Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[kaz]

I said the same, again READ THE DISCUSSION moron

No, you didn't. You said that corporate welfare doesn't meet your definition of welfare.

Again, you are a hack.

Fair enough, you did read the discussion you didn't understand it. I said it was really welfare, but it didn't meet my definition of who I was going to disenfranchise for it. You seriously didn't get that?

 

[kaz]

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.

 

[Si modo]

If one is a citizen of this country, they should vote.

If they are not, stay the **** out of the polling place.

 

[Antiderivative]

I said the same, again READ THE DISCUSSION moron

No, you didn't. You said that corporate welfare doesn't meet your definition of welfare.

Again, you are a hack.

Fair enough, you did read the discussion you didn't understand it. I said it was really welfare, but it didn't meet my definition of who I was going to disenfranchise for it. You seriously didn't get that?

Why would you disenfranchise anyone? Statists love to disenfranchise people, yet parade around like charlatans. You sir, are a charlatan.

 

[Susan45]

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.

Oh yeah, all that liberal greed.

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

Looks to me like it's the red states with their hands out.

 

[kaz]

No, you didn't. You said that corporate welfare doesn't meet your definition of welfare.

Again, you are a hack.

Fair enough, you did read the discussion you didn't understand it. I said it was really welfare, but it didn't meet my definition of who I was going to disenfranchise for it. You seriously didn't get that?

Why would you disenfranchise anyone?

We've had a whole thread discussion on that and since it's mine I've tried to respond to every non trivial question. Why don't you...read the discussion....and ask a question based on that rather then ask the vacuous question you did?

 

[kaz]

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.

Oh yeah, all that liberal greed.

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

Looks to me like it's the red states with their hands out.

You should ask a Republican about that

 

[Avorysuds]

I said they shouldn't be able to vote. Unconstitutional programs should void them from their constitutional right to vote. If these people believe in getting something for nothing, then let them trade their liberties for money.

 

[Toro]

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.

Because citizenship confers the right to elect those who govern us.

This question presumes that those who are not net beneficiaries of entitlements won't screw those who are. Why would we make this assumption? Why do we assume that those who aren't net beneficiaries of entitlements are any less venal than those who are receiving entitlements? Let's say you've paid your whole life into SS, then when you are 65 and begin receiving social security and you cannot vote. What happens if those who can vote suddenly decide that you should now receive $0, even though you've contributed your whole life?

Besides, everyone pays taxes. Everyone. Every single person who has bought anything has paid a tax. It's about net benefits. You can still be a net beneficiary of government spending even though you pay tax. You may pay a small amount of tax but drive on public roads, send your kids to public school, and be protected by publicly funded police and fire departments. You will be a net beneficiary of government programs even though you pay tax. Where do you draw the line? Why shouldn't they be barred from voting too? The majority of Americans are net beneficiaries of government spending. You would have to bar the majority of Americans from voting.

Conflicts abound in society. Why should we limit it to recipients of entitlements?

If you are concerned about conflicts of interest, surely you are for banning donations by corporate executives for instance? Maybe we should ban all voting and donating to anyone who works in the defense industry.

Also, why should those in the finance industry donate to those who write and affect laws on the finance industry? Hedge fund managers and private equity managers lobbied to pay a 15% tax on profits from carried interest by giving money to those who wrote the laws because they convinced the law makers that the fees they were paid were instead capital gains. This means that the lawmakers were either extraordinarily stupid or extraordinarily venal because carried interest is a fee, it is not a capital gain. If you are clever and make a cool handheld device that revolutionizes all media, and you make $1 billion, you are taxed at 35%. If you bet against subprime loans and profit off a collapsing economy and people's misery, you are taxed at 15%. So, on $1 billion, the difference in the tax bill is $200 million, yet the social benefit of the lower taxed individual is much less than the higher taxed individual. If you are concerned about influencing the political process for the allocation of wealth in society, the guy who made $100 million in a year and is taxed at 15% has affected his wealth through the political process more than anyone else who has ever taken SS or welfare.

 

[eots]

then what iz??? The way I see it the takers will soon outnumber the givers,, it's about 50 50 now.. when that scale tips it's all over but the crying dude.

and why would that scale tip ? because having basic food and shelter has become the new american dream ? or because government and corporate america has looted the nation ?

Progressive tax system will tip the scale, helped along by 20 million illegals helping themselves to our hard word and tresure. You should be careful what you ask for. sometimes.

so now your issue switches to illegal aliens ?

 

[Antiderivative]

Fair enough, you did read the discussion you didn't understand it. I said it was really welfare, but it didn't meet my definition of who I was going to disenfranchise for it. You seriously didn't get that?

Why would you disenfranchise anyone?

We've had a whole thread discussion on that and since it's mine I've tried to respond to every non trivial question. Why don't you...read the discussion....and ask a question based on that rather then ask the vacuous question you did?

IOW, you cannot succinctly state your viewpoints even after having a discussion on it. Now, who is intellectually lazy?

Why do statists who parade around as free marketers love to disenfranchise the poor while not disenfranchising the corporations who receive handouts?

Again, you are a corporatist hack.

 

[logical4u]

You never answered my question.

A soldier is disabled during his service to our country and now receives benefits. Can he vote?

It is not my thread, but I would say he made the ultimate investment in the country, therefore, he gets to vote.

 

[Contumacious]

Why would you disenfranchise anyone?

We've had a whole thread discussion on that and since it's mine I've tried to respond to every non trivial question. Why don't you...read the discussion....and ask a question based on that rather then ask the vacuous question you did?

IOW, you cannot succinctly state your viewpoints even after having a discussion on it. Now, who is intellectually lazy?

Why do statists who parade around as free marketers love to disenfranchise the poor while not disenfranchising the corporations who receive handouts?
Again, you are a corporatist hack.

Let me state clearly and succintly : the federal governmnet has no authority to financially assist KBR, Halliburton, Moesha or Juan.

.

 

[Antiderivative]

Let me state clearly and succintly : the federal governmnet has no authority to financially assist KBR, Halliburton, Moesha or Juan.

.

Yet, you don't attack these people's voting rights.

You just go after the poor while parading around with your Statue of Liberty avatar. Do you even know what is written on the Statue of Liberty?

 

[Contumacious]

Let me state clearly and succintly : the federal governmnet has no authority to financially assist KBR, Halliburton, Moesha or Juan.

.

Yet, you don't attack these people's voting rights.

You just go after the poor while parading around with your Statue of Liberty avatar. Do you even know what is written on the Statue of Liberty?

Gee the question was :

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

My answer is a resounding NO.

Neither Corporate nor individual recipients should vote.

.

 

[Antiderivative]

Let me state clearly and succintly : the federal governmnet has no authority to financially assist KBR, Halliburton, Moesha or Juan.

.

Yet, you don't attack these people's voting rights.

You just go after the poor while parading around with your Statue of Liberty avatar. Do you even know what is written on the Statue of Liberty?

Gee the question was :

Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

My answer is a resounding NO.

Neither Corporate nor individual recipients should vote.

.

What about government bureaucrats and soldiers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

If the democratic processes upon which our system of government is based are 'criminal' then what are you going to replace them with?

Deny the vote to welfare recipients? How about the working poor who get food stamps, or earned income credit, or housing subsidies, or energy assistance? Take away their right to vote? How about working/middle class families who get child tax credits in the thousands, and public education, and mortgage deductions? How about defense contractors and everyone associated with that sector who stand to benefit or suffer in huge amounts based on who gets elected or not elected?

How about denying the vote to ANY taxpayer who stands to gain immensely through massive tax cuts, even though those tax cuts might add trillions to the national debt?

 

[kaz]

and why would that scale tip ? because having basic food and shelter has become the new american dream ? or because government and corporate america has looted the nation ?

Progressive tax system will tip the scale, helped along by 20 million illegals helping themselves to our hard word and tresure. You should be careful what you ask for. sometimes.

so now your issue switches to illegal aliens ?

What are you, 12? Dude, I like a good rant, but this one makes no sense

 

[kaz]

You never answered my question.

A soldier is disabled during his service to our country and now receives benefits. Can he vote?

It is not my thread, but I would say he made the ultimate investment in the country, therefore, he gets to vote.

I said the same thing. It was a no brainer. I'm talking about people who get checks of other people's money through government force for doing nothing. That has nothing to do with the military. I don't agree with what the politicians are having the military do either, but that's on the politicians not the military.

 

[kaz]

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?

If the democratic processes upon which our system of government is based are 'criminal' then what are you going to replace them with?

Deny the vote to welfare recipients? How about the working poor who get food stamps, or earned income credit, or housing subsidies, or energy assistance? Take away their right to vote? How about working/middle class families who get child tax credits in the thousands, and public education, and mortgage deductions? How about defense contractors and everyone associated with that sector who stand to benefit or suffer in huge amounts based on who gets elected or not elected?

How about denying the vote to ANY taxpayer who stands to gain immensely through massive tax cuts, even though those tax cuts might add trillions to the national debt?

I oppose all tax "credits." But as for the rest, to compare taking less of someone's money through a tax cut and to give someone someone's else's money through redistribution is patently preposterous unless you are a Marxist who believes all money belongs to the State.