Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/6/2008 5:38:26 AM EST
I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended. It would be a step in the right direction toward protecting the public treasury from the ravages of democratic fiscal self destruction (a classic problem with democracy). The race to vote ourselves largesse would be slowed.

timb3, a member here, recommended additionally extending the suspension of voting rights for five years beyond receipt of any public assistance.

timb3's idea is even better than my original ideations. I think a five year additional extension is simple, fair, workable, and enormously beneficial.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:43:43 AM EST
In.

I'd be for that in a heartbeat.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:44:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended.


+1

If you're going to live by the grace of the taxpayer, you shouldn't be able to demand more "largess from the public treasury."

Woah, sweet, it could be like the franchise from Starship Troopers, except instead of having to join the federal service to get the vote, you have to get a god damn job.

~BakerMike
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:47:00 AM EST
Being able to vote in people who will take from others in order to pay you is a conflict of interest.

Let's do it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:54:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:57:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.

So how do you define public assistance?

How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?

How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?

How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemployment?

Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.

What about tax breaks? Isn't that public assistance?
How about working for a company that gets massive tax subsidies?
How about farmers?

I like the idea, but it's not workable.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:02:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:03:48 AM EST
Why not just get the government out of the business of "welfare"?
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:07:58 AM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:


How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.


HiramRanger,

Time constraints require that I postpone answering but I am EAGER to answer. I will try to get to it tonight.

Just think of the public discourse that would be engendered is such were attempted. Your questions are among exactly the most important ones that should be asked.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:14:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.

So how do you define public assistance?

How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?

How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?

How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemployment?

Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.


Or eliminate subsidies... take your pick...

Soldier, BTW have done something to "earn' what they get from the gov. Folks sitting around making babies haven't.

I'm sure we are the same page here, just saying...
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:15:40 AM EST
Ha. Ha. Ha. Good luck with that.

I'd settle for ID required to vote.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:39:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.

So how do you define public assistance?

How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?

How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?

How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemployment?

Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.



Great points well made.
Taffy
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:39:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By vim:
Ha. Ha. Ha. Good luck with that.

I'd settle for ID required to vote.


Require citizenship too, and be able to read, write and speak the English language. Our schools should be able to accomplish that right?
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:50:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 8:03:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.


Fine, let's get to changing it then.

Welfare receipients, specifically. All others would get a pass.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 8:07:48 AM EST
I have yet to be given money directly by any government. Except in the form of a refund of some sort of overpayment I made.

I suppose I am becoming a rarer and rarer breed in this country.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 8:17:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 8:23:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:51:32 PM EST
I think you are sensitive to this issue because you feel bad about taking unemployment.

Showing me another negative to OTHER issues does not negate the fact that those on welfare should not be able to vote for someone who will increase the welfare given to welfare recipients.

So now we compare roads, infrastructure, schools, etc to welfare leeches. Perfect.

We are doomed. Even those who consider themselves "enlightened" can't make a logical analogous relationship.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 5:58:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
So you pay less in taxes and own your home, I pay taxes and have use of my apartment. Choices we each made, but mine doesn't result in a government subsidy, your's does.


...

Welfare recipients = home buyer incentive??

Nice.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:03:06 PM EST
Defining that would be tough because there are exceptions to any circumstances.

But in general, it should be defined as able to work, capable of working, not encumbered
by circumstances that require the individual to be in a full time caretaker situation, and
not working by choice, and not otherwise engaged in activities that are legal and productive.

CJ
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:07:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2008 6:07:49 PM EST by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
In the end, they are subsidizing certain behaviors.


Yeah, they are.

On welfare? No vote. All others get a pass.

Doing something favorable, like injecting money in to the economy by way of buying a house. You get "a break" on the over reaching taxes you already pay.

Of course those things are equal, and should be considered in the same breath.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:09:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:12:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:21:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:27:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By mnd:
Why not just get the government out of the business of "welfare"?




What a fucking concept, why hasn't someone thought of that before?
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:39:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By AlvinYorkII:

Originally Posted By mnd:
Why not just get the government out of the business of "welfare"?




What a fucking concept, why hasn't someone thought of that before?


...because even "enlightened" people attempt to rationalize it by drawing parallels to the positive output of government. See above for examples.

Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:45:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:50:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
By the way, I am in no way against the interest deduction. I very much agree with it, but let us not be mistaken, it is a government subsidy and there is no difference between them writing you a check and them saying you can pay $xxxxx less in taxes. It is the same exact thing.


