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

[Munky]

Comprehension of what you typed isn't the problem... it's what you said that is stupid.

Everyone gets handouts from government, whether in the guise of social welfare or corporate welfare. So yes, receivers of benefits will tend to vote for those who promise more or the same amount of handouts.

Where your argument fails, though, is that the people the OP is referring to have lower turnout than most other groups of people. So the notion that this is a significant problem--significant enough to override very real and very serious constitutional concerns--is thoroughly stupid.

Fail. So what if they have a lower turnout, does that mean they generally don't vote, or their vote is inconsequential? It didn't stop people like "Obumma gonna pay my mortgage" from voting, so you tell me, does their vote count or not?

 

[zsdersw]

Fail. So what if they have a lower turnout, does that mean they generally don't vote, or their vote is inconsequential? It didn't stop people like "Obumma gonna pay my mortgage" from voting, so you tell me, does their vote count or not?

You're the expert at fail. It means they generally don't vote, which makes those few who do about as inconsequential as those who vote for the Green Party.

The "Obumma gonna pay my mortgage" types of people are no different than any other group of people who want some kind of handout or assistance from government. If you say one such group shouldn't be able to vote, why not any of the others?

 

[Skitzer]

Maybe they should lose the welfare, but in no event should a citizen lose the right to vote.

This

 

[Rainsford]

Fail. So what if they have a lower turnout, does that mean they generally don't vote, or their vote is inconsequential? It didn't stop people like "Obumma gonna pay my mortgage" from voting, so you tell me, does their vote count or not?

Of course their vote counts. Their motivations might be stupid, self-serving or damaging to the country as a whole in the long term...but they're hardly alone in that, are they? The system where Munky decides who has good enough motivations to be allowed to vote and who doesn't might work (although I sure wouldn't want to live in that system), but it definitely wouldn't be a democracy.

Think about it. You find voting to get money to pay your mortgage to be sufficiently bad that such a person shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Fair enough, I guess. But if *I* was the omnipotent decider, I'd probably have to say I find voting to keep gay people as second class citizens is bad enough that such a person shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Even if the basic idea of allowing only "good" votes wasn't ridiculously un-democratic, who decides?

 

[Munky]

You're the expert at fail. It means they generally don't vote, which makes those few who do about as inconsequential as those who vote for the Green Party.

BS. Lower turnout does not mean "generally don't vote," maybe you should go back to learning first grade math.

The "Obumma gonna pay my mortgage" types of people are no different than any other group of people who want some kind of handout or assistance from government. If you say one such group shouldn't be able to vote, why not any of the others?

Actually, there is a difference. The seniors who paid SS tax their whole life have a much more valid reason for demanding assistance than those sitting on their ass all day because the available jobs are beneath them.

 

[Munky]

Of course their vote counts. Their motivations might be stupid, self-serving or damaging to the country as a whole in the long term...but they're hardly alone in that, are they? The system where Munky decides who has good enough motivations to be allowed to vote and who doesn't might work (although I sure wouldn't want to live in that system), but it definitely wouldn't be a democracy.

Think about it. You find voting to get money to pay your mortgage to be sufficiently bad that such a person shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Fair enough, I guess. But if *I* was the omnipotent decider, I'd probably have to say I find voting to keep gay people as second class citizens is bad enough that such a person shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Even if the basic idea of allowing only "good" votes wasn't ridiculously un-democratic, who decides?

Fair enough. I'm not in favor of one person deciding who gets to vote. Eventually, though, the gravy train of deficit spending will run out one way or another.

 

[zsdersw]

BS. Lower turnout does not mean "generally don't vote," maybe you should go back to learning first grade math.

Maybe you should learn how to read. Turnout means "amount of people who show up at polls and vote". When turnout in a particular group of people is very low; lower than most other groups.. it is factually accurate (though not incredibly precise) to say that such people "generally don't vote".

Actually, there is a difference. The seniors who paid SS tax their whole life have a much more valid reason for demanding assistance than those sitting on their ass all day because the available jobs are beneath them.

The seniors who paid SS tax their whole life are also an infinitely larger group of people than "those sitting on their ass all day because the available jobs are beneath them". Their turnout is also infinitely higher, so they command infinitely higher influence among politicians.

 

[zsdersw]

Eventually, though, the gravy train of deficit spending will run out one way or another.

That's true, which means you fix (or eliminate) the gravy train... not change who gets to vote.

 

[Munky]

Maybe you should learn how to read. Turnout means "amount of people who show up at polls and vote". When turnout in a particular group of people is very low; lower than most other groups.. it is factually accurate (though not incredibly precise) to say that such people "generally don't vote".

I know what turnout means, thank you very much. Now read the link posted earlier in the thread, giving actual numbers. The 33% turnout for those not receiving welfare assistance, and the 24% turnout for those who receive it. In what universe of yours does 24% turnout = "generally don't vote?"

 

[soulcougher73]

I voted yes just for the fact i dont want someone voting bias being skewed based on the fact that they get government entitlements.

