Republican-backed Voter Suppression ID laws

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

A new study by the Brennan Center for Justice reveals just how damaging Republican-backed Voter Suppression ID laws will be to hundreds of thousands of Americans.  Looking at ten states that have passed restrictive voter ID laws, the Brennan Center found that about a half-million eligible voters will be will find it virtually impossible to get the necessary ID to be able to vote in November, despite claims by Republicans that is very easy to get a voter ID.

That half-million is how many people live in a household without a vehicle and more than ten miles away from an ID-issuing office.   Most are low-income Americans who live in rural areas without decent public transportation.  According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center, one-in-ten eligible voters currently lack the necessary ID to vote, including a quarter of African Americans and 18% of senior citizens – all, of course, people who tend to vote for Democrats.

These voter suppression ID laws aren’t about fighting voter fraud, which, other than Romney lying about where he lived in 2010, isn't a real problem.  They are, instead, all about keeping Democratic voters from the polls to rig the November elections in favor of Republicans.  Let’s take this as a lesson that it’s time we begin the fight to guarantee a right to vote for ALL Americans.

Comments

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Instead of complaining,  why

Instead of complaining,  why don't you make it a topic on your show and promote "Save a voter" by volunteering to take one of them to the proper location to get a free valid I.D.

Commonsense461
If they have no vehichle how

If they have no vehichle how are they going to vote is the polling station any closer? Also there is no proof Romney committed voter fraud stop lying through your teeth.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Redwing wrote: Instead of

Redwing wrote:

Instead of complaining,  why don't you make it a topic on your show and promote "Save a voter" by volunteering to take one of them to the proper location to get a free valid I.D.

Why would they do that?  It's better to make an issue out it and not propose a solution. 

I'm sure if every progressive would get off their butt and go help people get an I.D. this summer, the problem will be solved.  And if the gov't agencies give people a problem, they can make it public and I'm sure most grassroots liberals and conservatives would support it. 

DynoDon
And who has the time and

And who has the time and money to do this during the hours the offices are open-less so now with budget cutbacks. Also, here in CA, the jury rolls are pulled from DMV records and voter registration so some are hesitant to sign up.

Commonsense461
DynoDon wrote: And who has

DynoDon wrote:

And who has the time and money to do this during the hours the offices are open-less so now with budget cutbacks. Also, here in CA, the jury rolls are pulled from DMV records and voter registration so some are hesitant to sign up.

So if you skirt one civic duty we should give you easy access to another?

Redwing
Redwing's picture
DynoDon wrote: And who has

DynoDon wrote:

And who has the time and money to do this during the hours the offices are open-less so now with budget cutbacks. Also, here in CA, the jury rolls are pulled from DMV records and voter registration so some are hesitant to sign up.

So these "good citizens" don't want a drivers license and don't want to register to vote because they may get called for jury duty?

If the world was logical, men would be the ones to ride side saddle.

DynoDon
They are already registered

They are already registered to vote. It's the ID that is the issue. It's the elderly and the poor without transport I am talking about. I guess you would support an organization like ACORN to help these people with ID's.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
I would think it would only

I would think it would only take the generosity of a few thousand people who felt strong enough about the cause that they would actually do something to make it right rather than whine over and over about voter supression when you know that if this ever gets on the ballot in any state it passes by a large majority.  And that positive vote comes from a group of voters that were not asked for a proper I.D. when they had the chance to vote to make this a new requirement to vote in the future.

DynoDon
And what organization of a

And what organization of a few thousand people that gets democratic leaning people ids won't be subject to right wing attacks and attempts to block?

Commonsense461
DynoDon wrote: They are

DynoDon wrote:

They are already registered to vote. It's the ID that is the issue. It's the elderly and the poor without transport I am talking about. I guess you would support an organization like ACORN to help these people with ID's.

no because acorn has been one of the biggest contributer to voter fraud. Also how are these poor minorities with out cars getting to the polls?

DynoDon
So you have to own a car to

So you have to own a car to vote? Ever heard of absentee ballots? In CA, it is as high as 50% absentee voting.

