Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[Publius1787]

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

What did you think of my response?

 

[goldcatt]

Out of depth? I can always tell when my opponet in debate is losing an arguement when they result to laughing smilies for emotional effect. Its just as bad as writing "lol", or "yawn", or "roflmao" or whatever it is. Always designed to portray a false image of ones self that is just as annoying as a fella making a fake yawn or laugh to assist in showing that they are right when all else points otherwise.

My poll says, should welfare recipiants be allowed to vote. Lets just leave it at that. People who are dependant on government and get far more back in taxes then they pay in. It doesent change the fact that they should not be voting.

Then just ask the question and leave the specious arguments, excuses and rationales out of it. They fail. Abysmally.

And the answer would STILL be....no, you cannot take away any citizen's right to vote based on their wealth or lack thereof. That is discriminatory under the 14th. It still doesn't get you around Harper.

It also doesn't answer the question of how you're going to define "welfare", or get tens of millions of people to sit back quietly while you take their liberty and representation from them, but I suppose you have a plan for subduing them too. After all, they have no money - they have no right to liberty.

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote on the bacis of dependancy is discriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is discriminatory as well! If there is a such thing as discriminating against low income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all discrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages. However, my method really doesent qualify as discriminating against the low income. TRUE DISCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for you! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer. Yes. voting wealth away from others and in to your own pockes is definantly the most pure form of discrimination. That rationality certianly doesent fail! In fact, the failure is all yours!

Just a small point of order. When your post has already been quoted and a reply given, it's bad form to go back and edit it. Not that you made it more germane, rational or coherent....but now you know.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course, you cant address it. Ive just shown you that 2+2=4 ; not 5 as you say it does. Read my signature once more please.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am. If in fact, it was incoherent babble. I am badly misimformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political minority.

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

 

[snjmom]

Your 2+2 does not equal 4.

Excellent! Thus, if not allowing people to vote is descriminatory then the progressive income tax, and also, taxing people to pay for others is descriminatory as well!

In what way are these the same? Not allowing people to vote is a abrogation of their civil duty and right from which they cannot be severed without incarceration. The progressive income tax is indeed constitutional nor is it discriminatory, as the amount you earn is not a protected status like race, creed, color, former status or sex.

If there is a such thing as descriminating against low income citizens there is also, by your own admission, descriminating against high income citizens. Thus no welfare! So we are either anti all descrimination and no welfare, or welfare and ability to take away their voting privilages.

2+2 = false dichotomy. One can certainly be against discrimination and still support a social safety net.

However, my method really doesent qualify as descriminating against the low income. TRUE DESCRIMINATION IS VOTING FOR SERVICES THAT YOU DO NOT PAY FOR but expect others to pay for! Thus taking away their right to vote is actually anti descriminatory! When you judge everything on the bacis of liberty the world gets much clearer.

Voting for services that you do not pay for is not possible. We all pay. We all pay for services that we don't receive.


Now, if you want to advocate for reversible sterilization when applying for services, you have a discussion. One doesn't lose citizenship status based on what government services one uses. A criminal trial costs on average 20,000. Are you suggesting that those that haven't paid 20,000 in taxes that year should lose the right to vote in order to avail themselves of their right to a jury trial?

 

[goldcatt]

Of course, you cant address it. Ive just shown you that 2+2=4 ; not 5 as you say it does. Read my signature once more please.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am; if in fact, it was incoherent babble.

I am badly misinformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political outcast section.

No, somehow I don't think I have any need to jump in and show how stupid you are.

I have no idea what "guied" means, but being in the political majority or minority in your beliefs has nothing to do with your willingness to address facts or your mastery of the English language.

 

[xotoxi]

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

What did you think of my response?

Your reponse didn't address the post.

 

[Revere]

It would be far easier to insist anyone who earns income pays Federal income taxes.

Or would it?

 

[Publius1787]

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am. If in fact, it was incoherent babble. I am badly misimformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political minority.

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

Denying the vote to thoes who "fail" to pay a tax is unconstitutional. However, denying the vote to thoes that not only pay no taxes but also get more back than they pay in is perfectly constitutional. And there are plenty who get more back than they pay in to Social Security and Medicare. Especially if they are dependant on the government! But lets keep it to people who qualify both ways and are dependant on other taxpayers.

The english language has meaning. The word "fail" was put there for a reason. Because people couldent afford the poll tax.

 

[goldcatt]

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am. If in fact, it was incoherent babble. I am badly misimformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political minority.

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

What did you think of my response?

Your reponse didn't address the post.

Sure it did. What didnt I answer?

 

[Publius1787]

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am. If in fact, it was incoherent babble. I am badly misimformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political minority.

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

 

[Publius1787]

Just fyi..right now the feds REQUIRE that welfare workers offer to register applicants to vote. It is OUR responsibility to offer it to them, to get it stamped and mailed, to keep a record, AND to provide registration apps in our lobbies.

Yes. Its in the motor voter law if I am not mistaken and if I correctly labled it. Theres alot of democrat supporters among the dependant!

 

[Revere]

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

The EPA, DOE, and DHHS are good examples of that. They all levy taxes but do not answer to a representative form of government.

 

[Publius1787]

Nope, I can't address it. It's incoherent babble. Worse, it not only does not address but isn't remotely related to the actual facts, constitutional provisions, or jurisprudence concerning the right to vote.

I reiterate, you're either badly misinformed or a fraud. Take yer pick.

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am; if in fact, it was incoherent babble.

I am badly misinformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political outcast section.

No, somehow I don't think I have any need to jump in and show how stupid you are.

I have no idea what "guied" means, but being in the political majority or minority in your beliefs has nothing to do with your willingness to address facts or your mastery of the English language.

Weve been over this. the smiley says it all!

 

[goldcatt]

What? It is Unconstitutional to limit voting to those that pay taxes. However your entire premise is wrong to begin with, you see anyone that works DOES pay taxes , like FICA and medicare. Even if their personal tax is returned to them they do not get those taxes back.

You want it limited? Get an Amendment created and get it passed.

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

You don't read links either, I see. Voting is a right. Under the 14th Amendment it is classified as a fundamental right of liberty which, once given, cannot be taken away without due process of law and to which equal protection applies.

That's very basic 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Publius1787]

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

The EPA, DOE, and DHHS are good examples of that. They all levy taxes but do not answer to a representative form of government.

I'm not sure about the others but the DHS, in relation to immigration, charges only thoes who are using the service. I like that idea!

 

[Revere]

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

The EPA, DOE, and DHHS are good examples of that. They all levy taxes but do not answer to a representative form of government.

I'm not sure about the others but the DHS, in relation to immigration, charges only thoes who are using the service. I like that idea!

The creation of those agencies resulted in rights being taken away.

 

[goldcatt]

If that were ture then it would be easy to refute. And though you say you dont understand it you would jump on the oppertunity to show just how stupid I am; if in fact, it was incoherent babble.

I am badly misinformed because liberty is my guied on everything political and that certainly puts me in the political outcast section.

No, somehow I don't think I have any need to jump in and show how stupid you are.

I have no idea what "guied" means, but being in the political majority or minority in your beliefs has nothing to do with your willingness to address facts or your mastery of the English language.

Weve been over this. the smiley says it all!

The smiley bugs you, does it?

So sorry.

You see, the board has a list of smileys for posters to use as they please.

And I happen to like 'em.

It detracts nothing from the facts or logic of my statements.

It merely adds a bit of levity and a visual break to an otherwise dry topic that a fair number of people seem to be following.

That's assuming the number of views on the thread is any indication of people actually following, of course.

So....you might as well get used to the fact that people will use the tools of the board as they see fit.

Not as YOU demand.

 

[Publius1787]

Yep. And good luck getting people to vote their rights away, or politicians to support it.

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

You don't read links either, I see. Voting is a right. Under the 14th Amendment it is classified as a fundamental right of liberty which, once given, cannot be taken away without due process of law and to which equal protection applies.

That's very basic 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever read the whole 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment is in fact an admission that the States can descided who votes and who does not! It only punishes the states for denying the vote through less representation. But it does not take away the right of the States to choose who votes! Besides, if the right to vote was a liberty guarenteed under the 14th Amendment than there would be no need for the 15th, 19th, or the 24th amendments wich are also admissions that the States can deny the privilage of voting on whatever bacis they want except thoes exceptions. I know the 14th Amendment inside and out from the interpritation of the 14th Amendment, to the debates in congress, to the ratification by the states.


Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[goldcatt]

Voting is not a right. It is a privilage. And people vote rights away all the time. Though they usualy dont vote for the politition who will vote their rights away, but for the guy who votes the rights of others away for their own benefit. If you dont pay for the services you are voting for then you shouldent be able to vote for a service that others will pay for you.

You don't read links either, I see. Voting is a right. Under the 14th Amendment it is classified as a fundamental right of liberty which, once given, cannot be taken away without due process of law and to which equal protection applies.

That's very basic 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever read the whole 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment is in fact an admission that the States can descided who votes and who does not! It only punishes the states for denying the vote through less representation. But it does not take away the right of the States to choose who votes! Besides, if the right to vote was a liberty guarenteed under the 14th Amendment than there would be no need for the 15th, 19th, or the 24th amendments wich are also admissions that the States can deny the privilage of voting on whatever bacis they want except thoes exceptions. I know the 14th Amendment inside and out, from the debates in congress to the ratification by the states.


Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either, I see.

Oooooh, you're going to be fun!