Honest Question....Should people on public assistance be able to vote in elections of any kind?

from what century do you hail? remember you now live in a country where corporations are considered citizens and can give as much money as they want to politicians. a system of legislators bought and paid for by commerce. and you ask if people should have the rights of people. seriously?

Read and THINK first. Should an individual being subsidized by others be allowed to influence the well being of the ones(citizens)paying for the subsidy by their vote?

The united states of America.......and you?

Prime example of why the u.s. of A is in such terrible peril.

US Politicians do it
365 days a year.

minus vacation days
and campaigning days
and .........
etc, etc,

OK then how are you going to get non landowners and people on assistance to vote to give up their votes.

PS: If I own a 1/20th acre plot in Utah do I get to keep my vote?

No

There is a conflict of interest for them to vote. If they take care of their own business then yes allow them to vote but when they go to the government and say they cannot handle their affairs and need free money from the taxpayers then they become a ward of the state and give up their rights as a free and responsible citizen.

At that point they vote for a living...they vote to get the government to take more of my hard earned money to give to them. That is theft. Once they are off Welfare then they should be given the right to vote back.

Of course if they made Welfare people work for their benefits then maybe we could allow them to vote. At least make them pick up trash alongside the road. But if they want to sit on their fat asses then the U.S. doesn't need those parasites voting.

Children can't vote. So if you expect to be cared for like a child, then you shouldn't have the rights of an adult.

This should not apply to people with real physical disabilities, and anything related to a combat disability.

5 starts there, and good question;
NO; I do not believe any government louse living a life of luxury driving a state or fed sponsored automobile, talking on a state sponsored cell phone, and thier only lively hood being that of having a badge, city, state, or fed job to justify stealing other peoples wealth in the form of taxation, fines, fees, and penalties.

Want to talk about real problems, lets do, lets talk about all the government waste and corruption, fuck the welfare mom, send here here, I will support here while you evil sunsabutches go on about your stupid 17% that you agreed to pay to be a slave.

You are the stupid slave not the one looking for means to free themselves from the need to work harder to buy more guel, pay more taxes, to buy more fuel, pay for taxes, ad naseum.

pukes.

Seriously? Using this criteria for voting would elimnate almost everyone in the country from voting! Very few people Own land outright-most are owned by the banks and have mortgages. And as far as public assistance, if you have EVER worked for wages at some point you HAVE to collect SS. Even Warren Buffet would be exempt from voting under this type of system!

nobody should be able to vote for more of someone elses money to go specifically to them.
Any politician who runs on such platform should be thrown into an active volcano

No.

They should not be allowed to vote. People on entitlement programs are very obviously biased in their political views. Any candidate advocating more welfare will be supported. This is not democratic and provides an easy way to recruit votes: Just rob Peter, give it to Paul, and you always get Paul's vote.

Example #2 as to why this Nation is in trouble. SS is paid into for a stated purpose and "paying" for a home or raw property is ........WTF, if such simple concepts have to explained to you it's not worth my time. My glass is half full and by your analogy yours is half empty.

All things considered, I'd say YES. Using your logic, and if subsidies disqualify anyone from voting, then every financial investment planner-banker-corporatist-mogul should be disqualified. So should BigAg and BigPharma executives and their minions. Add the Military/Industrial complex to that group of disqualified voters. After all, they vote for the representation that will continue support of their subsidies.

No, they should not get to vote.
Also their level of benefits should be related to the amount of tax they paid in recent years. I.e. If they had a job and paid lots of taxes, their benefit should be higher than someone who paid no tax or has received handouts long term.

Sorry I missed that, own land:

I agree as I own all my possessions including land outright and most of you sniveling nazis of the entitlement age that are too stupid to know just who we are taking about when we talk about the "entitled generation", are still in the basement waiting for mommy to croak so you might own something some day.

Morans better wake up, its not the welfare mom being spoken about when entitled generation is used. You,like the nazis protesting in ny now, will soon to be a thing written off to history. Duly noted for what it is.


