Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[Kosh]

Say it with me --- "Republicans were in charge of Congress. They get the blame"

It's rather telling though how you focus on the last 7 years, which you framed as a "Democrat federally elected political power control at a minimum of 66.6 %," which was your way to say Democrats are responsible for the last 7 years -- yet you blame 4 members of the minority Democrat party during a period when Republicans controlled 100% of the legislative and executive branches.

Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

Seems you're both a partisan AND a hypocrite.

The last 2 years of the Bush Presidency Democrats controlled the House and Senate..

Would you rather not acknowledge that fact?

Why would I deny that? I'm not a brain-dead rightie who denies reality. Plus, it's irrelevant to my point about the damage Republicans have done to the country.

But how about answering my question ... Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

So instead you over look and ignore the last two years as you voted the problems into office.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

James Madison certainly spoke eloquently and convincingly of why property qualifications were advisable. However, I think taxes should be enough. If you pay more in taxes than you receive then you should be able to vote. If taxation without representation is wrong so is representation without taxation.

Extremely few people in the country pay no taxes. A good portion of them retired people who vote more republican.

If you get more back in tax rebates and welfare than you pay in via income tax you should not be allowed to vote. There is no way in hell that a welfare recipient pays more in taxes than he gets in TANF, food stamps, electrical assistance, section 8 housing, Medicaid, free transportation, and tax rebates. No way in hell! He is a net drain and for him to vote is a conflict of interest.

This is not only ignorant, it’s also hateful, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

A statute seeking to deny those receiving public assistance their fundamental right to vote is completely devoid of a rational basis and a proper legislative end; such a statute seeks only to disadvantage those receiving public assistance motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, violating both their right to due process and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

It’s becoming more and more difficult to not come to the conclusion that ignorance and hate are not prerequisites for being conservative, as well as utter contempt for the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Say it with me --- "Republicans were in charge of Congress. They get the blame"

It's rather telling though how you focus on the last 7 years, which you framed as a "Democrat federally elected political power control at a minimum of 66.6 %," which was your way to say Democrats are responsible for the last 7 years -- yet you blame 4 members of the minority Democrat party during a period when Republicans controlled 100% of the legislative and executive branches.

Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

Seems you're both a partisan AND a hypocrite.

The last 2 years of the Bush Presidency Democrats controlled the House and Senate..

Would you rather not acknowledge that fact?

Why would I deny that? I'm not a brain-dead rightie who denies reality. Plus, it's irrelevant to my point about the damage Republicans have done to the country.

But how about answering my question ... Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.

Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..

 

[Lumpy 1]

We could no longer consider ourselves to be a free and independent nation if we start putting our citizens into classes and using the ballot box to silence their voices.

Sherry, of course is correct but it's still tempting...

Pitting the financially advantaged against the financially disadvantaged does us all a disservice. I seriously fucking despise class warfare...now behave yourself.

You hurt my feelings yet I feel strangely inspired...

 

[S.J.]

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?

Do you receive employer sponsored health insurance?

Do you have a mortgage?

Then you are receiving welfare.

Wrong. Employer sponsored health insurance is part of your salary. It's not free.
A mortgage is a loan you pay back.
Welfare is a handout.

 

[Kosh]

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?

Do you receive employer sponsored health insurance?

Do you have a mortgage?

Then you are receiving welfare.

Wrong. Employer sponsored health insurance is part of your salary. It's not free.
A mortgage is a loan you pay back.
Welfare is a handout.

Don't confuse the newly anointed far left Obama drone with facts.

 

[Publius1787]

Extremely few people in the country pay no taxes. A good portion of them retired people who vote more republican.

If you get more back in tax rebates and welfare than you pay in via income tax you should not be allowed to vote. There is no way in hell that a welfare recipient pays more in taxes than he gets in TANF, food stamps, electrical assistance, section 8 housing, Medicaid, free transportation, and tax rebates. No way in hell! He is a net drain and for him to vote is a conflict of interest.

This is not only ignorant, it’s also hateful, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

A statute seeking to deny those receiving public assistance their fundamental right to vote is completely devoid of a rational basis and a proper legislative end; such a statute seeks only to disadvantage those receiving public assistance motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, violating both their right to due process and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

It’s becoming more and more difficult to not come to the conclusion that ignorance and hate are not prerequisites for being conservative, as well as utter contempt for the Constitution and its case law.

Yeah, you've already said that and I've already replied. Oh, and in the United States voting has always been a privilege. You can in fact be a US citizen without the right to vote. Ergo it is a privilege. Especially if you commit a felony by taking the lives, liberties, or property of others. Oh, wait.... taking the lives, liberties, or property of others = losing the privilege to vote? What a novel idea!

If you get more back in tax rebates and welfare than you pay in via income tax you should not be allowed to vote. There is no way in hell that a welfare recipient pays more in taxes than he gets in TANF, food stamps, electrical assistance, section 8 housing, Medicaid, free transportation, and tax rebates. No way in hell! He is a net drain and for him to vote is a conflict of interest.

Ignorant nonsense.

To do so would be a clear 14th Amendment violation.

My God, there are people who think I'm making a Constitutional argument? Well if that's the case you would not need the 14th Amendment. What about the Twenty-fourth Amendment you goof!!?? Now I know that my question is completely unconstitutional in the affirmative and I know why, although, you certainly do not as the 14th Amendment does in fact specify what happens if you deny a population the privilege of voting. Therefore the 14th Amendment assumes that states have the right to deny the privilege of voting (As they did at the time). The amendment you're looking for is the 24th amendment as shown below. Talk about ignorance?

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Take the Bill of Rights down as your Avatar. You aren't worthy of anything constitutional!

 

[oreo]

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 they do conflict with the average working--taxpaying citizen. I don't believe public employee unions should be able to donate to candidates or political parties. You're right, corporations that receive government contracts should be prohibited from donating to candidates or political parties.

BUT--sometimes people find themselves in trouble and need TEMPORARY assistance until they get back on their feet--and they should be allowed to vote. Now those that have spent a lifetime on the government welfare system--who have never worked--never looked for a job--and or can't keep one--should probably be looked at for voting eligibility.

 

[Faun]

The last 2 years of the Bush Presidency Democrats controlled the House and Senate..

Would you rather not acknowledge that fact?

Why would I deny that? I'm not a brain-dead rightie who denies reality. Plus, it's irrelevant to my point about the damage Republicans have done to the country.

But how about answering my question ... Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.

Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..

You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.

You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."

 

[Kosh]

Why would I deny that? I'm not a brain-dead rightie who denies reality. Plus, it's irrelevant to my point about the damage Republicans have done to the country.

But how about answering my question ... Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??

No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.

Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..

You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.

You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."

More far left revisionism.

 

[Publius1787]

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 they do conflict with the average working--taxpaying citizen. I don't believe public employee unions should be able to donate to candidates or political parties. You're right, corporations that receive government contracts should be prohibited from donating to candidates or political parties.

BUT--sometimes people find themselves in trouble and need TEMPORARY assistance until they get back on their feet--and they should be allowed to vote. Now those that have spent a lifetime on the government welfare system--who have never worked--never looked for a job--and or can't keep one--should probably be looked at for voting eligibility.

So if we were to say that if you paid more in taxes than you took from the treasury during the last 2-4 year election cycle that would suffice?

 

[Faun]

No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.

Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..

You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.

You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."

More far left revisionism.

Oh? Which part do you contest? That the Democrat-led Congress delivered oversight during Bush's final two years or that the Republican-led Congress failed to pass oversight during the previous 4 years.

Be prepared to defend your idiocy with links ... your pre-K insults won't carry you.

 

[bripat9643]

Extremely few people in the country pay no taxes. A good portion of them retired people who vote more republican.

