Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

Vexed Veteran wrote: perdidochas wrote: A couple of different things.
1) There aren't many welfare abusers any more. Before welfare reform (that occurred during the initial Contract with America), I would have agreed more, but welfare isn't' a big problem. Heck, the food stamp programs in many states are having to advertise because not enough people are applying for them. Welfare abuse is a past issue.

2) I still don't understand why you feel naturalized citizens, who go through a heck of a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, shouldn't get the right to vote. It is ridiculous.

3) This is a heated place at times. When I see nonsensical ideas, I sometimes react that way. I am a conservative, and I hate it when people who claim to be conservatives post like fools.

4) I also think that the welfare/no vote condition should be temporary. Once somebody gets off welfare, they should regain their voting rights.

5) Children should NEVER be held accountable for their parent's wrongdoings. It is fundamentally wrong, and is against the ideals of this country.

To be honest, i haven't had to work around/with welfare abusers for almost 4 years now(whew). Unfortunately, i do not believe that the problem has been solved. Back as little as 4 years ago, I learned about three girls that went to a party to get pregnant. All three girls had sex with the 12 guys at the party. After confirming her pregnancy, the 15 year old went down too family services and (basically) said "I'm pregnant, pay me". When asked her age and who the father was, she replied that she was 15, and didn't know which of the guys was the father, as she was drunk and high! So what happens? The guys go to jail for CSC, a minor gets a check, and some poor kid gets brought into the world as a paycheck! Although I feel for the kid, I still feel that if i got to pay the taxes that get misappropriated to support them, they should not get the vote on top of that!

Well, those girls won't be able to do it for long. They will run out of benefits before they are legally able to drink.

Vexed Veteran wrote: It's not that i feel that 'naturalized' citizens are inferior or something, i just don't think there is any reason whatsoever for them to gain the vote. Why should there ever have been the ability for foreign born immigrants to be able to come too this country and gain a vote? I don't see that there is any compelling reason to do so. It's not as if we lack enough voters or something.

I assume that you believe in the idea of assimilation--that immigrants should be part of the country, rather than living here, separate from most Americans. What good reason do we have for naturalized citizens to not have a right to vote? Heck, why even allow for naturalized citizens if they dont' get the right to vote? (BTW, the founders did feel that allowing immigrants to become citizens (i.e. voters) was important. They gave Congress the power to make rules about naturalization--hence this was an important issue to them (From Article I, Section 8: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;) Also, as I've said before, most naturalized citizens that I've met have been the kind of people I want voting. They are hard-working taxpayers who were willing to go through hell (or at least purgatory) to become American citizens. What else do you want?

Vexed Veteran wrote: :?

If we were talking about them having to pay back all the money they got(treat it as a loan or something and charge interest), i could go for that once it was all paid back.

As long as the welfare abuser keeps and raises the kids(with there no-work ethic), then no way should that kid get to vote against my kid! I think that this is one point you and i will just never agree on. :roll:

Again, why should a kid have to suffer for having horrible parents.

Vexed Veteran wrote: If the welfare abuser were to have the child taken away(and raised by the state that is footing the bill), then maybe. Assuming the kid would be raised properly and acquire a good set of moral values/work ethic.

Abuser or user? There are people who need welfare temporarily. The abusers are not that common. Heck, the welfare rolls are getting smaller and smaller.

Also, what do you think is cheaper--paying a welfare parent to take care of a kid, or paying a government bureacracy to take care of a kid.....

[Vexed Veteran]

Thanks for the reply!

perdidochas wrote: Well, those girls won't be able to do it for long. They will run out of benefits before they are legally able to drink.

That's as maybe, but:
1) It doesn't address the problem to say, they ONLY get(what is it currently?), 3yrs or so. That's still 3 yrs too many.
2) It doesn't save the honest taxpayer from having to pay for those kids, nor keep those kids from getting to vote!
3) It doesn't address the fact that these women are unfit mothers!

perdidochas wrote: I assume that you believe in the idea of assimilation--that immigrants should be part of the country, rather than living here, separate from most Americans. What good reason do we have for naturalized citizens to not have a right to vote? Heck, why even allow for naturalized citizens if they don't get the right to vote? (BTW, the founders did feel that allowing immigrants to become citizens (i.e. voters) was important. They gave Congress the power to make rules about naturalization--hence this was an important issue to them (From Article I, Section 8: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;) Also, as I've said before, most naturalized citizens that I've met have been the kind of people I want voting. They are hard-working taxpayers who were willing to go through hell (or at least purgatory) to become American citizens. What else do you want?



I think i should point out that not all immigrants are like your mother. To generalize and say that "they are hard-working taxpayers" (although undoubtedly true in many cases). It ignores the clear and growing problem with the other immigrants, those who break our laws(not just the immigration ones, either). It ignores the problem of the immigrants that come here and receive 'tax incentives' and thus do not pay their share!

One big problem with immigration today is that these people are spread throughout our entire country, nobody has a clue how many there are(yes, not even the feds), nor what they are up too. There is no source i know of that can tell me exact numbers, what kind of benefits they are collecting, and weather or not the are hard working, honest people or something else.

I think at the very least all voting for immigrants should be suspended until such time as a nation wide investigation of the whole situation can be concluded(and the information made publicly available at no cost to everyone). Only then could it be decided weather or not to allow immigrants too vote again(and definitely, which ones would NOT).

As i have stated earlier, i do not believe it is needed to have any immigrants vote, as once they have worked and raised kids here, their kids would be getting the vote anyway.

perdidochas wrote: Abuser or user? There are people who need welfare temporarily. The abusers are not that common. Heck, the welfare rolls are getting smaller and smaller.

Also, what do you think is cheaper--paying a welfare parent to take care of a kid, or paying a government bureaucracy to take care of a kid.....

Abuser. I clarified that earlier in this thread. :shock:
In dollars? No clue. In cost not-in-dollars, definitely letting the state have the kids. Letting the welfare abusers raise them leads directly to 2ND generation welfare abusers.

I am way to tired to think clearly anymore right now!(long day at work).
Hope too hear from you again soon. Have a good one! :-D

[perdidochas]

Vexed Veteran wrote: Thanks for the reply!

perdidochas wrote: Well, those girls won't be able to do it for long. They will run out of benefits before they are legally able to drink.

That's as maybe, but:
1) It doesn't address the problem to say, they ONLY get(what is it currently?), 3yrs or so. That's still 3 yrs too many.
2) It doesn't save the honest taxpayer from having to pay for those kids, nor keep those kids from getting to vote!

So what! I think they should have the right to vote unless they themselves mess up. Again, why should they pay for their parents' sins?

Vexed Veteran wrote: 3) It doesn't address the fact that these women are unfit mothers!

That's a different issue. All I'm discussing is the right to vote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: perdidochas wrote: I assume that you believe in the idea of assimilation--that immigrants should be part of the country, rather than living here, separate from most Americans. What good reason do we have for naturalized citizens to not have a right to vote? Heck, why even allow for naturalized citizens if they don't get the right to vote? (BTW, the founders did feel that allowing immigrants to become citizens (i.e. voters) was important. They gave Congress the power to make rules about naturalization--hence this was an important issue to them (From Article I, Section 8: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;) Also, as I've said before, most naturalized citizens that I've met have been the kind of people I want voting. They are hard-working taxpayers who were willing to go through hell (or at least purgatory) to become American citizens. What else do you want?



I think i should point out that not all immigrants are like your mother. To generalize and say that "they are hard-working taxpayers" (although undoubtedly true in many cases). It ignores the clear and growing problem with the other immigrants, those who break our laws(not just the immigration ones, either). It ignores the problem of the immigrants that come here and receive 'tax incentives' and thus do not pay their share!

The great majority of immigrants who become naturalized citizens are hardworking people. Illegals are a different matter. Again, besides your prejudiced views against foreigners, I still have yet to hear a rational reason why naturalized citizens shouldn't have the right to vote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: One big problem with immigration today is that these people are spread throughout our entire country, nobody has a clue how many there are(yes, not even the feds), nor what they are up too. There is no source i know of that can tell me exact numbers, what kind of benefits they are collecting, and weather or not the are hard working, honest people or something else.

So you want the immigrants to live in immigrant communities? I thought my fellow conservatives want immigrants to assimilate.

Vexed Veteran wrote: I think at the very least all voting for immigrants should be suspended until such time as a nation wide investigation of the whole situation can be concluded(and the information made publicly available at no cost to everyone). Only then could it be decided weather or not to allow immigrants too vote again(and definitely, which ones would NOT).

I like current law. Immigrants who have gone through numerous background checks, who have lived here crime free for at least 5 yrs, who have passed a test in English and American history, and have sworn an oath of loyalty to this country, should continue having the right to vote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: As i have stated earlier, i do not believe it is needed to have any immigrants vote, as once they have worked and raised kids here, their kids would be getting the vote anyway.

Well, again, I disagree.

Vexed Veteran wrote: perdidochas wrote: Abuser or user? There are people who need welfare temporarily. The abusers are not that common. Heck, the welfare rolls are getting smaller and smaller.

Also, what do you think is cheaper--paying a welfare parent to take care of a kid, or paying a government bureaucracy to take care of a kid.....

