Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[xotoxi]

I agree that welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote.

Additionally, I feel that you should not be allowed to vote unless you have at least 4 year college degree.

 

[Publius1787]

I stopped reading right there.

Everybody pays tax.

They pay sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc.

You know whats funny? If you had read further, specifically after the first two paragraphs, you would have found that issue addressed.

Can you back your claim?

The Tax Foundation - Accounting for What Families Pay in Taxes and What They Receive in Government Spending
The Tax Foundation - Slide Show: Redistribution and the Impact of Obama's Policies

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly. That in conjunstion with the 6th Amendment. Welfare is a specific privilage for thoes who meet an economic criteria and not offered to anyone else. You must forcibly seaze property away from one citizen in order for another to gain a privilage. Furthermore, the person who's money is seized for the benfit of others is getting absolutly no "just compensation" for his lost property. The right to own property is a "liberty" or a "right". To receive property from another through the force of government is a privilage. If you are to take the 14th Amendment that way you mustthe other. By the 14th amendment, if the privilage of voting is equal, liberty must be equally defended as well. But then again, if the fourteenth amendment applied to the privilage to vote then the 15th, and 17th amendments would have never been necessary huh?

Votiing is not considered a liberty right under the 14th? Alert the presses.

But that's not what I asked you.

What do you know about Section 1 of the 14th and Due Process? You're talking about "liberty" but confusing it with the "right" to own property - which does not technically exist. Nobody has the "right" to own anything.

The property you happen to own would be protected from seizure without due process as a property right, it has nothing to do with liberty rights - but it can be taken with procedural Due Process of law, subject to Equal Protection. That would be, oh, as just one example shall we say empowered by the 16th Amendment for the Federal income tax, collected by a process authorized by Congress or via its delegated authority, and the code stipulating what is to be paid applied equally to all regardless of class or status. No violation there, and no "liberty" implicated at all.

What the Federal government then chooses to do with the funds it collects via a constitutionally authorized process, using legal and uniform procedure and applied equally to all citizens and residents, is then placed in the public treasury to be used as Congress dictates by law. There are no restrictions save that it must pass constitutional muster. We're not talking about Robin Hood waylaying rich people in Sherwood Forest here.

The 6th has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless you're in the custody of law enforcement. If that's the case, what are you doing posting on here? And what does removing Senate selection from the State legislatures to a popular vote have to do with restricting suffrage to taxpaying landowners?

And the way you studiously ignore the 24th, I get the feeling you never quite got that far in your pamphlets.

So....what say ye?

The 24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State (Qualifier) by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Where does it say you cant deny the vote on dependence status? Where does it say that you cant be denies the vote if you accept government assistance?

And property is a right to which I have explained here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3193658-post3.html

I dont want to get to far in to property because it takes away from this thread. But since I have tied in the relevence here and having explained the 14th Amendment and the 5th amendment (I meant the 5th Amendment), you cannot possibly justify any tax that taxes anyone at a higher percentage than the rest. Especially without compensating them with a service that applies directly to them by funding the essential services of government that defend our liberties. Taking money away from one citizen and giving it to antoher does not do this and thus there is no compensation.

I'm not combing the board for your posts in other threads, nor is it courteous to expect it. We're arguing the merits of your OP here in this thread, kindly at least copy and paste if you're unable to explain yourself in a manner germane to this, your own chosen topic.

I have no idea what you're referring to as the right to own property but it certainly fits no legal definition with which I'm familiar. And I've heard a few in my time.

You have referred to the States performing a mass disenfranchisement of voters using the historical practice of restricting voting to landowning white males as one of your rationales. You have made the argument that those who do not pay taxes should have no representation, which is directly prohibited by the 24th. The 5th in that regard has no bearing on the States, nor would the end result if you put voting rights in Federal hands be any different from that in Harper, considering the wording and usage of the Federal and State clauses are for all purposes identical.

You have not addressed the 24th, merely quoted it and backpedaled. You have not explained the 14th, merely typed verbiage that has nothing to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. You have not differentiated the explicit language of the Court in Harper stating beyond any doubt that affluence cannot be a basis for infringing upon the right to vote.

You, sir, are sadly misinformed at best, and a fraud at worst.

 

[Publius1787]

Votiing is not considered a liberty right under the 14th? Alert the presses.