Commonsense461
And gues what kind of voting

And gues what kind of voting has the highest fraud? Can you guess ;)?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: DynoDon

Commonsense461 wrote:

DynoDon wrote:

They are already registered to vote. It's the ID that is the issue. It's the elderly and the poor without transport I am talking about. I guess you would support an organization like ACORN to help these people with ID's.

no because acorn has been one of the biggest contributer to voter fraud. Also how are these poor minorities with out cars getting to the polls?

Do not spread falsehoods.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
And we know that every

And we know that every election in Mass. when Rmoney was "residing" in his son's un finished basement and Rmoney voted, it was voter fraud.
Kind of like him filing false SEC filings saying he was in charge of Bane.

tilgunas
tilgunas's picture
I'd like to take this

I'd like to take this conversation in a different direction...just read this article: http://goo.gl/WQO5O  "Washington State is making it even easier for citizens to rock the vote. Beginning next week, the state is launching a new app that will allow citizens to register to vote in state elections using Facebook" Good idea!

Commonsense461
Phaedrus76

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

DynoDon wrote:

They are already registered to vote. It's the ID that is the issue. It's the elderly and the poor without transport I am talking about. I guess you would support an organization like ACORN to help these people with ID's.

no because acorn has been one of the biggest contributer to voter fraud. Also how are these poor minorities with out cars getting to the polls?

Do not spread falsehoods.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Redwing wrote: Instead of

Redwing wrote:

Instead of complaining,  why don't you make it a topic on your show and promote "Save a voter" by volunteering to take one of them to the proper location to get a free valid I.D.

Because they would rather have a made up issue. They would not want to do anything to prevent non citizens from voting. This is all about winning and if they have to use illegal votes to do it, then so be it.

Cheaters.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote: I'm

LysanderSpooner wrote:

I'm sure if every progressive would get off their butt and go help people get an I.D. this summer, the problem will be solved.  And if the gov't agencies give people a problem, they can make it public and I'm sure most grassroots liberals and conservatives would support it. 

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dr. Econ

Dr. Econ wrote:

LysanderSpooner wrote:

I'm sure if every progressive would get off their butt and go help people get an I.D. this summer, the problem will be solved.  And if the gov't agencies give people a problem, they can make it public and I'm sure most grassroots liberals and conservatives would support it. 

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Dr. Econ --  Mystify,

Dr. Econ -- 

Mystify, distract, mislead -- basically the methods of Stonewall Jackson, and that's what the righties do as well, offer ideas that will not work but will get you off-track.

Leonard Pitt had a story published in our paper here in Portland, Oregon yesterday noting that if voter ID laws reduced the voting of Democrats, even by a little, it would serve the goals of the Righties, to win! (read his very, very excellent piece here: http://www.freep.com/article/20120720/OPINION05/207200333/Leonard-Pitts-Jr-Voter-suppression-Round-2-in-the-debate-on-ID-laws)

He states that if someone adds even a little hurdle to people voting, it would impact people -- such forcing them to go to an office between such and such a time, get a card from this office and not that office, etc. This little hurdles shave off voting percentages, as the righties know, and that's why Pennsylvania Republican bragged that his voter ID laws would ensure victory for Mitt Romney.

Yours,

Caleb

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
rigel1 wrote: Dr. Econ

rigel1 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Really? I think all Libertarians should vote democrat.  I mean, so you have to pay more in taxes, what difference does that make compared to the pollution, the corporate malfeasence, the torture, the unending drum beat for war? And the Republicans have a real nasty way of elliminating some regulations, while leaving others, which makes things worse. For example, it was conservatives who said we must only pay for single mothers during the original AFDC debates. The Liberals wanted single mothers and married ones. And look how that turned out.

There are other examples. The individual mandate for health care. The deregulation of ...well just about everything under Reagan. The lifting of restrictions on mortgage loans. The partial privatizing of fannie mae of freddie mac.  Not to mention the use of highly paid contractors during the war.

Let's see. There's also the current madness to close underperforming schools. But these schools are all underperforming because they are in poor neighborhoods - so the effect was simply to close more inner city schools. Not a great solution.  It is actually worse to do that than nothing.

