Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

In hard economical times a lot of former hard working tax payers have had to seek help why should they be hindered from voting for what obama caused in a failed economy?

 

[kaz]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

They are infringing on the civil liberties of others through people they are voting for who use the power of guns to do it. Why should they be able to continue to vote for that forced redistribution and infringement on other's right to property WHILE they are doing it?

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

In hard economical times a lot of former hard working tax payers have had to seek help why should they be hindered from voting for what obama caused in a failed economy?

If you go out to dinner with a group of people who are paying your share, would you demand an equal say in where you go to eat?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

You do know that you pay into SS and Medicare, right?

 

[rightwinger]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Every vote is a conflict of interest. Are you also advocating that the wealthy who benefit from corporate subsides should be denied the vote?

EVERY American deserves the right to vote for the candidate who will best represent them

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

In hard economical times a lot of former hard working tax payers have had to seek help why should they be hindered from voting for what obama caused in a failed economy?

If you go out to dinner with a group of people who are paying your share, would you demand an equal say in where you go to eat?

I am not for penalizing someone for losing a job and not being able to provide for themself. Hard economical times people need help.

 

[logical4u]

QUOTE=Grampa Murked U;3820890]Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.[/QUOTE]

The original intent for this country was that only those contributing (land owners) were allowed to vote. They put more than words into the country. If someone is choosing to sign up for slavery, they are forfeiting their "civil liberties".

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

You do know that you pay into SS and Medicare, right?

You're walking down the street. A mugger grabs your wallet with $100 dollars in it. Before they run off they grab a $20 out of your wallet and give it back to you and run off with the rest. Now, were you robbed?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some people don't abuse the system to the point that removing their civil liberties is justified.

They are infringing on the civil liberties of others through people they are voting for who use the power of guns to do it. Why should they be able to continue to vote for that forced redistribution and infringement on other's right to property WHILE they are doing it?

Being unfortunate enough to lose your job, house or car through this recession does not make you a leech on society. Most people have payed into the safety nets their entire lives so I hardly understand your point.

Hard times do not descriminate.

Then there are people like my grandfather. He served in ww2 and became disabled. So you would take away his right to vote too?

 

[Moonglow]

hard hearted people

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Every vote is a conflict of interest. Are you also advocating that the wealthy who benefit from corporate subsides should be denied the vote?

EVERY American deserves the right to vote for the candidate who will best represent them

All government money comes from the private sector. Corporations don't vote, and there should be no "corporate subsidies." There should also be no corporate taxes as it's double taxation. Your question is crocked.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

You do know that you pay into SS and Medicare, right?

You're walking down the street. A mugger grabs your wallet with $100 dollars in it. Before they run off they grab a $20 out of your wallet and give it back to you and run off with the rest. Now, were you robbed?

Oh.. ok. That's where you are going. Fine. If I am lucky enough to get back some of the money that I paid into SS, I reject the notion that I am on the dole. That's just plain wrong.

But yes, I'd much rather not pay into SS and invest that money myself.

 

[kaz]

In hard economical times a lot of former hard working tax payers have had to seek help why should they be hindered from voting for what obama caused in a failed economy?

If you go out to dinner with a group of people who are paying your share, would you demand an equal say in where you go to eat?

I am not for penalizing someone for losing a job and not being able to provide for themself. Hard economical times people need help.

Government should be the last resort, not the first. I didn't say we shouldn't help them or it should be permanent, but they shouldn't be electing politicians who promise them more money without working (which is what's happening) any more then you should be telling your friends where to take you for dinner. They should be getting on their feet, contributing again, then voting based on what they learned. Not voting for someone to take them to a more expensive restaurant when they aren't footing the bill.

 

[Steelplate]

You guys should go find a country of your own and set it up the way you want it to be set up. Pool all your money together and find a private Island. Then you can have your "Dictatorship of like minded individuals" that you seem to be pressing for.

Because unfortunately for you, you live in America.

 

[kaz]

hard hearted people

This isn't a theoretical issue, it's what's destroying us. Soft and dead is still dead.

 

[eots]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

well seeing as we are living off loans from china and wall street is living on bail outs from those loans I suppose we should all lose the right to vote

 

[rightwinger]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

On this 4th of July, our founding fathers would shudder at your proposal

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you go out to dinner with a group of people who are paying your share, would you demand an equal say in where you go to eat?

I am not for penalizing someone for losing a job and not being able to provide for themself. Hard economical times people need help.

Government should be the last resort, not the first. I didn't say we shouldn't help them or it should be permanent, but they shouldn't be electing politicians who promise them more money without working (which is what's happening) any more then you should be telling your friends where to take you for dinner. They should be getting on their feet, contributing again, then voting based on what they learned. Not voting for someone to take them to a more expensive restaurant when they aren't footing the bill.

Government should be the last resort, not the first.

Government is alwayes the last resort. Look at it this way one day you may be out of a job and on hard times would you want your right to vote striped away for no fault of your own?