Abuser. I clarified that earlier in this thread. :shock:
In dollars? No clue. In cost not-in-dollars, definitely letting the state have the kids. Letting the welfare abusers raise them leads directly to 2ND generation welfare abusers.


Well, based on your earlier posts, I think no amount of rest will help you think clearly. :twisted:

[evilWombat]

In a representative government, the best way to protect someone's rights is to give him the vote. Therefore, the people allowed to vote should be the people most valued by society. In the U.S., we like to think that everyone is equal, so all citizens should get the vote.

There are only 2 good reasons to deny someone the franchise:

1. Not ready to responsibly use the vote
2. Not important to the U.S. (foreigners and illegal immigrants)

Convicted Felons should vote after they have served their sentences. Making a personal mistake is irrelevant to self-expression at the polls. Besides, who else will take a stand against problems in the correctional system?

From a moral perspective, welfare recipients should vote. If they cannot, the nature of welfare becomes corrupted. The program was intended as a socioeconomic instrument, not a political one. By expanding and shrinking the welfare rolls, politicians will be able to manipulate the size of their constituencies. Restricting welfare recipients from voting complicates the nature of the welfare program.

From a fiscal perspective, allowing welfare recipients to vote is more likely a bad idea, since it will lead to the unrestrained growth of entitlement programs

Restricting the vote to English speakers is also a bad idea. Politicians could adjust the requirements of a literacy test, adding or removing immigrants from the voter pool for political gain. Since knowledge of English is required for citizenship anyway, this would be a purely political tool. I like the idea of coercing people in the U.S. to learn English, but denying the vote is a poor way to do it.

[VMAN]

I think that the idea of limiting the suffrage to people who own land is ridiculous and a great step back because this is the way it started out in early America with only landowners being allowed to vote. If you start taking rights from the havenots in favor of the haves soon you end up with a landed nobility and gentry. And by this rule a professor of political science in NYC who lives in an apartment would be denied the vote in favor of a piece of white trash who lived in a trailer on a piece of land that is a remnant of the days when his family lived like kings before the "negroes" took over. Assuming of course that he could stay above welfare.

[psholtz]

bigstick61 wrote: Besides being a law-abiding citizen, I think that one should own property to vote.
I agree...

The next problem is that (almost) no Americans own any property.

If you pay property taxes, you *don't* own your property.

And most Americans live on a mortgage anyway.

It's the bankers who own the land you live on who are deciding the outcome of your elections.

If we re-instate the "own property to vote" rule, perhaps more people will come to realize this.

[psholtz]

VMAN wrote: I think that the idea of limiting the suffrage to people who own land is ridiculous and a great step back because this is the way it started out in early America with only landowners being allowed to vote. If you start taking rights from the havenots in favor of the haves soon you end up with a landed nobility and gentry. And by this rule a professor of political science in NYC who lives in an apartment would be denied the vote in favor of a piece of white trash who lived in a trailer on a piece of land that is a remnant of the days when his family lived like kings before the "negroes" took over. Assuming of course that he could stay above welfare.
I think limiting the privilege of voting to only those own property is a great idea.

Voting is *not* a right.. it's a privilege.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have a "right" to vote.

In your example above, the white trash who live on land don't own that land either. They most likely pay property taxes to the State, and so they too would be barred from voting.

[psholtz]

evilWombat wrote: In a representative government, the best way to protect someone's rights is to give him the vote.
Ummmm... no.

* Is your Congressman going to be there to protect you when the IRS rips you off?
* Is your Congressman going to be there to protect you when a judge rules against you?
* Is your Congressman going to be there to protect you when a cop violates your civil rights?

I personally can't think of a single example of how a Congressmen is ever going to do anything to "protect" any of my rights.

You have to defend your own rights, or else you don't get any.

It's like Mark Twain said, "no man's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session".. :lol:

[psholtz]

evilWombat wrote: From a fiscal perspective, allowing welfare recipients to vote is more likely a bad idea, since it will lead to the unrestrained growth of entitlement programs
All Americans are welfare recipients.

There is no such thing in the modern world as an American who is not on some form (or other) of government subsidy and welfare.

And why do you think most government programs are growing so rapidly in this nation?

[psholtz]

Vexed Veteran wrote: Welfare abusers pay 0% of their share of taxes, 0% of the cost of living, and 0% of their kids needs. So where does the money come from? The regular working couples! In effect, they are paying 100% of their taxes AND 100% of the welfare abusers taxes, plus 100% of the cost of living, plus 100% for the welfare abusers kids needs.
Welfare recipients pay an enormous tax in the form of inflation..

As do you.

[VMAN]

What gives you the right to decide that a person who can't generate enough income to support themselves loses the vote. Being on welfare doesn't make you less of a human being they still have equal protection under the law and alot of them i'm sure a few are highly intelligent and informed. Granted i'm no big fan of welfare but alot of people were born to poor parents and couldn't afford higher education or couldn't resist life's temptation and God forbid became pregnant or fathers. Life is not black and white and you aren't going to start bringing people out of poverty by treating them as second class citizens. Now I don't wanna come off as a sap. I chose my avatar for a reason because I normally carry the he who wouldn't work shouldn't eat and believe in bringing the hammer down but this is just what I believe.

[perdidochas]

psholtz wrote: Voting is *not* a right.. it's a privilege.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have a "right" to vote.

The Bill of Rights isn't the entire Constitution. The amendments after it are also part of the Constitution and they do imply a "right" to vote:

Note the 15th Amendment:
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


and the 19th Amendment:
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


and the 26th Amendment:
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

[psholtz]

perdidochas wrote: psholtz wrote: Voting is *not* a right.. it's a privilege.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have a "right" to vote.

The Bill of Rights isn't the entire Constitution. The amendments after it are also part of the Constitution and they do imply a "right" to vote:

Note the 15th Amendment:
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


and the 19th Amendment:
Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


and the 26th Amendment:
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
These amendments were all authored by Communists, and they hold little appeal to me.

I recommend immediately rescinding them.

Voting is not a right, it's a privilege that comes from owning property.

w/ one hand, the Communists who authorized these "amendments" tricked you into believing that "everyone" has the "right" to vote.. Simultaneosly, they stole your right to property right out from under your nose.

[psholtz]

perdidochas wrote: and the 26th Amendment:
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
You gotta love that one! :lol:

Because we are abridging the right to vote on account of age at the age of 18, we are hereby prohibiting the abridgement of the right to vote on account of age.

Talk about Orwellian DoubleThink! :-D

[VMAN]

Let's first deal with the incredible unadulterated idiocy of that statement. How could the bill of rights have been drafted by communists when Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818. Do you imply that they embraced a philosophy that didn't yet exist. Or do you simply use that term in the generic meaningless way of the ignoramus.

[psholtz]

VMAN wrote: Let's first deal with the incredible unadulterated idiocy of that statement. How could the bill of rights have been drafted by communists when Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818. Do you imply that they embraced a philosophy that didn't yet exist. Or do you simply use that term in the generic meaningless way of the ignoramus.
It's generally agreed that Communism in its modern form was born amongst Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati in 1776, and found its first (serious) political expression in the French Revolution of 1789.

(Modern) Communism is thus almost precisely as old as the American Republic.

It's going to be a mortal fight to the bitter end.

So far, America is loosing, pretty badly.

[psholtz]

VMAN wrote: Let's first deal with the incredible unadulterated idiocy of that statement. How could the bill of rights have been drafted by communists when Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818. Do you imply that they embraced a philosophy that didn't yet exist. Or do you simply use that term in the generic meaningless way of the ignoramus.
WHOA! :shock:

Hold the horses!

I *way* misread your post..

Obviously I'm dealing w/ an alumni of the prestigious American public school system..

Where did I ever say the Bill of Rights was authored by Communists?

I didn't..

The Bill of Rights is good..

It was written by freemen for freemen.

Most (perhaps all) of the amendments to the Constitution since the first ten, however, have been written by either criminals or full-blown Communists.

[psholtz]

Here's a classic Robert Minor cartoon from the turn of the century concerning women's suffrage:



The caption reads "Why Women Want to Vote"

Ain't it the truth?

The only reason for "women's lib" is so the Rockfeller (Communists) could lay an income tax on the other 50% of the population. Women's lib/workforce etc also gets kids out of the home at a very young age and places them into State institutions of indoctrination at a much younger age (K-12 social/cultural/slave indoctrination).

If a woman owns landed property and wants to vote, more power to her.

But she doesn't get to vote just b/c she's a woman..

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

VMAN wrote: Let's first deal with the incredible unadulterated idiocy of that statement. How could the bill of rights have been drafted by communists when Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818. Do you imply that they embraced a philosophy that didn't yet exist. Or do you simply use that term in the generic meaningless way of the ignoramus.

Why the hell does almost everyone I know think Marx was the first communist?

[agentkgb]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: VMAN wrote: Let's first deal with the incredible unadulterated idiocy of that statement. How could the bill of rights have been drafted by communists when Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818. Do you imply that they embraced a philosophy that didn't yet exist. Or do you simply use that term in the generic meaningless way of the ignoramus.

Why the hell does almost everyone I know think Marx was the first communist?
Wasn't Plato's Republic communistic? And a number of early Christian groups arguably supported a form of communism.
It's not like the idea communism didn't exist until Karl Marx.