Not exactly. You may continue to believe whatever you like. I don't need you to agree with me. Further, I use the deduction, as it would be stupid not to. Though to be fair, if they would stop taxing me for other people's welfare checks, unemployment checks, student loans interest and defaults, social security, gov healthcare, etc I wouldn't need to take the deduction at all. It isn't the same as not working and having someone give you money. In fact, not only do I pay all my burden, I pay for the others too.

I tell you what, you get the federal gov't to dump the NEGATIVE things I am taxed for as above, and I will HAPPILY do without the interest deduction so long as it goes ONLY for REC SPORTS, SCHOOLS, ROADS and INFRASTRUCTURE.

The reduced tax burden is incentive to buy and own a home. The gov't plan is to recapture that reduced tax burden at a higher rate later through capital gains on the sale of, or the transfer of the real property on an unprotected estate.

The problem, like most plans in gov't, is that they fail to think that all the way through...

Many homeowners know how to avoid capital gains and often protect their estates with wills.

Again - take the people who receive welfare and suspend their right to vote. I am not talking about anyone else, so stop responding to me as if I were saying that.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 6:53:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2008 7:04:39 PM EST by HiramRanger]
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:03:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:09:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2008 7:10:44 PM EST by mnvwguy02]
I agree.

If on public assistance one has clearly demonstrated they are a willing ward of the state incapable of taking care of their own affairs. It is not unreasonable to ensure that such a person does not vote themselves gifts from the treasury.

Or better yet, end transfer payments by the .gov altogether!

Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:18:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended. It would be a step in the right direction toward protecting the public treasury from the ravages of democratic fiscal self destruction (a classic problem with democracy). The race to vote ourselves largesse would be slowed.

timb3, a member here, recommended additionally extending the suspension of voting rights for five years beyond receipt of any public assistance.

timb3's idea is even better than my original ideations. I think a five year additional extension is simple, fair, workable, and enormously beneficial.



Hey! I resemble that remark!!!

I absolutely believe that to be an honest and fair way to do things. To me, the 5 year thing is so that we won't get jerk-offs who hold a job just long enough to qualify to vote screwing things up for the rest of us. If someone can hold a job and pay their bills for five years, they're obviously fairly responsible and should have a fair share in making the decisions of the nation.

I mean, think about it. Letting people on welfare vote is like letting your kids have an equal vote on deciding how to allocate your family's budget funds. Little Johnny is gonna spend it all on candy and toys and then pitch a fit when there's nothing left and mommy and daddy lose the house because the kid has no idea about financial matters. - And if welfare people were any smarter than little Johnny, they wouldn't be on welfare.

Letting people on welfare vote is simply not smart, and is a large part of why we as a nation are in the fix we're in at the moment.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:27:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:41:05 PM EST
How about only TAXPAYERS vote. If you filed an income tax return, you may vote.
Link Posted: 5/6/2008 7:42:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Originally Posted By timb3:

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended. It would be a step in the right direction toward protecting the public treasury from the ravages of democratic fiscal self destruction (a classic problem with democracy). The race to vote ourselves largesse would be slowed.

timb3, a member here, recommended additionally extending the suspension of voting rights for five years beyond receipt of any public assistance.

timb3's idea is even better than my original ideations. I think a five year additional extension is simple, fair, workable, and enormously beneficial.



Hey! I resemble that remark!!!

I absolutely believe that to be an honest and fair way to do things. To me, the 5 year thing is so that we won't get jerk-offs who hold a job just long enough to qualify to vote screwing things up for the rest of us. If someone can hold a job and pay their bills for five years, they're obviously fairly responsible and should have a fair share in making the decisions of the nation.

I mean, think about it. Letting people on welfare vote is like letting your kids have an equal vote on deciding how to allocate your family's budget funds. Little Johnny is gonna spend it all on candy and toys and then pitch a fit when there's nothing left and mommy and daddy lose the house because the kid has no idea about financial matters. - And if welfare people were any smarter than little Johnny, they wouldn't be on welfare.

Letting people on welfare vote is simply not smart, and is a large part of why we as a nation are in the fix we're in at the moment.


I somehow think some folks might take offense to your analogy... namely little Johnny.




Damn! You're right! Sorry little Johnny!!!

