Vet jobs bill fails in Senate

phobicsquirrel

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/vet-jobs-bill-fails-in-senate-caught-in-hill-battle/2012/09/19/9d35a104-0292-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html

"Legislation to put veterans to work preserving and restoring national parks and other federal, state and local lands was defeated Wednesday afternoon when Senate Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s advance with a budgetary point of order."

jthanatos

Standard crap I have come to expect from our gov. Why argue an issue if you can just quash it with procedural rules. I think we need Congressional rule reform before we can even think about reforming anything else.

phobicsquirrel

yup

marineatbn03

I think every issue should be a public vote, that would be a government for the people by the people in my opinion. I know our representatives are suppose to represent us, but it has become more and more apparent that all they do is line their own pockets and push thier own agendas. Lets take them out of the equation.

jthanatos

marineatbn03:

I think every issue should be a public vote, that would be a government for the people by the people in my opinion. I know our representatives are suppose to represent us, but it has become more and more apparent that all they do is line their own pockets and push thier own agendas. Lets take them out of the equation.

This sounds great in theory, but there is just so much legislation each year. This is why reps have to have aids and advisors to help sift through it. Running a country takes a lot, and trying to get everyone educated would be a chore. Not to mention, we have all seen the cluster that occurs at just the annual election of officials. With number of bills in the 1000s every year, how often do you vote. Monthly? Weekly? Daily? Also, a pure popular vote messes up the balance the Senate tries to keep in check. Without this check, bills that favor more populous states/areas are going to be much easier to pass than those needed for less populous areas.

marineatbn03

I agree, but when our officials stop pushing their own agendas, then I will support the government in place. There just has to be a better solution than the way we do business now.

jthanatos

marineatbn03:

I agree, but when our officials stop pushing their own agendas, then I will support the government in place. There just has to be a better solution than the way we do business now.

My vote.



But seriously, what we need is a true "reform party". A group, neither D's nor R's that just wants to fix Washington to run smoothly. Yeah, it will cause hiccups for awhile as things are fixed and new things are broken, but it is better than this holding pattern arround the toilet that our current overloaded and over-regulated bureaucracy gives us. I just don't see it happening any time soon. This country as a whole is pretty divided, just the way both sides want us to be.

JDH

jthanatos:

marineatbn03:

I agree, but when our officials stop pushing their own agendas, then I will support the government in place. There just has to be a better solution than the way we do business now.

My vote.



But seriously, what we need is a true "reform party". A group, neither D's nor R's that just wants to fix Washington to run smoothly. Yeah, it will cause hiccups for awhile as things are fixed and new things are broken, but it is better than this holding pattern arround the toilet that our current overloaded and over-regulated bureaucracy gives us. I just don't see it happening any time soon. This country as a whole is pretty divided, just the way both sides want us to be.

There is nothing wrong with our form of government, when it functions as it was designed to function. Representative Democracy will not function when compromise is banashed, dismissed as if it was "surrender". Unfortunately, too may of our representatives want to govern as if they were radio talk show hosts instead of serious statesmen and women. Idiology and party loyalty should never trump the best interests of the Nation as a whole. Private interests are not National interests, and often private interests are detrimental to National interests. When an entire Party declares that their only goal is to unseat a duly elected President instead of working to solve the serious problems we are faced with as a Nation, and refuse to compromise on any of their ideological "principles", our form of government will not work, because it was never designed to work under those circumstances. Our elected representatives are not supposed to be bought by the wealthiest among us, they are supposed to represent ALL of us, not just the wealthiest among us.

jthanatos

JDH:

jthanatos:

marineatbn03:

I agree, but when our officials stop pushing their own agendas, then I will support the government in place. There just has to be a better solution than the way we do business now.

My vote.



But seriously, what we need is a true "reform party". A group, neither D's nor R's that just wants to fix Washington to run smoothly. Yeah, it will cause hiccups for awhile as things are fixed and new things are broken, but it is better than this holding pattern arround the toilet that our current overloaded and over-regulated bureaucracy gives us. I just don't see it happening any time soon. This country as a whole is pretty divided, just the way both sides want us to be.

