Democracy's Fatal Flaw: Welfare Should Mean No Vote [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Democracy's Fatal Flaw: Welfare Should Mean No Vote


Flying-Dutchman
11-08-2012, 20:51
Found this and summarized it.

There is a conflict of interest letting a welfare recipient vote.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jAGFTmAl3o

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support"

George Bernard Shaw

1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
2. From faith to great courage.
3. From courage to liberty.
4. From liberty to abundance.
5. From abundance to complacency.
6. From complacency to selfishness.
7. From selfishness to apathy.
8. From apathy to dependency.
9. And from dependency back again into bondage."

-- Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, author and politician, in a letter to a friend in 1857

Brucev
11-08-2012, 20:54
Re: OP. Agree.

frank4570
11-08-2012, 20:56
Yep. Not a democracy, though. It's supposed to be a republic.

Walt_NC
11-08-2012, 22:26
Excellent point but why stop there? As long as we are trampling the Constitution why not only give voting priviledges to those who have served in the active-duty military for a minimum of 3 years? If you haven't demonstrated a willingness to fight and die in the defense of this country, to lead and to be led, then you are obviously too selfish and cowardly to make the hard choices necessary in deciding the future of this country.

Calico Jack
11-08-2012, 22:36
Excellent point but why stop there? As long as we are trampling the Constitution why not only give voting priviledges to those who have served in the active-duty military for a minimum of 3 years? If you haven't demonstrated a willingness to fight and die in the defense of this country, to lead and to be led, then you are obviously too selfish and cowardly to make the hard choices necessary in deciding the future of this country.

Sounds good to me.

smokeross
11-08-2012, 22:38
Pay income tax you vote, military vote, real estate owners vote. Leaches No.

Scott3670
11-08-2012, 22:40
Pay income tax you vote, military vote, real estate owners vote. Leaches No.

And all must present a valid Government-issued photo ID to cast their vote. Absolutely no exceptions.

Folsom_Prison
11-08-2012, 22:41
Excellent point but why stop there? As long as we are trampling the Constitution why not only give voting priviledges to those who have served in the active-duty military for a minimum of 3 years? If you haven't demonstrated a willingness to fight and die in the defense of this country, to lead and to be led, then you are obviously too selfish and cowardly to make the hard choices necessary in deciding the future of this country.

I've never received welfare, I work and pay my ! but because I havnt served shouldn't give me the right to vote? Hahaha real funny buddy.

Walt_NC
11-08-2012, 22:44
Pay income tax you vote, military vote, real estate owners vote. Leaches No.

Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.

Walt_NC
11-08-2012, 22:47
I've never received welfare, I work and pay my ! but because I havnt served shouldn't give me the right to vote? Hahaha real funny buddy.

I don't agree with it. Im making the point that my scenario is just as reasonable as denying welfare recipients their Constitutional rights.

Folsom_Prison
11-08-2012, 22:47
Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.


Youve bumped your damn head!

JW1178
11-08-2012, 22:49
How about only rich white land owners should be allowed to vote? :upeyes:

CourtCop
11-08-2012, 22:51
Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.

Where exactly do you think the money to pay for all those cool toys the military gets to play with comes from? Not to mention their pay and benefits.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

sns3guppy
11-08-2012, 22:52
There is a conflict of interest letting a welfare recipient vote.

Bull****.

Citizen = right to vote.

Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.

Absolute bull****.

No reservists or guard in there? They die for their country, too.

No contrractors in there, who do the same job and die in the same locations on behalf of their government?

No CIA, DEA, ICE, FBI, who put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens, every day? No firefighters who risk their lives for others, every day?

What about school teachers? What about social workers? What about the tens of millions of others who contribute?

What about...the fact that the US constitution makes guarantees to all citizens, including the right to vote?

Serving in the military is not a responsibility nor is it a requirement. Those who do are to be congratulated for their decision, but there are many ways to serve and contribute beside just that.

The military wouldn't lift an ounce of cargo or fire a single round without taxpayer dollars buying every red cent. Go figure. The fact that an MRAP can drive a yard, or soldier can don a boot comes from civilians earning the money to buy the fuel to move that MRAP, or the boot to be issued to that soldier.

Some think that the world revolves around the military. It does not. Most certainly the military is a necessary component of our society and our nation, but it is not the central component, nor is it the be-all and end-all of citizenship. It is a part, and a worthy part, but to discount The many millions of others who contribute is quite wrong, and very narrow-sighted.

Folsom_Prison
11-08-2012, 23:00
So Walt, I've assumed you've served before then??

Walt_NC
11-08-2012, 23:00
Gentlemen. Slow down and take a breath. Scroll up.

I don't agree with it. Im making the point that my scenario is just as reasonable as denying welfare recipients their Constitutional rights.

Walt_NC
11-08-2012, 23:01
So Walt, I've assumed you've served before then??

Yes, I have. 5 years in the Army. But that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

droidfire
11-08-2012, 23:26
How about only rich white land owners should be allowed to vote? :upeyes:

You mean the way it was originally before we changed it?

See, government can be modified to serve the people.

As one of the working people carrying dead weight moochers, count me in for no-vote to those who are forcing the working class into indentured servitude.

Too late though, they now can outvote us. Pity.

larry_minn
11-08-2012, 23:43
I would agree that if you have not had a job for at least 5 yrs by age 25 (proved by W-2s 1040s/etc) OR proof of schooling (tech/college/etc)
After age 30
Heck lets just make it easy. If you are on welfare for more then 5 yrs in a row you lose your right to vote. With exceptions for serious medical issues. Not folks who have "bad backs" but bowl every week, wild dancing (lifting partners/deep dips) and race stock cars/ mud/dirt track.
I was on court case where guy claimed he was hurt for life so he couldn't even drive to work. (much less work) BUT he was a stock car racer during same time..... Yep those are real gentle rides...
Some folks take, and take. IIC Jefferson (Tomas not "Moving on up" George) said words to effect. "once folks realize they can vote themselves a raise the republic is doomed"
Why does militay retirement pay NOT go up with cost of living? (or up at all?) Promises were made 20+ yrs ago...

Meanie5470
11-09-2012, 00:21
You know, despite most welfare recipients being leeches, there are some that have been put in a situation where welfare is necessary and are not intentionally leeches of the system... what welfare is actually intended for. The answer is not to not let them vote. The answer is welfare reform. Give it only to people who legitimately need assistance and cannot work. If that were to happen there wouldnt be enough "leeches" to make a big difference in a national election.

Random
11-09-2012, 00:37
"a conflict of interest letting a welfare recipient vote"

Well, welfare reform isn't the only issue on the docket. I think pro-choice/anti-choice is possibly the most divisive issue in politics right now. It would also seem apparent that anyone with fully functioning reproductive organs has an obvious conflict of interest. There would be a conflict of interest letting anyone with the ability to make a child, male or female, vote.

NeverMore1701
11-09-2012, 00:41
I'd be happy with mandatory, frequent, and random drug screens for welfare recipients and ID checks to vote.

NeverMore1701
11-09-2012, 00:42
Immediate termination of benefits upon conception of a child wouldn't hurt either.

railfancwb
11-09-2012, 01:12
Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.

Been reading/watching "Starship Troopers" lately?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

frizz
11-09-2012, 02:02
Found this and summarized it.

There is a conflict of interest letting a welfare recipient vote.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jAGFTmAl3o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jAGFTmAl3o)

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support"

George Bernard Shaw

1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
2. From faith to great courage.
3. From courage to liberty.
4. From liberty to abundance.
5. From abundance to complacency.
6. From complacency to selfishness.
7. From selfishness to apathy.
8. From apathy to dependency.
9. And from dependency back again into bondage."

-- Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, author and politician, in a letter to a friend in 1857


This is such a novel concept. I've never heard of anything like this!

Glad you made a new thread about it.

Highspeedlane
11-09-2012, 03:18
There seems to be a fundamental flaw with the concept of letting people on the dole vote for politicians who keep them on the dole.

Flying-Dutchman
11-09-2012, 03:34
Excellent point but why stop there? As long as we are trampling the Constitution why not only give voting priviledges to those who have served in the active-duty military for a minimum of 3 years.
Sorry about trampling on the Constitution but that ship sailed a long time ago.

You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to adjust the Constitution to allow a welfare state forcing me to buy something and support the rest of you it costs you some freedom like voting.

Otherwise the system collapses as it always does.

Let's turn the clock back 100 years and run the Country closer to the original ideals of the Constitution.

You get to vote but keep you hands out of my pocket. Pay your own way in the world.

Bren
11-09-2012, 03:48
I've never received welfare, I work and pay my ! but because I havnt served shouldn't give me the right to vote? Hahaha real funny buddy.

