Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[bendog]

First of all, no one is totally immune from paying taxes. Even if a person falls below the poverty level they still end up paying state and local taxes. Second, you do realize that some of those 47% belong to the wealthy, don't you? Should a man who is able to hide his money and pay little or no tax be allowed to vote when you are saying that people living below the poverty level who are unable to pay taxes should be denied the vote?

You understand your second post contradicts your first, right?
The bttom line is you are OK with lower income people paying no taxes. You jsut want to stick higher income people because you think you're punishing them.

Look, maybe you cannot grasp this simple concept: The people living below the poverty level do not pay taxes because they cannot pay taxes. There is a difference between not being able to pay taxes and hiding your money so you have little or no taxes to pay.
And as for being '"OK' with lower income people paying no taxes," I am not happy with that but at the same time I realize that you cannot get blood out of a stone. If a person can barely feed himself and his family is it fair to make him pay taxes? Oh, and as for "sticking higher income people," how about those who are using tax dodges to avoid paying tax be forced to carry their share of the load? There is a difference between being unable to pay taxes due to poverty and being able to pay taxes but hiding your money to avoid doing so.

And those people do pay taxes on goods and rent purchased with dollars they earned.

 

[The T]

On the other hand I've heard Hannity's man on the street one to many times. Maybe we should have a voter test?

And how fun would that be? Just coming up with a voter test?

I'd love to see a small test that demonstrates that people understand the basic workings of government and the Constitution. After all? Aren't legalized aliens taking tests to demonstrate knowledge before they are granted citizenship? We have citizens born here that could care less about anything except what the TAXPAYER will give them through politicians and their vote buying schemes for power.

I'd love to see a true test. I "in the words of a great American" YOU BETTCHA " See who you are voting for?

No colors. Real deal. No Party line beside them. Whoa geeze some fun.

Only their names.

Parties ARE destroying this Republic...that is for sure. I like the idea...names only NO party next to the name. MAN! Would it put the moocher class in a tizzy?

 

[Darkwind]

It occurs to me that we could initiate a 0.1% national sales tax with no exemptions and that would make everyone who consumed anything a taxpayer. Would such a solution be satisfactory to the Right? I think I could sell it to the most ardent on the Left. Everyone would have "skin in the game".

I don't get it. My son words a low wage job. I was just looking at his pay stub the other day.
And guess what? He is definitely paying taxes. Federal taxes, state and local.

So at tax time he will file on the income earned and qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit.
Which will give him back all his Federal taxes he paid in.

How in the fuck is it my sons (or any other low wage workers) fault that the tax code was written in this manner?

You all got a problem with low wage workers and the EIC, take it up with your Congressperson. They are the ones making tax law. And poor people don't have much in the way of lobbyists.

You are blaming the wrong people. It ain't the poor persons fault they get a refund of all taxes paid in. How could it be their fault?

Are you really gonna blame them for taking advantage of tax law? Good God.

By extension, those who do pay taxes, and end up owing taxes at filing time, are hardly to blame for taking tax advantages that are written into the law.

It works both ways.

 

[zeke]

How about low wage workers? The ones that pay no taxes (according to most right wingers on here) because they qualify for the EIC?

And they also qualify for assistance even though working. You know, food stamps, heat assistance, housing vouchers etc.

Should poor working people be allowed to vote? You know they mostly vote Democratic.

 

[zeke]

It occurs to me that we could initiate a 0.1% national sales tax with no exemptions and that would make everyone who consumed anything a taxpayer. Would such a solution be satisfactory to the Right? I think I could sell it to the most ardent on the Left. Everyone would have "skin in the game".

I don't get it. My son words a low wage job. I was just looking at his pay stub the other day.
And guess what? He is definitely paying taxes. Federal taxes, state and local.

So at tax time he will file on the income earned and qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit.
Which will give him back all his Federal taxes he paid in.

How in the fuck is it my sons (or any other low wage workers) fault that the tax code was written in this manner?

You all got a problem with low wage workers and the EIC, take it up with your Congressperson. They are the ones making tax law. And poor people don't have much in the way of lobbyists.

You are blaming the wrong people. It ain't the poor persons fault they get a refund of all taxes paid in. How could it be their fault?

Are you really gonna blame them for taking advantage of tax law? Good God.

By extension, those who do pay taxes, and end up owing taxes at filing time, are hardly to blame for taking tax advantages that are written into the law.

It works both ways.

Well no shit. Feel free to point out where I said other wage earners SHOULDN'T TAKE advantage of the tax code. I pencil whip the shit out of my taxes. Don't you?

But nice try to deflect. Why you do that? Couldn't think of a better response to what I said?

 

[Truthmatters]

No.

Next question.

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

not letting poor people vote?

is that your freedomy plan?


so all you have to do is make people poor and you can kept them from voting huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.




what you need to find more ways to cheat people out of their votes to steal elections ?

 

[Seawytch]

Means testing for voting went out scores of years ago.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right doesn't like Democracy anymore

 

[Publius1787]

No.

Next question.

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

not letting poor people vote?

is that your freedomy plan?


so all you have to do is make people poor and you can kept them from voting huh?

Someone didn't read the op.

 

[The T]

the right doesn't like Democracy anymore

We NEVER did TDM...Neither did the Founders.

Learn it, Live it, KNOW it.

 

[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?