There is nothing wrong with our form of government, when it functions as it was designed to function. Representative Democracy will not function when compromise is banashed, dismissed as if it was "surrender". Unfortunately, too may of our representatives want to govern as if they were radio talk show hosts instead of serious statesmen and women. Idiology and party loyalty should never trump the best interests of the Nation as a whole. Private interests are not National interests, and often private interests are detrimental to National interests. When an entire Party declares that their only goal is to unseat a duly elected President instead of working to solve the serious problems we are faced with as a Nation, and refuse to compromise on any of their ideological "principles", our form of government will not work, because it was never designed to work under those circumstances. Our elected representatives are not supposed to be bought by the wealthiest among us, they are supposed to represent ALL of us, not just the wealthiest among us.

I agree to a point, however so many 'rules' that have snuck into the process seem counter to original intent. Killing laws in committee? Clogging the works with frivelous bills and procedural votes? Slipping in lines of legislation and pork barrel amendments that have nothing to do with the main bill? Some cleanup seems called for.

Amos Umwhat

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

JDH

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

beatnic

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

I'll see your 1 corporation and raise you 2 public unions.

JDH

beatnic:

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

I'll see your 1 corporation and raise you 2 public unions.

The object should be to remove ALL corporate influence (including unions and other special interest groups, like the NRA, the AMA, the NAACP, the AARP, etc) from the electoral process, and reserve that privilege for individual citizens who reside in the voting district of the person running for office. After all, that's who We the People are, and that's who is supposed to be represented in Congress and the White House.

beatnic

JDH:

beatnic:

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

I'll see your 1 corporation and raise you 2 public unions.

The object should be to remove ALL corporate influence (including unions and other special interest groups, like the NRA, the AMA, the NAACP, the AARP, etc) from the electoral process, and reserve that privilege for individual citizens who reside in the voting district of the person running for office. After all, that's who We the People are, and that's who is supposed to be represented in Congress and the White House.

I agree with all of this. I would emphasize the term, individual citizens, and require proof of that status. Now, what do we do about the so-called Media? Can't trust any of them.

JDH

beatnic:

JDH:

beatnic:

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

I'll see your 1 corporation and raise you 2 public unions.

The object should be to remove ALL corporate influence (including unions and other special interest groups, like the NRA, the AMA, the NAACP, the AARP, etc) from the electoral process, and reserve that privilege for individual citizens who reside in the voting district of the person running for office. After all, that's who We the People are, and that's who is supposed to be represented in Congress and the White House.

I agree with all of this. I would emphasize the term, individual citizens, and require proof of that status. Now, what do we do about the so-called Media? Can't trust any of them.

"...I would emphasize the term, individual citizens, and require proof of that status. ..."

I don't have a problem with this, unless the "proof of citizenship" is just a ruse to prevent a lot of people from excercising their RIGHT to vote. That's one of the things the Jim Crow laws did very efficiently for over 100 years, and I do not want to go back to that.

We don't do anything about the Media. The Media is granted freedom of the Press under our Constitution, however, I would expect that the Media would be screaming very loudly, like a pig at butchering time, if any of this was ever seriously being considered, because all this "free speech" political advertising money is going straight into their pockets.

JDH

This "proposal" is moot anyway. Both political parties will be totally against it, every corporation in the US and abroad will be against it, every lobbying organization in Washington DC will be against it, most wealthy individuals will be against it, the Media will be against it, and nearly every Congressman and Senator will be against it.

We the People are superfluous, and are only useful when we can be manipulated into accomplishing something for the good of one or more of the groups mentioned above. We the People are not represented in Congress; all of the above are, and the names of those entitled to Citizenship in the New America will be written on the Dow Jones and NASDAC stock exchanges. The rest of us will just have to settle for whatever trickles down onto us.

beatnic

JDH:

beatnic:

JDH:

beatnic:

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

Multiple parties still seem like a good idea. Seems the lunatic fringes of the D's & R's get WAY too much attention, and support. I'd like to see some serious contention for bringing back a government "of the people".

You can start here; a proposed Constitutional Amendment declaring that:

Corporations and other businesses are not people and shall not be considered equal to individual human beings before a court of law, nor shall they be allowed to vote, or to influence the elections of human beings to Office, nor shall they be allowed to influence the legislative process.

Money is not speech, it is currency used for buying and selling, and it shall be regulated regarding elections and the legislative process as follows:

States shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the State. Monetary influence on legislation shall be limited to citizens of their respective state and only upon their duly elected representative.

The Federal Government shall regulate monies spent on elections for offices specific to the Nation. Monetary influence on the Executive branch by Corporations and other businesses shall be prohibited.

