Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[chanel]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations.

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

 

[Article 15]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations.

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

So you propose to deny the mentally retarded and illiterate the right to vote because of the off chance that someone might tell them who to vote for?

Seems pretty silly to me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all, can we justify those who do not pay taxes to be able to vote on how much the taxpaying citizen’s pay for the services of government that we all benefit from? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html ) Furthermore, aren’t those who receive government assistance in a conflict of interest if they are able to vote for whatever politician is willing to increase the amount of their federally/state funded checks? Also, for the purpose of this thread, let’s throw in businesses and corporations that receive funds/subsidies/assistance/bailouts from the government. Should they be able to donate money in the name of their business or run campaign ads? Since both people and business owners who receive welfare/money/assistance from the federal government have a vested interest in voting for politicians, who redistribute money, and thus redistribute liberty, from the taxpayer to those who don’t pay taxes or businesses that get assistance/bailouts, shouldn’t they lose the privilege to vote or the liberty to donate money and speak on that politicians behalf? Can’t the taxpayer be compensated for his loss of liberty by also taking away the privilege to vote from the welfare recipiant or the right of a business that receives bailouts/subsidies to donate money or run ads?

Well I think it’s perfectly fine to deny the vote to those who are dependent on the government. I think that James Madison and the rest of the founding fathers were right on two counts when they debated whether “freeholders” (property owners), should be the only ones to vote. For one, allowing the dependent to vote will create a false corrupt constituency of those who are voting property away from one class of citizens and giving non-existent liberties and privileges to themselves. Second, it creates a class of politician who achieves power by corrupting his own constituency. In other words, they will not vote on the guy who is best able to determine the functions of government in accordance to his constituency to defend everyone’s unalienable rights, but vote on the guy that promises more assistance, thus taking rights from one and giving government sponsored extra privileges to another. Thus, running for political office would be less of the former in order to see who can out do his competition in the latter. It makes perfect since to deny the privilege of suffrage to those who are dependent on the American taxpayer. The ballot box should not be used as a tool to steal the property of others. In fact, if it was anyone other than the government, they would be thrown in jail!

I know there will be some of you who claim that we all pay sales and numerous other taxes, however, I find this dishonest as the majority of people who pay no taxes at all receive more back in the form of a tax rebate/tax credits than they pay in sales taxes and others.

Some will also say "what about federal employees?" Thats a fair enough question. To that I say that the average federal employee shouldent get any higher pay than the average American working citizen.

-Benjamin Franklin- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q

Back in the 2008 election, a woman by the name of Peggy Joseph became a YouTube sensation when she commented on the newly elected President Obama by saying, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him he’s gonna help me.” Likewise, in the economically destroyed city of Detroit, people were standing in line to apply for $3,000 each in stimulus money to help pay for their mortgages. Ken Rogulski of WJR News was on scene. The Transcript goes as follows:

Rogulski: Why are you here?
Woman #1: To get some money.
Rogulski: What kind of money?
Woman #1: Obama money.
Rogulski: Where's it coming from?
Woman #1: Obama.
Rogulski: And where did Obama get it?
Woman #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
Woman #2: And we love him.
Woman #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
Women: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)


............................................................. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Wealth Creators vs Wealth Spreaders
.....................................................................

Before comenting on the constitutionality of it all understand that the constitution only says that the vote cannot be denied on the ACCOUNT of race or sex. It says nothing about dependency!

At one time that was how the vote went. You had to own proprety before you were allowed to vote.
So No we should not even be thinking going down this road. Since we are a Republic every Citizen has a say in Government and should be allowed to vote.

 

[chanel]

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

So you propose to deny the mentally retarded and illiterate the right to vote because of the off chance that someone might tell them who to vote for?

Seems pretty silly to me.

"Off chance" someone will tell them who to vote for? How about a 99% "off chance"? I said "basic literacy"; not a high school diploma.