Real poor reading comprehension, buddy. Maybe we also need an intelligence test to vote?

goldenlight
11-09-2012, 03:59
Just to be safe, minorities and women shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Just to be safe.:steamed::steamed::steamed:

Flying-Dutchman
11-09-2012, 04:04
Just to be safe, minorities and women shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Just to be safe.:steamed::steamed::steamed:
Nope, just get rid of the welfare; it is as simple as that.

Flying-Dutchman
11-09-2012, 04:06
This is such a novel concept. I've never heard of anything like this!

Glad you made a new thread about it.
My thoughts exactly but in honor of our new healthcare system...

SGT HATRED
11-09-2012, 04:18
Tagged

costanza187
11-09-2012, 06:10
Just to be safe, minorities and women shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Just to be safe.:steamed::steamed::steamed:



There is no reason to bring them into this. There are many, many, many minorities and women who are hard-working contributing citizens, and there are plenty of lazy white guys. This is NOT a race/gender issue. It's a leech issue.

It seems fair if you pay taxes, you get a say in who is spending that money and how.

This is all talk and will never happen anyway but the idea is interesting to ponder. Kind of like which Super Bowl team would win in any given scenario...

'79 Steelers vs '85 Bears

JMS
11-09-2012, 06:13
How do we gets the Jews and the Blacks to not vote? While we're taking the rights away from women, why not the right to vote as well?

How about everyone that doesn't believe in what we do not voting? How can we make this happen?

eracer
11-09-2012, 06:51
Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.Should the guys in logistics be able to vote? Or just those with 'trigger time?'

And if so, what if there's no war? Do we manufacture one, so that we can create more voters?

I like the initial thought process (I mean, really, denying welfare recipients the right to vote is so, like, last week,) but you need to refine your criteria a bit.

I actually think we'd be better served by only allowing people whose church has more than seven words in its name (like Church of the Holy Redeemer on the Water) to vote. That way, we'd have to spend a lot less time with that annoying side effect of freedom called Government by the People.

Meanie5470
11-09-2012, 07:19
this thread needs to be deleted before NBC puts half of it on the news lol

lunarspeak
11-09-2012, 07:29
this thread needs to be deleted before NBC puts half of it on the news lol

the headline could be CRY BABYS THAT LOST ELECTION WANT POOR,MINORITYS,AND WOMEN TO LOSE RIGHT TO VOTE SO THEY CAN WIN ,,,,(even though the elections over)

Jeff82
11-09-2012, 08:15
I hate to pee in your cornflakes but there is no "Right to Vote". States are free to set up any system they want in determining how they fill seats. What the constitution says is there are reasons that cannot be used to discriminate if voting is used as the method. (sex, race, etc.)

Paul7
11-09-2012, 08:26
Nope. Active duty and vets of active duty only. Tax payers and land owners are only able to live under an American flag, earn a living and own land because of the protection of the military. They're leaching off of other peoples sacrifices.

Including the majority of the military known as 'pogues', those who are pencil-pushers in zero danger and are probably less fit than many on GT?

hamster
11-09-2012, 08:27
I don't agree. Based on that logic no police officers should vote, no mail men, no city engineers, etc. All draw funds directly tied to the outcome of the vote.

I don't think that is fair or equitable.

However, I would be ok with property tax issues on local ballots being only open to people who pay said property taxes.

SMOKEin
11-09-2012, 08:29
I'm digging this thread. Can we take 2A away from welfare recipients also? I mean, they are the only ones who would possibly rob someone for drugs or money.

TheJ
11-09-2012, 08:36
I hate to pee in your cornflakes but there is no "Right to Vote". States are free to set up any system they want in determining how they fill seats. What the constitution says is there are reasons that cannot be used to discriminate if voting is used as the method. (sex, race, etc.)


This.

sheriff733
11-09-2012, 08:38
How about only rich white land owners should be allowed to vote? :upeyes:

Now we're talkin'.

FetchMonster1
11-09-2012, 08:47
Sounds good to me. MS LA and AL would likely turn blue.

mgs
11-09-2012, 08:51
"It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially when the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins?”

If you don't pay.....you should not get to play!

professorpinki
11-09-2012, 08:51
There seems to be a fundamental flaw with the concept of letting people on the dole vote for politicians who keep them on the dole.
Shouldnt be able to vote at all, because politicians make laws that affect everyone.

For example, raising tax rates. Or, for example, imposing tariffs. Or, for yet another example, environmental regulations that run companies out of business.

professorpinki
11-09-2012, 08:55
I actually think we'd be better served by only allowing people whose church has more than seven words in its name (like Church of the Holy Redeemer on the Water) to vote. That way, we'd have to spend a lot less time with that annoying side effect of freedom called Government by the People.
Well isn't that a nice bigoted shot at Mormons and Romney.