 

[jihe]

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

For me it's less of a right to vote and more of a duty to vote, as a member of a democratic society. So your question does not make sense.

 

[Rainsford]

Fair enough. I'm not in favor of one person deciding who gets to vote. Eventually, though, the gravy train of deficit spending will run out one way or another.

Deficit spending long term is definitely an issue. The problem is way beyond welfare recipients though. Very few people seem willing to actually try to balance government spending and government revenues.

 

[alkemyst]

You cannot sign away your constitutional rights. No contract is binding that is used to deny a right you have under law.

How about as felon?

 

[jihe]

I feel that those citizens receiving government handouts for extended periods of time should lose certain privileges as an incentive to become productive members of society. These benefits could also include driving or library privileges. Three years is more than enough time for one to get their butt into gear and better themselves.

They should be forced to give up a kidney.

 

[zsdersw]

I know what turnout means, thank you very much. Now read the link posted earlier in the thread, giving actual numbers. The 33% turnout for those not receiving welfare assistance, and the 24% turnout for those who receive it. In what universe of yours does 24% turnout = "generally don't vote?"

You do your argument a disservice by leaving out the details...

" ... those who received assistance voted at significantly lower rates
than those who did not. In the 1996 presidential election, only 24 percent of YDS
respondents receiving any government assistance voted, compared with 33 percent of
those not receiving assistance. This gap remained in 2000, when 37 percent of assistance
recipients and 47 percent of nonrecipients voted."

Declining turnout supports the "generally don't vote" statement more than it refutes it.

 

[thraashman]

How about as felon?

You don't exactly sign a contract to become a felon. The Constitution does provide for removing certain individual rights after a trial. Personally I feel that felons should be allowed to vote provided they can make it to a polling place and that prisons should never be polling places. So once they've served their time, allow a felon to vote. I'm completely against continuing to punish a person who has already served their time.

 

[Munky]

You do your argument a disservice by leaving out the details...

" ... those who received assistance voted at significantly lower rates
than those who did not. In the 1996 presidential election, only 24 percent of YDS
respondents receiving any government assistance voted, compared with 33 percent of
those not receiving assistance. This gap remained in 2000, when 37 percent of assistance
recipients and 47 percent of nonrecipients voted."

Declining turnout supports the "generally don't vote" statement more than it refutes it.

Absolutely not. Claiming 24% = "generally don't vote" is dishonest and misleading.

 

[zsdersw]

Absolutely not. Claiming 24% = "generally don't vote" is dishonest and misleading.

No it's not. When the trend is toward a widening gap, as the data shows, the phrase is accurate.

 

[JTsyo]

They could probably do that, make welfare recipients sign a waiver of voting rights as a precondition to receiving welfare, but why? There is no reason other than to be punitive. If we really think welfare is a bad idea, then we can get rid of it, or if we think it's excessive, we can scale it back, as we did back in the 1990's. There is no reason to punish the welfare recipient by making them choose between economic subsistence and basic constitutional rights. It's a stupid idea motivated by animus toward the poor, not reason.

Might prevent politicians from promising dole tot eh underclass in exchange for votes. Politicians would be less likely to cater to welfare recipients if they didn't have a vote.

 

[cybrsage]

White people generally do not get sickle cell anemia. Some white people do get sickle cell anemia.

When the likelihood of something happening becomes low enough, people start using phrases like "generally do not".

 

[werepossum]

They are still citizen and required to pay taxes.

There is no need for a second class of citizens that have not committed any crime.

I don't mean to ask an obvious question, but doesn't EVERYONE have an incentive of one sort or another to vote a particular way based on what they feel would benefit them and their point of view the most? Disallowing votes from people who stand to benefit from voting a certain way would result in barring almost all voting, wouldn't it?

Of course what we're really talking about is baring people from voting if you think they have the "wrong" motivation. And that's something quite different...

I voted yes because I think there should be significant penalties for long term welfare dependency, but these two posts changed my mind.

There should be some mechanism for changing votes if we change our minds.

 

[woolfe9999]

Might prevent politicians from promising dole tot eh underclass in exchange for votes. Politicians would be less likely to cater to welfare recipients if they didn't have a vote.

Almost everything an elected official does will cater to some group or another. It's folly to believe that any given government policy will affect everyone equally. I see no special reason to target welfare recipients, who don't have money to contribute to political campaigns. It only further solidifies a government that acts on behalf of moneyed interests. The poor can't use money for influence. They have only their votes. Why are we so concerned about this one particular interest group, one with little money and a low voter turnout, but not so much the others?

To the conservatives who support this, let's make a deal. We all support a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and take the money out of our politics to the maximum extent possible. Then and only would I support this idea.

 

[soundforbjt]

Almost everything an elected official does will cater to some group or another. It's folly to believe that any given government policy will affect everyone equally. I see no special reason to target welfare recipients, who don't have money to contribute to political campaigns. It only further solidifies a government that acts on behalf of moneyed interests. The poor can't use money for influence. They have only their votes. Why are we so concerned about this one particular interest group, one with little money and a low voter turnout, but not so much the others?