 

[Article 15]

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

So you propose to deny the mentally retarded and illiterate the right to vote because of the off chance that someone might tell them who to vote for?

Seems pretty silly to me.

"Off chance" someone will tell them who to vote for? How about a 99% "off chance"? I said "basic literacy"; not a high school diploma.

Like I said "illerate" ... I don't know how high school diplomas entered the conversation.

Provide evidence to back up your assertion on that 99% of the time they get told who to vote for and not simply told which box means pertains to which candidate because it sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

 

[chanel]

Oh I don't know art. It just seems every time I've voted, I've had to read questions. Pretty hard ones with big, big numbers in them.

We don't allow people licenses who can't pass the written portion of the test. Voting is just as important in my opinion.

 

[Article 15]

Oh I don't know art. It just seems every time I've voted, I've had to read questions. Pretty hard ones with big, big numbers in them.

We don't allow people licenses who can't pass the written portion of the test. Voting is just as important in my opinion.

So what's wrong with a poll worker reading the questions or telling which box is for which candidate to an illiterate or mentally retarded voter ... or to an elderly voter who is having difficulty reading a ballot? What's the harm?

It sounds to me like you are looking to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[MarcATL]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations. And of course I.D.

More BIG GOVERNMENT getting in the way of our BASIC FREEDOMS huh?

Nice!

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

Why would you say something so, not only alarming, but patently false? What happened to A.C.O.R.N. was nothing short of an attack and smear job intended to malign them and ultimately shut them down. Because of the political climate the GOVERNMENT rushed to judgement and cause a PRIVATE organization to go down. All the CLAIMS leveled against it has been since PROVEN to be FALSE.

You would do well to quit repeating it.

 

[Article 15]

Oh I don't know art. It just seems every time I've voted, I've had to read questions. Pretty hard ones with big, big numbers in them.

We don't allow people licenses who can't pass the written portion of the test. Voting is just as important in my opinion.

And there's good reason you need to be literate to drive ... you have to be able to read road signs.

 

[editec]

Everybody who votes in general eelections has a CONFLICT of interest.

Should billionaires prevented from voting when so many of them DEPEND on checks from the government to make them rich?

 

[MarcATL]

What does The Constitution say about voting and conflict of interest?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What does the Constitution say about who can and cannot vote?

Nothing about paying taxes at all. In fact all it says is that you must be 18 years old to vote ( and a citizen) and that one can not be discriminated against for race, creed, sex or religion.

You see citizens did NOT pay income tax when this Country was formed. The States paid the Federal Government a stipend based on population each year. The States used tariffs and other types of taxes to gather the money.

 

[gautama]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations. And of course I.D.

More BIG GOVERNMENT getting in the way of our BASIC FREEDOMS huh?

Nice!

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

Why would you say something so, not only alarming, but patently false? What happened to A.C.O.R.N. was nothing short of an attack and smear job intended to malign them and ultimately shut them down. Because of the political climate the GOVERNMENT rushed to judgement and cause a PRIVATE organization to go down. All the CLAIMS leveled against it has been since PROVEN to be FALSE.

You would do well to quit repeating it.

Are you surprised that MarcATL RatTLE is full of shit.....again ?

 

[pete]

obviously they will be voting for "more" (for me) rather than voting for what is best for the country. NO

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Without an Amendment to the Constitution barring people from voting based on taxation is Unconstitutional.

Now if you propose such an Amendment, guess what? The untaxed get to vote on it in every State.

There is nothing at all in the document to prevent people that do not pay taxes from voting. In fact such an effort would fail on legal grounds due to discrimination.

And can you imagine the Government entity that would have to exist to enforce such a law? We can not ask for ID now, how exactly do you expect to stop people from voting? Purge all the rolls and require everyone to re register?

And since the States register people to vote EACH individual State would need the same Government entity with access to EVERYONES IRS accounts. It would require Attorneys, accountants and law enforcement as well as just plain old Government employees.

All because someone is jealous that someone else did not pay any taxes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations.