I'll bet someone could turn that whole subject into a "little johnny" joke.
Link Posted: 5/7/2008 6:50:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Warhawk:
How about only TAXPAYERS vote. If you filed an income tax return, you may vote.



Tommie Jefferson, the hero of the Dimocrats believed along with others at that time that only persons of property and substance should be able to vote. I wager that would leave out most on welfare today. Besides quite alot of the welfare system we have today we can thank LBJ (and his Great Society) for and his attempt to buy the minority vote for the next hundred years.
Link Posted: 5/7/2008 7:13:52 PM EST


I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended. It would be a step in the right direction toward protecting the public treasury from the ravages of democratic fiscal self destruction (a classic problem with democracy). The race to vote ourselves largesse would be slowed.

timb3, a member here, recommended additionally extending the suspension of voting rights for five years beyond receipt of any public assistance.

timb3's idea is even better than my original ideations. I think a five year additional extension is simple, fair, workable, and enormously beneficial.



The demacrats would never win elections if we did that....wait that IS a great idea, im for it.
Link Posted: 5/8/2008 6:13:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By AlvinYorkII:

Originally Posted By mnd:
Why not just get the government out of the business of "welfare"?




What a fucking concept, why hasn't someone thought of that before?


+1

If we would just follow the Constitution in the first place this wouldn't be an issue. But the second you mention the "radical idea" of repealing the bullshit 16th amendment (for you neo cons, that's the amendment that is supposed to give the Government ability to tax us) you get all kinds of Authoritarian big government lovers (neo cons that's you) whining and bitching that the government wouldn't be able to do this or that or the other thing. Newflash, we survived for over a century without an income tax and still had a military. All of the personal income tax now days goes to pay for the bullshit social programs.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 11:23:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2008 12:12:49 PM EST by CATARGADELENDAEST]
height=8
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution. how


Public Assistance (working definition):
Assistance to a member of the public that is the result of the redistribution of wealth.
1. Welfare? Yes.
2. Public Housing? Yes.
3. Food Stamps? Yes.

height=8
How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

Disability payments to vets are compensation for service and the thereby resulting injury. Disability payments to vets (eg, parapalegia from an IED for a US Marine or the damaged lip of the US Coast Guard Band trombone player) are not public assistance. No disenfranchisement.

height=8
How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?


I do not know enough about Social Security disability to classify it as public assistance or not. I tend toward disenfranchisement.

height=8
How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?


Social Security is not public assistance. Yes, it is a transfer of wealth. It is a government sponsored and administered Ponzi scheme just like the legal lotteries are government sponsored numbers rackets. When Social Security came into effect in the 30's the average age of dealth was below the beginning recipient age. Moreover, there were far more workers per retiree than there are today. Moreover evenstill, it was designed to provide "supplement" to one's retirement (i.e., to provide enough money for the elderly to eat decently) rather than to be the totality of one's retirement. The government should meet all of it's obligations to the elderly because it forced them to participate during their working years. The government should meet its obligations even if it results in near national bankruptcy.

If you take away the vote from SS recipents it will have little effect on the largesse going to retirees for the children of retirees will vote to have their parents paid by the government or taken care of by the government. Such reduces the burden on the children.

The SS system should be replaced with a system whereby the future elderly can become wards of the state if impoversished and/or unable to take care of themselves. As wards of the state under a new system they (the future elderly) should be disenfranchised. Let's provide some certain level of housing and healthcare but take away their vote!


height=8
How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemploymment?


These people paid unemployment insurance. They recieve payment subject to their continued quest for employment. I tend to side against their disenfranchisement. Of course, abusers of unemployment insurance should be disenfranchised. I just don't know enough about the system to define what constitutes abuse of the system.

height=8
Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

Subsidised loans or grants should not require disenfranchisement. Theorhetically one's education is subsidized because their is greater benefit to society than merely improving an individual's lot in life. If, however, one is delinquent on the repayment of one's subsidized student loan one should be disenfranchisede untill some time after he or she becomes current on the debt.

The public treasury has been placed in surety for your consumption of education and you have not behaved responsibly. You should be disenfranchised.

Subsidized mortgages (federally - FNMA, FHA, VA, etc. or state (various states subsidize home loans through bond issues)) should be be treated like student loans. Likewise, delinquency should result in disenfranchisement.


height=8
How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

If they are on food stamps they should be disenfranchised. (Notice, I am putting aside the disgraceful circumstance.) So what that they work for the DOD and have agreed to accept less money than is required to feed their family. It is an all volunteer force. The amount to rightfully pay a private is another discussion entirely.

height=8
How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.