To complex a situation to answer in a thread like this. The remedies and answers are a bit simplistic.

If you restrict entities from voting because they receive benefits from society, what is to prevent those who can vote from dismantling all safety nets for their own personal gain?

You see, that is what you are essentially asking.

Should we allow people to vote for their own personal gain? If not, then how do you prevent the other extreme from doing exactly that too?

If the bottom line is 'you cannot be allowed to vote for your own personal interest', then who is left that can vote?

That's an easy question to answer. Simply abide by the US constitution and don't exceed the powers under Art 1 Sect 8. Indeed, it was a welfare program that busted article one open to personal/corporate gain.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't get it. My son words a low wage job. I was just looking at his pay stub the other day.
And guess what? He is definitely paying taxes. Federal taxes, state and local.

So at tax time he will file on the income earned and qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit.
Which will give him back all his Federal taxes he paid in.

How in the fuck is it my sons (or any other low wage workers) fault that the tax code was written in this manner?

You all got a problem with low wage workers and the EIC, take it up with your Congressperson. They are the ones making tax law. And poor people don't have much in the way of lobbyists.

You are blaming the wrong people. It ain't the poor persons fault they get a refund of all taxes paid in. How could it be their fault?

Are you really gonna blame them for taking advantage of tax law? Good God.

By extension, those who do pay taxes, and end up owing taxes at filing time, are hardly to blame for taking tax advantages that are written into the law.

It works both ways.

Well no shit. Feel free to point out where I said other wage earners SHOULDN'T TAKE advantage of the tax code. I pencil whip the shit out of my taxes. Don't you?

But nice try to deflect. Why you do that? Couldn't think of a better response to what I said?

The entire lefts paradigm is that those who pay taxes are evil for taking advantages of the tax code. Even so far as to label them as "subsidies"....

Since you more often than not come down on the side of the left, I thought I'd just point out that it works both ways.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right doesn't like Democracy anymore

We NEVER did TDM...Neither did the Founders.

Learn it, Live it, KNOW it.

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

 

[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.

You are insane. Anyone who thinks that voting is not a fundamental right in a darn democracy is completely delusional. No one has a right to money. Did anyone claim that? But the act of receiving money should not arbitrarily forfeit your right to participate in a democracy. Whatever happened to representative democracy? Everyone deserves representation.

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.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Again and again, the United States has demonstrated that voting rights shall not be denied to anyone based on gender, race, sex, age, servitude, or failure to pay money. Do we really need to specify that receiving money also doesn't forfeit your right to vote? And yes, it is a right, as stated numerous times in these Constitutional amendments. It is not a darn privilege.

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

I will take Jefferson over you any time T

 

[Darkwind]

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?

To complex a situation to answer in a thread like this. The remedies and answers are a bit simplistic.

If you restrict entities from voting because they receive benefits from society, what is to prevent those who can vote from dismantling all safety nets for their own personal gain?

You see, that is what you are essentially asking.

Should we allow people to vote for their own personal gain? If not, then how do you prevent the other extreme from doing exactly that too?

If the bottom line is 'you cannot be allowed to vote for your own personal interest', then who is left that can vote?

That's an easy question to answer. Simply abide by the US constitution and don't exceed the powers under Art 1 Sect 8. Indeed, it was a welfare program that busted article one open to personal/corporate gain.

I am always an advocate of the Constitution. Even if it is at My own personal expense. I understand the long term win over the short term personal gain.

However, I needed to clarify what was being asked. Far to many people on this forum, and in this country, advocate that the right or even the GOP should not be permitted to vote.

My contention is simple. If you cannot vote the way that you feel best fits your personal beliefs and needs, then no one would be permitted to vote at all.

What would be the point of having a Constitution if that were the case?

I simply require that people act within the rule of law and the framework of the Constitution.

 

[Truthmatters]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Voting rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is relevant at both the federal and state levels. Currently, only American citizens can vote in U.S. federal elections.[1] Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.

Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who could vote and was simply built around a concept of rights of "person", with voting not explicitly included in the rights. When the country was founded, in most states, only non-Negro men with real property-usually of at least 50 acres- (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote.[citation needed] Women could vote in New Jersey, provided they could meet the property requirement, and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Men and women of color could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied men and women, including slaves, were largely denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[2]

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[3] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.[4]

As described below, voting rights reforms have significantly expanded access to the ballot for women, non-whites, non-Protestants, those who lack wealth, and those 18–21 years old. However, the ranks of elected officials remain disproportionately white, wealthy, male, and older. For example, the 112th Congress (2010-2011) was 83% male, 8% black and 6% Hispanic (compared to 13% and 16% of the population as a whole), and the average age of Senators was 62 years and Representatives was 57 years (compared to a national median age of 37).[5] And their median net worth was $913,000 which is roughly 9 times greater than the median net worth of all U.S. households.[6]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[7]

 

[Publius1787]

No.

Next question.

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

If elections were won or lost on ideas and not money, the current crop of GOP Pols would lose every election. Demagoguery only works on those who are easily and always fooled.

Democrats made elections about money when they busted up article one section eight under the guise of the "general welfare." Now government corruption, cronyism, and power is at an all time high. Indeed, the bigger the government gets the more elections become about money. You may thank FDR!

 

[The T]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is NO RIGHT in the Constitution to vote in a FEDERAL ELECTION.