FFR Spyder GT
11-09-2012, 09:05
Excellent point but why stop there? As long as we are trampling the Constitution why not only give voting priviledges to those who have served in the active-duty military for a minimum of 3 years? If you haven't demonstrated a willingness to fight and die in the defense of this country, to lead and to be led, then you are obviously too selfish and cowardly to make the hard choices necessary in deciding the future of this country.

+1!

Plus you must have natural blonde hair and blues eyes. :wavey:

Spyder

P.S. Did I mention that I have blonde hair and blue eyes?:cool:

Posted with TapTalk from my ObamaPhone

Big Bird
11-09-2012, 09:13
As a former 10 year Army combat veteran I'm stunned that someone wearing a uniform would seek to limit the rights of the people paying his wages, putting food in his children's mouths, providing healthcare and retirement benefits etc. IOW telling the people he works for they are not worthy of freedom and democracy. Think about that for a minute or two. Reflect on your high school civics education (if you had one) and come back with an informed opinion that reflects the values of your oath (ya know--support an defend the Constitution..blah blah blah)

If the problem is people vote themselves benefits is the answer to take away the freedom to vote? Or to eliminate the benefits? Or perhaps make people actually pay for the benefits they expect to receive? Is eliminating freedom the right road to go down to fix this problem? If you say it is I suggest you need to have your head examined.

kirgi08
11-09-2012, 09:18
Pay income tax you vote, military vote, real estate owners vote. Leaches No.

And all must present a valid Government-issued photo ID to cast their vote. Absolutely no exceptions.

:goodpost: :agree:

Walt_NC
11-09-2012, 09:18
As a former 10 year Army combat veteran I'm stunned that someone wearing a uniform would seek to limit the rights of the people paying his wages, putting food in his children's mouths, providing healthcare and retirement benefits etc....

If you're talking about me, you clearly missed the point.

fnfalman
11-09-2012, 09:19
Fine by me. People who receive direct welfare or subsidies (a form of welfare as far as I'm concerned) should not get to vote.

Walt_NC
11-09-2012, 09:23
Been reading/watching "Starship Troopers" lately?

Not lately but this thread has suddenly given me the urge to re-read it. 'Troopers' and 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' are two of my all-time favorites.

TANSTAAFL

kiole
11-09-2012, 09:27
Fine by me. People who receive direct welfare or subsidies (a form of welfare as far as I'm concerned) should not get to vote.

So your saying those on social security or Medicare shouldn't vote? What about farmers and what about the rich who use tax loopholes? What about big oil employees and government enployees(all who are employees partly because of govt subsidies and welfare)

cranejc
11-09-2012, 09:30
Or how about almost everyone in my parents' community - disabled or drawing SS, and delivering votes for the GOP for decades...

Big Bird
11-09-2012, 09:34
If members of the military receive their pay and benefits from the government should they also be barred from voting? What's to keep the miltary from voting themselves even bigger pay and benefit packages? (see--it kinda works both ways....)

Walt_NC
11-09-2012, 09:38
If members of the military receive their pay and benefits from the government should they also be barred from voting? What's to keep the miltary from voting themselves even bigger pay and benefit packages? (see--it kinda works both ways....)

Stop. Collaborate and listen: go back and re-read my post. I am saying that only allowing service members to vote would be wrong. Just as preventing welfare recipients to vote would be wrong. And unconstitutional (in both cases).

F14Scott
11-09-2012, 09:45
Sidestepping the military service/Heinlein discussion (which I think has merit), I think eligible voters should have their voting power tied directly to their tax bills in any given jurisdiction. After all, voting is nothing more than selecting the politicians who will spend or distribute moneys collected in taxes. Call it one vote per dollar paid.

Make a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes? Good, you get a lot of votes.
Make a lot of money but avoid paying a lot of taxes? Fine, you get fewer votes.
Don't make much money and/or don't pay taxes? OK, no votes for you.

Of course, this system only works if we assume a functioning constitutional republic, wherein people's basic rights are protected, regardless of who is in office or what laws are passed.

ChuteTheMall
11-09-2012, 09:56
I'm pro-choice on this.

You can choose to accept welfare, or you can choose to vote.

Either-or, but never both.

And don't whine about this being unconstitutional, so was the income tax until it was amended.

Big Bird
11-09-2012, 09:58
If you're talking about me, you clearly missed the point.

