if you are on welfare should you have the right to vote?

Of course. It's the only way they can get a raise.

 

It's well known that people on welfare are not particularly responsible about voting so I think they should be required to sign over a proxy to vote to their case worker who will vote for them in their own best interest.

I asked an acquaintance how she could justify going to nursing home with pre-printed ballots for old people to sign. "Why not? All old people should vote Democrat. I don't see the problem." Right, so with the proxies, the welfare workers could vote for all the poor people.

Anything less than this will be the equivalent of disenfranchizement.

 

*long drawn out sigh* Are people really serious with these questions?

"Should people be afforded the rights that the constitution promised all its citizens?"

FFS, we just in this past century FINALLY gave the people that were dragged from their homes to this country the right to vote AND finally gave women that right. Under what diluted and idiotic sun did the idea that people who are struggling (Some, admittedly, FAR more than others as it's a simple system to abuse) should have such a right revoked? With what rational do you argue this?

 

I enjoy to see how conservative don't like freedom. Yeah, let's remove more rights. If in USA there is only a 37% of people voting, and you should ask why, let's reduce the number of voters.

 

This question embarrasses me. Everyone has the right to have their voice heard, even those dumb enough to be affiliated with the Republican party.

 

Really? My oldest granddaughter is twelve, she has been on some form of welfare her entire life. Much of that time was before B.O. essentially did away with welfare reform.

Tell me again how they get cut off after a certain amount of time?

 

This is appalling. Anyone who votes "no" to this has just taken a big metaphorical dump on democracy. Yes, let's just take away the votes of the unemployed and the disabled. That sounds like a brilliant idea. But why stop there? Why not only people that own land? Why not only white people? Why not only White-Christian land owners? Why not only white-Christian land owners who have an iq of 130+?

 

So you're perfectly okay with able bodied individuals who could work, but choose not to, voting themselves somebody else's hard earned money? Why?

 

Because adult suffrage is a fundamental principle of Liberal Democracy!

 

is that a yes?

 

Yes, I am an advocate of adult suffrage. If you are against it you are also against liberal democracy. Every adult should have a vote, there should be no qualifications other than perhaps people who are serving a jail time for some serious crime.

 

fair enough, but you still didn't answer my question.

the united states of america is not a liberal democracy, nor was it ever intended to be.

 

The Declaration of Independence assures every legal America citizen that they "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Denying American citizens on welfare the right to vote because that are handicapped or disabled is discriminating against their civil/humanitarian rights.

 

I did answer your question, if I believe in adult suffrage then I believe every adult should have a vote.

The USA is a liberal democracy. It's just sad that you actually want to take away peoples right to vote if they are unemployed. In fact I reckon if told the founding fathers you wanted to take away peoples right to vote they would probably b*tch slap you.

 

Who is suggesting that?

 

you did not answer my question. go back and read post number 33.

also, please post the quote of me saying I wanted to deny the right of unemployed people to vote.

 

I have a great idea. Let's take away voting rights from all welfare and unemployed people, then we will ALWAYS have a republican congress and president, simply by outsourcing ALL work. HAHAHAHAHA (Or better still, let's cut to the chase and elect a king/emperor straight away, don't even bother with separation of legislators and executives. HAHAHA)

 

You said, "So you're perfectly okay with able bodied individuals who could work, but choose not to, voting themselves somebody else's hard earned money? Why?"

Do you think that these people do not come under "adult suffrage"? I have answered your question several times. I would not applaud these people for their life style, but no I would not take away their most fundamental civil right because of it. I also presume that this means you do not want unemployed people to be able to vote. I don't see how else you could possibly categorise the person you have described. You have what, 10% unemployment? You want to ban 10% of your people the right to vote? It's ridiculous!

 

Agreed.

I have been laid off before, and I went on unemployment for 6 weeks, until I found another job, is that welfare?

My grandmother who worked from the depression through the 1980s (when her company went out of business), depends on her social security to help her pay the electricity needs the help. Is that welfare?

My grandfather was injured in Italy during WWII, and receives disability due to his injuries (Landmine). Is that Welfare?

I think we should be allowed to vote.

 

You do not presume, but assume. Being unemployed is not the same as choosing not to work. Unemployed people are not on welfare.

Once again, you did not answer my original question, but instead (in typical lib fashion) danced around it.

 

M'kay I thought you said only tax payers should be able to vote but maybe that was someone else. "Unemployed people are not on welfare"... Do you make some distinction between "unemployment benefits" and "welfare"?

I have answered your question. Every adult, not serving a prison sentence longer than say, 5 years, should have the right to vote. That is a pretty comprehensive answer. If you're not satisfied by that then well... tough, I don't care. lol.

I find it amazing that you think I haven't answered your question when you asked "is that a yes?" to which I replied "Yes" and then explained "Why?" which was also part of your question.

Here's a question for you: Do you believe in adult suffrage? It's rhetorical, like your question was!

 

I apologize, I didn't see the "yes" answer. Sorry about that.

I do draw a distinction between unemployment benefits and welfare. Don't you?

 

No problem.

No I don't. Unemployment benefits are just a type of welfare to me. I suppose I take the "European meaning" and not the American. Wiki says:

In the United States and Canada, welfare has a special meaning in politics, referring to financial aid for the poor. In Europe, has a different connotation, and it is defined as a universal service, available to rich and poor alike, thus guaranteeing a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens without the stigma of charity. This is termed "social solidarity". /end

Our unemployment benefits also decrease dramatically after a certain period of time, to try and get people off it. But even someone who has not sought work for 50 years should have a vote as far as I'm concerned. I mean christ, these people aren't doing it out of spite, usually not laziness (although there are exceptions), most of them have had serious issues, usually beginning in childhood. Being beaten, neglected, etc. The idea that we should take away anyones voting rights other than from a serious crime against society is disgusting to me.

 

People who live in states that receive more money from the gov't than they pay shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

What about Native Americans? or residents of Alaska?