Then there is the Bush record - cut taxes and not spending.  Republicans love to cut taxes but not so much spending. Sounds like a horrible idea, threatening the fundementals of our economy.  Wouldn't the Democrats with their higher taxes and spending actually be better for the economy?

And then there are the alternative energy subsidies. As you know, the Republicans are all for subsidizing oil. But they like to remove the ones on alternative energy.  This distorts the market in favor of fossil fuels. Wouldn't you rather distort the market in favor of alternative energy?

When you think about it, I would rather have teacher's unions creating too many schools than corporations being allowed to pollute and kill people.

Commonsense461
Dr. Econ wrote: rigel1

Dr. Econ wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Really? I think all Libertarians should vote democrat.  I mean, so you have to pay more in taxes, what difference does that make compared to the pollution, the corporate malfeasence, the torture, the unending drum beat for war? And the Republicans have a real nasty way of elliminating some regulations, while leaving others, which makes things worse. For example, it was conservatives who said we must only pay for single mothers during the original AFDC debates. The Liberals wanted single mothers and married ones. And look how that turned out.

There are other examples. The individual mandate for health care. The deregulation of ...well just about everything under Reagan. The lifting of restrictions on mortgage loans. The partial privatizing of fannie mae of freddie mac.  Not to mention the use of highly paid contractors during the war.

Let's see. There's also the current madness to close underperforming schools. But these schools are all underperforming because they are in poor neighborhoods - so the effect was simply to close more inner city schools. Not a great solution.  It is actually worse to do that than nothing.

Then there is the Bush record - cut taxes and not spending.  Republicans love to cut taxes but not so much spending. Sounds like a horrible idea, threatening the fundementals of our economy.  Wouldn't the Democrats with their higher taxes and spending actually be better for the economy?

And then there are the alternative energy subsidies. As you know, the Republicans are all for subsidizing oil. But they like to remove the ones on alternative energy.  This distorts the market in favor of fossil fuels. Wouldn't you rather distort the market in favor of alternative energy?

When you think about it, I would rather have teacher's unions creating too many schools than corporations being allowed to pollute and kill people.

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

 

drc2
Because the Democrats do not

Because the Democrats do not limit personal freedom for anyone.  Rather than those who prattle on about "personal responsibility," they practice it and think that it is more than "fiduciary responsibility."

A Libertarian would prefer the illusion of freedom without government to the reality of free people governing ourselves, so probably will not vote Democratic.  A person of conscience who can say the Pledge of Allegiance without crossed fingers, would.  Particularly given the choice.

Republicans are the Party of Greed.  Why would any libertarian vote for that?

Redwing
Redwing's picture
drc2 wrote: Because the

drc2 wrote:

Because the Democrats do not limit personal freedom for anyone.  Rather than those who prattle on about "personal responsibility," they practice it and think that it is more than "fiduciary responsibility."

Is this why we have mandated "green" lightbulbs full of mercury, government emposed soda size limits, photo ID required to buy a can of spray paint in some cities?

chilidog
Now I've heard it all - a

Now I've heard it all - a right winger who thinks kids have a god-given right to purchase spray paint.

 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Dr.

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Really? I think all Libertarians should vote democrat.  I mean, so you have to pay more in taxes, what difference does that make compared to the pollution, the corporate malfeasence, the torture, the unending drum beat for war? And the Republicans have a real nasty way of elliminating some regulations, while leaving others, which makes things worse. For example, it was conservatives who said we must only pay for single mothers during the original AFDC debates. The Liberals wanted single mothers and married ones. And look how that turned out.

There are other examples. The individual mandate for health care. The deregulation of ...well just about everything under Reagan. The lifting of restrictions on mortgage loans. The partial privatizing of fannie mae of freddie mac.  Not to mention the use of highly paid contractors during the war.

Let's see. There's also the current madness to close underperforming schools. But these schools are all underperforming because they are in poor neighborhoods - so the effect was simply to close more inner city schools. Not a great solution.  It is actually worse to do that than nothing.

