When you expand access (let alone mandate it), costs rise. In addition to expanding access you must also seriously restrict the amount of health care that is consumed, in some way or another.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Sure it does. In theory, taxpayers have an incentive not to vote themselves too many benefits, because they realize they will have to pay for those benefits through taxes.
Click to expand...

I can't recall ever voting on such a referendum concerning benefits. Do they even exist?

Also, following that logic, gays wouldn't be able to vote on same sex marriage as it would be a conflict of interest, or heterosexuals on DOMA.
 
kenvin said:
Are conservatives schizophrenic? One day you guys think government giving women birth control free is evil communism and will destroy the country the next day its mandatory. WTF?
Click to expand...

Birth control should be one of the very few things government should provide for free. They should help with vasectomies too. We all have a very rational incentive to help the needy not multiple themselves.

I know you're just trying to know thy enemy, but don't get trapped into thinking all conservatives parrot the GOP set of hot button issues.

Hikertrash said:
I can't recall ever voting on such a referendum concerning benefits. Do they even exist?

Also, following that logic, gays wouldn't be able to vote on same sex marriage as it would be a conflict of interest, or heterosexuals on DOMA.
Click to expand...

Let's see what else we can find in Pandora's Box...
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Yup. There are millions of men and women out there right now who would LOVE to have a job, and can't find one, or can't find one that pays the bills. If you were making 45k a year and lost your job, would you be in any hurry to take a job flipping burgers for maybe 16k?
Click to expand...

Yes, especially if the burger flipper job payed better than not working did.
 
X Factor said:
It's an attack on the poor to suggest that you should have a better quality of life if you're willing to work for it?
Click to expand...

Enforcing reproductive controls eugenics-era style, and removing constitutional rights such as the right to vote, all because one is poor, is an attack on the poor.
 
Navy Pride said:
You are so wrong...Left wing talking points
Click to expand...

NP... RIGHTWINGERS in this thread have said that disenfranchisement is unacceptable. You REALLY need to get a new schtick. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. Sometimes... YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG. Like in this case.
 
Navy Pride said:
You are so wrong...Left wing talking points
Click to expand...

As my 10th grade history teacher always said...Feel free to say what you want to say, just make sure you BACK IT UP
 
its disgusting how folks are trying to make it acceptable in our society to take away the right to vote from more citizens of our country.

we want MORE citizens voting, not less. Only dictators want less people voting.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, especially if the burger flipper job payed better than not working did.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, but even if you tried you might not even be able to get that job.

StillBallin75 said:
Not only that...even if you tried to get that burger-flipping job, you'd probably be rejected for being overeducated or overqualified.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom