Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[dblack]

I don't have kids so I don't benefit equally from the education tax dollar.
I don't drive, so I don't benefit equally from the roads
I am not wealthy, so I don't benefit equally from capital gains cuts
I live in a safe neighborhood, so I don't benefit equally from police protection

If that's how you feel, you should be protesting these policies.

I don't protest because I understand that general welfare does not mean equal benefit for all but what is in the best interest of the general welfare of the nation

We want government to do what needs doing

No. We can do what needs doing ourselves. We need government for doing those things that require, and justify, the use of state violence to achieve.

 

[Jarhead]

Do conservatives have any sensible ideas?

Many.

You considering they are not sensible in no way means they are not sensible. It means you see things differently.

Progressive ideas, to me, are not lacking credibility. I understand why many think that way, but I do not believe they are the best way to achieve the goals that we. as a nation, strive for.

I believe your issue is that you immediately assume a conservative idea is designed to protect a certain group of people only. One can easily look at the intentions the other way as well, but you refuse to.

It is obvious in your posts. You truly believe conservatives hate the poor, minorities, children and seniors.

Thus why, in my book, you are not worthy of a debate. You grab onto the spin and refuse to let go.

As for the topic of the thread...

The day they do not allow all those that use public roads to vote is the day they should not allow those on welfare to vote.

Until then.....all have the privilege to vote.

 

[rightwinger]

If that's how you feel, you should be protesting these policies.

I don't protest because I understand that general welfare does not mean equal benefit for all but what is in the best interest of the general welfare of the nation

We want government to do what needs doing

No. We can do what needs doing ourselves. We need government for doing those things that require, and justify, the use of state violence to achieve.

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

 

[Jarhead]

I don't protest because I understand that general welfare does not mean equal benefit for all but what is in the best interest of the general welfare of the nation

We want government to do what needs doing

No. We can do what needs doing ourselves. We need government for doing those things that require, and justify, the use of state violence to achieve.

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Every US Citizen of the legal voting age should be allowed to vote. As far as convicted felons voting, I am on the fence.

I don't agree. I think there should be a minimum voting age of 35 because anyone younger than that is too stupid and naive to vote intelligently. Likewise there should be a maximum voting age of 50 because people older than that have little concern for the future. No one who gets a check from the government should be allowed to vote. That includes Social Security, Medicare, or student loans.

 

[Peterf]

What should be said for that idea is that it's a fundamental perversion of the concept of government. Government is not a business and is unique among all human institution in that it has the responsibility for resolving matters of justice. It's imperative that it affords everyone equal protection of the law and equal rights to any and all services provided by government. This is exactly why services which do not provide equal benefit should not be provided by government.

How can any service provide equal benefit to every citizen?

Does the function of maintaining justice provide equal benefit? A standing army to protect our borders? Police to maintain law and order? Courts to resolve disputes? Public education was originally justified - not because everyone had a 'right' to an education, but - because an educated population of voters was a public good that benefited everyone living under our democracy.

It's a judgment call, obviously, but when a government service can't but justified as something that promotes the general welfare of the nation, and instead services the specific welfare of individuals or groups, then it's not something we should be using government to provide. In particular, when we are tempted to look at a given program as something that only some people benefit from, at the expense of others, then we ought to question whether government is the right vehicle for providing that service.

This conflicts with you post at #247. The services you list in your first paragraph are exactly those that tax payers would vote for. Essential services that only the state can provide.

 

[rightwinger]

No. We can do what needs doing ourselves. We need government for doing those things that require, and justify, the use of state violence to achieve.

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

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

 

[bripat9643]

I don't protest because I understand that general welfare does not mean equal benefit for all but what is in the best interest of the general welfare of the nation

We want government to do what needs doing

No. We can do what needs doing ourselves. We need government for doing those things that require, and justify, the use of state violence to achieve.

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

Society is one thing. Government is another. Government does nothing more efficiently than the private sector, so we should not depend on it to perform any function.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

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

Compared to what?

 

[Peterf]

You think the wealthy don't vote on the states largess?
What a simple world you live in

If you live on the public dime you will vote for the person who will most help your lot in life.....just like the wealthy do

The wealthy only have one vote, just like every useless tick on welfare.

And that was the intent of our founders

The vote of the poor counts the same as the rich

Here we are again. Blind faith that your "founders" were all-wise and infallible. That their words were engraved on stone and valid for all eternity. You worship them as the Jews and Christians worship their god.

 

[Peterf]

Every US Citizen of the legal voting age should be allowed to vote. As far as convicted felons voting, I am on the fence.

I don't agree. I think there should be a minimum voting age of 35 because anyone younger than that is too stupid and naive to vote intelligently. Likewise there should be a maximum voting age of 50 because people older than that have little concern for the future. No one who gets a check from the government should be allowed to vote. That includes Social Security, Medicare, or student loans.

Don't diss the aged. The old and experienced are less likely to be taken in by conmen and shysters. Those over 50 were much less likely to vote for Mr Obama. QED.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Compared to what?

Anarchy

 

[JakeStarkey]

I perfectly believe in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and taking care of the sick, elderly, and the poor, and giving them a hand up.

Those who don't should not be allowed to vote.

Now I'm frozen out here like you wouldn't beleive so I can spend some time.

Who should have the right to vote?

I put mine up that I didn't believe that anyone should be denied on welfare because although I have never taken a welfare check I at one point in my life had to go to food banks and took a turkey from the Salvation Army. We've all been up and down in our lives.

So what makes a voter? I can't deny a woman in Harlem and yes I have been there, seen it done it. (CBGB days) I can't deny her a right to vote. Because of welfare.

Thanks for understanding the nature of my frustration of my hyperbolic comment.

We had been on the bottom at one time, with food stamps and wiche, and are on the top now because of a helping hand up with a bundle of hard work on our parts. My family is the American Dream in motion.

The history of America has been the history of enlarging the voting franchise, and we are so much a greater nation because of it.

 

[Peterf]

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

Yes. Whoever put Sweden at second place on that list knows nothing about Sweden. And, I suspect, little about democracy.

What's undemocratic about Sweden?

Firstly the voting system, proportional representation. This hands power to party elites who decide which candidates are high on the party list and sure to be elected, and which are low down and have no chance. This ensures that member of the Riksdag slavishly vote with their party. If they show a spark of independence they will find themselves at the bottom of the list next time. Oh - and there is only one chamber; no equivalent of the Senate. And there are no constituecies, just a national list.

Secondly membership of the EU. This means that most - repeat MOST - laws that apply in Sweden are decided in Brussels by bureaucrats and rubber stamped by a useless and corrupt 'parliament'.

Thirdly the legal system. There are no juries in Swedish courts. Yes, you read that right.

Fourthly the media. If you seek brave independent journalists holding the powerful to account and seeking out rottenness in high places look elsewhere than Sweden. The hacks are part of the power elite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do conservatives have any sensible ideas?

Many.

You considering they are not sensible in no way means they are not sensible. It means you see things differently.

Progressive ideas, to me, are not lacking credibility. I understand why many think that way, but I do not believe they are the best way to achieve the goals that we. as a nation, strive for.

I believe your issue is that you immediately assume a conservative idea is designed to protect a certain group of people only. One can easily look at the intentions the other way as well, but you refuse to.

It is obvious in your posts. You truly believe conservatives hate the poor, minorities, children and seniors.

Thus why, in my book, you are not worthy of a debate. You grab onto the spin and refuse to let go.

As for the topic of the thread...

The day they do not allow all those that use public roads to vote is the day they should not allow those on welfare to vote.

Until then.....all have the privilege to vote.

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.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes we can...and for most things we do

But we are lucky enough to belong to a society and many functions are more efficiently done as part of a society than as individuals

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.

 

[Jarhead]

Do conservatives have any sensible ideas?

Many.

You considering they are not sensible in no way means they are not sensible. It means you see things differently.

Progressive ideas, to me, are not lacking credibility. I understand why many think that way, but I do not believe they are the best way to achieve the goals that we. as a nation, strive for.

I believe your issue is that you immediately assume a conservative idea is designed to protect a certain group of people only. One can easily look at the intentions the other way as well, but you refuse to.

It is obvious in your posts. You truly believe conservatives hate the poor, minorities, children and seniors.

Thus why, in my book, you are not worthy of a debate. You grab onto the spin and refuse to let go.

As for the topic of the thread...

The day they do not allow all those that use public roads to vote is the day they should not allow those on welfare to vote.

Until then.....all have the privilege to vote.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Many.

You considering they are not sensible in no way means they are not sensible. It means you see things differently.

Progressive ideas, to me, are not lacking credibility. I understand why many think that way, but I do not believe they are the best way to achieve the goals that we. as a nation, strive for.

I believe your issue is that you immediately assume a conservative idea is designed to protect a certain group of people only. One can easily look at the intentions the other way as well, but you refuse to.

It is obvious in your posts. You truly believe conservatives hate the poor, minorities, children and seniors.

Thus why, in my book, you are not worthy of a debate. You grab onto the spin and refuse to let go.

As for the topic of the thread...

The day they do not allow all those that use public roads to vote is the day they should not allow those on welfare to vote.

Until then.....all have the privilege to vote.

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

 

[Spoonman]

Even someone who lives under a bridge has a right to vote

It is part of being an American

so is owning a gun

 

[Jarhead]

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

So as opposed to actually engaging in a debate over a very viable scenario....you opt to preach something that makes no sense, express how naïve you are to the intentions of conservatives, and then move on with an attitude of perfection.

Enjoy your day.