I'll see your 1 corporation and raise you 2 public unions.

The object should be to remove ALL corporate influence (including unions and other special interest groups, like the NRA, the AMA, the NAACP, the AARP, etc) from the electoral process, and reserve that privilege for individual citizens who reside in the voting district of the person running for office. After all, that's who We the People are, and that's who is supposed to be represented in Congress and the White House.

I agree with all of this. I would emphasize the term, individual citizens, and require proof of that status. Now, what do we do about the so-called Media? Can't trust any of them.

"...I would emphasize the term, individual citizens, and require proof of that status. ..."

I don't have a problem with this, unless the "proof of citizenship" is just a ruse to prevent a lot of people from excercising their RIGHT to vote. That's one of the things the Jim Crow laws did very efficiently for over 100 years, and I do not want to go back to that.

We don't do anything about the Media. The Media is granted freedom of the Press under our Constitution, however, I would expect that the Media would be screaming very loudly, like a pig at butchering time, if any of this was ever seriously being considered, because all this "free speech" political advertising money is going straight into their pockets.

I don't care how you do it, but proof of citizenship is a must for me. As to the Media. There must be some way for them to be held accountable. When they're in the tank for a certain candidate, they stretch truths to the point of lies. I'm just saying. I would hope all media are professional journalists, but, alas, its' not always the case. You can't deny that the three major networks are anti-Romney at this time.

Vulchor

Here we go again with the myth that voter fraud is rampant. If the idea of showing ID was because of fraud I would have no issue with it. But it simply is not. It is used as a talking point to obsfucate to truth behind the law.

Also, before Im again called the bleeding heart or out of touch, I actually ave no problem with requring an ID and am shocked it has never been a requirement. That said, it is not being used in any productive way. Its simply being done as a way to disenfranchise voters and steal votes from one particular party, and I AM NOT a fan of f*ucking with someones right to vote for the sake of helping any particular party.

JDH

Vulchor:

Here we go again with the myth that voter fraud is rampant. If the idea of showing ID was because of fraud I would have no issue with it. But it simply is not. It is used as a talking point to obsfucate to truth behind the law.

Also, before Im again called the bleeding heart or out of touch, I actually ave no problem with requring an ID and am shocked it has never been a requirement. That said, it is not being used in any productive way. Its simply being done as a way to disenfranchise voters and steal votes from one particular party, and I AM NOT a fan of f*ucking with someones right to vote for the sake of helping any particular party.

I agree. There is no rampant voter fraud. The former Republican Party Chairman in Florida has publically stated that during his tenure, there was virtually no evidence of any rampant voter fraud, but there was tremendous discussion among Republican Party operatives regarding how best to prevent minorities (democrats) from voting. Living WWII vets have been thrown off the voting rolls, grandmothers who voted all during the bad old days of Jim Crow have been thrown off, Republican Party officials in Pennsylvania have declared that their voter ID law will provide a win for Mitt; it stinks to high heaven.

The right to vote is the only way that We the People can have a voice in our "democracy", but when political parties decide that their idiology is more important than democracy itself, we all loose. I have no problem requiring an ID, but there are still an awful lot of people living in this country who were born at home, before the State became so interested in every single birth. More time should be allotted for these "voter ID' requirements so that they could be fairly implemented. Because of the rush to impose these new rules, it looks to me like there is far less concern for the prevention of "voter fraud" than there is concern that too many democrats willl be voting in November.

beatnic

I remember in 2008, this also was an issue. I've said it before. If you just use the same buses that they use to bring people in to register and vote, and bring them to get an ID, we wouldn't have this problem. Zillions of dollars are spent every 4 years by the left to register people and get them to the polls at election time. You'd think they would have helped these folks get IDs during the past 4 years.

JDH

beatnic:

I remember in 2008, this also was an issue. I've said it before. If you just use the same buses that they use to bring people in to register and vote, and bring them to get an ID, we wouldn't have this problem. Zillions of dollars are spent every 4 years by the left to register people and get them to the polls at election time. You'd think they would have helped these folks get IDs during the past 4 years.

It wasn't a requirement before, that's why it wasn't done before. Nearly all of these voter ID laws were enacted within the last 12 months, to specifically influence the 2013 election. Because of the timing, and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the voter fraud claims, it appears to me to be an intentional effort to prevent democrats (many of whom are the least among us) from voting, in an election where one party is blantly in favor of supporting the wealthiest among us.

