Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[PixieStix]

No!

Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

Not the point.

giving government more power,that removes the rights of any American is not a good thing

 

[Redfish]

No!



Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

That is why you vote.
And thankfully in America we don't disqualify you for being poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wrong again, there are millions of people who are poor but are not dependent on the government. The working poor should be able to vote just like the working rich. Anyone who is 100% dependent on the government should not vote, IMHO.

 

[Luissa]

to the OP. Yes, if you are taking from the government and not contributing anything to it, then you should not be able to vote.

So military members receiving food stamps shouldn't be allowed to vote?

How about vets?

And you guys are the party for freedom.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, only those who are 100% dependent on govt handouts should barred from voting.

Did you agree with the Supreme Courts ruling of corporations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Most conservatives want to make low income Americans poorer. Period. There is not a single domestic economic policy that most conservatives support that affects low income Americans that does not make low income Americans poorer.

At least, to be precise, not one I can think of.

Feel free to list the policies I'm not aware of.

You are making my point for me...and for that I am grateful.

I can list many, but you will only look at the immediate result and not the long term goals.

Use the "give a fish, teach to fish" scenario.

If I say "teach him to fish" you will only see it that I don't want the man to eat....when, in fact, I want to help the man set up to never have to worry about getting a meal of fish....

But lets look at what you say...

"give him a fish"...

I see it as a good thing immediately...the man eats.....but I also see that he will always need to worry about where he will get his next fish.

Open your mind. Conservatives do not want the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want the poor to strive to not be poor. Sadly, that is usually at a cost of suffering for a while.

If I was told that I had to suffer to achieve success?

I would do it.

So you can't list any.

Exactly why would democrats be proud of a system where government provides FOR the needs of the poor, rather than allowing the poor the opportunity to make the choice to provide for themselves without further need of the government? It's independence that comes with allowing each individual to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and taking responsibility for their own lives that conservatives favor. Remember ... life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness? Which means each individual takes an active role to pursue after their own goals in life through the same public education opportunities that's provided to EVERYONE, and work hard through your own driven determination efforts to achieve it. This is the concept to which Ben Franklin gives support to through his personal view in regards to the poor.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[Redfish]

No!

Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

Not the point.

giving government more power,that removes the rights of any American is not a good thing

How does that give the govt more power? Only 40% of eligible voter bother to vote anyway. What it does is prevent voters from voting more freebees for themselves that the rest of us have to pay for.

 

[Redfish]

So military members receiving food stamps shouldn't be allowed to vote?

How about vets?

And you guys are the party for freedom.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, only those who are 100% dependent on govt handouts should barred from voting.

Did you agree with the Supreme Courts ruling of corporations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

which one?

 

[PixieStix]

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

Not the point.

giving government more power,that removes the rights of any American is not a good thing

How does that give the govt more power? Only 40% of eligible voter bother to vote anyway. What it does is prevent voters from voting more freebees for themselves that the rest of us have to pay for.

Taking away rights from Americans is a road where the government can take your right away as well.

What would stop them from extending the taking rights away from all of us for any contrived reason?

 

[Luissa]

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

That is why you vote.

And thankfully in America we don't disqualify you for being poor.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wrong again, there are millions of people who are poor but are not dependent on the government. The working poor should be able to vote just like the working rich. Anyone who is 100% dependent on the government should not vote, IMHO.

Like Pixie said.. Are you for the government having more power? You want less freedom?
Ten bucks you try to claim Nazis are left wing, while you spout stuff like that.
Sorry, I live in the US I don't think we should start playing fascism with our voting rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most conservatives want to make low income Americans poorer. Period. There is not a single domestic economic policy that most conservatives support that affects low income Americans that does not make low income Americans poorer.

At least, to be precise, not one I can think of.

Feel free to list the policies I'm not aware of.

You are making my point for me...and for that I am grateful.

I can list many, but you will only look at the immediate result and not the long term goals.

Use the "give a fish, teach to fish" scenario.

If I say "teach him to fish" you will only see it that I don't want the man to eat....when, in fact, I want to help the man set up to never have to worry about getting a meal of fish....

But lets look at what you say...

"give him a fish"...

I see it as a good thing immediately...the man eats.....but I also see that he will always need to worry about where he will get his next fish.

Open your mind. Conservatives do not want the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want the poor to strive to not be poor. Sadly, that is usually at a cost of suffering for a while.

If I was told that I had to suffer to achieve success?

I would do it.

Yes, the old "Teach a man to fish" parable

Liberals want to both teach a man to fish and give him a fish while he is learning

Conservatives want to keep him away from the fishing hole

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

 

[The Rabbi]

No!

Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

Not the point.

giving government more power,that removes the rights of any American is not a good thing

How does that give the gov't more power? On the contrary, the gov't will have less power because voters will be more concerned and vigilant.

 

[Redfish]

Not the point.

giving government more power,that removes the rights of any American is not a good thing

How does that give the govt more power? Only 40% of eligible voter bother to vote anyway. What it does is prevent voters from voting more freebees for themselves that the rest of us have to pay for.

Taking away rights from Americans is a road where the government can take your right away as well.

What would stop them from extending the taking rights away from all of us for any contrived reason?

Some rights have to be earned. If you are not a contributing member of society why should you be able to vote on how the money of others is spent?

Speaking of rights, are you OK with 2nd amendment rights being taken away by the govt? how about 1st amendment rights? How about the right to keep your thermostat where you want it? How about your rights of privacy? Liberals are fine with taking those rights away, but you fly off the handle about preventing govt dependents and illegals from voting.

 

[Jarhead]

You are making my point for me...and for that I am grateful.

I can list many, but you will only look at the immediate result and not the long term goals.

Use the "give a fish, teach to fish" scenario.

If I say "teach him to fish" you will only see it that I don't want the man to eat....when, in fact, I want to help the man set up to never have to worry about getting a meal of fish....

But lets look at what you say...

"give him a fish"...

I see it as a good thing immediately...the man eats.....but I also see that he will always need to worry about where he will get his next fish.

Open your mind. Conservatives do not want the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want the poor to strive to not be poor. Sadly, that is usually at a cost of suffering for a while.

If I was told that I had to suffer to achieve success?

I would do it.

Yes, the old "Teach a man to fish" parable

Liberals want to both teach a man to fish and give him a fish while he is learning

Conservatives want to keep him away from the fishing hole

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

You are an ignorant ass who does not want to learn how and why others think as they do.

Ignorant and arrogant.

What a lonely life you must lead.....likely the only thing you lead.

 

[Redfish]

You are making my point for me...and for that I am grateful.

I can list many, but you will only look at the immediate result and not the long term goals.

Use the "give a fish, teach to fish" scenario.

If I say "teach him to fish" you will only see it that I don't want the man to eat....when, in fact, I want to help the man set up to never have to worry about getting a meal of fish....

But lets look at what you say...

"give him a fish"...

I see it as a good thing immediately...the man eats.....but I also see that he will always need to worry about where he will get his next fish.

Open your mind. Conservatives do not want the poor to be poorer. Conservatives want the poor to strive to not be poor. Sadly, that is usually at a cost of suffering for a while.

If I was told that I had to suffer to achieve success?

I would do it.

Yes, the old "Teach a man to fish" parable

Liberals want to both teach a man to fish and give him a fish while he is learning

Conservatives want to keep him away from the fishing hole

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

Thats ridiculous, the war on poverty has created more poverty, Obozo and his libtardian policies have put more people in poverty than ever before.

conservatives want everyone to have a job and be self supporting, we want a country that is business friendly and creates jobs for everyone.

you libs want a society where everyone is dependent on the govt and are willing to give up your rights for all that free stuff.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, the old "Teach a man to fish" parable

Liberals want to both teach a man to fish and give him a fish while he is learning

Conservatives want to keep him away from the fishing hole

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

You are an ignorant ass who does not want to learn how and why others think as they do.

Ignorant and arrogant.

What a lonely life you must lead.....likely the only thing you lead.

NY carbon is a typical angry liberal--------every bad thing in his miserable life is the fault of someone else--------he is the classic victim.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, the old "Teach a man to fish" parable

Liberals want to both teach a man to fish and give him a fish while he is learning

Conservatives want to keep him away from the fishing hole

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

You are an ignorant ass who does not want to learn how and why others think as they do.

Ignorant and arrogant.

What a lonely life you must lead.....likely the only thing you lead.

If conservatives want to "teach a man to fish"

Name some the programs they have initiated to improve job training and help the poor find jobs

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

You are an ignorant ass who does not want to learn how and why others think as they do.

Ignorant and arrogant.

What a lonely life you must lead.....likely the only thing you lead.

If conservatives want to "teach a man to fish"

Name some the programs they have initiated to improve job training and help the poor find jobs

you were given that list a few days ago, they are all sitting in Reid's in box.

 

[PixieStix]

How does that give the govt more power? Only 40% of eligible voter bother to vote anyway. What it does is prevent voters from voting more freebees for themselves that the rest of us have to pay for.

Taking away rights from Americans is a road where the government can take your right away as well.

What would stop them from extending the taking rights away from all of us for any contrived reason?

Some rights have to be earned. If you are not a contributing member of society why should you be able to vote on how the money of others is spent?

Speaking of rights, are you OK with 2nd amendment rights being taken away by the govt? how about 1st amendment rights? How about the right to keep your thermostat where you want it? How about your rights of privacy? Liberals are fine with taking those rights away, but you fly off the handle about preventing govt dependents and illegals from voting.

I am not for illegals voting in our country. I think they should be rounded up and deported. I do not believe they should be given any of our money.

I do not like any of our rights to be under assault for any reason.

I am truly disturbed by how far people will take their politics without a single thought of how it may be visited on each and every American.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I New York City, the cost for the election of a city advocate was 14 Million dollars. She had no opponent from the opposite side of the aisle. Her only opponent was one on the primary.

Her term is 2 years and her budget is 2 million a year.

So for 4 million dollars in government service, the taxpayer paid out 18 million dollars.

An example as to why I disagree with the following.....

and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

There are some......but very few.

New York City has 8 million people living in close proximity
Food, water, sanitation, sewers, transportation, communication......

Seems pretty efficient to me

and throw a trillion more dollars at it and it will be even more efficient.

My point was not about efficiency.

My point was the cost for government to achieve efficiency compared to a likely much less cost to achieve the same efficiency via the private sector.

Take Healthcare.gov.

To achieve the level of efficiency it now touts, it took a half a billion dollars and over 3 years.

My guess is Amazon, Priceline, Stub Hub and others did the same in half the time and 1/3 the cash.

Definitions 101 once again for Jarhead

Government is about service to its clients the citizens

Business is about profit for its stockholders and management

Service to citizens v Efficiency/Profit to stockholders

I will take government USPS rather than FedEx

The Army rather than Blackwater

Our government executive branch rather than J.P. Morgan's CEO

And so forth and so on.

 

[Jarhead]

New York City has 8 million people living in close proximity
Food, water, sanitation, sewers, transportation, communication......

Seems pretty efficient to me

and throw a trillion more dollars at it and it will be even more efficient.

My point was not about efficiency.

My point was the cost for government to achieve efficiency compared to a likely much less cost to achieve the same efficiency via the private sector.

Take Healthcare.gov.

To achieve the level of efficiency it now touts, it took a half a billion dollars and over 3 years.

My guess is Amazon, Priceline, Stub Hub and others did the same in half the time and 1/3 the cash.

Definitions 101 once again for Jarhead

Government is about service to its clients the citizens

Business is about profit for its stockholders and management

Service to citizens v Efficiency/Profit to stockholders

I will take government USPS rather than FedEx

The Army rather than Blackwater

Our government executive branch rather than J.P. Morgan's CEO

And so forth and so on.

Go away sparky.

This conversation is for adults who are strong in their convictions....not for those who make believe they are something they aren't in the hopes it will lend credibility to their posts.

 

[Redfish]

Taking away rights from Americans is a road where the government can take your right away as well.

What would stop them from extending the taking rights away from all of us for any contrived reason?

Some rights have to be earned. If you are not a contributing member of society why should you be able to vote on how the money of others is spent?

Speaking of rights, are you OK with 2nd amendment rights being taken away by the govt? how about 1st amendment rights? How about the right to keep your thermostat where you want it? How about your rights of privacy? Liberals are fine with taking those rights away, but you fly off the handle about preventing govt dependents and illegals from voting.

I am not for illegals voting in our country. I think they should be rounded up and deported. I do not believe they should be given any of our money.

I do not like any of our rights to be under assault for any reason.

I am truly disturbed by how far people will take their politics without a single thought of how it may be visited on each and every American.

Good, are you also mad at the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn?

Here's an analogy for you:

A corporation consists of stock holders and employees---should the non share holding employees get to vote at the annual meeting?

those on 100% govt assistence are the same as the employees---they have no skin in the game so why should they vote on how the money is spent?

remember, I am only talking about those on 100% govt support.