Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?

[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?

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

How do the first and last distinguish themselves from the second?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


direct or pure democracy and democracy are not the same thing

From your link and the very first sentence.

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

I don't disagree with any of that. I simply do not think that denying one group over another is a legitimate means to curing a problem that can be solved by simply making the case for a return to the rule of law.

Not any one of us is so mighty that we can say, "Those who take welfare cannot vote for their self interest", while we continue to vote for our self interest simply because we are productive and pay our way.

To Me, it distills down to this. The weakness of the argument is in the poorly argued and oft quoted need to "promote the general welfare'. Clearly, there is no room to provide the general welfare, so the answer does not lie in denying liberty to the citizens, but restricting power of the Fed.

 

[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.

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

It is. But two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing out equal protection, along with the loss of property rights inherent in welfare redistribution, simply adds insult to injury.

 

[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.

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

AKA ..mob rule...much as this Republic has been transformed into over the past 100 years...Dead on.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

see the right hates democracy

That's why I love this country. We are a Constitutional Republic.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.


REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You're going to have to pick better examples for your question. In each case, Medicare and education are paid services. In other words, the people using them pay for them directly. Welfare, food stamps and other safety net programs are paid out of the general fund from taxes. The recipient may or may not have paid into the taxes that contribute, but they are using resources directly; in an atmosphere of abuse and fraud. It is more than prudent to ensure that the charity is not being misused to continue a lifestyle that does not work toward removing the individual from the charity.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

 

[The T]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

WHY do you ignore The Federalists? THE BEST SOURCE.

Educate yourself, stop relying on revisionist PAP.

 

[Truthmatters]

jeffersons words are not revisionism

neither is the dictionary definition you complete idiot

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

 

[Truthmatters]

Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


direct or pure democracy and democracy are not the same thing

From your link and the very first sentence.

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

what did Jefferson call us?

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

 

[The T]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

YOU rely on sources that change with ebb and flow of SOCIETAL CHANGE...but refuse to see truth...YOU should change your name...you belie it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

The last few links I've seen you post have been from Wikipedia.

And neither link helped your argument because you still think we are a democracy and we're not and never have been.

 

[Darkwind]

why do you refuse every bit of the best sources?

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

Yep. That is why it is often denied in peer reviewed works. Wikipedia is capricious and can be altered at a whim, for far to many motivations other than truth.

It does, however; make for an excellent research tool in locating reliable resources that can be trusted.

 

[The T]

jeffersons words are not revisionism

neither is the dictionary definition you complete idiot

There were more Founders than Jefferson...and HE conceded to a REPUBLIC...But go on...

 

[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.

these people are what to you?

 

[The T]

Wikipedia is not the best, it's actually the worst. IMO

the meriam Webster dictionary ?

The last few links I've seen you post have been from Wikipedia.

And neither link helped your argument because you still think we are a democracy and we're not and never have been.

But the Progressives are transforming us into with a vengeance over the past 100 years...

 

[Truthmatters]

jeffersons words are not revisionism

neither is the dictionary definition you complete idiot

There were more Founders than Jefferson...and HE conceded to a REPUBLIC...But go on...

dear fucking idiot,

a republic in which the reps are picked by the people IS a type of democracy

 

[The T]

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.

these people are what to you?

You still don't get it...and re-quoting yourself doesn't change it.