Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if...

[cybrsage]

Or how about we just cleanse the world of undesirables. Much simpler plan.

Yeah, but politics in the US would be boring after all the libs are gone.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if they have been receiving benefits for more than 3 years?

Thats just plain stupid! They are not criminals...they are still American citizens...

 

[monovillage]

Yes, in fact every person that receives more that 50% of their income from the government should be barred from voting since they can be bribed to vote for the person that promises to pay them more money. You want a 5% raise in your income next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the raise. It's just a legal form of bribery.

 

[woolfe9999]

*Edit from wolfe's study*




To be fair, they separate "Welfare" into "stigmatizing and discretionary" ( food stamps, housing assistance etc) and First Tier assistance ( Unemployment, SSDI, Workers Comp, etc)

The quotes above apply to the former, which seem to be what this discussion is focused on. *Unless you want to kick the blue hairs on SSI off the roles

Yes, thanks. I didn't feel like doing the cut and paste for her. The most interesting thing is that welfare recipients vote much less than others of similar socio-economic status. That means not only do poor people vote less, but welfare recipients vote less than poor people not on welfare.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Yes, because I consider federal workers and federal contractors to be receiving welfare benefits. The merchants of death, tax collectors, TSA agents, and FBI are much more disgusting than the mothers who have 8 kids and make no effort to do anything. It's worse to be completely destructive than completely non-productive.

Is your real name Ron Swanson?

 

[monovillage]

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville

Kinda like this.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yes, in fact every person that receives more that 50% of their income from the government should be barred from voting since they can be bribed to vote for the person that promises to pay them more money. You want a 5% raise in your income next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the raise. It's just a legal form of bribery.

Why do you want to disenfranchise the military and first responders?

 

[monovillage]

Why do you want to disenfranchise the military and first responders?

I toss it out as more of something that can be debated or discussed, not as a done deal so to speak. Military are often given exclusions to various laws, as are police and fire personnel. What percentage of voters in a large city depend on the government for their jobs? Does that concern for their job and money make them more likely to vote for a candidate offering pay increases? Is it a bribe?

 

[Wreckem]

The OP should've said "privelege to vote", because voting isn't a right. You can still have all of your votes if you don't vote, provided there was no state.

Uh. The right to vote was deemed a fundamental right by SCotUS a long time ago.

 

[soundforbjt]

Why do you want to disenfranchise the military and first responders?

Don't forget government contractors, members of Congress couldn't vote either.

 

[MovingTarget]

Yes, in fact every person that receives more that 50% of their income from the government should be barred from voting since they can be bribed to vote for the person that promises to pay them more money. You want a 5% raise in your income next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the raise. It's just a legal form of bribery.

How is that any different than "You want a 5% reduction in your income tax next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the reduction. It's just a legal form of bribery."?

Everyone...and by that I mean EVERYONE...has a stake in government. Everyone will have their own self interest in mind when they go to the voting booth. Such is democracy.

 

[monovillage]

How is that any different than "You want a 5% reduction in your income tax next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the reduction. It's just a legal form of bribery."?

Everyone...and by that I mean EVERYONE...has a stake in government. Everyone will have their own self interest in mind when they go to the voting booth. Such is democracy.

The reduction in taxes would apply to everyone, not just the people that live off the government. The other bribe I mentioned would only apply to the people on the government payroll. Not that I disagree with you point about everyone having a stake in good government.

 

[monovillage]

Don't forget government contractors, members of Congress couldn't vote either.

Most the laws they pass don't apply to the members of congress already, this would be nothing new.

 

[homercles337]

Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if they have been receiving benefits for more than 3 years?

Every single day i wonder how retarded, right-wing ATP&N can go, and every day i see more and more retarded shit.

 

[monovillage]

Every single day i wonder how retarded, right-wing ATP&N can go, and every day i see more and more retarded shit.

We value your contribution too.

 

[MovingTarget]

The reduction in taxes would apply to everyone, not just the people that live off the government. The other bribe I mentioned would only apply to the people on the government payroll. Not that I disagree with you point about everyone having a stake in good government.

It could go that way, or it could be a more targeted tax break (sorta like eliminating the estate tax, reducing capital rates, or reducing the top marginal rate while leaving lower ones untouched.) Unlikely, I know, but it is possible.

