Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[rightwinger]

How did the older generations do it before government job assistance programs? Did they not look for any job willing to hire, then push their way through night courses based on the income they attained? Quite possibly they even looked into various scholarship programs available, if not even consider the opportunities gained by choosing the military, which can provide the education assistance they need.

They "Let em die" just like conservatives advocate

Link?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Fail.

 

[DiamondDave]

They "Let em die" just like conservatives advocate

Link?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0[/ame]

So allegedly 1 unidentified person yells something.. and you get to link it to all conservatives.. got it..

Hey you bunch of president assassinating loons on the left... you all belong in prison

See how that works??

Idiot

 

[initforme]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

 

[Foxfyre]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Nobody said that. It is not a matter of anybody's net worth or whether we like them or not. The principle is that those who depend on the generosity of others should not have the power to demand how generous those others must be. Try to focus here.

 

[rightwinger]

Link?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0[/ame]

So allegedly 1 unidentified person yells something.. and you get to link it to all conservatives.. got it..

Hey you bunch of president assassinating loons on the left... you all belong in prison

See how that works??

Idiot

I'm talking Ron Paul....not the idiot in the audience
Paul said if you don't have insurance it is your own problem.....in essence...let em die

Note: No Republican at that debate disagreed

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Slippery slope fallacy is still a fallacy.

 

[Luissa]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Exactly.
But SOME on the right don't get that. They want to protect their own rights, but not others. I have heard them suggest women shouldn't be allowed to vote(coulter), or only land/property owners are allowed to vote. Now this.. And they call Obama a dictator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

l]

So allegedly 1 unidentified person yells something.. and you get to link it to all conservatives.. got it..

Hey you bunch of president assassinating loons on the left... you all belong in prison

See how that works??

Idiot

I'm talking Ron Paul....not the idiot in the audience
Paul said if you don't have insurance it is your own problem.....in essence...let em die

Note: No Republican at that debate disagreed

See this is the issue. The Left attributes statements and sentiments to the Right that simply don't exist. It is not in essence the same thing. Not even close.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep this thread in mind whenever you hear conservatives insist that it's not the Right that wants to suppress voters.

 

[The Rabbi]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Exactly.
But SOME on the right don't get that. They want to protect their own rights, but not others. I have heard them suggest women shouldn't be allowed to vote(coulter), or only land/property owners are allowed to vote. Now this.. And they call Obama a dictator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was the country better or worse off before women and non property owners had the right to vote? Yeah, we know the answer.

 

[kaz]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

Yes, but once they stop receiving welfare, they should be able to vote again in one year. People voting themselves money is not only a clear conflict of interest, but that which is in fact destroying us now.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy."

See Obama, W, Slick, ... to see it in action.

Dear partisan idiot,

you have just landed on a plan that makes it a good idea to make Americans POOR so you can gain dictatorship of the USA.

jesus you people are as dumb as a box of round rocks

Dear partisan idiot,

I don't belong to a political party and I don't advocate one, Google the word "partisan."

And I like your logic. If we don't allow people to vote themselves money, then we are making Americans poor.

LOL, you just want to keep voting yourself money...

 

[Foxfyre]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

So allegedly 1 unidentified person yells something.. and you get to link it to all conservatives.. got it..

Hey you bunch of president assassinating loons on the left... you all belong in prison

See how that works??

Idiot

I'm talking Ron Paul....not the idiot in the audience
Paul said if you don't have insurance it is your own problem.....in essence...let em die

Note: No Republican at that debate disagreed

How is that different than saying you don't have a car? That is your problem. You don't have a TV? That is your problem. It is not saying you should not have the ability to buy a car. It is not saying that you should not have the ability to by a TV. It is saying that we each need to develop the discipline and integrity to do what we need to do to acquire those things we need. It is saying that if I have something and you don't, you don't have the right to demand what I have. It is not saying that you shouldn't get your own.

We as a society have not 'just sentenced people to die' as you put it. I was working for hospitals before the government provided ANY medical assistance of any kind, and nobody was being turned away because he/she didn't have insurance.

So a little intellectual honesty here would be in order.

 

[PixieStix]

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.

So, essentially, you are saying that money should be the basis of our rights?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So, essentially, you are saying that money should be the basis of our rights?

I don't think I said that at all.

 

[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.

Does that include the growing debt of the United States Post Office?

Show me another "business" required to fund 75 years of retirement in a very short time.

Now ask me a question that is pertinent or admit you have nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Nobody said that. It is not a matter of anybody's net worth or whether we like them or not. The principle is that those who depend on the generosity of others should not have the power to demand how generous those others must be. Try to focus here.

Don't the rich receive more government perks than anyone?

Why should they be allowed to vote?

 

[Spoonman]

Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?

Yes, but once they stop receiving welfare, they should be able to vote again in one year. People voting themselves money is not only a clear conflict of interest, but that which is in fact destroying us now.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy."

See Obama, W, Slick, ... to see it in action.

Dear partisan idiot,

you have just landed on a plan that makes it a good idea to make Americans POOR so you can gain dictatorship of the USA.

jesus you people are as dumb as a box of round rocks

truth be told truth, you are probably the most partisan person here

 

[DiamondDave]

They "Let em die" just like conservatives advocate

Link?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0[/ame]

'Shoot them dead. Shoot them dead'

Damn leftists

 

[Spoonman]

My point is if you take away a welfare recipients right to vote, then who's next? WHoever you don't like? That's the point. It would be down to only a privileged few. Where do you draw the line? Oh, you only make $15,000 a year. You can't vote. Where does it stop?

Nobody said that. It is not a matter of anybody's net worth or whether we like them or not. The principle is that those who depend on the generosity of others should not have the power to demand how generous those others must be. Try to focus here.

Don't the rich receive more government perks than anyone?

Why should they be allowed to vote?

actually, no they don't