To the conservatives who support this, let's make a deal. We all support a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and take the money out of our politics to the maximum extent possible. Then and only would I support this idea.

Because they tend to vote for dems of course, if they tended to vote republican, it'd be a non issue.

 

[woolfe9999]

Because they tend to vote for dems of course, if they tended to vote republican, it'd be a non issue.

My question was rhetorical. Believe it or not, I actually know this.

 

[BoomerD]

From yesterday's morning paper:

http://www.modbee.com/2012/03/07/2102531/you-are-probably-on-the-dole.html

KLEIN: You are probably on the dole
By Ezra Klein

What is a government program? And are you on one right now? Those are the questions Cornell University political scientist Suzanne Mettler has been posing.

For her book "The Submerged State," she asked a scientifically selected sample of 1,400 Americans whether they had ever used a government social program. Only 43 percent copped to having done so. Then she read off 21 social programs, such as Medicare and the home mortgage interest deduction, and asked the same question: Have you ever used a government social program? This time, 96 percent said yes.

According to Mettler's survey, 60 percent of those who benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction didn't think they had ever used a government social program. Fifty-three percent of those with student loans didn't think they had used one.

Among Social Security beneficiaries, 44 percent thought themselves unsullied by the touch of government, and among Medicare beneficiaries, 39 percent said the same. Twenty-seven percent of those in public housing answered in the negative, as did 25 percent of those on food stamps.

The implication seemed to be that Americans are hypocrites, or at least woefully uninformed. But in forthcoming research, Mettler and co-author Julianna Koch dig deeper, and find the reality is more complicated.

Their new paper argues that "policy design" is an important determinant of whether people recognize they're using a government program or not. Some programs, like food stamps and Medicaid, force recipients to go to a government office and apply for them. Those are the programs that beneficiaries are most likely to recognize as governmental.

Other programs, like Medicare, are provided by the government, but eligibility is mostly automatic, and recipients have paid into them. Beneficiaries of such programs are somewhat less likely to realize they're on a government dole than beneficiaries of means-tested programs.

Then there's what Mettler calls "the submerged state." These policies are mostly, though not exclusively, tax breaks. They include the much-beloved home mortgage interest deduction and the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care.

Recipients of these policies — and there are tens of millions of them — are rarely cognizant that they're benefiting from a government program. But they are.

"Indirect social policies offer benefits that are comparable to direct social benefits both in their purposes and in their costs," Mettler and Koch write. "... From an accounting perspective, as well, both types have the same effect: They impose costs on the federal budget, whether incurred through fiscal obligations or lost revenues."

The costs are significant. Huge, in fact. Tax expenditures now cost the federal government $1 trillion annually — more than Medicare and Medicaid combined. And they're regressive.

There is also a pattern to these programs: The more a government social program benefits wealthier Americans, the less obtrusive it is. We design policies for the poor in ways that make it hard to escape the knowledge that the government is providing help. But richer Americans rely on programs that are "submerged." The Tax Policy Center estimates that eliminating all individual-income tax expenditures would raise levies on the bottom 20 percent by $931. For the top 1 percent, the tax increase would be almost $280,000. Even so, many middle-class and wealthy beneficiaries have no idea that they're receiving any government assistance.

Not surprisingly, this influences Americans' attitudes toward government. Mettler and Koch find that the more likely you are to know you have used government programs, the more likely you are to have a positive opinion of them.

Other factors influence whether people think they've used a government social program. All else being equal, a 75-year-old is 28 percent more likely than a 30-year- old to say he has never used a program; a conservative is 50 percent more likely than a liberal to say the same.

Mettler hypothesizes that such differences could play a role in the nation's growing political divide.

I'm more worried about the role submerged policies play in the budget and in good policy. We're funneling an enormous amount of money to people who, in many cases, don't need it and don't know they're receiving it. We're designing programs to be hidden in the annual budget — tax expenditures don't show up as spending, even though that's what they are — and invisible to taxpayers. That's economically inefficient and politically problematic.

If Americans who either rent or own their homes outright were asked to accept a tax increase of $150 billion in order to subsidize the mortgage payments of their indebted friends, it seems unlikely they would find that appealing. The same goes for asking Americans who don't get health insurance through their work to spend $100 billion or so annually subsidizing the benefits for those who do. Of course, that's exactly what's happening right now, but it's hidden in the tax code, so most Americans don't know it and can't protest it.

It is in part because these policies aren't visible that they're so difficult to change. That's the thing about submerging a large part of your welfare state. Sink it deep enough, and it becomes almost impossible to dredge up.

Klein is a columnist for The Washington Post.

So...which particular "welfare" recipients should we stop from voting?

"Welfare/medicaid?"
Social Security recipents?
Those who take the mortgage interest deduction?