Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Vanquish]

The right to vote is the most essential American right of all. It doesnt matter where your money comes from. It doesn't matter where YOU come from (as long as you're a citizen, legally). It's the great equalizer and CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be taken away. The fact that it's been taken from felons is the only defensible removal I can think of.

Kaz, your hatred of free-loaders is great. To some degree I agree with that revulsion. But not everyone on welfare is a cheat or a bum. Some are just people who need a little help and then pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Taking away that fundamental right is unthinkable. There's no justification for it. AT ALL.

 

[Contumacious]

The right to vote is the most essential American right of all. .

How about the rights to life , liberty and property?

Do I have a right to prevent the government to make me a slave of the welfare/walfare state?

Do I have a right to protect my property from official theft?

Do I have a right to financially use my property to financially support those who I choose?

.

 

[Si modo]

I didn't build the roads I took to the countryside yesterday. I didn't even pay for them because I haven't paid taxes in this state...yet.

I guess I lost my right to vote.

 

[tonystewart1]

If we take the vote from people on welfare does that also get rid of their obligation to serve in the military if the draft where ever reinstated?

 

[editec]

MOST welfare reciepents cannot vote.

Most welfare recipients are CHILDREN.

 

[Modbert]

Social Security and Medicare are welfare now? It's not surprising that the OP comes to the conclusions that he does when he doesn't even understand the topic he's discussing.

 

[Sunshine]

Ever notice how when someone has a big/great idea, they have competelhy overlooked the tangled logistics and expense of what it would take to pull it off?

Agreed. I have conceded that we have in this country chosen slavery to government and nothing libertarian is going to be accomplished. Which is why I didn't propose an actual process. We are doomed by liberal greed, they won. It's over, there is no solution because you're not going to convince a liberal to move back from the government till any more then you're going to convince a pig to step back from the trough.

If you paid no taxes at all would that extra money catapult yo uinto the jet set?

 

[MaggieMae]

Your only paying for his grandmother because congress blew the money "she paid". Your problem should be with them not her you block head.

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

Social Security retirement isn't welfare, but Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is. Nearly 10 million disabled workers and their dependents receive benefits through SSI, along with 6.3 million surviving children (stats from 2009). Even a worker age 24 or younger who has as few as two years of wages subject to Social Security tax can qualify for SSI disability benefits, and the children and surviving spouse of a deceased young worker can also qualify for survivor benefits. THIS, in my opinion, is where Social Security went off the rail. If SSI were more restrictive, it's quite conceivable that the financial stability of the entire program would be healthy.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually my issue was with him. He said I should pay for his grandmother first and I said he should first. I also said government should be last resort. As for congress having spent it, I agree, but that doesn't change that it's welfare, in fact it makes it so.

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

Medicare is a Ponzi scheme.

it should be abolished. Clinto admitted that there was no Social Security Fund - that the moneys paid into Medicare were comingled with general revenue funds.

.

Link? Medicare is paid for by a separate direct payroll tax. Period.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually there is no right to vote in the Constitution and nothing I'm proposing is based on race, gender or any other ethnicity. You went to a government school, didn't you?

What a retarded arrogant comment from one of our under-educated!

I think you probably didn't go to law school, nor any reputable high school. Try the Nineteenth Amendment, (fourteenth as well),or did you sleep through class that day?

Kalamazoo Central High School (note my screen name and home town)

U of Maryland - BS with a double major in Mathematics and Computer Science

Virginia Tech - MS in computer science and applications

U of Michigan - MBA in general management with emphasis in Finance and Corporate Strategy.

But thanks for the observation.

But no economics? How about economics and public policy? In order to understand the ramifications of what you deem "welfare" programs, you would have needed to study both, either in an academic arena or just doing some research on your own. If you're actually more schooled than you appear to be, you'll need to provide us with more substance and fewer conservative talking points.

 

[MaggieMae]

IT IS NOT WELFARE. Stop with the lies. Social Security is a pre paid retirement fund that everyone pays into when they start working. Do some people get more out of it than others? Sure. Some live to be 67 and actually lose the rest that they paid in. Some live to be 100 and get more than they paid in.

But no way in hell is it welfare. Same with Medicare. Do you work for a living Kaz? You ever look at your pay stub?

There is no social security trust fund. They collect a tax and spend it.

Oh, kaz, but they invest it in t-bills, don't they?

OK, but who pays back the t-bills? Your children.

So, you give your children a trust fund of t-bills, you also give them the bill to pay back the t-bills. How is that a trust fund?

Hey, you are off topic!

Just kidding lol. I thought your crack at me for trying to make your liberal idea fair at least was pretty funny.

Well, how many Americans actually own their house? The bank owns mine for the next couple years. Guess I should consolidate some money in it so i can vote?

Liberaltarians forgot to consider how big government built this country using the military to enforce land handouts of Indian land big government bought from colonial powers.

I worked for the union pacific which is still selling off big government welfare land from the trancontinental railroad days.

Think harder, I agree white middle class kids and others milk unemployment for all it is worth. Get an idea and try to turn the unemployment office into a day laybor office.

This way you build up the unemployed like the Homestead Actand CCC did.

Now I can't figure out which "side" you're lauding. Was it a bad thing that government invested in railroads? Sounds to me like you think it was a great idea. So do I. The government also took lands for the Interstate project back in the 50's. So where would we be without it?

I just realized I thought I was talking to Kaz. No wonder I was confused by the comment! Sorry.

 

[MaggieMae]

Without government interference in free markets, some institutions will succeed and others fail. When Clinton started forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, it was the first domino in causing widespread industry failure which lead to the Great Recession, which we are still deeply in. However, regardless of whether or not government caused it, I opposed the bailouts so your argument is still irrelevant. I oppose all government interference in free markets, hence they are free. Which means individual players will succeed or fail and we live with it. Only government can tilt the playing field and cause them all to fail, and that is warped by leaches voting themselves other people's money.

So you don't think the banks who gambled with deposits weren't playing with other people's money? When depositors and investors started demanding their money back, there was none there. Ergo: The financial crisis of 2008.

Did you read my post?

If you mean the one directly above, you're wrong. The government's fault in the banking crisis was sitting back and expecting "the market will adjust itself." It didn't. The government lenders (F&F, FHA) got into the subprime party only AFTER they discovered how much instant revenue could be made. Prior to 2005, subprime mortgages were only made by private mortgage companies. If Clinton's CRA program was so damaging, then why wasn't the first wave of foreclosures in those low-income neighborhoods?

 

[MaggieMae]

FOUR VOTERS in this poll, so far, are confirmed Nazi's, parading or impersonating educated American citizens

ELEVEN VOTERS in this poll, so far, are confirmed members of the Parasitic Faction, Nazi's, who are parading or impersonating educated American citizens.

After 12 years at a government brainwashing center they actually believe that their neighbors and taxpayers owe them a living.

.

And only an idiot would draw that conclusion from the participants in this thread. Go away if you're that clueless.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually there is no right to vote in the Constitution and nothing I'm proposing is based on race, gender or any other ethnicity. You went to a government school, didn't you?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, which pretty much covers every stripe, the "right to vote" is a state right. Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote, which would actually be redundant.

Is there a power delegated to the Unites States which permits it to assist an individual
if his income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, .

.

Oh please. That's always so simplistic. There were 4,543 words in the original Constitution. There are 5.3 million words in the US Code, 21 volumes of laws formulated by interpretation of the original Constitution and its 27 amendments. The clause you question would be within the purview of the so-called "commerce clause," which the USSC has ruled upon in myriad cases regarding specific issues over the federal government's responsibilities.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”
The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.

See also:
Necessary and Proper Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

No they should not. Its buying votes and nothing more.

Promises made by politicians, especially running for election/reelection, doesn't automatically turn into someone profiting from a vote. Not for people; not for corporations. For lobbyists, yes, who will turn on a dime, if it goes in their pockets.

The most richest counties centralize around Washington with Los Alamos being the 6th.

Politicians profit nicely from votes. To say otherwise is absurd.

I don't think that was the point. Just voting for someone because you think he/she might benefit you, personally, is no guarantee that it will happen. That was the point.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually there is no right to vote in the Constitution and nothing I'm proposing is based on race, gender or any other ethnicity. You went to a government school, didn't you?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, which pretty much covers every stripe, the "right to vote" is a state right. Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote, which would actually be redundant.

What does this have to do with anything I said?

I was pointing out that there is indeed no "right to vote" found in the Constitution, but the generalized non-discrimination clause would certainly cover a "right" to vote, along with all the other "rights" we should enjoy. These are toughies...

 

[MaggieMae]

Define a "federal government welfare check." I know of no one who gets a check just for being poor or out of work. If a person's income or disability qualifies for certain health care, food, rent subsidy, those are all separately administered on a case-by-case basis, usually with more help from state social welfare programs than the federal government.

A welfare check is a check that is written to a citizen of the United States which they did nothing to earn. The money is plundered from someone else and redistributed to you by a politician. Social Security is welfare because while we pay a tax, it is spent and your check will be confiscated from future taxpayers. Private Pension funds are actually funded and invested for your future benefit and they are based on your working for the money. Social Security is based on you paid welfare to your parents, they paid welfare to their parents, your kids will pay welfare to you...

So is a corporate subsidy. Next?

 

[Dr.Drock]

It always confuses me how people who are anti-welfare (and I myself am anti-welfare) usually blame the welfare recipients for the welfare problem rather than welfare creaters and funders (government).

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Billionaire Koch Brothers Use Their $1 Billion-A-Year Taxpayer-Funded Biofuel Subsidy To Bankroll Republicans, Tea Party, Right-wing Libertarian Groups | Wall Street Sector Selector

What say you Kaz, are you a democrat (small 'd') or a plutocrat? I suppose the answer is as clear as the point on your head.

 

[MaggieMae]

families DO NOT care for their elderly relatives, and they stopped doing that a long, long time ago

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Plunder is a way of life. I want to change that. In our young greedy friends case, he brazenly told me his grandmother is my problem, not his. It's frankly sad.

His grandmother IS everyone else's problem...NOW...if she couldn't take care of herself and had no help from family or charity. What part of that don't you get? Hey, I would have loved to own a big home and kept my aging and eventually ill parents close by, right upstairs, but it would have cost me a fortune to heat the place in the winter for one thing. Whose fault is it that energy costs have skyrocketed to the point where the government has to step in now to make sure some Americans don't freeze every winter? Why the free market, that's who. If wages had continued to balance out the outrageous costs just to survive in today's world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A whole 'nuther subject.