But that's not what I asked you.

What do you know about Section 1 of the 14th and Due Process? You're talking about "liberty" but confusing it with the "right" to own property - which does not technically exist. Nobody has the "right" to own anything.

The property you happen to own would be protected from seizure without due process as a property right, it has nothing to do with liberty rights - but it can be taken with procedural Due Process of law, subject to Equal Protection. That would be, oh, as just one example shall we say empowered by the 16th Amendment for the Federal income tax, collected by a process authorized by Congress or via its delegated authority, and the code stipulating what is to be paid applied equally to all regardless of class or status. No violation there, and no "liberty" implicated at all.

What the Federal government then chooses to do with the funds it collects via a constitutionally authorized process, using legal and uniform procedure and applied equally to all citizens and residents, is then placed in the public treasury to be used as Congress dictates by law. There are no restrictions save that it must pass constitutional muster. We're not talking about Robin Hood waylaying rich people in Sherwood Forest here.

The 6th has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless you're in the custody of law enforcement. If that's the case, what are you doing posting on here? And what does removing Senate selection from the State legislatures to a popular vote have to do with restricting suffrage to taxpaying landowners?

And the way you studiously ignore the 24th, I get the feeling you never quite got that far in your pamphlets.

So....what say ye?

The 24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State (Qualifier) by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Where does it say you cant deny the vote on dependence status? Where does it say that you cant be denies the vote if you accept government assistance?

And property is a right to which I have explained here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3193658-post3.html

I dont want to get to far in to property because it takes away from this thread. But since I have tied in the relevence here and having explained the 14th Amendment and the 5th amendment (I meant the 5th Amendment), you cannot possibly justify any tax that taxes anyone at a higher percentage than the rest. Especially without compensating them with a service that applies directly to them by funding the essential services of government that defend our liberties. Taking money away from one citizen and giving it to antoher does not do this and thus there is no compensation.

I'm not combing the board for your posts in other threads, nor is it courteous to expect it. We're arguing the merits of your OP here in this thread, kindly at least copy and paste if you're unable to explain yourself in a manner germane to this, your own chosen topic.

I have no idea what you're referring to as the right to own property but it certainly fits no legal definition with which I'm familiar. And I've heard a few in my time.

You have referred to the States performing a mass disenfranchisement of voters using the historical practice of restricting voting to landowning white males as one of your rationales. You have made the argument that those who do not pay taxes should have no representation, which is directly prohibited by the 24th. The 5th in that regard has no bearing on the States, nor would the end result if you put voting rights in Federal hands be any different from that in Harper, considering the wording and usage of the Federal and State clauses are for all purposes identical.

You have not addressed the 24th, merely quoted it and backpedaled. You have not explained the 14th, merely typed verbiage that has nothing to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. You have not differentiated the explicit language of the Court in Harper stating beyond any doubt that affluence cannot be a basis for infringing upon the right to vote.

You, sir, are sadly misinformed at best, and a fraud at worst.

Not being taxed at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Getting more back than you pay in is certainly not a failure to pay a tax. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees whith the constitutions founding framers view of property.

 

[goldcatt]

The 24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State (Qualifier) by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Where does it say you cant deny the vote on dependence status? Where does it say that you cant be denies the vote if you accept government assistance?

And property is a right to which I have explained here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3193658-post3.html

I dont want to get to far in to property because it takes away from this thread. But since I have tied in the relevence here and having explained the 14th Amendment and the 5th amendment (I meant the 5th Amendment), you cannot possibly justify any tax that taxes anyone at a higher percentage than the rest. Especially without compensating them with a service that applies directly to them by funding the essential services of government that defend our liberties. Taking money away from one citizen and giving it to antoher does not do this and thus there is no compensation.

I'm not combing the board for your posts in other threads, nor is it courteous to expect it. We're arguing the merits of your OP here in this thread, kindly at least copy and paste if you're unable to explain yourself in a manner germane to this, your own chosen topic.

I have no idea what you're referring to as the right to own property but it certainly fits no legal definition with which I'm familiar. And I've heard a few in my time.

You have referred to the States performing a mass disenfranchisement of voters using the historical practice of restricting voting to landowning white males as one of your rationales. You have made the argument that those who do not pay taxes should have no representation, which is directly prohibited by the 24th. The 5th in that regard has no bearing on the States, nor would the end result if you put voting rights in Federal hands be any different from that in Harper, considering the wording and usage of the Federal and State clauses are for all purposes identical.

You have not addressed the 24th, merely quoted it and backpedaled. You have not explained the 14th, merely typed verbiage that has nothing to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. You have not differentiated the explicit language of the Court in Harper stating beyond any doubt that affluence cannot be a basis for infringing upon the right to vote.

You, sir, are sadly misinformed at best, and a fraud at worst.

Not being taxed at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees whith the founding framers of the constitutions view of property.

The 24th Amendment was ratified about 180 years after your "Founders" (The Framers) wrote the initial document, their arguments have no bearing on it.

Care to try again?

 

[Publius1787]

I'm not combing the board for your posts in other threads, nor is it courteous to expect it. We're arguing the merits of your OP here in this thread, kindly at least copy and paste if you're unable to explain yourself in a manner germane to this, your own chosen topic.

I have no idea what you're referring to as the right to own property but it certainly fits no legal definition with which I'm familiar. And I've heard a few in my time.

You have referred to the States performing a mass disenfranchisement of voters using the historical practice of restricting voting to landowning white males as one of your rationales. You have made the argument that those who do not pay taxes should have no representation, which is directly prohibited by the 24th. The 5th in that regard has no bearing on the States, nor would the end result if you put voting rights in Federal hands be any different from that in Harper, considering the wording and usage of the Federal and State clauses are for all purposes identical.

You have not addressed the 24th, merely quoted it and backpedaled. You have not explained the 14th, merely typed verbiage that has nothing to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. You have not differentiated the explicit language of the Court in Harper stating beyond any doubt that affluence cannot be a basis for infringing upon the right to vote.

You, sir, are sadly misinformed at best, and a fraud at worst.

Not being taxed at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees whith the founding framers of the constitutions view of property.

The 24th Amendment was ratified about 180 years after your "Founders" (The Framers) wrote the initial document, their arguments have no bearing on it.

Care to try again?

The 24th Amendment also has nothing to do with property nor did I reference it as such. Re-read the post your replied to. Oh, and not paying taxes at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Care to try again?

 

[goldcatt]

Not being taxed at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees whith the founding framers of the constitutions view of property.

The 24th Amendment was ratified about 180 years after your "Founders" (The Framers) wrote the initial document, their arguments have no bearing on it.

Care to try again?

The 24th Amendment also has nothing to do with property nor did I reference it as such. Oh, and not paying taxes at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Care to try again?

Then what is it, a success?

The 24th Amendment has everything to do with disenfranchising voters with the underlying (and false) rationale that they are not contributing their fair share in taxes.

You're out of your depth here.

 

[Publius1787]

The 24th Amendment was ratified about 180 years after your "Founders" (The Framers) wrote the initial document, their arguments have no bearing on it.

Care to try again?

The 24th Amendment also has nothing to do with property nor did I reference it as such. Oh, and not paying taxes at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Care to try again?

Then what is it, a success?

The 24th Amendment has everything to do with disenfranchising voters with the underlying (and false) rationale that they are not contributing their fair share in taxes.

You're out of your depth here.

Out of depth? I can always tell when my opponet in debate is losing an arguement when they result to laughing smilies for emotional effect. Its just as bad as writing "lol", or "yawn", or "roflmao" or whatever it is. Always designed to portray a false image of ones self that is just as annoying as a fella making a fake yawn or laugh to assist in showing that they are right when all else points otherwise.

My poll says, "should welfare recipiants be allowed to vote?" Lets just leave it at that. Welfare, meaning, people who are dependant on government and get far more back in taxes than they pay in. The wording of the 24th Amendment IS CLEAR. Not being taxed, infact, getting more back than you are taxed, is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Read my signature now!

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

 

[snjmom]

Yes it does. Right here.

Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth

Government handouts are determined by wealth. Therefore they cannot be used to deny the vote.

 

[goldcatt]

The 24th Amendment also has nothing to do with property nor did I reference it as such. Oh, and not paying taxes at all is not a "failure" to pay a tax. Care to try again?

Then what is it, a success?

The 24th Amendment has everything to do with disenfranchising voters with the underlying (and false) rationale that they are not contributing their fair share in taxes.

You're out of your depth here.

Out of depth? I can always tell when my opponet in debate is losing an arguement when they result to laughing smilies for emotional effect. Its just as bad as writing "lol", or "yawn", or "roflmao" or whatever it is. Always designed to portray a false image of ones self that is just as annoying as a fella making a fake yawn or laugh to assist in showing that they are right when all else points otherwise.

My poll says, should welfare recipiants be allowed to vote. Lets just leave it at that. People who are dependant on government and get far more back in taxes then they pay in. It doesent change the fact that they should not be voting.

Then just ask the question and leave the specious arguments, excuses and rationales out of it. They fail. Abysmally.

And the answer would STILL be....no, you cannot take away any citizen's right to vote based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is discriminatory under the 14th. It still doesn't get you around Harper.

It also doesn't answer the question of how you're going to define "welfare", or get tens of millions of people to sit back quietly while you take their liberty and representation from them, but I suppose you have a plan for subduing them too. After all, they have no money - they have no right to liberty.

 

[Publius1787]

Then what is it, a success?

The 24th Amendment has everything to do with disenfranchising voters with the underlying (and false) rationale that they are not contributing their fair share in taxes.

You're out of your depth here.

Out of depth? I can always tell when my opponet in debate is losing an arguement when they result to laughing smilies for emotional effect. Its just as bad as writing "lol", or "yawn", or "roflmao" or whatever it is. Always designed to portray a false image of ones self that is just as annoying as a fella making a fake yawn or laugh to assist in showing that they are right when all else points otherwise.

My poll says, should welfare recipiants be allowed to vote. Lets just leave it at that. People who are dependant on government and get far more back in taxes then they pay in. It doesent change the fact that they should not be voting.

Then just ask the question and leave the specious arguments, excuses and rationales out of it. They fail. Abysmally.

And the answer would STILL be....no, you cannot take away any citizen's right to vote based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is discriminatory under the 14th. It still doesn't get you around Harper.

It also doesn't answer the question of how you're going to define "welfare", or get tens of millions of people to sit back quietly while you take their liberty and representation from them, but I suppose you have a plan for subduing them too. After all, they have no money - they have no right to liberty.

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote on the bacis of dependancy is discriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is discriminatory as well! If there is a such thing as discriminating against low income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all discrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages. However, my method really doesent qualify as discriminating against the low income. TRUE DISCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for you! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer. Yes. voting wealth away from others and in to your own pockes is definantly the most pure form of discrimination. That rationality certianly doesent fail! In fact, the failure is all yours!

 

[goldcatt]

Out of depth? I can always tell when my opponet in debate is losing an arguement when they result to laughing smilies for emotional effect. Its just as bad as writing "lol", or "yawn", or "roflmao" or whatever it is. Always designed to portray a false image of ones self that is just as annoying as a fella making a fake yawn or laugh to assist in showing that they are right when all else points otherwise.

My poll says, should welfare recipiants be allowed to vote. Lets just leave it at that. People who are dependant on government and get far more back in taxes then they pay in. It doesent change the fact that they should not be voting.

Then just ask the question and leave the specious arguments, excuses and rationales out of it. They fail. Abysmally.

And the answer would STILL be....no, you cannot take away any citizen's right to vote based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is discriminatory under the 14th. It still doesn't get you around Harper.

It also doesn't answer the question of how you're going to define "welfare", or get tens of millions of people to sit back quietly while you take their liberty and representation from them, but I suppose you have a plan for subduing them too. After all, they have no money - they have no right to liberty.

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote is descriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is descriminatory as well! If there is a such thing as descriminating againstlow income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all descrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages. However, my method really doesent qualify as descriminating against the low income. TRUE DESCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer.

Wow. Just...wow.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here or what all that spittle is flying about, so I can't even begin to address it. That's the most interesting rhetorical pretzel I've seen anybody twist themselves into to avoid facts in a very, very long time. And we have masters of the craft around here. Kudos.

Finish that ESL course and the rest of your mail order constitution at a glance pamphlets and we might have some interesting discussions.

 

[Publius1787]

Then just ask the question and leave the specious arguments, excuses and rationales out of it. They fail. Abysmally.

And the answer would STILL be....no, you cannot take away any citizen's right to vote based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is discriminatory under the 14th. It still doesn't get you around Harper.

It also doesn't answer the question of how you're going to define "welfare", or get tens of millions of people to sit back quietly while you take their liberty and representation from them, but I suppose you have a plan for subduing them too. After all, they have no money - they have no right to liberty.

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote is descriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is descriminatory as well! If there is a such thing as descriminating againstlow income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all descrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages. However, my method really doesent qualify as descriminating against the low income. TRUE DESCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer.

Wow. Just...wow.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here or what all that spittle is flying about, so I can't even begin to address it. That's the most interesting rhetorical pretzel I've seen anybody twist themselves into to avoid facts in a very, very long time. And we have masters of the craft around here. Kudos.

Finish that ESL course and the rest of your mail order constitution at a glance pamphlets and we might have some interesting discussions.

Of course, you cant address it. Ive just shown you that 2+2=4 ; not 5 as you say it does. Read my signature once more please.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

 

[Publius1787]

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

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

I would disagree with you there. Let's distinguish between Voice through Vote, and Theft through Vote. Let's distinguish between living within the rule of law, and living outside of it. We have protected Rights, Voting is one of them, It can be forfeited through Conscious Action, that results in conviction, or even in relation to mental health issues. A Competent Adult has a Right to Voice and Vote. You don't want to change that and create a Caste System.

What the Legislature has a right to impose on us with other peoples money is another issue. We need boundaries to the abuses to property rights, ignoring those boundaries has brought us to where we are today. All Laws should be impartial to person and position, no exceptions, no exemptions. If it is too draconian, check your premise, something is wrong with the legislation at the root level if it does harm. When Tyranny results, what does it matter that it is born of a majority of Idiots or a minority of idiots? In the end it is still Tyranny, still doing harm, and still at was with Justice.

You want educated and responsible Voters, Members of Society, Educate and teach responsibility. We are all in it together, drinking the same water, breathing the same air. We each have a relationship to Society, We both give and take. In all that, Each remains his or her own property, at least in a just Society.

If your view is like mine and beleive that the function of government is to defend everyones liberty, then my thesis makes perfect since.

 

[rikules]

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!

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

 

[goldcatt]

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote is descriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is descriminatory as well! If there is a such thing as descriminating againstlow income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all descrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages. However, my method really doesent qualify as descriminating against the low income. TRUE DESCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer.

Wow. Just...wow.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here or what all that spittle is flying about, so I can't even begin to address it. That's the most interesting rhetorical pretzel I've seen anybody twist themselves into to avoid facts in a very, very long time. And we have masters of the craft around here. Kudos.

Finish that ESL course and the rest of your mail order constitution at a glance pamphlets and we might have some interesting discussions.

Of course, you cant address it. Ive just shown you that 2+2=4 ; not 5 as you say it does. Read my signature once more please.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

 

[Charles_Main]

Just fyi..right now the feds REQUIRE that welfare workers offer to register applicants to vote. It is OUR responsibility to offer it to them, to get it stamped and mailed, to keep a record, AND to provide registration apps in our lobbies.

Of course you do. The powers that be, just love those guaranteed votes. keep em on the Dole and on the Roles is the Democrat Motto.

That said this is a SILLY ass question.

Of course they should be able to vote.

How are you going to define welfare recipient anyways?

49% of Americans paid no Federal Taxes last year. Yet they Benefit from the Federal Government. Shall we take away their right to vote as well? The Democrats would never win another Election lol.

 

[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!

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

Funny how if you hold to the principles of liberty, as I do, then discriminating against people like gays always comes back to bite you in the ass. If anything, and judging by your standards, my op is a pro gay marrage policy.

 

[xotoxi]

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow. Just...wow.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here or what all that spittle is flying about, so I can't even begin to address it. That's the most interesting rhetorical pretzel I've seen anybody twist themselves into to avoid facts in a very, very long time. And we have masters of the craft around here. Kudos.

Finish that ESL course and the rest of your mail order constitution at a glance pamphlets and we might have some interesting discussions.

Of course, you cant address it. Ive just shown you that 2+2=4 ; not 5 as you say it does. Read my signature once more please.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am; if in fact, it was incoherent babble.

I am badly misinformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political outcast section.