Should welfare recipients be allowed to vote?

[MTTiger19]

I saw this posed yesterday and it’s a fair point. If you’re on welfare you are absolutely bought and paid for by democrats. That’s 40+ million baked in votes in every presidential election (and yall still lose which is pathetic, you cheat and buy votes and still can’t win). So should welfare recipients be allowed to vote when it’s not really a vote it’s more an extension of their free benefits. I believe if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote, I think that’s the right way but understand that’s not ideal. But this is an interesting situation bc you are literally buying votes from people by “fighting” for their tax payer funded benefits that the tax payer doesn’t want to fund.

 

[MTTiger19]

Found the video.

 

[FLaw47]

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

-The Declaration of Independence. The most vulnerable among us should absolutely have the right to vote.

 

[ClemsonInAtlanta]

Watching @MTTiger19 slip further and further away from American principles is top notch entertainment

I can’t wait for next week’s “Final Solution” for welfare recipients

 

[scotchtiger]

We can’t take the right to vote away from any American citizen.

That said, the fact that people have the ability to vote to have money taken from hardworking Americans and given to themselves is a very difficult thing to rationalize.

 

[MTTiger19]

-The Declaration of Independence. The most vulnerable among us should absolutely have the right to vote.

Are you vulnerable if you choose to be?

 

[MTTiger19]

Watching @MTTiger19 slip further and further away from American principles is top notch entertainment

I can’t wait for next week’s “Final Solution” for welfare recipients

Bro, I asked a question. Jesus yall are soft.

 

[MTTiger19]

We can’t take the right to vote away from any American citizen.

That said, the fact that people have the ability to vote to have money taken from hardworking Americans and given to themselves is a very difficult thing to rationalize.

Agreed, but we must admit that it’s a weird situation. One party is overtly pro-free stuff and they’ve created a huge base with handouts, not substance.

 

[firegiver]

Bro, I asked a question. Jesus yall are soft.

The answer is enshrined in the constitution. Hope that helps.

 

[scotchtiger]

Agreed, but we must admit that it’s a weird situation. One party is overtly pro-free stuff and they’ve created a huge base with handouts, not substance.

Confiscating more money from hardworking Americans to buy votes from the unwashed masses is a problem, to be sure.

 

[MTTiger19]

Confiscating more money from hardworking Americans to buy votes from the unwashed masses is a problem, to be sure.

That’s my point. And they can do that and create a voter base. Which is exactly what’s happening.

 

[FLaw47]

Do you guys want to live in a Representative Democracy or not? I'm confused.

 

[MTTiger19]

The answer is enshrined in the constitution. Hope that helps.

I love these answers. Do you really think our founding fathers would have supported 40% of able bodied men sitting on their asses, not working and collecting tax revenue so they could eat and afford their house? Be honest.

 

[FLaw47]

I love these answers. Do you really think our founding fathers would have supported 40% of able bodied men sitting on their asses, not working and collecting tax revenue so they could eat and afford their house? Be honest.

Do you really think the Founding Father's would have wanted our current administration? Be honest.

 

[MTTiger19]

Do you guys want to live in a Representative Democracy or not? I'm confused.

Trump is president. That’s representative of the majority of America and they seem to be getting tired of this too.

 

[FLaw47]

Trump is president. That’s representative of the majority of America and they seem to be getting tired of this too.

I was referring to people wanting to make it so that certain people shouldn't vote or say that progressive taxes were somehow immoral. Democracy results in things that some people don't like.

 

[firegiver]

I love these answers. Do you really think our founding fathers would have supported 40% of able bodied men sitting on their asses, not working and collecting tax revenue so they could eat and afford their house? Be honest.

40% of able bodied men? Where are you getting that statistic?
I think we all would like to address the issue of low wages, disabled folks and homelessness and poverty. However, I'm not whining about a bandaid solution and not proposing another like yourself.

It's like when I uncover an issue at work and take it to the C suite, I better come with clear descriptions of the problem and solutions, multiple solutions on how to address the issue and what the outcome and risks will be for that approach.

If I just show up t o a meeting and complain the whole time, no one is going to take me seriously.

 

[ClemsonInAtlanta]

Bro, I asked a question. Jesus yall are soft.

Yeah, and the nazis asked the question of whether or not Jewish people should exist. It’s a slippery slope. The ability of the Trump cult to normalize questioning the constitution in one breath while alluding to it as a holy document in the next is downright sickening.

Questions like this are the birthplace of a serious problem. Let’s not make a problem where one doesn’t exist

 

[MTTiger19]

40% of able bodied men? Where are you getting that statistic?
I think we all would like to address the issue of low wages, disabled folks and homelessness and poverty. However, I'm not whining about a bandaid solution and not proposing another like yourself.

It's like when I uncover an issue at work and take it to the C suite, I better come with clear descriptions of the problem and solutions, multiple solutions on how to address the issue and what the outcome and risks will be for that approach.

If I just show up t o a meeting and complain the whole time, no one is going to take me seriously.

I’m attempting to make it relevant to the 1700s. I doubt they expected women to work. That’s normal now. So just say 40% of able bodied people. Or make it 20%. Do you think they would be ok with 20% doing nothing and getting everything for free? I do not.

 

[MTTiger19]

Do you really think the Founding Father's would have wanted our current administration? Be honest.

Way more than the last one yes. They would’ve rioted over the vax mandate. Remember what they did over tea.

 

[Aardvark86]

Absolutely, if they're citizens.

(Honestly... this really isn't that hard.)

But as to the underlying premise suggested in the OP, I do hope that the non-welfare population understands that the social safety net serves them too. Argue if you will about whether it is or should be a safety net or a trampoline, and think what you will about whether you'll personally ever need it, but the reality is it protects the wealthy from economic, social, and political instability, not to mention being a moral thing.

Fun related story - some years ago at our firm's annual meeting, the lunchtime guest speaker was the CEO of one of the big banks that had received funds under TARP. As he recounted the story, the major bank CEOs were invited to a white house meeting to discuss economic conditions and were essentially "told" the amounts that they were each going to accept (whether they liked it or not). When the first replies of "but but but" came of their mouths, they were informed that this was going to happen because the G was genuinely concerned that in certain parts of the country the social fabric might actually unravel without the injection of liquidity (ahem...Detroit, which also had the auto bailouts).

 

[m.knox]

I saw this posed yesterday and it’s a fair point. If you’re on welfare you are absolutely bought and paid for by democrats. That’s 40+ million baked in votes in every presidential election (and yall still lose which is pathetic, you cheat and buy votes and still can’t win). So should welfare recipients be allowed to vote when it’s not really a vote it’s more an extension of their free benefits. I believe if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote, I think that’s the right way but understand that’s not ideal. But this is an interesting situation bc you are literally buying votes from people by “fighting” for their tax payer funded benefits that the tax payer doesn’t want to fund.

That was a good clip. Nice to see young people with some critical, albeit somewhat cynical, thought.

That said, all Americans have the right to vote.

 

[MTTiger19]

That was a good clip. Nice to see young people with some critical, albeit somewhat cynical, thought.

That said, all Americans have the right to vote.

Interesting that she’s from Brazil right. So an immigrant that benefits from our open borders and welfare state is telling you this is a big problem. That’s another factor.

 

[firegiver]

I’m attempting to make it relevant to the 1700s. I doubt they expected women to work. That’s normal now. So just say 40% of able bodied people. Or make it 20%. Do you think they would be ok with 20% doing nothing and getting everything for free? I do not.

Does a blind man in 1700's work? Does a disabled person? What happens to them in the 1700s? Explain what in the world you are even talking about and trying to solve.

 

[dbjork6317]

I saw this posed yesterday and it’s a fair point. If you’re on welfare you are absolutely bought and paid for by democrats. That’s 40+ million baked in votes in every presidential election (and yall still lose which is pathetic, you cheat and buy votes and still can’t win). So should welfare recipients be allowed to vote when it’s not really a vote it’s more an extension of their free benefits. I believe if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote, I think that’s the right way but understand that’s not ideal. But this is an interesting situation bc you are literally buying votes from people by “fighting” for their tax payer funded benefits that the tax payer doesn’t want to fund.

I agree! A disabled veteran who collects benefits from the government should absolutely NOT have the right to vote!

In fact, members of the military should NOT be allowed to vote at all since they can vote for candidates who promise to increase their pay! They are BOUGHT!!!!!

