If you are on welfare - should you lose the right to vote?

Question

There is an old saying the "People do what is in their own personal best interest." If a person is on wefare and they have the right to vote. If candidate A says

"We need to cut welfare, implement a lifetime limit of 5 years on the government dime, and train these people so that they get a job"

Candidate B says

"We need to increase funding for our social and food stamp programs. Our poor can't afford to live on the meager allowance we give them. We should give $5,000 to every baby born and also fund a retirement program for them."

Which candidate do you think the person on welfare will vote for? Why do you think this way? Do you feel that this is fair to the rest of the citizens?

My answer is that they should not be allowed to vote when they are on the government dime because they would vote always for the candidate that offered them a pay raise for doing nothing. This would make the process fair because the people supporting the welfare recipients make the rule

Thanks for calling me a heartless bastard! A liberal friend of mine calls me that all the time when we talk politics.

Why do they need to vote? So they can vote themselves a pay raise? Get real!

You don't think that our current form of government is not an oligarchy? Don't the rich people run the country? Give me a break.

Answer 1

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Answer 2

I could actually agree with that.Giving people on Welfare the Right to Vote is sort of like having every Employee at a business be allowed to give themselves a pay raise at will,and right their own Performance Reviews.After all,who are they going to Vote for the guy who says get a job,or the guy who will offer them more freebies(Obama)? If you contribute nothing,you should have no say in how it's done.It would never pass though,the Democrats needs the freeloaders and drug addicts to vote,that's their base.Without them the Democrat Party would cease to exist as a force in Politics.Sounds wonderful,doesn't it? NObama 08' August 4 President

Answer 3

I think it's funny to see Rightwing's response. Research that quote and the figures included at the link I've provided, I work on the same team as the guy that did the analysis.

And to answer the question, basing somebody's right to vote based on their economic status is a poll tax, which is unconstitutional thanks to the 24th amendment: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." I do agree that everyone will always vote for the candidate that promises them the most from the public coffers. But I think that the way to combat that is to cut government spending, not take away freedoms. Everyone votes in their own best interest. And if you don't believe me, take a look at how many lobbiests and special interests their are. They're not even voting, they're going straight to the source for a handout. EVERYBODY wants something for nothing. It's the American way.

Answer 4

Absofreakinglutely

Socialist Democracy

Democracy has been called "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" and I think it sums it up nicely.

A "hand-out" system will eventually corrupt even the best work ethic of the most respectable germanics, but for minorities it is a free-for-all. The poor will always outnumber the rich and when the poor are given the same amount of voting power as the rich it is only a matter of time until they vote themselves the national treasury. The framers of the American Constitution understood this and only allowed land-owning males the right to vote because they understood that only those who have a vested interest in the affairs of the government should have a say in government.

The greatest fallacy in the world is to give someone who can't make money, buy land, or lead a normal life a say in government. What makes people believe that individuals who are failures are going to make a wise choice altogether, I will never know. Governments don't run on good intentions but are governed by the same laws of nature that guide everything else here on earth; governments cannot take blood from a stone nor can they create wealth, they really only consume wealth.

When governments start taking orders from those who can't even balance their own checkbook, we know the end is near. All Democracies have ended in a dictatorship because one day the "free lunch" is over and someone has to stand up and say this and be prepared to "bash some heads" when the hangovers start from the democracy/socialism induced free-for-all.

Answer 5

When technologically possible we really should try the vote differently.

Everyone should have their vote count once for each 1000$ they pay in taxes, and then there should be an iq test one takes every 6 years that subtracts half a persons vote for every 20% below top iq the person scores. (i.e. If one is 40% below top iq they're subtracted 3/4 of their count)

I'm not joking at all, really.
Campain strategies designed to finesse support of the poor and unintelligent masses would just become ineffective strategies of campaigning.
The poor and the unintelligent always weild the capacity to revolt. (Which is more than half the purpose of having a right-to-bear-arms in the first place. Not "love of hunting animals with yer kid".)

I suppose there should remain the standard even-vote used for 2/3rds or 3/4rs to ratify constitution ammendings. -Whatever the process is currently for ammending should remain the same.

Answer 6

Your idea would only really make sense if welfare recipients were in a majority, and if they had enough political clout to actually elect someone. The trith is that most welfare recipients are not even registered to vote, an they are certainly not in a majority position to affect any kind of change or elect a particular candidate. All voters decide on who or what they will vote for depending on their particular needs. It would be unfair to exclude any citizen based on something like their income.

Answer 7

No, you should not, any more than if you don't have a drivers license, or you don't own a home, or have health insurance. At one time when you were convicted of a crime you lost you vote, I thing that is no longer a law. Next they will take away your right to vote if you smoke or drink, because you are a menace to society for having these bad habits and cause health insurance costs to rise. Use your head for something besides a hat rack.

Answer 8

there are a lot of homeless and disabled people and others that would rather not be on welfare, but the system is set up for a working couple not to stay together if they want to get any assistance!!!

if you put two minimum wage earners together with a child, the rent, food, utilities, transportation, no insurance, no healthcare, insurance for transportation, unforseen expenses!!!

the system is set up that you can only recieve assistance if you are no longer together!!!

thats the only way the child and the woman will be guaranteed a place to live and assistance to eat and live on!!!

now the father is on his own to pay for rent, transportation, ect.. ect... plus childsupport!!!!

neither one has a way to afford a better education to get better skills for higher paying jobs and the low-skilled backbreaking jobs are taken by the illegals!!!

thats why our prisons are filled with dudes that are stuck in this never ending revolving door and just choose drug dealin and the easy way out, it s a rut that is hard to get out of!!!

i used to hire guys like this to help me do the work that i am no longer able to do because i am disabled!!!

i would give them a good wage and let them stay at my place until they got on there feet!!!

it was usually the bored spoiled rotten welfare mamma's that got them back onto the drugs and partying all night long and gettin back in jail again!!

then while they was back in jail the welfare mommas would move on to their best freind or the next dude that showed up to party!!!

i know what im talkin about because i helped out several of these dudes that were goin to get married to my stepdaughter!!!

had to kick them all out, even her, she left her three kids with me to raise, got two of them back to their fathers and the 10 year old i am raising, his father died in prison!!!

she doesnt have to pay child support and noone can find her!!!

these women need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions, and they are draining the welfare system, along with the illegals!!!

it doesnt matter wich political party huffs and puffs to make things better, this system has been goin on for a long time!!!

and why not look into the people who are well off who get perks and bonusses, subsidies and benefits way beyond what they need or can ever use!!!

they need to balance the system and shorten up that huge gap between the well off and the poor working class!!!

Answer 9

I agree with your premise and as much as I would love to say that they could not vote, it would be a violation of their civil liberties laid down by our forefathers.

As a conservative (not necessarily a Republican) I would also be happy if we would really crack down at the polls and made certain that nobody without proper U.S. citizenship could vote.

That premise could also be made for many groups or topics as well

Answer 10

that's an idea i hadn't explored in my thoughts before--giving no vote or a partial vote to those on welfare. possibly prorated, like if you had just gotten on welfare last month because your husband left you with 3 kids and you had to scramble to get a job, you could have 95% vote. if you've been on welfare for the last 3 years and the cable company verifies that you have the $180/month cable TV package, you get only 2% vote.......It's twisted enough, it has a bit of flair to it....... :)