Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote

Why should only thisgroup have the ability revoked..? As I’ve proven and as our founder’s feared the have-nots voteto take from those that have. This is a violation of a person’s right toproperty. Those that do not pay incometaxes should not be able to vote for the promise of Federal benefits. Yes people vote in their best interests but they shouldn’t be able to do it at the expense of other’srights. What about the persuit of happiness? The things I and you werereferring to were government welfare programs. You may not be happy without ajob, welfare etc. but oh well. You’re right to happiness does not trump myrights to my property. YOUR RIGHTS END WEHRE MY RIGHTS BEGIN. Your argument seems to come down on the idea that those on benefits will votefor more benefits at the exclusion of others. Not at the “exclusion”butat the “expense”. Get the difference? They vote for peoplewho then try to do what is best for the country. No. They vote forrepresentatives who promise to do what is in the best interest of their VOTERS.That’s how they get elected. We elect representatives to represent our wishesand enact policies based on what we want This creates a huge problem… people who wantto stop benefits.Now, we have the exact opposite. Those who want torightfully keep their money are forced by the majority to give it up. Your plan kills off millions! Prove it. This is why we have charities and families. I fullysupport charities. You are not my responsibility and you are violating myrights by forcing me to pay for your crap. You have the right to pursuehappiness. You have no right to actually acquire it. Most people pay taxes which pay for benefits. Source? In reality most people don’t contribute to theseprograms. And those that do are obviously not receiving welfare. So your pointis irrelevant. You obviously have no clue as to who pays how much as evident by your little scenario claiming taxcuts forthe rich are bribing people with others money. The top 50% of tax payers payover 90% of the tax bill! The top 10% pay 70% of the tax bill. (1) You falsely suggested the premise that if we reduce the top 50% to 45% then they would automaticallyraise taxes on the L/M class to compensate. The upperclass redistributed the money.. I’ve proven this is completely false. It is inreality the other way around. The benefits may have added to the problem, but they aren't a crippling force..You’reright in the sense that there weren’t as many under Bush. Obama made theproblem worse by expanding all these programs at the direction of those whovoted him in. Obama added $6T to be exact (2) Now, this battle over theseentitlement programs goes back to FDR (Democrat) and his “New Deal”. I wouldrecommend heavily reading up on FDR’s New Deal. “And by the summer of 1932, some25,000 World War I vets had descended on Washington, camping out near the stepsof Congress and asking for money.” (3) "It was the first time thatAmericans thought of their government as a solution to the problems thatindividuals and society at large were experiencing," says Jean EdwardSmith (3) The NewDeal gave credence to the idea that the government must provide for the peoplewhat they should provide for themselves (the entitlement mentality) and we’vebeen battling it ever since. Take from those that have and give to those whohave not. “Also, what if people need the money? So? Do you have the right to money or the right topursue money? “Only 6% if voters approve congress 6%. It looks like congress does not listen directly to their voters.”Irrelevant. They can approve or disapprove for a lotof reasons and not solely the issue we are debating here about entitlements. My argument is simply to counteract this disastrous policy by putting a spin onour Founder’s original principle. Now that we have an income tax we have thosewho don’t pay income taxes voting for people who will redistribute someone else’smoney to them. This is wrong and violates right to property. I’ve demonstrated how voting is not a natural “right” but a privilege. As aprivilege there can be restrictions. This is evident by our Founder’s originalidea to limit voting to those who have a vested interest in how taxes arespent. If you don’t contribute to taxes then what gives you the right to votewhere and how it’s spent? I have shown that its a violation of one’s rights to take money from them to give toothers, but now the “takers” outnumber the “makers”. It is now impossible forthe “makers” to vote for protection. This will only compound the entitlement problem. My opponent has not made a factual argument as to why those who don’t pay incometaxes should have a say in how its spent. My opponent has not shown why someone should be able to violate another’s right toproperty. Vote Pro 1 http://www.businessinsider.com... 2 http://www.cbsnews.com... 3 http://www.usnews.com...