• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%

  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%

  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%
  • Total voters
    120

You're not going to deny the democratic initiative of the civil rights act!!

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[9][10] The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
....and that is when we had Robber Barons. A much cheaper way for them to control the system.
Click to expand...

tell me, if you have corruption..which will always exist......where would you want it......on a national level or state level?

government which is closer to the people is more responsive to the people, easier to control, and root out corruption then it is on a national level.
 
Yeah, the Robber Barons showed us:2razz:
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yeah, the Robber Barons showed us:2razz:
Click to expand...

so your are going to complaint the rich and powerful control government...yet you want to do nothing about it, and continue with what we have...even though americans have been warned by the founders over 200 years ago.
 

If people did not vote for the people who voted for that act, then they might be a little more outrage about this spying being forced on them without their consent.
 

What I 'seemed to be supporting' in your opinion is not what I was supporting. I intend all of my posts to be considered as the full context of my argument and not a cherry picked line here and there.

And if you believe that the sanctity of the vote makes it okay for Citizen A to be able to vote to be supported by Citizen B with no benefit whatsoever for Citizen B, well okay. I accept that as your position. But I personally have a huge problem with that. And that is what I was arguing. And I believe that is the discussion that the OP was intended to inspire.
 
Last edited:

I asked for evidence that it ever worked the way you described. I assume you have only your assumptions.
 
Objective Voice said:
What a foolish notion. No one who is poor casts their vote on the believe that who they're voting for will someday help to make them rich! That's crazy! People don't vote that way....well, poor people don't anyway.
Click to expand...

This is allowed to vote.



That's exactly the problem. People think only about here and now, and thus forget about long term consequences. They vote for welfare, even though the long term effect of the subsidization of poverty is to create more of it. They vote for social security even though the long term effect of it is to impoverish those who are currently working. It's exactly the lack of long term thinking that is the problem.
 

Then explain this:

Heritage said:
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.
Click to expand...

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
 

And again, you show little concept for what a "republican" form of government is. You don't Get to redefine words to suit you.
 
rocket88 said:
I asked for evidence that it ever worked the way you described. I assume you have only your assumptions.
Click to expand...

again..... ask yourself a simple question...who is your congressmen supposed work for?.......answer the people in your district who put him into office..

since the senator is put into office by the state legislature...then who does he work for?.........answer...... the state legislature.
 

Right, you have your own assumptions and no evidence. As I said.
 
rocket88 said:
And again, you show little concept for what a "republican" form of government is. You don't Get to redefine words to suit you.
Click to expand...

really.............you need to read the founders.




The Federalist No. 40

On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained

New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.


a mixed constitution is balanced government.........democracy is not a balanced government
 

Unemployment benefits are paid for by employers...their not freebees created by the government. In other words they there is a revenue collected to create unemployment benefits. There aren't any revenues collected other than what taxpayers contribute via their federal income tax for food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.

But the well can run dry - and employer payments no longer meet the demands and the government has to decide if they want to use general revenue funds to keep it going.
 
Montecresto said:
Of course it was a broad brush, but they aren't my opponents, and there's almost always an exception for every rule, and on this issue you prove that nicely.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't proven the rule. I posit that those who want to deny those on welfare the vote are the exception and I am more representative of the rule.
 
WCH said:
No but, when you get off welfare, please step into the booth.

A better question might be, "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat?"
Click to expand...

Start a thread, we need to know who's on Welfare around here. :lol:
 
solletica said:
Most corporate welfare recipients don't need to vote. They just buy the candidates that give them the most welfare.
Click to expand...

Then vote out the politician.
 

Of course the 17th amendment screwed that up.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly how would we determine whether someone is "informed" enough to vote? And who gets to make that determination?
 
phattonez said:
In fact, I would go much further and say that those who are making minimum wage ought not to vote.
Click to expand...

Most ridiculous statement I've read all day.

It's those kinds of comments that make me hesitate in saying "I'm a libertarian."
 
phattonez said:
What if we don't honor that?
Click to expand...

Democracy is the best system we have in order to solve societal issues. I'm sorry but you don't live in a bubble.
 
phattonez said:
The point is that those with little wealth would prefer to vote themselves more wealth, even to the detriment of the long term health of the country, even though it would be immoral.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that those with wealth wouldn't vote for even more wealth?
 

People are not given a choice as to whether they pay into the Social Security and Medicare pools. They don't have to apply for the benefits they helped pay for, but they have no choice but to pay.

So that is a very different thing from welfare.

Evenso, as one who is drawing Social Security that comprises a large lion's share of my income, I can justify in my own mind voting for those who pledge to preserve my Social Security and Medicare benefits that I was forced to pay into and have really no alternative to go to. But at the same time, since I am now fully retired and am no longer paying into the system, it is difficult for me to justify having a vote to increase my Social Security and/or Welfare benefits at your expense.

I just can't figure out any realistic way to restrict the vote to those who have to pay the bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…