Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[Publius1787]

If voting was a right then why make subsequent amendments to clarify that right? Because it's a privilege. As said before, the Amendment you seek is the 24th. If the 14th amendment did what you say it does then there wouldn't be a necessity to adopt the following voting amendments. Also I think you consider the word "account." It is indeed amazing how many people on the left do not understand the US Constitution.

The same could be said of the right to life and liberty, regardless of skin color. These were even outright stated by our founding fathers, and it took us over a century to get it right. I would have hoped that our nation would be civilized enough to realize that prohibiting those receiving financial assistance from voting would be a gross violation of civil rights, but I guess we aren't that civilized.

Why not just make membership of the Democratic Party a characteristic that forfeits your right to vote? If we're going to be so arbitrary as to pick welfare of all things as something that is so vile that those on welfare should forfeit their right to vote. It is a right, as stated in the amendments to the Constitution. Amendments that clarify that right don't make it not universal. There is a concept of the spirit of the law, and prohibiting the poor and needy from voting is not in line with the spirit of the law.

If you recognize our "unalienable rights," however you define them, then you should set up a government that is best able to defend those rights. If individual liberty is your standard, then barring those who are a net drain for voting does in fact promote individual liberty. Welfare is a scheme to promote positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty. Essentially it says that your rights are not unalienable so as long as other people need the fruits of your unalienable rights. Therefore, welfare is inconsistent with individual liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

You are an ignorant ass who does not want to learn how and why others think as they do.

Ignorant and arrogant.

What a lonely life you must lead.....likely the only thing you lead.

If conservatives want to "teach a man to fish"

Name some the programs they have initiated to improve job training and help the poor find jobs

you were given that list a few days ago, they are all sitting in Reid's in box.

Oh ....you mean the "Kill Obamacare" Jobs bill?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In your perfect world, only the wealthy get to vote on who should represent them

Nobody said only the wealthy, all we are saying is only the elf sufficient. If you are a ward of the state it makes no sense that you should get to vote for more of the states largess. In other words if you are on the public dime you probably aren't going to make good decisions based on anything other than making sure your welfare is increased. That doesn't make for a healthy country. Get off of welfare and then you get to vote. Until then you get what others will hand out to you.

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

If every class contributed the same exact percentage in Federal taxes, such as a flat tax, with very little in the way of qualifying tax deductions (except charity contributions and Roth IRAs retirement accounts) no one class would have a tactical advantage over the other now would they?

 

[Truthmatters]

except some would have no money left to buy food

 

[rightwinger]

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

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

Thats ridiculous, the war on poverty has created more poverty, Obozo and his libtardian policies have put more people in poverty than ever before.

conservatives want everyone to have a job and be self supporting, we want a country that is business friendly and creates jobs for everyone.

you libs want a society where everyone is dependent on the govt and are willing to give up your rights for all that free stuff.

The war on poverty was working until Reagan turned it into a war on the poor

 

[Publius1787]

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

Thats ridiculous, the war on poverty has created more poverty, Obozo and his libtardian policies have put more people in poverty than ever before.

conservatives want everyone to have a job and be self supporting, we want a country that is business friendly and creates jobs for everyone.

you libs want a society where everyone is dependent on the govt and are willing to give up your rights for all that free stuff.

The war on poverty was working until Reagan turned it into a war on the poor

I thought you lived through the 70's?

 

[The Rabbi]

Conservatives want the poor to have the full poverty experience,

unalleviated by any assistance, on the demented notion that the pain of poverty is

inspirational.

Thats ridiculous, the war on poverty has created more poverty, Obozo and his libtardian policies have put more people in poverty than ever before.

conservatives want everyone to have a job and be self supporting, we want a country that is business friendly and creates jobs for everyone.

you libs want a society where everyone is dependent on the govt and are willing to give up your rights for all that free stuff.

The war on poverty was working until Reagan turned it into a war on the poor

No it wasnt.
What programs did Reagan pass to make a war on the poor?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Definitions 101 once again for Jarhead

Government is about service to its clients the citizens

Business is about profit for its stockholders and management

Service to citizens v Efficiency/Profit to stockholders

I will take government USPS rather than FedEx

The Army rather than Blackwater

Our government executive branch rather than J.P. Morgan's CEO

And so forth and so on.

Go away sparky.

This conversation is for adults who are strong in their convictions....not for those who make believe they are something they aren't in the hopes it will lend credibility to their posts.

Son, this conversation is among adults who understand definitions and how ouer government and society works. No one with a sane brain wants your type of corporate fascism.

 

[Redfish]

If conservatives want to "teach a man to fish"

Name some the programs they have initiated to improve job training and help the poor find jobs

you were given that list a few days ago, they are all sitting in Reid's in box.

Oh ....you mean the "Kill Obamacare" Jobs bill?

Nope, 290 bills, Reid is sitting on, is he afraid one might pass the senate and actually help the economy?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/290-house-bills-waiting-for-senate-approval/

 

[Publius1787]

except some would have no money left to buy food

Certainly a matter for the states to decide how to mitigate and also something one should consider before having children they expect the taxpayer to support.

 

[Redfish]

Definitions 101 once again for Jarhead

Government is about service to its clients the citizens

Business is about profit for its stockholders and management

Service to citizens v Efficiency/Profit to stockholders

I will take government USPS rather than FedEx

The Army rather than Blackwater

Our government executive branch rather than J.P. Morgan's CEO

And so forth and so on.