Also, states whose citizens collect more gov benefits per capita should NOT count in the electoral college!

 

[Jfcarter3]

I saw this posed yesterday and it’s a fair point. If you’re on welfare you are absolutely bought and paid for by democrats. That’s 40+ million baked in votes in every presidential election (and yall still lose which is pathetic, you cheat and buy votes and still can’t win). So should welfare recipients be allowed to vote when it’s not really a vote it’s more an extension of their free benefits. I believe if you don’t pay taxes you don’t vote, I think that’s the right way but understand that’s not ideal. But this is an interesting situation bc you are literally buying votes from people by “fighting” for their tax payer funded benefits that the tax payer doesn’t want to fund.

Premise is grossly flawed. It assumes that everyone on welfare is a Democrat, or said another way, that there are no die hard Christian MAGA Republicans out there that get some sort of assistance. That's just not accurate. I actually know people who, based upon their life histories and the assistance they have been provided, have absolutely no reason to vote Republican. Basically, they are a living hypocrisy. Yet they are dedicated Fox Newsers just like their MAGA brethren and vote accordingly.

And yes, if you're an American then you get to vote.

 

[FLaw47]

Way more than the last one yes. They would’ve rioted over the vax mandate. Remember what they did over tea.

What vaccine mandates?

George Washington forced the entire Continental Army to get Small Pox inoculation. The United States has had actual vaccine mandates at plenty of points throughout history. So...try again?

 

[dbjork6317]

What vaccine mandates?

George Washington forced the entire Continental Army to get Small Pox inoculation. The United States has had actual vaccine mandates at plenty of points throughout history. So...try again?

Yeah Americans being completely unwilling to do basic things for the good of the community is relatively new.

 

[Aardvark86]

Do you really think the Founding Father's would have wanted our current administration? Be honest.

To be clear, it depends on which founding fathers you are referring to. Remember, it wasn't until 1856 that property ownership was no longer a voting qualification in any state; in 1875, SCOTUS ruled that voting rights did not necessarily come with citizenship, and it literally wasn't until 1966 that wealth and tax requirements were deemed prohibited.

 

[FLaw47]

To be clear, it depends on which founding fathers you are referring to. Remember, it wasn't until 1856 that property ownership was no longer a voting qualification in any state; in 1875, SCOTUS ruled that voting rights did not necessarily come with citizenship, and it literally wasn't until 1966 that wealth and tax requirements were deemed prohibited.

In this context I'm referring to Trump using the government as his personal piggy bank and ignoring the will of congress. Trump is precisely the sort of person the elector college was set up to override the will of the people on. I can't imagine any founders would be a fan.

 

[FLaw47]

Yeah Americans being completely unwilling to do basic things for the good of the community is relatively new.

I bet if the government was begging people not to post warship movements on social media we'd have people screeching about censorship.

 

[MTTiger19]

Does a blind man in 1700's work? Does a disabled person? What happens to them in the 1700s? Explain what in the world you are even talking about and trying to solve.

I was very clear that I was referring to able bodied people. Do yall even read what you respond to?

 

[MTTiger19]

Premise is grossly flawed. It assumes that everyone on welfare is a Democrat, or said another way, that there are no die hard Christian MAGA Republicans out there that get some sort of assistance. That's just not accurate. I actually know people who, based upon their life histories and the assistance they have been provided, have absolutely no reason to vote Republican. Basically, they are a living hypocrisy. Yet they are dedicated Fox Newsers just like their MAGA brethren and vote accordingly.

And yes, if you're an American then you get to vote.

You think it’s 50/50 welfare recipients that vote D vs R. Laughable. 80/20 for sure.

 

[ANEW]

The original constitution largely left it up to the states do define who could vote. So at that time it was basically white, male, property owners.

Women and Blacks weren't seen as having the mental ability to participate rationally (blacks were also a hard no in any of the slave owning states for obvious reasons)

The property owning part was due to a distrust in the uneducated masses and fear of mob rule.

Subsequent amendments addressed the ambiguity and mandated exteded voting rights and barriers to voting (poll taxes)

 

[Jfcarter3]

You think it’s 50/50 welfare recipients that vote D vs R. Laughable. 80/20 for sure.