It stinks, and it reminds me of Jim Crow.

beatnic

JDH:

beatnic:

I remember in 2008, this also was an issue. I've said it before. If you just use the same buses that they use to bring people in to register and vote, and bring them to get an ID, we wouldn't have this problem. Zillions of dollars are spent every 4 years by the left to register people and get them to the polls at election time. You'd think they would have helped these folks get IDs during the past 4 years.

It wasn't a requirement before, that's why it wasn't done before. Nearly all of these voter ID laws were enacted within the last 12 months, to specifically influence the 2013 election. Because of the timing, and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the voter fraud claims, it appears to me to be an intentional effort to prevent democrats (many of whom are the least among us) from voting, in an election where one party is blantly in favor of supporting the wealthiest among us.

It stinks, and it reminds me of Jim Crow.

The politics of envy, again. Whatever.

beatnic

beatnic:

JDH:

beatnic:

I remember in 2008, this also was an issue. I've said it before. If you just use the same buses that they use to bring people in to register and vote, and bring them to get an ID, we wouldn't have this problem. Zillions of dollars are spent every 4 years by the left to register people and get them to the polls at election time. You'd think they would have helped these folks get IDs during the past 4 years.

It wasn't a requirement before, that's why it wasn't done before. Nearly all of these voter ID laws were enacted within the last 12 months, to specifically influence the 2013 election. Because of the timing, and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the voter fraud claims, it appears to me to be an intentional effort to prevent democrats (many of whom are the least among us) from voting, in an election where one party is blantly in favor of supporting the wealthiest among us.

It stinks, and it reminds me of Jim Crow.

The politics of envy, again. Whatever.

OH! Yes, I see it now. "The least among us".

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/24/howard_stern_interviews_obama_supporters_2012.html

JDH

beatnic:

beatnic:

JDH:

beatnic:

I remember in 2008, this also was an issue. I've said it before. If you just use the same buses that they use to bring people in to register and vote, and bring them to get an ID, we wouldn't have this problem. Zillions of dollars are spent every 4 years by the left to register people and get them to the polls at election time. You'd think they would have helped these folks get IDs during the past 4 years.

It wasn't a requirement before, that's why it wasn't done before. Nearly all of these voter ID laws were enacted within the last 12 months, to specifically influence the 2013 election. Because of the timing, and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support the voter fraud claims, it appears to me to be an intentional effort to prevent democrats (many of whom are the least among us) from voting, in an election where one party is blantly in favor of supporting the wealthiest among us.

It stinks, and it reminds me of Jim Crow.

The politics of envy, again. Whatever.

OH! Yes, I see it now. "The least among us".

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/24/howard_stern_interviews_obama_supporters_2012.html

Not envy. Disgust. There is a huge difference. Repeating a lie won't make it come true.

realclearpolitics.com is just right wing propaganda...and you're concerned about ABC, NBC, & CBS...that's funny.

jthanatos

I doubt that your average Republican wants to block people from the polls anymore than your average Democrat. I know I don't. I want voter ID law to prevent fraud(no matter how little actually happens) and to make it easier and more accurate at some point for voting to occur(IDs imply unique identifiers, unique IDs will allow for less human interaction, less human interaction = faster, less errors).

That being said, it pisses me off that the only time these laws seem to show up is right before the election. It makes it very hard for the cynic in me to believe in altruistic thoughts of those proposing them. The only complaint ever leveled by the other side is that it is too close to the election.... So why is it never brought back up after Nov? Something about the whole deal stinks. Getting an ID takes time. The DMV already takes for fricken ever to process those that choose to get IDs. I can't imagine the system reacting well to every registered voter needing to suddenly get a specific ID level in 2 months.

Summarization of my point, ID laws are good and should(must?) happen, but need time to get the ID. Most of those proposing them and stirring up the base are mustache twirlers on par with Snidely Whiplash.

beatnic

jthanatos:

I doubt that your average Republican wants to block people from the polls anymore than your average Democrat. I know I don't. I want voter ID law to prevent fraud(no matter how little actually happens) and to make it easier and more accurate at some point for voting to occur(IDs imply unique identifiers, unique IDs will allow for less human interaction, less human interaction = faster, less errors).