Go away sparky.

This conversation is for adults who are strong in their convictions....not for those who make believe they are something they aren't in the hopes it will lend credibility to their posts.

Son, this conversation is among adults who understand definitions and how ouer government and society works. No one with a sane brain wants your type of corporate fascism.

right, and Jarhead is right, you need to step away because you are not qualified.

 

[Vox]

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?

Yes. With a cut-off timeline. If you are a current welfare/public assistance receipient - you can't vote. You regain your voting abilities after getting off the public assistance.

 

[PixieStix]

Some rights have to be earned. If you are not a contributing member of society why should you be able to vote on how the money of others is spent?

Speaking of rights, are you OK with 2nd amendment rights being taken away by the govt? how about 1st amendment rights? How about the right to keep your thermostat where you want it? How about your rights of privacy? Liberals are fine with taking those rights away, but you fly off the handle about preventing govt dependents and illegals from voting.

I am not for illegals voting in our country. I think they should be rounded up and deported. I do not believe they should be given any of our money.

I do not like any of our rights to be under assault for any reason.

I am truly disturbed by how far people will take their politics without a single thought of how it may be visited on each and every American.

Good, are you also mad at the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn?

Here's an analogy for you:

A corporation consists of stock holders and employees---should the non share holding employees get to vote at the annual meeting?

those on 100% govt assistence are the same as the employees---they have no skin in the game so why should they vote on how the money is spent?

remember, I am only talking about those on 100% govt support.

Corporations, government and the Constitution are 3 different things.

Of course I hate voter fraud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go away sparky.

This conversation is for adults who are strong in their convictions....not for those who make believe they are something they aren't in the hopes it will lend credibility to their posts.

Son, this conversation is among adults who understand definitions and how ouer government and society works. No one with a sane brain wants your type of corporate fascism.

right, and Jarhead is right, you need to step away because you are not qualified.

Redfish, like Jarhead, does not understand the role of government, and that its functions cannot be serviced by business without injuring the citizen taxpaying base.

 

[Redfish]

I am not for illegals voting in our country. I think they should be rounded up and deported. I do not believe they should be given any of our money.

I do not like any of our rights to be under assault for any reason.

I am truly disturbed by how far people will take their politics without a single thought of how it may be visited on each and every American.

Good, are you also mad at the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn?

Here's an analogy for you:

A corporation consists of stock holders and employees---should the non share holding employees get to vote at the annual meeting?

those on 100% govt assistence are the same as the employees---they have no skin in the game so why should they vote on how the money is spent?

remember, I am only talking about those on 100% govt support.

Corporations, government and the Constitution are 3 different things.

Of course I hate voter fraud.

yes, they are, but the analogy is valid.

Do you support Reid sitting on 290 house passed bills?
290 House Bills Waiting for Senate Approval - CBS News

 

[PixieStix]

Good, are you also mad at the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn?

Here's an analogy for you:

A corporation consists of stock holders and employees---should the non share holding employees get to vote at the annual meeting?

those on 100% govt assistence are the same as the employees---they have no skin in the game so why should they vote on how the money is spent?

remember, I am only talking about those on 100% govt support.

Corporations, government and the Constitution are 3 different things.

Of course I hate voter fraud.

yes, they are, but the analogy is valid.

Do you support Reid sitting on 290 house passed bills?
290 House Bills Waiting for Senate Approval - CBS News

No, I am not good with that..

Is this a test?

 

[Redfish]

Son, this conversation is among adults who understand definitions and how ouer government and society works. No one with a sane brain wants your type of corporate fascism.

right, and Jarhead is right, you need to step away because you are not qualified.

Redfish, like Jarhead, do not understand the role of government, and that its functions cannot be serviced by business without injuring the citizen taxpaying base.

Yes, we know, jake-------the govt is your momma, wet nurse, and snuggle bunny all rolled up into one.

 

[Vox]

and TAX BREAKS are NOT welfare.

 

[Truthmatters]

I am not for illegals voting in our country. I think they should be rounded up and deported. I do not believe they should be given any of our money.

I do not like any of our rights to be under assault for any reason.

I am truly disturbed by how far people will take their politics without a single thought of how it may be visited on each and every American.

Good, are you also mad at the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn?

Here's an analogy for you:

A corporation consists of stock holders and employees---should the non share holding employees get to vote at the annual meeting?

those on 100% govt assistence are the same as the employees---they have no skin in the game so why should they vote on how the money is spent?

remember, I am only talking about those on 100% govt support.

Corporations, government and the Constitution are 3 different things.

Of course I hate voter fraud.

ACORN did not create one false vote in ANY election you fools


LYING is not fact

 

[Foxfyre]

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

wrong again, there are millions of people who are poor but are not dependent on the government. The working poor should be able to vote just like the working rich. Anyone who is 100% dependent on the government should not vote, IMHO.

That is sort of where I was coming from earlier. Social Security recipients should be able to vote even if they aren't payng income taxes because they earned the money that generated their social security income and they have already paid taxes on the money they receive. (Those who earn enough above and beyond their social security benefits pay taxes AGAIN on some or most of the social security benefits they receive.)

But those who live on money they did not earn but that they receive as benevolence from the govrnment should not have the ability to vote themselves more money at the expense of the rest of us.