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

Disagree with their "right to vote". Many successful leaders have questioned the "one man, one vote" (all-inclusive voting) but have never really changed it. Lee Kuan Yew- the "Father of Singapore"- was a good example of this. He believed that the middle-aged employed deserved double the vote of the youth, the unemployed, and the elderly, but never implemented this, keeping the "one man, one vote" system inherited from Britain.

The party that gives the most "freebies" will always win in the current situation and this will simply increase as the rate of failures in society seems rapidly rising. That will help the "blue party" you all know as Americans, or the "red party" in most European countries, consolidate their power.

Remove the voting rights of economic parasites- I'm sure leftists will find that a very harsh term- and America would be radically transformed tomorrow. This socialistic "freebies" nonsense cannot go on forever. The more they give to parasites, the more they take from you. The GOP are completely justified in any efforts they make (I'm not an American but have heard they are the ones behind the "scare" (by various minorities) that it might eventuate in your country) to implement this.

To suggest that liberals cannot build businesses I disagree with. Microsoft, Facebook, Google, are all examples of notoriously liberal businesses (far too liberal for my tastes) that are successful (arguably if some of the business creators were more conservative, the business might have been far better off). I do agree however that the hard-work, fend for yourself ethic of conservatism is by far the superior mindset in the regards of business. Liberalism in its entirety is antithetical to business- people have the freedom not to work, to be useless to society and so on, to begin with. Societies that are in practice more conservative (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan etc) are far more productive than the USA. Taiwan's consolidation of the computer industry for a nation that contains less than 30,000,000 population is undeniably an achievement, just as are the Chaebols (Samsung, LG) of South Korea and the Keiretsu (Sony, Panasonic) of Japan.

 

Do you really believe that people on welfare vote in the first place?

 

Actually, we need to consider only allowing people on welfare to vote. That's the only way to reduce the "wage gap" that the leftists keep whining about.

And of course, people who are convicted pedophiles, suffering from developmental disabilities, afflicted with Alzheimers or senile dementia, or have died should vote. That's the only way to keep leftists in power forever.

 

Of course. They aren't criminals and still have a vested interest in how we are governed. And as government grows, we all find ourselves very much affected by it. I would still insist upon photo ID.

 

What kind of welfare are you referring to---corporate welfare or the "poor people" welfare?

 

I heard some idiot actually say that only homeowners should have the right to vote. I asked him "So, does that mean if you lose your home you lose the right to vote?" He still hasn't answered the question.

 

So true.

 

The Founding Fathers only cared about people who were exactly like them...White, male and wealthy. I don't think owning slaves was a requirement was it?

 

No, but since most of the lands in the south were large holdings the southerners were afraid of letting their tenant farmers and renters have the vote, which was why they held out for the property requirement, which was widely despised in the northern states despite fact that the most farmers in the north owned their land. Large populations lived in the cities and towns of the north and the land ownership requirement was considered such a grossly unfair disenfranchisement that the northern states simply ignored it until it was removed in return for the counting of slaves for apportionment purposes.

 

People hit hard time's some times ,draft dodgers came home and voted, and won election .

 

how about this fact.

There is a research in UK, many people may know.

-- many office workers make less contribution to the country than cleaners.
in fact if these office workers work harder, they will waste more money.
cleaners remove rubbish, some office workers only create rubbish


poor people make 0 contribution, some rich people (example some lawyers make millions by doing damages!)
Their votes should be counted as negative votes. lol

 

people who back the idea - "only tax payers can vote" are stupid, only if they are very rich, then it is other case

because if only tax payers can vote, then rich people will completely rule others.
since by the same logic, why people pay $10,000 can have the same right as people pay $10,000,000??

 

and other joke is these simple people really believe they can make some real decisions based on vote.


Recently Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner for doing essentially nothing, awarded former US president GHW Bush the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for doing essentially nothing.

 

Yes, but maybe with a test of competence to be sure that the person who vote have a few knowledges...

 

All citizens, whether on welfare or not, should have the right to vote. Would you withhold an entire families right to vote if they accepted financial aid to go to college? In both scenarios you are accepting government aid.

 

I repeat my idea again

if "only tax payers can vote" , then in the future, only rich people can vote.


since by the same logic, why people pay $10,000 can have the same right as people pay $10,000,000??

 

Such programs should not exist in the first place, so the question is redundant.

 

Frankly, I think only those with a job or has retired from one should have the right to vote. Whether or not they are receiving any form of government assistance should be of secondary concern. Someone who does not pay taxes should not be permitted to determine how the government spends the money they receive from others. As we are seeing take place now, it is in the best interests of a politician to create more dependency on government, knowing they will continue to vote to keep him and his party in office, to the detriment of the country! That is NOT what the Framers wanted for the country they formed!

 

To the OP....

No, Thugs should not be allowed to vote. Thugs will only vote for a President who supports their Thuggery against the police, will give them more entitlements and will give them unfair ObamaCare.

In any case, Thugs are not intellectually capable of making a rational vote based on the greater good of the USA.

 

corporatists are the biggest welfare recipients in the world - nobody tries to deny them their right to vote

 

Voting isn't a privilege or even a right, it's a responsibility.

No one believes even half the folks in this country have anything intelligent to contribute to the process of government (we frequently differ about which half). But if we excluded even a small group of people from the process, those people would eventually find a fault with even the best policies and would claim tyranny had imposed that fault on them. This is how revolutions occur.

America will never have another revolution. Because anything we've ever done wrong was equally the responsibility of everyone who voted for it, failed to vote on it, or failed to convince enough of us there was a better way. And the most anyone could ask for is that next time we consider all suggestions and vote for the guy who seems to offer the best ones.

Which is all we've ever promised and what we deliver with every election.



​

 

I think what they didn't want was this two party sham that keeps the plutocracy a valid tool for the rich/elites, and all this nonsense about removing the right to vote, is to keep that plutocracy viable and alive

 

Neither are the extremists brainwashed by MSNBC/FOX News, but I don't hear you complaining about them. Just more poor bashing, when anybody with half a brain knows that the poor have no influence over what the government does, only wealth can corrupt government, and this country is a perfect example of how wealth and power corrupts. Bashing the poor for the shape this country is in is like kicking the dog when ever grandma farts. It is illogical, and counter productive.

 

most people in the USA who get entitlements, are not thugs.

 

it amazes me how many people want to turn our rights into privileges by saying not all Americans should have the privilege to have these rights