Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Your ignorance never ceases to astound me. "Harry/Pelosi/Dodd/Frank" were in the minority party when the vast majority of the toxic loans were being written.

4 members of the minority party did not prevent the majority party Republicans from passing the oversight of the GSE's which could have prevented the financial meltdown.

It's hysterical how you brain-dead righties continuously point a guilty finger at 4 members of the minority party while ignoring the majority party whose policies led to the collapse.

You're kidding, right?

September 2003
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

October 2003
Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

October 2004
In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."

Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

More righie idiocy ... remind me again .... which party controlled the Congress in 2003 and 2004 ... ? Remind me again how the minority party prevented the majority oarty from passing oversight of the GSE's ... ?

Are these the same liberals who want to blame a minority party for Nancy Pelosi losing her seat when Democrats failed to provide jobs with an increase in the unemployment rate to 10% during Obama's first term? It seems that the Democrats are "conveniently" quick to blame Republicans, who didn't control the legislative OR executive branch at that time, for standing in the way of aiding in the liberal plan to turn this country around. It appears the voters were right, and having the Democrats in control of both branches of government only helped in pushing their ideological dream list (like the Affordable Care Act) and not with what the voters had REALLY needed - jobs! So out goes Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Actually, it does make sense

The key to conservative thought today is to keep the worker away from the fishing hole. They want the control of our fishing holes to be maintained by the privleged few while they limit the amount of fish the worker is allowed to take

 

[Iceweasel]

I think only land owners should vote. Yes, I'm serious.

 

[rightwinger]

I think only land owners should vote. Yes, I'm serious.

So did the founding fathers.....that didn't last long

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Actually, it does make sense

The key to conservative thought today is to keep the worker away from the fishing hole. They want the control of our fishing holes to be maintained by the privleged few while they limit the amount of fish the worker is allowed to take

Jeez.

That may be the key to a business owner as it pertains to competition.

But for you to think that is a tenet of the conservative ideology makes it clear that you have absolutely no idea why conservatives think as they do.

Thus making you not capable of having an honest debate with a conservative...

You know.....just like I said about NYCarbineer.

To have an honest debate, you must understand your opponent.

You do not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think only land owners should vote. Yes, I'm serious.

Yes, we know you are, you're a conservative.

It's one of the many reasons why most conservatives are reprehensible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think only land owners should vote. Yes, I'm serious.

Fine, if you concede that all federal lands are owned by all of the American People, and all state lands are owned by all of the people of that state.

 

[Jarhead]

I think only land owners should vote. Yes, I'm serious.

Yes, we know you are, you're a conservative.

It's one of the many reasons why most conservatives are reprehensible.

Interesting.....seeing as most conservatives do not think that way.

Seems the problem is the fact that you do not know what most conservatives think.....and thus you find them reprehensible.

Most people are either afraid of what they don't understand...or hate what they don't understand.

FYI...progressives don't scare me nor do I find them reprehensible.

What I find reprehensible are those that criticize what they don't understand.

Like you just did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you can't list any.

 

[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.

So you can't list any.

Nice way to avoid an honest debate.

Example for the diverter (you)...

conservatives are aware that there are currently 3.9 million jobs available. They are also aware that many are refusing to take many of those jobs because they are not "good enough" and, thanks to unemployment insurance, they can hold out for that "perfect job."

conservatives are also aware that you are more likely to achieve long term success while working than ou will while on unemployment.

Thus why conservatives think that extending the unemployment benefits is not in the best interest of the people.

You may disagree.....but it is a valid belief.

But you just see it that conservatives want the poor to stay poorer.

 

[Luissa]

No.



Next question.

Of course, if welfare was a disqualification for voting the Democrat Party would cease to exist.

Probably not, people wouldn't vote for a party that took the rights away from certain people because they were poor.

As for your OP. What kind of welfare? Do you mean TANF? Or Social Security, or food stamps?
Please be clearer.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michelle420]

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?

1. No

2. Corporations shouldn't receive bailouts and subsidies

3. No

4. Some do.

 

[The Rabbi]

No.



Next question.

Of course, if welfare was a disqualification for voting the Democrat Party would cease to exist.

Probably not, people wouldn't vote for a party that took the rights away from certain people because they were poor.

As for your OP. What kind of welfare? Do you mean TANF? Or Social Security, or food stamps?
Please be clearer.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're joking, right? What percentage of people voted in the last election who were eligible? I recall something under 50%. And every election is like that or worse.
Go tell someone they can have lifetime benefits but will be ineligble to vote. See how many take you up on the offer for something tangible now in return for something they dont bother doing anyway.

 

[Redfish]

to the OP. Yes, if you are taking from the government and not contributing anything to it, then you should not be able to vote.

 

[PixieStix]

No!

Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

 

[Luissa]

to the OP. Yes, if you are taking from the government and not contributing anything to it, then you should not be able to vote.

So military members receiving food stamps shouldn't be allowed to vote?
How about vets?
And you guys are the party for freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

No!

Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

 

[Redfish]

to the OP. Yes, if you are taking from the government and not contributing anything to it, then you should not be able to vote.

So military members receiving food stamps shouldn't be allowed to vote?
How about vets?
And you guys are the party for freedom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, only those who are 100% dependent on govt handouts should barred from voting.

 

[PixieStix]

to the OP. Yes, if you are taking from the government and not contributing anything to it, then you should not be able to vote.

That would simply play into the hands of the ones you are so opposed to.

The government giveth the government taketh away?

A government big enough to give you everything is also a government big enough to take it ALL away.

Why would anyone want government to become even more powerful???

 

[Luissa]

No!



Just because the government decides to give handouts, does not mean they also get to take away the people's rights.

so you are OK with someone else deciding how to spend your hard earned tax money?

That is why you vote.
And thankfully in America we don't disqualify you for being poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk