Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[PixieStix]

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.

My bad then

 

[The Rabbi]

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

They pay more than anyone.
Maybe we should say anyone who doesnt pay income tax should be ineligible. No representation without taxation.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

No.. he insinuated no such thing... he advocated personal responsibility and the thought hat people can take care of themselves.. unlike what you and your ilk think.. that only government can and should take care of you

Note.. no leftist disagreed with the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald either.. there are not direct quotes doing such a specific thing.. so all leftists must advocate presidential assassination..

Your logic is ludicrous

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It is different because not having a car or TV does not lead to your death

Having cancer and no insurance to pay for it will

Republican response....let em die

 

[kaz]

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?

Let's explore that. The top 1% of payers pay 40% of taxes. Now show they get more than that back in government expenditures.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

huh?

Wow.

DO you know what spin is?

What you just did was completely spin the meaning of the post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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."

.

I did.

Partisan

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

....so, unless you don't support any causes, or people, you're a partisan.

and illiterate.

 

[rightwinger]

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

No.. he insinuated no such thing... he advocated personal responsibility and the thought hat people can take care of themselves.. unlike what you and your ilk think.. that only government can and should take care of you

Note.. no leftist disagreed with the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald either.. there are not direct quotes doing such a specific thing.. so all leftists must advocate presidential assassination..

Your logic is ludicrous

I never heard of anyone who agreed with Oswald

Show me a link

 

[kaz]

Republican response....let em die

Harry Reid said he couldn't be bothered with one life. So how many lives does it take for liberals to start caring exactly? Just curious.

 

[PixieStix]

No offense to my conservative friends. But this is where I part ways with you.

If you really think that Americans should be stripped of their basic right to vote. (Unless they are illegals, or prisoners) Then I completely and utterly disagree

Not going to happen anyway

 

[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

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

We do. The US has improved a lot since 1920.
Sorry we aren't a country where only rich white Christians can vote. Loser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jarhead]

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."

.

I did.

Partisan

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

....so, unless you don't support any causes, or people, you're a partisan.

and illiterate.

In this forum son, partisan refers to allegiance to a party.

The fact that you aren't aware of this pretty much sums up why you are the way you are.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I don't think I said that at all.

My bad then

Naw. You wouldn't be the first person to have a problem following my logic. And I don't blame you for that.

All I am saying is that if I have more than you do and choose to share what I have with you, what I share should be MY choice and not yours. When we give people power to take whatever they want from other people, we have created a tyranny that destroys unalienable rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

No.. he insinuated no such thing... he advocated personal responsibility and the thought hat people can take care of themselves.. unlike what you and your ilk think.. that only government can and should take care of you

Note.. no leftist disagreed with the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald either.. there are not direct quotes doing such a specific thing.. so all leftists must advocate presidential assassination..

Your logic is ludicrous

I never heard of anyone who agreed with Oswald

Show me a link

Post all the Democratic politicians who disagreed with Oswald.
See, they must all be supportive of assassinations. You too for that matter.

 

[kaz]

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."

.

I did.

Partisan

1. a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

....so, unless you don't support any causes, or people, you're a partisan.

and illiterate.

And the party, cause or person I'm supporting is? I love the illiterate comment, you didn't even understand your own quote. It meant party, cause or person as a proper name, not just an idea. LOL.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

No.. he insinuated no such thing... he advocated personal responsibility and the thought hat people can take care of themselves.. unlike what you and your ilk think.. that only government can and should take care of you

Note.. no leftist disagreed with the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald either.. there are not direct quotes doing such a specific thing.. so all leftists must advocate presidential assassination..

Your logic is ludicrous

I never heard of anyone who agreed with Oswald

Show me a link

Never showed anyone who agreed with let them die.. show me a link

See how your logic, when used against you, is something you do not like

You leap to the conclusion you want... and state your assumption as truth

Go fuck yourself

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Let's explore that. The top 1% of payers pay 40% of taxes. Now show they get more than that back in government expenditures.

Well lets start with a military that protects their investments around the globe
Lets look at a legal system that protects their intellectual property
Lets look at an educational system that provides them with trained workers
Lets look at infrastructure that allows them to bring in supplies and distribute goods

 

[kaz]

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

Why should they be allowed to vote?

Let's explore that. The top 1% of payers pay 40% of taxes. Now show they get more than that back in government expenditures.

Well lets start with a military that protects their investments around the globe
Lets look at a legal system that protects their intellectual property
Lets look at an educational system that provides them with trained workers
Lets look at infrastructure that allows them to bring in supplies and distribute goods

And let's look at all the jobs we provide and how my employees all benefit from those things too. I employ dozens of people. If I shut down, they go home. Explain how those costs only get pegged on me.

 

[initforme]

Once we deny one group the right to vote, you can rest assured there will be more coming down the road. That's the problem. When I stated the $250,000 I was just putting something ridiculous out there but really this would simply open up a big can of worms and then the next group would be targeted. It would never end and those groups with large amounts of money would be lobbying to have this group and that group denied. It would never end. Ever. Big money would dictate who votes and who doesn't vote. That is a very scary proposition.

 

[Jarhead]

No offense to my conservative friends. But this is where I part ways with you.

If you really think that Americans should be stripped of their basic right to vote. (Unless they are illegals, or prisoners) Then I completely and utterly disagree

Not going to happen anyway

I believe I made my sentiments clear...

The day one who uses a public road is denied the right to vote is the day those on welfare are to be denied the right to vote.

Until then?

All have the privilege.