Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[kaz]

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.

Next thing you know, illegal aliens may lose voting rights. Shudder...

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Because the military has special programs that protect only the wealthy.
Because the legal system only protects intellectual property of wealthy people
Because the educational system exists to provide trained workers, and no wealthy person ever went through that same system.
Because the infrastucture is available only to wealthy people making money and not to averaage people buying good and services and going to work.

Who was it who talked about Two Americas? They exist. Only in the mind of Nutsucker.

 

[kaz]

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.

How is a "public" road which is available to all equally in any way comparable with government through the force of guns taking money from one citizen and giving it to another? The former is the general welfare, the latter is armed robbery.

 

[PixieStix]

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.

I agree with that.

I do not think is would ever be right to remove one group's right to vote. Unless they are illegals or prisoners

 

[Toro]

Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.

This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?

It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.

 

[Publius1787]

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

Because the military has special programs that protect only the wealthy.
Because the legal system only protects intellectual property of wealthy people
Because the educational system exists to provide trained workers, and no wealthy person ever went through that same system.
Because the infrastucture is available only to wealthy people making money and not to averaage people buying good and services and going to work.

Who was it who talked about Two Americas? They exist. Only in the mind of Nutsucker.

I think your opponent here is getting programs that provide for the "general welfare" mixed up with those that provide for "specific welfare" and does not know the difference.

 

[initforme]

Wealth or financial status should have nothing to do with one's voting status. After those on welfare are eliminated, next will be who? The working poor? Then the middle class? Where will it end? Will there be a push from those at the very very top to keep eliminating groups they don't like such as the working poor or middle class? I fear so. That's the problem. No end in sight.

 

[PixieStix]

Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.

This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?

It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.

You just said what I said, only better

 

[Publius1787]

Wealth or financial status should have nothing to do with one's voting status. After those on welfare are eliminated, next will be who? The working poor? Then the middle class? Where will it end? Will there be a push from those at the very very top to keep eliminating groups they don't like such as the working poor or middle class? I fear so. That's the problem. No end in sight.

Nah, everyone who pays more in taxes than they receive in direct personal assistance should be able to vote. Those that don't have no right to dictate where other peoples money goes. They should have a stake in the game without being afforded the power to vote themselves other peoples money.

 

[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.

BUT...

to deny the logic behind the sentiments of those that only get but do not give should not vote is disingenuous.

I understand why many feel that way.

I simply disagree with it....and the reason is in my analogy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I agree with that.

I do not think is would ever be right to remove one group's right to vote. Unless they are illegals or prisoners

Well technically illegals have NEVER had the right to vote.

But we do have a society now in which 50% of the population is dependent in some way on government for their living while roughly 50% of the same population is paying little or nothing in income taxes. So if we give those who are dependent on the rest of us the power to say how much the rest of us will contribute to THEIR welfare, how is that different than me demanding how much you will share of what you have with me? And once I have the power to tell you how much you will be required to share, what is to stop me from taking everything you have?

 

[Jarhead]

Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.

This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?

It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.

I disagree with the Carlin line.

People believe that those that "get" but do not "give" will likely vote for "themselves"....and not vote for what is best for the nation as a whole.

Has nothing to do about not caring about people.

But, again, I disagree with the idea of banning a law abiding citizen from voting.

 

[PixieStix]

Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.

This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?

It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.

I disagree with the Carlin line.

People believe that those that "get" but do not "give" will likely vote for "themselves"....and not vote for what is best for the nation as a whole.

Has nothing to do about not caring about people.

But, again, I disagree with the idea of banning a law abiding citizen from voting.

I actually disagree with the George Carlin line as well. I know better than that.

THE most compassionate people I have ever know are conservatives. I have know some pretty nice lefties too

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You make a profit off of every employee

Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do

They also profit more from infrastructure

 

[rightwinger]

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

Because the military has special programs that protect only the wealthy.
Because the legal system only protects intellectual property of wealthy people
Because the educational system exists to provide trained workers, and no wealthy person ever went through that same system.
Because the infrastucture is available only to wealthy people making money and not to averaage people buying good and services and going to work.

Who was it who talked about Two Americas? They exist. Only in the mind of Nutsucker.

I think your opponent here is getting programs that provide for the "general welfare" mixed up with those that provide for "specific welfare" and does not know the difference.

Interesting...

Why don't you explain the difference to me

 

[Publius1787]

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.

You make a profit off of every employee

Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do

They also profit more from infrastructure

Seems like they're utilizing the fruits of their liberty well. What's keeping everyone else from doing the same?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

You make a profit off of every employee

Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do

They also profit more from infrastructure

without infrastructure I would not have been able to run a business.

Without my business, many would not have had jobs.

Your argument is flawed.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

You make a profit off of every employee

Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do

They also profit more from infrastructure

without infrastructure I would not have been able to run a business.

Without my business, many would not have had jobs.

Your argument is flawed.

Yes, he is more of a Marxist form of Hobbs than he is a Locke.

 

[kaz]

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.

You make a profit off of every employee

Business benefits more from our military presence around the globe than private citizens do

They also profit more from infrastructure

Every employee also profits off of me. I put in all the money, I take all the risk, and if we go bust I lose all my money. They get paid no matter what unless I go under.

And yet seriously, "I" am only to be grateful to them? Nothing coming back?

No wonder you lived paycheck to paycheck your whole life, now you live welfare check to welfare check. You're not a Marxist, you're an ignorant, greedy, envious, unappreciative loser who would starve if no one paid your bills.

 

[Jarhead]

Given that virtually everyone who argues that the franchise should be extended only to those who pay taxes are on the right reinforces the notion of George Carlin's saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Conservatives care about property, liberals care about people.

This argument presumes that the only thing that matters as a citizen is income. That is so ludicrously wrong, it's hard to believe any clear-thinking individual would even think so. There are many issues that affect everyone as a nation, whether or not you pay taxes, from war to the environment. If someone is out of work and collecting social assistance, or someone is retired and on social security, or someone is just poor, they shouldn't have a say over whether the government can send your kid off to war, or whether a chemical plant gets built by your house?

It's amazing how tone deaf and detached from reality so many on the right are these days.

I disagree with the Carlin line.

People believe that those that "get" but do not "give" will likely vote for "themselves"....and not vote for what is best for the nation as a whole.

Has nothing to do about not caring about people.

But, again, I disagree with the idea of banning a law abiding citizen from voting.

I actually disagree with the George Carlin line as well. I know better than that.

THE most compassionate people I have ever know are conservatives. I have know some pretty nice lefties too

You know better than that becuase you have taken the time to understand why people of different ideologies think as they do.

One does not have to agree with another's sentiments......but to understand them allows for a civil and honest debate.