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

Obviously a lot of mentally retarded people voting. After all, Bush got in twice.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh I don't know art. It just seems every time I've voted, I've had to read questions. Pretty hard ones with big, big numbers in them.

We don't allow people licenses who can't pass the written portion of the test. Voting is just as important in my opinion.

So we automatically disqualify the blind citizens?

Besides, if you had a real literacy test, how many Teabaggers would get to vote?

 

[Old Rocks]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all, can we justify those who do not pay taxes to be able to vote on how much the taxpaying citizen’s pay for the services of government that we all benefit from? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html ) Furthermore, aren’t those who receive government assistance in a conflict of interest if they are able to vote for whatever politician is willing to increase the amount of their federally/state funded checks? Also, for the purpose of this thread, let’s throw in businesses and corporations that receive funds/subsidies/assistance/bailouts from the government. Should they be able to donate money in the name of their business or run campaign ads? Since both people and business owners who receive welfare/money/assistance from the federal government have a vested interest in voting for politicians, who redistribute money, and thus redistribute liberty, from the taxpayer to those who don’t pay taxes or businesses that get assistance/bailouts, shouldn’t they lose the privilege to vote or the liberty to donate money and speak on that politicians behalf? Can’t the taxpayer be compensated for his loss of liberty by also taking away the privilege to vote from the welfare recipiant or the right of a business that receives bailouts/subsidies to donate money or run ads?

Well I think it’s perfectly fine to deny the vote to those who are dependent on the government. I think that James Madison and the rest of the founding fathers were right on two counts when they debated whether “freeholders” (property owners), should be the only ones to vote. For one, allowing the dependent to vote will create a false corrupt constituency of those who are voting property away from one class of citizens and giving non-existent liberties and privileges to themselves. Second, it creates a class of politician who achieves power by corrupting his own constituency. In other words, they will not vote on the guy who is best able to determine the functions of government in accordance to his constituency to defend everyone’s unalienable rights, but vote on the guy that promises more assistance, thus taking rights from one and giving government sponsored extra privileges to another. Thus, running for political office would be less of the former in order to see who can out do his competition in the latter. It makes perfect since to deny the privilege of suffrage to those who are dependent on the American taxpayer. The ballot box should not be used as a tool to steal the property of others. In fact, if it was anyone other than the government, they would be thrown in jail!

I know there will be some of you who claim that we all pay sales and numerous other taxes, however, I find this dishonest as the majority of people who pay no taxes at all receive more back in the form of a tax rebate/tax credits than they pay in sales taxes and others.

Some will also say "what about federal employees?" Thats a fair enough question. To that I say that the average federal employee shouldent get any higher pay than the average American working citizen.

-Benjamin Franklin- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q

Back in the 2008 election, a woman by the name of Peggy Joseph became a YouTube sensation when she commented on the newly elected President Obama by saying, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him he’s gonna help me.” Likewise, in the economically destroyed city of Detroit, people were standing in line to apply for $3,000 each in stimulus money to help pay for their mortgages. Ken Rogulski of WJR News was on scene. The Transcript goes as follows:

Rogulski: Why are you here?
Woman #1: To get some money.
Rogulski: What kind of money?
Woman #1: Obama money.
Rogulski: Where's it coming from?
Woman #1: Obama.
Rogulski: And where did Obama get it?
Woman #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
Woman #2: And we love him.
Woman #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
Women: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)


............................................................. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Wealth Creators vs Wealth Spreaders
.....................................................................

Before comenting on the constitutionality of it all understand that the constitution only says that the vote cannot be denied on the ACCOUNT of race or sex. It says nothing about dependency!

Back again, Pubic?

 

[High_Gravity]

The only people that should be allowed to vote are middle aged white heterosexual married men with an annual income of over $500,000.

 

[goldcatt]

What does the Constitution say about who can and cannot vote?

Its up to the states. Voting is a privilage, not a right.

What bumper sticker did you get that from?