Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats are a drain on our resources.

-Geaux

Guess What Political Party Gets More Support from Welfare Recipients? | Independent Journal Review

What's funniest about your chart?

It shows that Democrats get a majority of the votes from voters who work full time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

see the right hates democracy

That's why I love this country. We are a Constitutional Republic.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.


REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

Law Notes -- Home Page


what the hell kind of site is that crap?

You might want to refer to these sites:

Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” It is incumbent upon us to restore our constitution as the supreme law of the land, so that our God-given rights are not revoked by democracy.

Madison Project » We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It is funny that during the Nixon years the (R)'s came up with a way to make insurance more affordable and the (D)'s were the party of NO. Back in those days it would allow the individual to shop for the best insurance and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. The states would be responsible for determining the best way to handle insurance.

The far left has always want the Fed government to control every aspect of this. Even Carter shot down the far left and se saw what happened when you cross the far left, nothing has changed in that manner. Obamacare was 40+ years in the making.

So to the far left:

Would you object to anyone being on welfare not to be allowed to have children?

Still trying to sell that interstate insurance as a solution to all our insurance woes

Guess what Republicans?

Tort Reform and interstate sales are just bandaids and will have minimal impact on health insurance rates.

Correct.

Malpractice insurance costs and settlements represents a tiny percent of overall medical costs.

And if a low income family can't afford a $1600 per month premium, they're not going to be able to afford a $1400 per month premium after "shopping around."

What makes you think, under Obamacare, young people can afford an increase in their deductible before their Health Care plan is able to cover those costs?

 

[Mathbud1]

No.

By the grace go I.

But you gotta have an ID to get welfare.

So you will need one to vote.

But requiring an ID might discriminate against someone who doesn't want to get an ID. That's voter discrimination. You're gonna get in trouble for that.

I forgot to put sarcasm marks around my statement.

 

[hangover]

Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

If cons ever get in power, no one will be able to vote unless they're to the right of Mussolini.

 

[RKMBrown]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

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

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

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

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

 

[hangover]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

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

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

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

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

Should ANYONE be able to buy the government?....Who owns the government?

 

[RKMBrown]

Democrats are a drain on our resources.

-Geaux

Guess What Political Party Gets More Support from Welfare Recipients? | Independent Journal Review

What's funniest about your chart?

It shows that Democrats get a majority of the votes from voters who work full time.

It also shows that the bulk of those that work full time and vote democrat are earning minimum wage and are on welfare.

 

[Truthmatters]

and being poor is s crime to you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

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

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

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

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

Should ANYONE be able to buy the government?....Who owns the government?

Only if the citizenry votes to sell it.
The citizenry.

 

[Truthmatters]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

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

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

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

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

Should ANYONE be able to buy the government?....Who owns the government?

actual human beings should be able to support a candidate

 

[RKMBrown]

and being poor is s crime to you?

Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul is a crime to me. Being poor is a choice.

 

[Truthmatters]

being stupid is unavoidable for you

 

[dblack]

No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

Should ANYONE be able to buy the government?....Who owns the government?

Only if the citizenry votes to sell it.
The citizenry.

I actually disagree with this. Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but even IF the citizenry does vote to "sell it", constitutional limits should block such a transaction. This is, more or less, what we have going on with things like ACA, but the courts are failing to apply limits effectively.

 

[RKMBrown]

being stupid is unavoidable for you

I'd rather be rich and accused of being stupid by a poor asshole that calls others stupid because they made the choice to work hard enough to not be poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

Should ANYONE be able to buy the government?....Who owns the government?

Only if the citizenry votes to sell it.
The citizenry.

I actually disagree with this. Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but even IF the citizenry does vote to "sell it", constitutional limits should block such a transaction. This is, more or less, what we have going on with things like ACA, but the courts are failing to apply limits effectively.

However, the constitution affords the citizenry the means to amend said Constitution. Thus, my point. Perhaps you meant to ask should anyone be able to buy the government without further amendments to the constitution. To that question my answer would be no.

Understandably, you meant your question to associate donations with influence pedaling. I think we all like to believe we have some influence on our representatives. Funny how we get all bent out of shape when we find out others who are also represented by our representatives also have influence. Yet, when democrats are found with freezers full of cash they get off scott free... interesting.

IMO the real problem is the two headed monster we have created. And that is solely due to the way we hold elections. One person one vote is complete bull shirt. You should be able to order all of the candidates on the ballot as you see fit. Your vote should still count even if your second favorite is the one that it goes to in the case where your first favorite did not get 50.00001% of the vote.

 

[Ame®icano]

[

You are insane. Anyone who thinks that voting is not a fundamental right in a darn democracy is completely delusional. No one has a right to money. Did anyone claim that? But the act of receiving money should not arbitrarily forfeit your right to participate in a democracy. Whatever happened to representative democracy? Everyone deserves representation.

Just because voting is fundamental does not mean it is universal. Plenty of people lose rights to vote or dont have them. Why not make welfare dependence one of those disqualifiers?

Why not show some balls and get directly to what you really want: Why not make membership in the Democratic Party one of the disqualifiers? Or why not make low income a disqualifier? For example, only those making more than a 6 figure yearly income can vote. Or how about making living in certain voting districts a disqualifier? Isn't this what you really want, to remove voting rights from fellow Americans because they think and vote different than you?
Oh, and one other thought. People who lose voting rights have had those rights taken from them because they committed a crime. The last I looked being poor and on welfare IS NOT A CRIME (even though you would like it to be one).

Neither is holding own money offshore.

 

[Ame®icano]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

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

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

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

Absolutely not.

I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.

This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.

Is taxation without representation wrong?
I representation without taxation wrong?

It goes both ways. If we don't pay taxes to those who don't represents us and our interests, then those who don't pay taxes should not be represented.

For democrats, the purpose of voting is to provide a way to keep favoritism in government pushed to the far limits of democratic process. They keep talking about rights, but what about duties? Yeah, there is a right to vote and there is also duty to pay tax. How can one demand one and ignore the other.

It can, simply because of wide acceptance of Marxist dogma that claims, rich are rich on the backs of the poor, so the poor have the right to confiscate the money of the rich by use of greater voting power. Voting other people's money into your own pocket is simply stealing. How about little honesty here, how about you don't get to be represented if you don't pay taxes...

 

[Ame®icano]

jeffersons words are not revisionism

neither is the dictionary definition you complete idiot

But yours are. Jefferson didn't call for direct democracy, but for representative democracy. Any 8th grader knows the difference.

 

[Ame®icano]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

No



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



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.

Comparing people right to public employee unions is a problem as well. Since they're also a legal fiction. But you ignored that.