If you get more back in tax rebates and welfare than you pay in via income tax you should not be allowed to vote. There is no way in hell that a welfare recipient pays more in taxes than he gets in TANF, food stamps, electrical assistance, section 8 housing, Medicaid, free transportation, and tax rebates. No way in hell! He is a net drain and for him to vote is a conflict of interest.

This is not only ignorant, it’s also hateful, in addition to being un-Constitutional.

A statute seeking to deny those receiving public assistance their fundamental right to vote is completely devoid of a rational basis and a proper legislative end; such a statute seeks only to disadvantage those receiving public assistance motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, violating both their right to due process and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Horseshit. voting isn't anymore "fundamental" then drinking or starting a business, and government places all manner of limitations on those. Democracy is simply a means for the majority to loot the minority. Voting is no more a right than armed robbery is a right.

It’s becoming more and more difficult to not come to the conclusion that ignorance and hate are not prerequisites for being conservative, as well as utter contempt for the Constitution and its case law.

"Hate" is a liberal euphemism meaning "truth." You're right about one thing, I have utter contempt for the case law of the USSC and its preposterous rationalizations.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

Not only should it be a disqualification from voting, anyone on welfare should be stripped of their citizenship and deported to some deserted island.

 

[OccamsSabre]

Why in the world would receiving money disqualify you from a fundamental right, as provided in the 14th amendment, not to mention legislated in the Voting Rights Act? Should the elderly living on social security forfeit their right to vote as well? How about we just take away the right to vote from all the poor, or the unemployed, or the homeless, or those living on pensions?

As soon as we start taking away voting rights from people arbitrarily, this country ceases to be one of liberty and instead becomes an oligarchy. Why this question is even being taken seriously baffles me. It only serves to instill hate for those receiving welfare into the hearts of radical people and gives them something to whine about.

 

[Kosh]

You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.

You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."

More far left revisionism.

Oh? Which part do you contest? That the Democrat-led Congress delivered oversight during Bush's final two years or that the Republican-led Congress failed to pass oversight during the previous 4 years.

Be prepared to defend your idiocy with links ... your pre-K insults won't carry you.

You have not proven there was oversight, but yet want others to do what you refuse to do.

Typical far left Obama drone, posts propaganda and then expects others to prove them wrong.

Even a two year old would recognize this.(to come down to your level)

 

[Publius1787]

Why in the world would receiving money disqualify you from a fundamental right, as provided in the 14th amendment, not to mention legislated in the Voting Rights Act? Should the elderly living on social security forfeit their right to vote as well? How about we just take away the right to vote from all the poor, or the unemployed, or the homeless, or those living on pensions?

As soon as we start taking away voting rights from people arbitrarily, this country ceases to be one of liberty and instead becomes an oligarchy. Why this question is even being taken seriously baffles me. It only serves to instill hate for those receiving welfare into the hearts of radical people and gives them something to whine about.

My God there are too many people who invoke the words "fundamental right" and "14th Amendment" as if they knew what they were talking about. Indeed, if they think the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote they forgot to read the last few paragraphs of the 14th Amendment. Not to mention their lack of knowledge that there is a 24th Amendment, of which, would not have been necessary had the 14th Amendment did what they think it does. I blame the typical liberal misunderstanding of the constitution that leads them to think that it does anything they want it to, and therefore, why read this magically changing document that moves to their whims?

Of course, anyone who believes that you have a fundamental right someone else's money believes that voting had magically turned from a privilege to a right. The funny thing is that when you personally steal someone's life, liberty, or property in the midst of committing a felony you lose the right to vote. Democrats, on the other hand, will reward you by hindering the liberty of others while stealing their property in exchange or a vote. A conflict of interest? I think so.

 

[Politico]

No.

Next question.

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

That.

 

[Toro]

Should moving money you made in America you moved offshore into Cayman limited partnerships to avoid taxes be a disqualification for voting?

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

My answer is no to all, but I want to say yes to all. The constitution already does not allow for any of these things, so what's the point of making a second law set?