1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Should voting be mandatory?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by PLC1, Mar 21, 2015.

  1. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...its-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts
    Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)”
    [​IMG]
    If you want to look at who the taxes benefit.
    tax expenditures added up to about $1.2 trillion in 2011. And they tend to flow disproportionately toward wealthier households”
    [​IMG]
    You guys have a distorted imagination of just who welfare recipients are. You are essentially saying you don't want a lot of 65+ people nor disabled people to vote.
    A very small fraction of people are "welfare queens". Yet the right wing acts as though they are in the majority of welfare recipients.
     
    Walter likes this.
  2. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    watch Fox news, talk to the American public...then try to find any way you can want more of them to vote....This nation is far far to stupid for mandatory voting. 70% thinking Iraq attacked us on 9-11...no

    Also these moochers that can't vote...does that mean pretty much all rich people with all the tax deals they mooch on and all the bail outs, all the subsidy's ....
     
  3. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Right. Furthermore the moochers are also corporations such as Mc Donalds and Walmart that pay wages that are below subsistence level. Gov welfare helps the workers survive. Who benefits? It's Walmart and Mc Donalds at the tax payers expense.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,591
    Likes Received:
    595
    Location:
    The Golden State
    McDonlads and WalMart Don't vote, nor should they be able to influence elections with their $$$. Corporations are not people, and don't have a right to "free speech" via giving away money to candidates who support their positions.

    And, why not include people getting subsidies in the non voting welfare recipient lists?
     
  5. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I agree with that, but my point was that welfare is most often not a choice but a necessity to survive. My example is that a higher level of mooching is done by low wage paying corporations than by citizens.
    I think the real question is why deny people over 65, people with disabilities, and people with low paying jobs the right to vote. It doesn't make sense. Low paying jobs is a serious problem.

    As a solution McDonalds suggests getting a second job, $20 a month for health insurance, $zero for heating! etc. That is totally unrealistic. Shame on them.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    I dont care who the moochers are. I just dont want them to vote themselves more of my money.
    Corporations dont vote so are moot to this discussion.
    Anything about the 40+million food stampers in your charts ?
     
  7. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I think what you are really thinking is that you don't want Democrats in politics. Mooching is a major part of this discussion. You obviously don't care about corporations mooching my tax money, and you don't care about Americans with nowhere to turn. C'mon show some compassion.
    Yes, they are most likely the 91% seniors, the disabled and the people that can only get one job at McDonalds or Walmart.
    What is your suggestion on how they can survive?
     
  8. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Did I suggest eliminating the teet or withdrawing the vote ?
    This thread concerns itself with voting. Ergo I concern myself with voting.
    Just dtaying on topic Lag.
     
  9. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I was discussing the ramifications of your idea. If you want to avoid that I certainly understand your far right perspective.
     
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    If there us a legitimate reason for altering the teet then tax payers can change it.
    Legitimate vs gimme is the ramification.
     
  11. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    As I said, I can understand your far right perspective to eliminate about 50% of the lowest class votes so that a new totally republican senate, house, and president will thrive and eliminate all health and welfare programs, eliminate corporate regulations, eliminate minimum wage, and lower taxes for everyone, especially the rich.

    If that's the kind of America you want, you are entitled to your opinion.

    The corporations will say 'gimme' and the government will do so. Screw anyone who has lost retirement savings, suffered huge medical expenses, lost their homes, or try to live on starvation wages.
     
  12. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,841
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Well mo point in me typing my thoughts here, all you care to do is talk about your own. Is there a lot of echo where you live ?
     
  13. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Of course I talk about my own. Isn't that what a forum is for? I am on topic because you raised your issue on having no voters on welfare. I'm telling you the ramifications. Why are you taking an "off-topic" stance with such indignation when I'm much more within the norm than the usual thread. As a moderator you have allowed much worse off-topic straying in other threads.
     
  14. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,844
    Likes Received:
    164
    I do nt think It would make much difference if Voting was compulsory in the USA. Even in Australia the rich usually get elected. Pensioners usually vote Conservative. It is true we have a Labor Party but much of its support comes from the Middle Class. Denying the vote to any group would be unfair. Even the Old paid xes most of their life.
    You have election November next year and already have candidates. We also have elections next year but no campaigning yet
     
  15. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    On Topic, my answer is NO..

    Now, I said this before...

    I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ like attribute he has developed within. That's Gods way..

    Second, social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a WRONG. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of doing so, justice is not present.


    I believe that real social justice can only attained by following this pattern. Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed. There is a serious problem with government and social policies enacted to achieve social justice and universal equality. Since righteousness cannot be legislated or forced upon man, neither then can the fruits of righteousness be enjoyed as a consequence of government. There are several problems that arise when a government attempts to force equality in society.
    Doug
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice