Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[Mr. Peepers]

People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

Does that include corporate welfare? I wonder how many billions go toward corporate welfare (including the MIC) vs help to struggling US citizens... anyone ever seen the numbers? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[Woyzeck]

If you're a citizen, you can, and should vote. I don't see why welfare recipients wouldn't be able to so long as they are citizens.

 

[goldcatt]

People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

 

[Publius1787]

By reading your post I KNOW you did not read my OP! I covered all of that! Is such intellectual laziness abundant in this forum? You just dove right in to a thread without reading it? And embarrased yourself with this trash? Read my OP and try again.

Your post is a great description of FDR's America where welfare and government jobs and pork were used to create the impenetrable New Deal Coalition, which kept the Liberals in power for 40 years.

But Reagan's America is different (and both parties now live in Reagan's America).

Reagan gave a New Deal to the wealthy.

Reagan's America made a much different promise: "We'll give you candy -- subsidies, no-bids, tax breaks, bail-outs, regulatory favors -- and you will make us rich and keep us in power"

The FDR way of politics

"Vote for me, I'll give you welfare"

has turned into the Reagan way of politics

"Fund my election, and I'll subsidize-&-privatize your profit, while socializing your risk"

"And if I do create universal health care. I won't break your monopoly. I'll just force everybody to buy your overpriced garbage"

(wow. is talk radio this strong? We now have state protected monopolies which staff government through the funding of elections. We gave corporations and their wealthy shareholders the largest bailout ever, and then we foreclosed on the poor. And the OP is talking about votes for welfare. Me thinks he doesn't understand who the real welfare recipients are. Wow, just wow)

Once again Ive covered all of that. Please read the op. Look how I define welfare.

 

[Publius1787]

If you were not joking...I am not amused. Hitler had an interesting idea on purifying the German voting rolls ... Your kind of thinking has only one end game. I will not take one nor allow any step in that direction. No..I mean yes... I did not waste any time digging into your thesis. The stated premise is 100% against EVERYTHING I believe this country stands for. You should be skinned and your hide dried and fitted to bongo drums.

You may be surprised to find out that your wrong. The Founding Fathers held the same view as I do so that statement of yours of what America stands for is in question. This is covered in the op. Please read it. Honestly, I feel that if you gave it some time you will see why I hold such a view and probaly question your own view as well. Either way I thank you for your consideration. But I cant debate a guy who doesent know where I'm coming from.

This is a different world than the one "our founding fathers" lived in. Back then the population was 90 percent agrarian. They condoned and even promoted the buying and selling of human beings. We are not going back to those days. The INTENT of the new people we call American has been built on and we have fought among ourselves and against the most powerful militaries of the world to get where we are today. I will give no ground that my ancestors died to take. I am not interested in your ideas. I am only interested in rejecting them.

Yeah, sure, whatever. But did you read the op? Such willful ignorance and refusal to approach anything with an open mind showes exactly where you stand in this debate.

 

[Publius1787]

This is probably the dumbest OP I have ever seen, the implications of which are very scary, were it to become a reality in our society today. What you are basically vying for is a slave class with no rights, to take us back to the dark ages. Let me get this straight: the under-class, those born into the least privilege (not their fault, as it isn't with anybody), now don't have a right to vote??? That would only lead to one thing: a very bold line between rich and poor. The wealth gap would spread, and would only lead to one conclusion: a revolt. A violent revolt. Riots. Who knows, even civil war. This is the stupidest fuck idea I have ever heard. The converse of no taxation without representation doesn't hold water. Not all converses are valid. (A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square, as one very simple example.)

If you pay no taxes, better yet, you receive more in a tax rebate than you paid in, and your dependant on the government, where does that extra money come from? Who is the slave class? If you dont pay for the functions of government but you benefit from the functions of government, and you vote, then WHO is the slave class? If ofthers must give up their rights in order to pay your way then what right do you have to vote more of their rights from them?

 

[Publius1787]

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.

You look like you read my op. What are your objections?

 

[Publius1787]

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?

Whoever your talking about is not me. I did see that somone had Publius though so I had to tack on the year Madison wrote the federalist papers.

 

[Publius1787]

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

I hate willful ignorance.

 

[Publius1787]

What a lovely thread to read first thing in the morning. Even RGS spanked this nut! Go RGS!

That's not the infamous Pubes, is it? Will he melt again?

No. Unfortunantly you do not know this nut. I wanted Publius but it was taken. So I had to tack on the first year he wrote the federalist papers.

 

[Greenbeard]

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well?

Does that mean only the breadwinner in a household may vote? Can a housewife vote? How about an 18-year-old high school senior? Can college students vote (they might be getting federal student loans!)?

Maybe we should apportion votes by income bracket. If we're going to have a system of progressive taxation, surely it's "wrong" for people in different tax brackets to have the same voting power. Maybe award five additional votes for each tax bracket you crack?

But then we have to factor in degrees of government dependence. Certainly someone whose income derives from agricultural products that enjoy federal subsidies should have some of his additional votes docked, for example. We've already stricken dependents, most college students, and spouses without an independent source of income from the voting rolls, but we also need to consider breadwinners who benefit from federal student loans helping to finance their child's education--some undetermined number of votes should be deducted from them. Folks with tax-exempt group health plans should also be docked relative to their counterparts in the individual market. And so on. Figuring out how many votes you're entitled will be a bit of a process.

Hmm, if making the voting process as difficult as doing your taxes was your goal, you're well on your way!

 

[Publius1787]

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

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

No.