Simply pointing out the factual inaccuracy. Truth be told, you have no idea what the split is. Might be 51/49 Republicans - who knows. But can't just put hyperbolic nonsense out there and treat it as fact when it's not.

But let's say it is 80/20. You just missed your initial premise by 8,000,000 people.

 

[MTTiger19]

The original constitution largely left it up to the states do define who could vote. So at that time it was basically white, male, property owners.

Women and Blacks weren't seen as having the mental ability to participate rationally (blacks were also a hard no in any of the slave owning states for obvious reasons)

The property owning part was due to a distrust in the uneducated masses and fear of mob rule.

Subsequent amendments addressed the ambiguity and mandated exteded voting rights and barriers to voting (poll taxes)

Fast forward 100 years and illegals are voting in local and national elections. Being given free food, healthcare, housing, etc. Common sense should prevail at some point.

 

[MTTiger19]

Simply pointing out the factual inaccuracy. Truth be told, you have no idea what the split is. Might be 51/49 Republicans - who knows. But can't just put hyperbolic nonsense out there and treat it as fact when it's not.

But let's say it is 80/20. You just missed your initial premise by 8,000,000 people.

What factual inaccuracy?

Key Statistics on Voting Patterns


Based on the most direct sources:


• 60–80% of welfare recipients vote Democratic: Analysis of the Maxwell Poll (2004–2007, covering ~5,000 respondents) shows that in a two-party split, 60–80% of those receiving welfare (TANF, food stamps, or similar) supported Democratic candidates, compared to ~50% even split among full-time workers. This holds after controlling for income, race, and education. The poll’s validated voting data minimizes self-reporting bias.


• Food stamp recipients (SNAP) lean heavily Democratic: A 2013 Pew survey found 22% of Democrats (vs. 10% of Republicans) had received SNAP. Among ever-recipients, 73% believe government has a duty to help the needy (vs. 56% of non-recipients), aligning with Democratic views. Extrapolating from exit polls, ~70–80% of low-income SNAP households vote Democratic.


• Low-income voters (proxy for welfare recipients): Exit polls from recent elections show:

 

[Jfcarter3]

So you knowingly lied in your initial post? You made it 100%...


Truth be told, had your initial post been accurate, then Trump would have lost the popular election (badly), right? See, words have meaning.

 

[dbjork6317]

In this context I'm referring to Trump using the government as his personal piggy bank and ignoring the will of congress. Trump is precisely the sort of person the elector college was set up to override the will of the people on. I can't imagine any founders would be a fan.

I really hate any “would the founders have liked this” argument. The founders have been dead for 2 centuries. We live in a world now that they could not possibly have imagined. I mean, George Washington likely died from bleeding to death because they thought the best treatment for an infection was to slit his throat.

So, to be blunt, who cares what the founders would have thought of various modern day issues? What matters is the fundamental rights they established that this country has built its identity around and expanded upon over time.

Until now, we have all kind of agreed that once a right is granted, it can’t be taken away. We now have a government and a court that is arguing we granted too many rights and they should be rolled back. This is a fundamental change to the identity of our country. The question is - are we OK with that? Are we, right now, not people who died hundreds of years ago, ok with our country making wholesale changes to its guiding philosophy and principles that made it what it is?

A large enough portion of the country is ok with it. And that’s what matters.

 

[FLaw47]

I really hate any “would the founders have liked this” argument. The founders have been dead for 2 centuries. We live in a world now that they could not possibly have imagined. I mean, George Washington likely died from bleeding to death because they thought the best treatment for an infection was to slit his throat.

So, to be blunt, who cares what the founders would have thought of various modern day issues? What matters is the fundamental rights they established that this country has built its identity around and expanded upon over time.

Until now, we have all kind of agreed that once a right is granted, it can’t be taken away. We now have a government and a court that is arguing we granted too many rights and they should be rolled back. This is a fundamental change to the identity of our country. The question is - are we OK with that? Are we, right now, not people who died hundreds of years ago, ok with our country making wholesale changes to its guiding philosophy and principles that made it what it is?

A large enough portion of the country is ok with it. And that’s what matters.

You're totally correct. I was just responding to a dumb argument and I should have just pointed out that the argument was dumb.