I hope I have not been vague.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 11:40:55 AM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By john575:
height=8
Originally Posted By vim:
Ha. Ha. Ha. Good luck with that.

I'd settle for ID required to vote.


Require citizenship too, and be able to read, write and speak the English language. Our schools should be able to accomplish that right?


You again expect too much of our schools.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 11:58:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2008 12:15:38 PM EST by CATARGADELENDAEST]
height=8
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
height=8
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I have yet to be given money directly by any government. Except in the form of a refund of some sort of overpayment I made.

I suppose I am becoming a rarer and rarer breed in this country.


You don't have to be given it directly, you do likely receive benefits that others do not, makes no difference if that money comes in the form of a check or a deduction.

Child deduction? Was your choice to have them, I don't have any. You should pay less in taxes because you choose to have a child?

If you have children, do they go to public school... or if private school, does the district provide busing or use of text books? I pay school taxes, but have no children... That is me subsidizing others.

Do you have a mortgage and get an interest deduction and pay less in taxes? I choose to rent, namely because I knew I had an at will job which I could lose at any time for any reason... incidently, the reason I lost my job is because I'm a registered Republican... and it was 100% legal. I didn't want a mortgage hanging over my head. I pay property taxes through my rent, you don't think the landlord eats those taxes do you? So you pay less in taxes and own your home, I pay taxes and have use of my apartment. Choices we each made, but mine doesn't result in a government subsidy, your's does.

So yeah, it means little whether the payment is direct, or if it comes in the form of favorable tax policy. The bottom line is two people with the same income could have vastly different liabilities based upon free choices they made and the way the government wishes to reward those choices. In the end, they are subsidizing certain behaviors.


All public assistance is subisidization but not all subsidization is public assistance. Do you agree?

Pay people unending welfare (public assistance) and you subsidize poverty. Subsidize private home ownership (mortgage deduction per tax code, not public assistance) and you get more private home ownership. It is sometimes good and benefficial to subsidize good and beneficial behavior.

You could eliminate all public assistance and still maintain unequal tax burdens. Unequal tax burdens have nothing to do with the subsidization of undesired behavior via public assistance. Neither should the right to vote depend on tax burden equality.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 10:46:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2008 10:58:55 PM EST by Thatmanuhate]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.

So how do you define public assistance?

How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?

How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?

How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemployment?

Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.
+1 it's always amazing to see how many people claim to be all for freedom or conserving the constitution and protecting all their rights then go and post like this. I guess some men where just created more equal. Instead of stripping people of rights we should just abolish the whole welfare system. Reagan said it best "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence"
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 6:24:37 AM EST
WHERE in the US Constitution does it say that everyone is allowed to vote?

All men may be created equal but some do become less equal over time. I assert that the existence of American pedophiles, robbers, and welfare deadbeats prove my assertion.
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 7:34:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 6:19:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2008 6:25:46 PM EST by CATARGADELENDAEST]
height=8
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
height=8
Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
WHERE in the US Constitution does it say that everyone is allowed to vote?

All men may be created equal but some do become less equal over time. I assert that the existence of American pedophiles, robbers, and welfare deadbeats prove my assertion.


I can't believe you guys make me have to cite this stuff for you.


I was attempting to bait you in a good natured way. The US Constitution is maleable. I will cite examples if necessary. (In the meantime, I will go have a beer without funding any constitutionally illegal enterprises in the process.)

Also, the 26th amendment was a mistake (giving the vote to 18 year olds). On whole, the country did sufficiently well without it prior to 1971. I agree with the rest that you have cited.
Link Posted: 5/12/2008 9:06:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Good, get that change made to the Constitution.

So how do you define public assistance?


Public Assistance (working definition):
Assistance to a member of the public that is the result of the redistribution of wealth.
1. Welfare? Yes.
2. Public Housing? Yes.
3. Food Stamps? Yes.


How about a disabled vet? Oh no, we can't... he served our country!

Disability payments to vets are compensation for service and the thereby resulting injury. Disability payments to vets (eg, parapalegia from an IED for a US Marine or the damaged lip of the US Coast Guard Band trombone player) are not public assistance. No disenfranchisement.


How about people on Social Security disability due to an illness beyond their control?


I do not know enough about Social Security disability to classify it as public assistance or not. I tend toward disenfranchisement.


How about the retired folks who paid into Social Security... you do realize they will likely collect far more than they paid in due to longer life expectancies. Isn't that a form of public assistance?


Social Security is not public assistance. Yes, it is a transfer of wealth. It is a government sponsored and administered Ponzi scheme just like the legal lotteries are government sponsored numbers rackets. When Social Security came into effect in the 30's the average age of dealth was below the beginning recipient age. Moreover, there were far more workers per retiree than there are today. Moreover evenstill, it was designed to provide "supplement" to one's retirement (i.e., to provide enough money for the elderly to eat decently) rather than to be the totality of one's retirement. The government should meet all of it's obligations to the elderly because it forced them to participate during their working years. The government should meet its obligations even if it results in near national bankruptcy.

If you take away the vote from SS recipents it will have little effect on the largesse going to retirees for the children of retirees will vote to have their parents paid by the government or taken care of by the government. Such reduces the burden on the children.

The SS system should be replaced with a system whereby the future elderly can become wards of the state if impoversished and/or unable to take care of themselves. As wards of the state under a new system they (the future elderly) should be disenfranchised. Let's provide some certain level of housing and healthcare but take away their vote!



How about the people who worked and paid taxes for years and get laid off and are collecting unemploymment?


These people paid unemployment insurance. They recieve payment subject to their continued quest for employment. I tend to side against their disenfranchisement. Of course, abusers of unemployment insurance should be disenfranchised. I just don't know enough about the system to define what constitutes abuse of the system.


Or are we just talking about those on welfare who were never productive and never paid taxes?

How about students in college that are receiving subsidized student loans or grants?

Subsidised loans or grants should not require disenfranchisement. Theorhetically one's education is subsidized because their is greater benefit to society than merely improving an individual's lot in life. If, however, one is delinquent on the repayment of one's subsidized student loan one should be disenfranchisede untill some time after he or she becomes current on the debt.

The public treasury has been placed in surety for your consumption of education and you have not behaved responsibly. You should be disenfranchised.

Subsidized mortgages (federally - FNMA, FHA, VA, etc. or state (various states subsidize home loans through bond issues)) should be be treated like student loans. Likewise, delinquency should result in disenfranchisement.



How about soldiers that make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps? Ignoring that outright disgrace of that, they are indeed on public assistance.

If they are on food stamps they should be disenfranchised. (Notice, I am putting aside the disgraceful circumstance.) So what that they work for the DOD and have agreed to accept less money than is required to feed their family. It is an all volunteer force. The amount to rightfully pay a private is another discussion entirely.


How exactly are you going to reach this determination?

I look forward to your answers.


I hope I have not been vague.


QFT! Excellent!
Link Posted: 5/18/2008 6:28:33 PM EST
HiramRanger,

What do you think of my answers to your questions?
Link Posted: 5/18/2008 6:35:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
I have always thought that those on public assistance should have their voting rights suspended.


We going to start with VA disability and farm subsidies?
Link Posted: 5/18/2008 6:47:42 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
height=8
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
height=8
Originally Posted By CATARGADELENDAEST:
WHERE in the US Constitution does it say that everyone is allowed to vote?

All men may be created equal but some do become less equal over time. I assert that the existence of American pedophiles, robbers, and welfare deadbeats prove my assertion.


I can't believe you guys make me have to cite this stuff for you.


I was attempting to bait you in a good natured way. The US Constitution is maleable. I will cite examples if necessary. (In the meantime, I will go have a beer without funding any constitutionally illegal enterprises in the process.)

Also, the 26th amendment was a mistake (giving the vote to 18 year olds). On whole, the country did sufficiently well without it prior to 1971. I agree with the rest that you have cited.


HiranRanger,

That which you have cited above describes the pendulum swing wherein the franchise to vote has been broadened. Specifically mentioned are race, color, condition of previous servitude, gender, tax delinquency, and age. Nowhere is it written, evenstill, that all adult citizens get to vote. Where is it written? Felons lose their vote. Likewise, wetlfare deadbeats should at least lose their vote. Feed the deadbeats if you wish. House them also if you wish. But please remove their franchise to vote.

I would personally favor disenfranchising all on public assistance as well. It would go a long way toward improving politics in this country and toward the preservation of our experiment in self rule.
Link Posted: 5/18/2008 6:50:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2008 6:51:38 PM EST by MRW]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top