Honestly I think the point about people on government payroll is moot. If we didn't have secret ballot elections, then it would be an issue. As it stands, people have complete privacy in the voting booth. Government workers can vote anyway they want to without having to worry about who is paying them, same as everyone else.

 

[hal2kilo]

No. Also likely unconstitutional.

This.

 

[cybrsage]

― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


― Alexis de Tocqueville

Kinda like this.

Has a democratic form of government ever turned into something else via the methods he states?

Germany changed from a democratic government to a fascist one, but not because the people were promised money or goods...but because they were promised hope.

 

[cybrsage]

How is that any different than "You want a 5% reduction in your income tax next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the reduction.

If anyone actually tried this, the opposing party would probably do something insanely stupid like say it was a tax cut for the wealthy and the common people of the party would parrot them for decades to come, pretending a tax cut for everyone was merely a tax cut for the wealthy...

At least I imagine it would happen like that...not like we have an example to go off of or anything.

 

[Ronstang]

The reason to do it is to eliminate the conflict of interest that politicians have in creating a voting block out of disadvantaged people. If politicians effectively lose that voting block by creating a social service, then it will be kept as minimal and efficient as possible while still adequately providing for their needs.

There is NO way a liberal politician would ever go for that. Without the ability to buy votes their ranks would dwindle too quickly.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, in fact every person that receives more that 50% of their income from the government should be barred from voting since they can be bribed to vote for the person that promises to pay them more money. You want a 5% raise in your income next year? Vote for the guy or party that promises you the raise. It's just a legal form of bribery.

So, uhh, you'd accomplish that how, exactly, w/o amending the Constitution?

Are you saying that govt employees shouldn't be able to vote? Defense industry employees? Employees of contractors on govt projects? Really?

Perhaps we should all remember this the next time you start raving about the Constitution, huh?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I personally don't think any able-bodied person should be eligible to receive welfare benefits for 3 years, which would eliminate the issue. That being said, no, they should not lose the right to vote.

 

[monovillage]

So, uhh, you'd accomplish that how, exactly, w/o amending the Constitution?

Are you saying that govt employees shouldn't be able to vote? Defense industry employees? Employees of contractors on govt projects? Really?

Perhaps we should all remember this the next time you start raving about the Constitution, huh?

I have no intention of trying to pass a law or amend the Constitution to push the idea, why would you think I am?

I was pointing out that government employees of many types have a financial interest in voting for a politician or a party that tells them they will be raising their pay, increasing their benefits and protecting their employment. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and not accepting the reality of how many people depend on a government paycheck.

Remember whatever you want, i'd rather have you remember the quotations from Alexis de Tocqueville and maybe read up on him, but do what you wish.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have no intention of trying to pass a law or amend the Constitution to push the idea, why would you think I am?

Maybe because of what you offered-

Yes, in fact every person that receives more that 50% of their income from the government should be barred from voting since they can be bribed to vote for the person that promises to pay them more money.

"Should be" indicates that you're desirous of such a change, which would obviously require some legal & Constitutional underpinning, or are you backing away from that?

Feigned innocence is unbecoming on anybody, don't you think?

 

[monovillage]

Maybe because of what you offered-



"Should be" indicates that you're desirous of such a change, which would obviously require some legal & Constitutional underpinning, or are you backing away from that?

Feigned innocence is unbecoming on anybody, don't you think?

You're full of it on this issue as usual.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

should
verbal auxiliary \shəd, ˈshu̇d\
Definition of SHOULD
past of shall
1
&#8212;used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die &#8212; Genesis 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2
&#8212;used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so &#8212; Shakespeare> <this is as it should be &#8212; H. L. Savage> <you should brush your teeth after each meal>
3
&#8212;used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise &#8212; Ellen Glasgow>
4
&#8212;used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>
5
&#8212;used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide &#8230; is the first essential &#8212; L. D. Reddick>

This is one of the reasons i've mentioned semantics and definitions to Wolfe9999, the OP in another thread. You take the worst possible interpretation of a word and try to slam it into what I had posted, then you insult me about "feigned". I meant what I said and it isn't what you thought it meant. You were wrong.