Pappy always said be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Remember when you thought it was a good idea to see titties after 8:pm on national tv, but what you got was homo man love, and not a tittie in sight? Same thing, think about it.

I think that any citizen who is expected to obey the laws pimped by elected officials have the right to vote. Unfortunetly, the issue of money just fucks everything up. No taxation without representation is a legit maxim-- I agree with it. But I don't think people on welfare should be subjected to laws in which they have nO voice.

i am going to blow you away. i am on assistance. i am waiting on a heart transplant. so i know that there are legit reasons to be on assistance. however since needing help was such a knockdown on my pride meter (went from making 100k to nothing in one night) i have been able to evaluate life in a new light. yes i consider myself a citizen worthy of making educated choices in voting. but i see your point.

there are SO many people/ housholds that are very capable of working to provide but choose to manipulate the system so they can sit home and live off the government. it is sad. i work with teens when i can and you would be surprised how many families have their kids labeled so they can collect benefits for them. then these teens carry that into adult life like they were in college preparing for a future.

so although we could never deny voting rights for citizens, this is a good question. i feel they should make drug testing mandatory for assistance. what are your thoughts on that?

What a loaded question, OP.

For what the hell it's worth, regarding your question:


You do realize your question violates the US Constitution, right? And that this isn't even only a little bit discriminatory, that it's hugely discriminatory?


And before anyone goes off on me about being a bleeding heart liberal and a welfare rat, I'm not affiliated with any political party and I don't and won't vote (I figured out 40 years ago that it's a scam, and began conscientiously objecting at the age of 13). I also do not receive any kind of welfare. No food stipend and no cash. No medical. And I don't even though I would qualify.


The last fucking thing we need in this country is more division among the population...we only just need division from our bogus system of so called "governance," and to practice human decency with one another.


Too much to ask, though, isn't it? So much easier to marginalize yet another sector of the population, isn't it?

Don't change the systemic problem at its source, just FUCK THE PEOPLE all the way around, right?


Some of you guys are no better than the ones you rail against.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

[link to en.wikiquote.org]


My answer is "no", if you are on government assistance than you should forfeit your right to vote. I would also like to see a limit of 12 years on the government payroll with a military exception.

Would you consider the miltaryindustrial cOmplex a welfare recipient even though they provide an explicit service of national defense, while poor people on foodstamps, medicaid, unemployment, etc are exPlicitly dependent on welfare BUT provide an implicit service of consuming the global economy needs to keep going?

Soon corporations will control everything including the military and the church it is inevitable.

Well I'm not railing against anyone, as far as division...we are already divided due in large part to the Marxist ideas below:

If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.

Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)

Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.

Marx, Human Requirements and Division of Labour (1844)

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

Engels, Principles of Communism (1847)

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)


"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in
sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.Get control of all
means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their
government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and
plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by
constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy
the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to
ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize
power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government
extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices,
inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital
industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient
attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious
argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty,
sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the
registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of
confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." Vladimir
Ilich Lenin

Shutup Fascist.

Yes, exactly, OP. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Personally, I don't believe so. They are already being fed and clothed from the coffers.

So their "right" or "gift" for being here is already given them...in the form of some sort of subsidy. So no, I personally don't believe they should be able to then also vote.

To vote is to carry your word on to the "next level" that being your congressman/congresswoman/representative.

I'd much rather someone working or someone collecting retirement's voice get sent then someone trying to continue their voice/opinion (being the voice of someone who's dug into the coffers.)

Last Edited by BlueCameo on 10/10/2011 10:37 AM

NO

Maybe you should hook up with OP.

Sure glad people like you aren't runnin the show.

only if we do not have a free and equal society.

This is a discussion thread.......add to the discussion please, nowhere did "I" say that any group of people should NOT be allowed to vote, But based on your intellect as exhibited, I'm getting close.