The Constitution specifically outlines a Republican form of government..or one of elected representatives:


This outlines the Electoral Congress:


This specifically grants the right to vote to everyone:



This gives the people the right to vote for Senators:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This gives women the right to vote.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hope that clears it up for you.

The vote cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT of race, sex, age above 18, etc etc... My GOD there are some idiots in the world! If you cant comprehend english then you have no place interperiting the constitution. And this comes from a guy (me) who is a horrible speller.

 

[Publius1787]

Not to steal mah more articulate sista' thunder, but you'd also have to repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

Which is sacred to most Americans, and which would be repealed over my dead body.

Exactly.

Not to mention the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Which means the rights protected by the Constitution would no longer apply to the States through incorporation. There's a great idea, let's allow the State governments to trample all over free speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure...all to get those welfare recipients. No problem.

Add in repealing the 24th and the OP is going to have a lot of fun with this one.

I think he really wants to throw out the entire constitution and start from scratch.

Huggy and High Gravity have this fool's number.

Explain to me how the constitution would be violated!

 

[Publius1787]

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?

Everyone pays taxes.

Ezra Klein - Do the poor really pay no taxes?

The poor pay just as much (or more) of their measly income in taxes:

Like: payroll taxes, sales tax, state and local tax, property tax, gasoline tax etc. If you have a problem with people owing no federal income tax, take that up with the tax credit. The poor are paying more in their proportional wealth in taxes than are the middle and upper classes ever will. What more do you want... to enslave them? Put them in debtor's prison for being poor? You want to take away their right to vote? Really? Corporations would LOVE that. Then the working poor would have absolutely no voice in this nation (not that they have much of one anymore to begin with).

All that was covered, to include businesses, in the op. Of course, you didnt read it.

 

[Publius1787]

People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

Does that include corporate welfare? I wonder how many billions go toward corporate welfare (including the MIC) vs help to struggling US citizens... anyone ever seen the numbers? Yeah, I didn't think so.

More eveidence of someone not reading the op.

 

[amrchaos]

Sorry Pub, but I only read the first two paragraphs before I realized I have to comment.


I believe that any citizen/organizations that can be oppressed by their government should have say in their government. Everyone has an interest in what they want their government to do. That includes increasing subsidies/welfare payments to them if that is apart of their interest.

I know, such a system should not work in theory. One group politically enslaves another for their own selfish ends. But if you try to look at it from a different point of view, these subsidies/welfare payments may serve a larger purpose towards maintaining order.

Wait

I am sorry Pub, I just asked you to look at certain government programs from a left/corportist point of view!! I know you don't want the headache, but please try it.

 

[Publius1787]

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well?

Does that mean only the breadwinner in a household may vote? Can a housewife vote? How about an 18-year-old high school senior? Can college students vote (they might be getting federal student loans!)?

Maybe we should apportion votes by income bracket. If we're going to have a system of progressive taxation, surely it's "wrong" for people in different tax brackets to have the same voting power. Maybe award five additional votes for each tax bracket you crack?

But then we have to factor in degrees of government dependence. Certainly someone whose income derives from agricultural products that enjoy federal subsidies should have some of his additional votes docked, for example. We've already stricken dependents, most college students, and spouses without an independent source of income from the voting rolls, but we also need to consider breadwinners who benefit from federal student loans helping to finance their child's education--some undetermined number of votes should be deducted from them. Folks with tax-exempt group health plans should also be docked relative to their counterparts in the individual market. And so on. Figuring out how many votes you're entitled will be a bit of a process.

Hmm, if making the voting process as difficult as doing your taxes was your goal, you're well on your way!

All great questions! Mnay of them are covered in the op. But I would limit the right to vote as quilified by year they are not on assistance. Any assistance should take away such privilage for the year of which they used it.

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly.

Not to mention the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Which means the rights protected by the Constitution would no longer apply to the States through incorporation. There's a great idea, let's allow the State governments to trample all over free speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure...all to get those welfare recipients. No problem.

Add in repealing the 24th and the OP is going to have a lot of fun with this one.

I think he really wants to throw out the entire constitution and start from scratch.

Huggy and High Gravity have this fool's number.

Explain to me how the constitution would be violated!

It WAS explained.

Denying the right to vote based on payment of taxes violates the 24th.

Denying the right to vote based solely on financial status violates Section 1 of the 14th. P&I, DP, EP, take your pick.

What's so difficult to understand?

 

[JScott]

What a great idea!

Mebbe we can bring back poll taxes while we're at it?

*Sarcastic tone*

Qute response but no analysis? No debate? Nothing I said up there seems wrong to you? Other than the obvious fact that you disagree with me? You can use sarcasm all you want and I cerainly did not advocate for poll taxes but you have contributed nothing to this thread or why you oppose my position.

So do you think welfare recipients should be able to vote?

The constitution does give citizens the right to vote. Is the constitution wrong?

 

[Publius1787]

Sorry Pub, but I only read the first two paragraphs before I realized I have to comment.


I believe that any citizen/organizations that can be oppressed by their government should have say in their government. Everyone has an interest in what they want their government to do. That includes increasing subsidies/welfare payments to them if that is apart of their interest.

I know, such a system should not work in theory. One group politically enslaves another for their own selfish ends. But if you try to look at it from a different point of view, these subsidies/welfare payments may serve a larger purpose towards maintaining order.

Wait

I am sorry Pub, I just asked you to look at certain government programs from a left/corportist point of view!! I know you don't want the headache, but please try it.

Wow! Someone who actually read it before they commented on it. Your right. The system as set up does not work. See here >>> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time . All New Deal and Great Scociety entitlements that are destroying our country.