No, I get your point. Reductio ad absurdium.


I'm only clarifying your point for people who don't understand sarcasm.

Stephenthesuave
11-09-2012, 10:01
Stop. Collaborate and listen: go back and re-read my post. I am saying that only allowing service members to vote would be wrong. Just as preventing welfare recipients to vote would be wrong. And unconstitutional (in both cases).

While I disagree with your position, at least I can read well enough to understand it :/

Flying-Dutchman
11-09-2012, 10:05
Stop. Collaborate and listen: go back and re-read my post. I am saying that only allowing service members to vote would be wrong. Just as preventing welfare recipients to vote would be wrong. And unconstitutional (in both cases).
But somehow redistributing my money to you is constitutional and forcing me to buy something is constitutional.

No worries dude; you takers now outnumber the makers and your position is secure. You will get your .gov check but it will buy 1 cup of coffee.

390ish
11-09-2012, 10:55
This sort of thing was hashed out at the Constitutional Convention. Quite a few of the founding fathers wanted to limit the vote to people who owned real property (land). Had a lot of support, but ultimately failed. You have to realize our system of getting officials was and is radical.

I think, but am not sure that one of the reasons senators were not elected, but appointed under the Constitution as originally written was so that a big part of legislative branch would not be accountable or be held hostage by a bunch of idiot voters who wanted bread and circuses. The problem was that it went to far in the other direction and those folks did not really look out for "the people" at all and Constitution was amended.

It is a marketing issue. There are a lot of people who don't mind the trade off of a marginal existence in exchange for not working or living in a nice house. How do you incentivize those folks to elect officials that want to do something other than keep the hand-outs flowing? I don't know. I don't think that limiting a vote should be part of the process in America. There is a way to achieve it, through an amendment to the constitution. That is how all the big changes in our political history occurred. I would not support such an amendment, but to each his own.

Ian Moone
11-09-2012, 11:08
Heck ...I'd be happy if we could just require an ID in every state in order to vote. Taking voting rights from all the non-citizens and dead would be a great start to reclaiming sanity in our governance.

TheJ
11-09-2012, 15:10
So your saying those on social security or Medicare shouldn't vote? What about farmers and what about the rich who use tax loopholes? What about big oil employees and government enployees(all who are employees partly because of govt subsidies and welfare)

Tax deductions are not loopholes they're tax deductions (if we don't like them there is a way to fix that.). But calling them loopholes is basically the same as the people who call private sales of firearms "the gun show loop hole"... There is no such thing.

Getting a check from the government when you don't pay in is completely different then not giving quite as much of your money to the government. Refundable tax credits though is another story all together.

Social security isn't a hand out because ostensibly you must have paid some amount into it in order to collect from it. So its not welfare.

Gregg702
11-09-2012, 15:45
For a bunch of people who are supposedly for smaller government, some of you sure do seem to want to put more restrictions and requirements on peoples rights.

.264 magnum
11-09-2012, 15:54
For a bunch of people who are supposedly for smaller government, some of you sure do seem to want to put more restrictions and requirements on peoples rights.

More or less. I think the original thesis of the thread is that the framers, while having a beer and tofu at City Tavern, should have tied voting to success in some way.

On the dole or earn your check through/from the .gov - no vote.

Own a business, serving or have served in the military, own some land etc. - vote.

$100 poll tax - vote.

Not employing such a constitutional device is looking like a profound screw-up at this point.

frank4570
11-09-2012, 16:13
I just heard obama on the radio. Apparently our government is spending too much. He says the solution it to take more money from rich people. And he says the election proves that americans agree with him.

EdTracker
11-09-2012, 17:15
Not having a constitutional check on vote buying is wrong. My twist on the concept of pay tax get to vote is:

Everyone basically pays state taxes (sales, etc) so they can vote in their local elections. So everyone could vote locally.

Those whom pay a net Federal tax (even if it is only one dollar) get to vote in Federal Elections.

kirgi08
11-09-2012, 17:25
Point is,somethings gotta give.The welfare/nanny state has gotta go.'08.

dango
11-09-2012, 17:36
We all got our own ideas and thoughts on this but , a DESPERATE MAN IS A DNGEROUS MAN ! You think people would just lie down and die ? Really ? I see blood running in the streets !

I don't have the answers , wish I did but again , A DESPERATE MAN IS A DANGEROUS MAN...............!

Ruble Noon
11-09-2012, 18:18
I don't agree with it. Im making the point that my scenario is just as reasonable as denying welfare recipients their Constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections.