Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[Peterf]

I perfectly believe in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and taking care of the sick, elderly, and the poor, and giving them a hand up.

Those who don't should not be allowed to vote.

So only people who agree with you about everything should be allowed to vote? No two people are in perfect agreement. So to be on the safe side let's go for one man one vote. And you are the one man who has the one vote. All hail the tyrant Starkey!

 

[Peterf]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

Yes. Whoever put Sweden at second place on that list knows nothing about Sweden. And, I suspect, little about democracy.

 

[Peterf]

To an outsider it is strange that you Americans have this exaggerated faith in a document written by some English gentlemen in the 18th century. You believe that the US constitution is the ne plus ultra in wisdom, perfect and infallible. Rather touching, even if this total trust is the product of inferior education.

Any way, on taxes and representation: There is something to be said for the notion that those who put up the money are best placed to decide how it should be spent.

 

[Toro]

I would put the US right at the top of the World Democracy list. We vote on pretty much everything.

FFS, there's so much democracy here, until recently, our national college football champion was determined by voting.

And that's Florida State this year, bitches!

 

[rightwinger]

In a perfect world, only those who pay taxes should have any say, including a vote, on who will determine what taxes they pay.

And no, there is no way to deny anybody, including corporations and unions, the right to donate to whomever they wish. In a perfect world, however, those in the federal government would not have any ability to reward or benefit themselves or anybody else with anything that didn't benefit all equally and therefore no benefit could come anybody's way regardless of how much he/she/it contributes to a political candidate or PAC. That would take care of any conflict of interest with public employee unions as there would be no advantage to the politicians to pay public employees any more than what they were worth for the jobs that they do.

In your perfect world, only the wealthy get to vote on who should represent them

Nobody said only the wealthy, all we are saying is only the elf sufficient. If you are a ward of the state it makes no sense that you should get to vote for more of the states largess. In other words if you are on the public dime you probably aren't going to make good decisions based on anything other than making sure your welfare is increased. That doesn't make for a healthy country. Get off of welfare and then you get to vote. Until then you get what others will hand out to you.

You think the wealthy don't vote on the states largess?
What a simple world you live in

If you live on the public dime you will vote for the person who will most help your lot in life.....just like the wealthy do

 

[editec]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

No

Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?

ALL corporations should be banned from PACs. ALL of them.

Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?

NO

Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?

Some of them do.

Comparing PEOPLE'S RIGHTS to CORPORATIONS' "RIGHTS" is the problem.

But to be fair it is also the problem of our SUPREME COURT, so you're not exactly alone in being so confused.

Granting rights that ought to only belong to human beings to a legal fiction leads to the death of democracy.

 

[dblack]

To an outsider it is strange that you Americans have this exaggerated faith in a document written by some English gentlemen in the 18th century. You believe that the US constitution is the ne plus ultra in wisdom, perfect and infallible. Rather touching, even if this total trust is the product of inferior education.

Any way, on taxes and representation: There is something to be said for the notion that those who put up the money are best placed to decide how it should be spent.

What should be said for that idea is that it's a fundamental perversion of the concept of government. Government is not a business and is unique among all human institution in that it has the responsibility for resolving matters of justice. It's imperative that it affords everyone equal protection of the law and equal rights to any and all services provided by government. This is exactly why services which do not provide equal benefit should not be provided by government.

 

[rightwinger]

To an outsider it is strange that you Americans have this exaggerated faith in a document written by some English gentlemen in the 18th century. You believe that the US constitution is the ne plus ultra in wisdom, perfect and infallible. Rather touching, even if this total trust is the product of inferior education.

Any way, on taxes and representation: There is something to be said for the notion that those who put up the money are best placed to decide how it should be spent.

What should be said for that idea is that it's a fundamental perversion of the concept of government. Government is not a business and is unique among all human institution in that it has the responsibility for resolving matters of justice. It's imperative that it affords everyone equal protection of the law and equal rights to any and all services provided by government. This is exactly why services which do not provide equal benefit should not be provided by government.

How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?

 

[dblack]

To an outsider it is strange that you Americans have this exaggerated faith in a document written by some English gentlemen in the 18th century. You believe that the US constitution is the ne plus ultra in wisdom, perfect and infallible. Rather touching, even if this total trust is the product of inferior education.

Any way, on taxes and representation: There is something to be said for the notion that those who put up the money are best placed to decide how it should be spent.