That being said, it pisses me off that the only time these laws seem to show up is right before the election. It makes it very hard for the cynic in me to believe in altruistic thoughts of those proposing them. The only complaint ever leveled by the other side is that it is too close to the election.... So why is it never brought back up after Nov? Something about the whole deal stinks. Getting an ID takes time. The DMV already takes for fricken ever to process those that choose to get IDs. I can't imagine the system reacting well to every registered voter needing to suddenly get a specific ID level in 2 months.

Summarization of my point, ID laws are good and should(must?) happen, but need time to get the ID. Most of those proposing them and stirring up the base are mustache twirlers on par with Snidely Whiplash.

I understand the the government will be issuing government IDs to enforce Obamacare. Watch how fast the "least among us" get a hold of one of those. And knowing the gov., its' probably not good for voting. That, or they will hand them out to illegals and say that it is. I don't think anyone with an open mind can say that the Democratic Party cares about the poor for any reason other than to have them as a voting block. When 50% of the people are on the government wagon, our system of government will cease to exist. JMO

jthanatos

beatnic:

jthanatos:

I doubt that your average Republican wants to block people from the polls anymore than your average Democrat. I know I don't. I want voter ID law to prevent fraud(no matter how little actually happens) and to make it easier and more accurate at some point for voting to occur(IDs imply unique identifiers, unique IDs will allow for less human interaction, less human interaction = faster, less errors).

That being said, it pisses me off that the only time these laws seem to show up is right before the election. It makes it very hard for the cynic in me to believe in altruistic thoughts of those proposing them. The only complaint ever leveled by the other side is that it is too close to the election.... So why is it never brought back up after Nov? Something about the whole deal stinks. Getting an ID takes time. The DMV already takes for fricken ever to process those that choose to get IDs. I can't imagine the system reacting well to every registered voter needing to suddenly get a specific ID level in 2 months.

Summarization of my point, ID laws are good and should(must?) happen, but need time to get the ID. Most of those proposing them and stirring up the base are mustache twirlers on par with Snidely Whiplash.

I understand the the government will be issuing government IDs to enforce Obamacare. Watch how fast the "least among us" get a hold of one of those. And knowing the gov., its' probably not good for voting. That, or they will hand them out to illegals and say that it is. I don't think anyone with an open mind can say that the Democratic Party cares about the poor for any reason other than to have them as a voting block. When 50% of the people are on the government wagon, our system of government will cease to exist. JMO

Err... almost 100% of US citizens are 'on the government wagon' and always will be, and yet things still work. Roads and armies are awful nice to have. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. One ID system is being built from the ground up anticipating the load, the other is the standard renewal system which doesn't account for a large chunk of voters needing an ID in two months. As I said, why, when both sides agree that ID laws are good, do we never hear about these laws being implemented in Dec after an election instead of a month or two before the election. It is just standard BS political bean counting, just like gerrymandering and confusing ballot wording.

Also, I think saying that ~40% of the US registered Democrat don't care about the poor is almost certainly false.

beatnic

jthanatos:

beatnic:

jthanatos:

I doubt that your average Republican wants to block people from the polls anymore than your average Democrat. I know I don't. I want voter ID law to prevent fraud(no matter how little actually happens) and to make it easier and more accurate at some point for voting to occur(IDs imply unique identifiers, unique IDs will allow for less human interaction, less human interaction = faster, less errors).

That being said, it pisses me off that the only time these laws seem to show up is right before the election. It makes it very hard for the cynic in me to believe in altruistic thoughts of those proposing them. The only complaint ever leveled by the other side is that it is too close to the election.... So why is it never brought back up after Nov? Something about the whole deal stinks. Getting an ID takes time. The DMV already takes for fricken ever to process those that choose to get IDs. I can't imagine the system reacting well to every registered voter needing to suddenly get a specific ID level in 2 months.

Summarization of my point, ID laws are good and should(must?) happen, but need time to get the ID. Most of those proposing them and stirring up the base are mustache twirlers on par with Snidely Whiplash.

I understand the the government will be issuing government IDs to enforce Obamacare. Watch how fast the "least among us" get a hold of one of those. And knowing the gov., its' probably not good for voting. That, or they will hand them out to illegals and say that it is. I don't think anyone with an open mind can say that the Democratic Party cares about the poor for any reason other than to have them as a voting block. When 50% of the people are on the government wagon, our system of government will cease to exist. JMO

Err... almost 100% of US citizens are 'on the government wagon' and always will be, and yet things still work. Roads and armies are awful nice to have. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. One ID system is being built from the ground up anticipating the load, the other is the standard renewal system which doesn't account for a large chunk of voters needing an ID in two months. As I said, why, when both sides agree that ID laws are good, do we never hear about these laws being implemented in Dec after an election instead of a month or two before the election. It is just standard BS political bean counting, just like gerrymandering and confusing ballot wording.

Also, I think saying that ~40% of the US registered Democrat don't care about the poor is almost certainly false.

Excuse me, but I'm not on the government wagon. I'm the guy paying for it to f-ing run. I pay for the roads and armies, and food stamps, and medicaid, and public schools, and everything else that government spends money on. Someone has to. And liberals blame me?

jthanatos

beatnic:

Excuse me, but I'm not on the government wagon. I'm the guy paying for it to f-ing run. I pay for the roads and armies, and food stamps, and medicaid, and public schools, and everything else that government spends money on. Someone has to. And liberals blame me?

Do you only use services valued up to your annual tax burden? Do you only plan to stop using public goods once you stop paying?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that 50% number is based on those that don't pay income tax. That isn't the only source of revenue to the government, and no where near the only tax people pay. Just because I pay more in taxes than someone who is in college or has lost a job doesn't mean that I am more entitled to use public goods. That being said, is our system bloated and filled with inefficencies? Yes, most assuredly. But indiscriminate cutting is just as bad as tacking more bloated entitlements on top.

beatnic

jthanatos:

beatnic:

Excuse me, but I'm not on the government wagon. I'm the guy paying for it to f-ing run. I pay for the roads and armies, and food stamps, and medicaid, and public schools, and everything else that government spends money on. Someone has to. And liberals blame me?

Do you only use services valued up to your annual tax burden? Do you only plan to stop using public goods once you stop paying?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that 50% number is based on those that don't pay income tax. That isn't the only source of revenue to the government, and no where near the only tax people pay. Just because I pay more in taxes than someone who is in college or has lost a job doesn't mean that I am more entitled to use public goods. That being said, is our system bloated and filled with inefficencies? Yes, most assuredly. But indiscriminate cutting is just as bad as tacking more bloated entitlements on top.

Hey, I'm all about paying taxes. I'll fess up. I'm in the 25% bracket. And I pay it, accountant, open, no questionable deductions, etc. I think that is fair for what I have achieved. But take this to the bank. I'm in this bracket because I have worked my ass off for 30 years and have built a successful business. And I'm getting a little peeved at the liberals who would claim that I'm the problem. Politics of envy is very strong right now. The prez. is the head cheerleader. I gotta go have a drink and a cigar.

JDH

beatnic:

jthanatos:

beatnic:

Excuse me, but I'm not on the government wagon. I'm the guy paying for it to f-ing run. I pay for the roads and armies, and food stamps, and medicaid, and public schools, and everything else that government spends money on. Someone has to. And liberals blame me?

Do you only use services valued up to your annual tax burden? Do you only plan to stop using public goods once you stop paying?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that 50% number is based on those that don't pay income tax. That isn't the only source of revenue to the government, and no where near the only tax people pay. Just because I pay more in taxes than someone who is in college or has lost a job doesn't mean that I am more entitled to use public goods. That being said, is our system bloated and filled with inefficencies? Yes, most assuredly. But indiscriminate cutting is just as bad as tacking more bloated entitlements on top.

Hey, I'm all about paying taxes. I'll fess up. I'm in the 25% bracket. And I pay it, accountant, open, no questionable deductions, etc. I think that is fair for what I have achieved. But take this to the bank. I'm in this bracket because I have worked my ass off for 30 years and have built a successful business. And I'm getting a little peeved at the liberals who would claim that I'm the problem. Politics of envy is very strong right now. The prez. is the head cheerleader. I gotta go have a drink and a cigar.

I can honestly say that I've never once heard anyone, liberal or conservative say that someone who's built a business for themselves and who pay their fair share of taxes is the problem. You seem to be fixated on people "envying" you. I can gurantee you that I do not envy you. I admire people who have worked hard for themselves, and have managed to make it, while keeping their integrity and ethics, without damaging others to get what they have. That's just about 90% of small businesses in the US today. That's not the problem. Small businesses are the solution. Mitt, and guys like him are a big chunk of the problem, in my view. It's not about envy, because I do not envy him either.