Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[The T]

I will take Jefferson over you any time T

Even Jefferson Conceded. Tell us WHY the Articles Of Confederation didn't succeed and The Constitution DID?

 

[Truthmatters]

Now after you read that and UNDERSTAND it maybe you will realize that if we so choose we can let non citizens vote huh?


how does that make you feel about your GREAT knowledge of the constitution?

 

[Truthmatters]

I will take Jefferson over you any time T

Even Jefferson Conceded. Tell us WHY the Articles Of Confederation didn't succeed and The Constitution DID?

he called us a democracy fool

 

[The T]

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

And what does that MEAN? Republic...WE are governed by the RULE OF LAW...not MOB RULE which Democracy IS...And why the Articles Of Confederation FAILED.

Your turn.

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

 

[The T]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

And what does that MEAN? Republic...WE are governed by the RULE OF LAW...not MOB RULE which Democracy IS...And why the Articles Of Confederation FAILED.

Your turn.

what you just said dosent comport with the dictionary definition of democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are United Nations member states. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes.

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights

plural de·moc·ra·cies













EasyBib






Full Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

[Darkwind]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

She doesn't understand that we are not a Democracy. Plato and Aristotle correctly categorized democracy as tyrannical.

 

[dblack]

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?

Absolutely not.

I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.

This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties and the powers of the federal government are the basic powers necessary to both secure those negative liberties and provide services that the states cannot under a federal system. That is all. The problem is that the electorate has been corrupted and that is no longer the role of the US constitution. It is no longer an objective document but a subjective document that can magically change without so much as an amendment. If leftists want to change the constitution they should amend it. They don't do that. They give freebies for votes and then make up the powers they deem necessary so as to gain more votes along with implementing justices who think there are virtually no limits to the powers of congress. It's a death spiral whereas the constitution means nothing and everything all at the same time. It has corrupted politics both on the individual and corporate levels by expanding the limited powers of congress well beyond the confines of the Constitution. Therefore, you question is valid, but not for the reason you think it is.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

 

[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?

Absolutely not.

I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.

This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.

With regard to your last paragraph, on that I disagree. If, for whatever reason, you need to use the safety net provided by our society, we should have a means to ensure that you are not abusing that charity. I consider it along the same lines as fraud.

 

[Truthmatters]

Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


direct or pure democracy and democracy are not the same thing

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Countries and Regions[edit]

The following countries or regions are categorized by the Democracy Index 2012 as Full democracy:[64]


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand

6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. Luxembourg
12. Austria
13. Ireland
14. Germany
15. Malta

16. United Kingdom
17. Czech Republic
18. Uruguay
19. Mauritius
20. South Korea

21. United States of America
22. Costa Rica
23. Japan
24. Belgium
25. Spain

Nice list...and means WHAT? Nothing.

She doesn't understand that we are not a Democracy. Plato and Aristotle correctly categorized democracy as tyrannical.

go get the direct quotes in context

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

I would say .......yes to the first and last questions.

 

[Truthmatters]

see the right hates democracy

 

[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?

Absolutely not.

I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.

This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.

Is taxation without representation wrong?
I representation without taxation wrong?

 

[dblack]

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?

Absolutely not.

I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.

This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.

With regard to your last paragraph, on that I disagree. If, for whatever reason, you need to use the safety net provided by our society, we should have a means to ensure that you are not abusing that charity. I consider it along the same lines as fraud.

You don't see the slippery slope involved in that kind of thinking? Would you agree to similar justification for, say, extra scrutiny for parents who tap the 'charity' of public education? Should Medicare enrollees be held to equal standards?

I think we need to draw a line on that kind of encroachment, and fight the welfare crap head on. Otherwise we risk letting it do far more damage than simply redistributing wealth.