Should those on welfare/medicare lose the right to vote?

[papadee]

Originally Posted by garhkal

None to my knowledge. BUT if you survive cause of medicade assistance (ie have to have 2 medical helpers each day, and so on), are those people ALSO not effectively wards of the state LIKE someone at an orphanage/in jail are?

Not really. There are so many different levels of Govt. assistance, to classify them all as "wards of the state" is misleading.

But all I was saying that orphanages shouldn't be listed because the orphans aren't eligible to vote anyway. That's an assumption on my part. Don't know if they kick you out exactly on your 18th b-day, or if there's some overlap (finishing HS, whatever). And if there is overlap, why should an orphan lose the right to vote just because they lost their parents? Not sure what that has to do with your overall premise (which I think is nutty to begin with).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by papadee

But all I was saying that orphanages shouldn't be listed because the orphans aren't eligible to vote anyway.

Why are "orphans" not eligible to vote? If you are limited the definition to those underaged, but I've taken the attitude they remain "orphans" throughout their life. They still don't have biological parents.

Back to the original question, if "welfare recipients" are otherwise eligible to vote then they should be able to do so. First, there are many "welfare recipients" who are temporarily on "assistance" for various reasons, which was the ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. The Liberals and fearful Conservatives have allowed the system to morph into a "livelihood" spanning 3-4 generations. It has developed into a way of life ... as they "game" the system.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why are "orphans" not eligible to vote? If you are limited the definition to those underaged, but I've taken the attitude they remain "orphans" throughout their life. They still don't have biological parents.

True, I phrased it wrong. They remain orphans, but are no longer "wards of the state/in orphanages" at 18.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by papadee

True, I phrased it wrong. They remain orphans, but are no longer "wards of the state/in orphanages" at 18.

I guess I "assume" (some times, often, risky) that stats about voters and nonvoters are based on a head count of those who are qualified, whether they register or not. And I say qualified currently, as opposed to those who have remained on voter rolls after they have become disqualified ... as in dead or convicted of a felony (depending on the state in which they are registered .... or STATES in which they are registered).

At the same time I "assume" the computation of "welfare" recipients is based on the actual recipient of the funds/services/products who applied for the assistance and not the other six or more people in the residence of the recipient.

In that regard it has been confirmed that during the Obaminable years folks were put on Medicaid who would not have been previously qualified for the assistance, in order to facilitate the appearance of the claimed success of "ObaminableCare"!

Statistically they have been counted as "on insurance" through ObaminableCare when in fact they were not "on insurance" but had taxpayer paid healthcare through Medicaid, which was "enhanced" to cover the additional conditions not previously covered by Medicaid. (NOT MEDICARE!) That's what BlubberBaby Schumer is whining about and is getting Pelosi all hysterical as they LIE TO THE U.S. public about the Republican plans.

Remember Palin and the "death panels"! Now we have Schumer-Pelosi blubbering about people dying on the Republican Plan!!! The Liberal shit only floats if no one recalls "history"! That's what makes Gruber laugh his ass off at the Liberals*!

*He couldn't be laughing at the Conservatives, because they said all along it wouldn't work and it was a ponzi scheme. The Liberals said it would. It's not!