(03-29-2021, 08:02 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:

(03-28-2021, 09:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Yes, so long as a person is on the public dole they should be removed from the voting roll. Their economic or welfare status should absolutely impact their right to vote. As long as they are a ward of the state they should have no say in its function, for allowing them to vote creates moral hazard. There is nothing that says this cannot be, and the original intent of the Constitution was to have a limited franchise elect a Republican form of government that disconnects the federal government from the people. I know this is hard to hear, but frankly a person who cannot manage his own household free of government aid should not be voting on how that government operates. To do so eventually means that people are only voting to keep the gravy train running regardless of the damage it does to the Country as we do today.

 
Thank you for the detailed response.

While I understand the sentiment behind your answer, it would be considered draconian because you are suggesting people vote a specific way and must live a certain life to enjoy the “privilege” to vote. We see this principle play out in dictatorship countries where democratic beliefs are trampled out and people have no freedom to vote how they want. 

To your point about being a ward of the state, my belief is if we are enjoying a benefit of going to a sport venue, driving on public roads, or using utilities that are all funded by taxpayers, then we are all a ward of the state. 


Last, regarding your point about a moral hazard happening if people who use government assistance vote that is an fear based antidote. The responsibility lies with the elected officials who dont pass legislation that improve the lives of everyday citizens. Your point about a “moral hazard” is not rooted in any fact based substance if these such people are eliminated from being able to vote, the country would be a better place.

---

(03-29-2021, 06:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Earned disability is not welfare.

The government dosent specifically differentiate welfare as earned from unearned unless you are referring to social security. Even to that point it is still government assistance because the payments are being administered by them.

The point we are discussing is just one component of the reformation of social services that should happen in this country. Even the discussion about what is and is not "disability" should get a deep and substantial overhaul to untangle the giant mess we currently have in this country. Just because the government doesn't do something at this moment doesn't mean it should or should not always to that something.

---

(03-29-2021, 08:12 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote:

(03-28-2021, 11:03 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: That's a dumb argument. My dad has been on 100% disability for 15 years or so due to a degenerative disease. He would never consider voting anything other than Republican. Same with several Veterans I know who are on disability for various reasons thanks to OIF/OEF. You're going to tell me these folks don't deserve their privilege and right to vote? That's complete and utter bull manure.

To this point I personally know many Military veterans who are currently on hard times and became addicted to drugs and homeless. They are working to get themselves together but to strip them of their right to vote because of their current life situation is ludicrous.

As do I, certainly the government's role in the rehabilitation of veterans is something that requires reform as well. Veterans have earned our gratitude and ongoing care when they are dealing with the negative repercussions of their service. It's one reason why this discussion can't happen in a vacuum, it's very easy to go "Oh, you can't do X because of Y" when both X and Y need reform.

---