What should be said for that idea is that it's a fundamental perversion of the concept of government. Government is not a business and is unique among all human institution in that it has the responsibility for resolving matters of justice. It's imperative that it affords everyone equal protection of the law and equal rights to any and all services provided by government. This is exactly why services which do not provide equal benefit should not be provided by government.

How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?

Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.

It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.

 

[rightwinger]

What should be said for that idea is that it's a fundamental perversion of the concept of government. Government is not a business and is unique among all human institution in that it has the responsibility for resolving matters of justice. It's imperative that it affords everyone equal protection of the law and equal rights to any and all services provided by government. This is exactly why services which do not provide equal benefit should not be provided by government.

How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?

Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.

It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.

I don't have kids so I don't benefit equally from the education tax dollar
I don't drive, so I don't benefit equally from the roads
I am not wealthy, so I don't benefit equally from capital gains cuts
I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't benefit equally from police protection

 

[bripat9643]

To an outsider it is strange that you Americans have this exaggerated faith in a document written by some English gentlemen in the 18th century. You believe that the US constitution is the ne plus ultra in wisdom, perfect and infallible. Rather touching, even if this total trust is the product of inferior education.

No we don't, actually. However, a lot of us understand that it is far better than anything the current crop of politicians would come up with. One can only imagine the horrors that would be inflicted on us if Congress was allowed to rewrite the Constitution.

Any way, on taxes and representation: There is something to be said for the notion that those who put up the money are best placed to decide how it should be spent.

At least, they have the correct motives. Those who have nothing to lose are perfectly willing to ride this country down the sewer hole if it means they will get a chunk of someone else's hide.

 

[dblack]

How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?

Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.

It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.

I don't have kids so I don't benefit equally from the education tax dollar.
I don't drive, so I don't benefit equally from the roads
I am not wealthy, so I don't benefit equally from capital gains cuts
I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't benefit equally from police protection

If that's how you feel, you should be protesting these policies.

 

[bripat9643]

In your perfect world, only the wealthy get to vote on who should represent them

Nobody said only the wealthy, all we are saying is only the elf sufficient. If you are a ward of the state it makes no sense that you should get to vote for more of the states largess. In other words if you are on the public dime you probably aren't going to make good decisions based on anything other than making sure your welfare is increased. That doesn't make for a healthy country. Get off of welfare and then you get to vote. Until then you get what others will hand out to you.

You think the wealthy don't vote on the states largess?
What a simple world you live in

If you live on the public dime you will vote for the person who will most help your lot in life.....just like the wealthy do

The wealthy only have one vote, just like every useless tick on welfare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

Yes. Whoever put Sweden at second place on that list knows nothing about Sweden. And, I suspect, little about democracy.

What's undemocratic about Sweden?

 

[rightwinger]

Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.

It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.

I don't have kids so I don't benefit equally from the education tax dollar.
I don't drive, so I don't benefit equally from the roads
I am not wealthy, so I don't benefit equally from capital gains cuts
I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't benefit equally from police protection

If that's how you feel, you should be protesting these policies.

I don't protest because I understand that general welfare does not mean equal benefit for all but what is in the best interest of the general welfare of the nation

We want government to do what needs doing

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody said only the wealthy, all we are saying is only the elf sufficient. If you are a ward of the state it makes no sense that you should get to vote for more of the states largess. In other words if you are on the public dime you probably aren't going to make good decisions based on anything other than making sure your welfare is increased. That doesn't make for a healthy country. Get off of welfare and then you get to vote. Until then you get what others will hand out to you.

You think the wealthy don't vote on the states largess?
What a simple world you live in

If you live on the public dime you will vote for the person who will most help your lot in life.....just like the wealthy do

The wealthy only have one vote, just like every useless tick on welfare.

And that was the intent of our founders

The vote of the poor counts the same as the rich

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do conservatives have any sensible ideas?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Every US Citizen of the legal voting age should be allowed to vote. As far as convicted felons voting, I am on the fence.

 

[LeftofLeft]

People in the US illegally, undocumented workers, non-citizens DO NOT and SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote. Voting in the US is a right and privilege for US Citizens. Name another country in the free world that permits a non-citizen to vote in that country's elections?

 

[rightwinger]

People in the US illegally, undocumented workers, non-citizens DO NOT and SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote. Voting in the US is a right and privilege for US Citizens. Name another country in the free world that permits a non-citizen to vote in that country's elections?

They don't vote here either