Then there is the Bush record - cut taxes and not spending.  Republicans love to cut taxes but not so much spending. Sounds like a horrible idea, threatening the fundementals of our economy.  Wouldn't the Democrats with their higher taxes and spending actually be better for the economy?

And then there are the alternative energy subsidies. As you know, the Republicans are all for subsidizing oil. But they like to remove the ones on alternative energy.  This distorts the market in favor of fossil fuels. Wouldn't you rather distort the market in favor of alternative energy?

When you think about it, I would rather have teacher's unions creating too many schools than corporations being allowed to pollute and kill people.

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

I see you are unable to read. Should I repost what I just wrote?  Do I dare add to it?

Yes, you will pay more taxes. But so what? Look at, say France. You have nearly free education, health care.  How much would you pay for all that in a Republican corrupted free market? In France, you have holidays, paid maternity leave, and lots of small shops. You can study in france, pick whatever profession you whish, work wherever. You have to pay more to drive, but there is great public transportation.

Is that better than in the US, that engages in wars of aggression. torture, spying, and the rest of it?

What would the Republicans, do? Look at Bush.  Did he increase your personal freedom? Now, he kept most of your hated welfare state and then on top of it added war and torture.

 

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  And, no, the mercury

 

And, no, the mercury lightbulb is not required. You can buy a regular energy efficent incandescent or an LED.

Why do I bother, though, really?

Commonsense461
Dr. Econ

Dr. Econ wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Really? I think all Libertarians should vote democrat.  I mean, so you have to pay more in taxes, what difference does that make compared to the pollution, the corporate malfeasence, the torture, the unending drum beat for war? And the Republicans have a real nasty way of elliminating some regulations, while leaving others, which makes things worse. For example, it was conservatives who said we must only pay for single mothers during the original AFDC debates. The Liberals wanted single mothers and married ones. And look how that turned out.

There are other examples. The individual mandate for health care. The deregulation of ...well just about everything under Reagan. The lifting of restrictions on mortgage loans. The partial privatizing of fannie mae of freddie mac.  Not to mention the use of highly paid contractors during the war.

Let's see. There's also the current madness to close underperforming schools. But these schools are all underperforming because they are in poor neighborhoods - so the effect was simply to close more inner city schools. Not a great solution.  It is actually worse to do that than nothing.

Then there is the Bush record - cut taxes and not spending.  Republicans love to cut taxes but not so much spending. Sounds like a horrible idea, threatening the fundementals of our economy.  Wouldn't the Democrats with their higher taxes and spending actually be better for the economy?

And then there are the alternative energy subsidies. As you know, the Republicans are all for subsidizing oil. But they like to remove the ones on alternative energy.  This distorts the market in favor of fossil fuels. Wouldn't you rather distort the market in favor of alternative energy?

When you think about it, I would rather have teacher's unions creating too many schools than corporations being allowed to pollute and kill people.

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

I see you are unable to read. Should I repost what I just wrote?  Do I dare add to it?

Yes, you will pay more taxes. But so what? Look at, say France. You have nearly free education, health care.  How much would you pay for all that in a Republican corrupted free market? In France, you have holidays, paid maternity leave, and lots of small shops. You can study in france, pick whatever profession you whish, work wherever. You have to pay more to drive, but there is great public transportation.

Is that better than in the US, that engages in wars of aggression. torture, spying, and the rest of it?

What would the Republicans, do? Look at Bush.  Did he increase your personal freedom? Now, he kept most of your hated welfare state and then on top of it added war and torture.

 

Free education comes with a cost of lack of freedom of choice.

chilidog
Commonsense461 wrote: Dr.

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

What would the Republicans, do? Look at Bush.  Did he increase your personal freedom? Now, he kept most of your hated welfare state and then on top of it added war and torture.

 

Free education comes with a cost of lack of freedom of choice.

The complaints CS has have been GOP talking points for GENERATIONS now.  And yet, here we are.  This Boehner Tea Party House can pass whatever fantasy legislation they want for political points, they know it will go nowhere.  What have they passed?

 

Commonsense461
chilidog

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

What would the Republicans, do? Look at Bush.  Did he increase your personal freedom? Now, he kept most of your hated welfare state and then on top of it added war and torture.

 

Free education comes with a cost of lack of freedom of choice.

The complaints CS has have been GOP talking points for GENERATIONS now.  And yet, here we are.  This Boehner Tea Party House can pass whatever fantasy legislation they want for political points, they know it will go nowhere.  What have they passed?

 

How is it not a true statement making anything publicly owned all most the only choice elinates choice.

chilidog
Where do you not have a

Where do you not have a choice?

Commonsense461
Roads, education, social

Roads, education, social security and may more.

chilidog
You are not compelled to send

You are not compelled to send your kids to public schools, you are not compelled to take Social Security...

I suppose if you're wealthy enough you can have your own helicopter pad and transport yourself without using public roads....

Commonsense461
No but you are compelled to

No but you are compelled to pay for both eliminating effective competition. No one cancompete with government they have unlimited resources. Also there are private roads and bridges also local roads and bridges.Look at the golden gate bridge. 

chilidog
Why do you bring up the

Why do you bring up the golden gate bridge?

Commonsense461
chilidog wrote: Why do you

chilidog wrote:

Why do you bring up the golden gate bridge?

Its construction was entirely privately funded.

chilidog
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Why do you bring up the golden gate bridge?

Its construction was entirely privately funded.

I did not know that.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Why do you bring up the golden gate bridge?

Its construction was entirely privately funded.

Where do you come up with your "facts"?

By November 4, 1930, the district was ready to go to the citizens with a plan to build the bridge. The financing plan was carefully developed to appeal to voters who had little money to spare to finance a bridge in the middle of the Great Depression.

Details of the bridge plan included:

  • Replacing the current ferry system with a suspension bridge
  • The citizens were asked to approve the issuance of 40-year bonds paying five percent - a total bond issue of $35 million. This method of financing was the standard practice for bridge financing because it reduced the burden on the taxpayers - a real selling point during these depression years.
  • Total projected earnings from tolls for the bridge over the first 40 years was about $111 million. This included cost for the building and maintenance of the bridge, the interest owed to the bridge bond holders as well as a projected profit of about $17 million.
  • The original bridge tolls were set based on the type of vehicle:
    • Automobiles and trucks with up to four passengers - $.50 plus $.05 for each additional passenger
    • Commuters in automobiles with up to four passengers - $11 for thirty one-way trips in any sixty-day period
    • Trailers drawn by automobiles - $.50 plus $.05 for each additional passenger riding in the trailer
    • Motorcycles with driver and one passenger - $.25 plus $.05 for each additional passenger
    • Pedestrians and bicyclists - $.05 each way
  • Tolls were projected to decrease over the life of the bridge, dropping to $.25 per car by 1960, with free transit projected by 1970

The citizens approved the bridge bond issue exceeding the required two-thirds required majority with a vote of 145,697 in favor and 47,005 voting against.

http://sanfrancisco.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge_History

Commonsense461
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge#Finance

Local bank ownerbloated nearly all of the money as the depression dried up funding. 

DynoDon
Multiple duplicate roads

Multiple duplicate roads would be impractical and inefficient-why would you want a choice? You live in a country that has the term 'general welfare' in its constitution. In some cases, the many will be asked to contribute to help a national social or economic problem. If you want to be the man on an island-find an island.

Commonsense461
DynoDon wrote: Multiple

DynoDon wrote:

Multiple duplicate roads would be impractical and inefficient-why would you want a choice? You live in a country that has the term 'general welfare' in its constitution. In some cases, the many will be asked to contribute to help a national social or economic problem. If you want to be the man on an island-find an island.

General welfare within the enumerated powers not just anything for the general welfare. It would be in the interest general welfare to give everyone a car from the federallevel but they can't do that.

DynoDon
Sorry, I don't equate SS and

Sorry, I don't equate SS and Medicare with giving everyone a car. In a democracy, programs are debated and implemented with the votes of a majority. Nobody is going to agree with everything. Somehow, I don't believe a car giveaway is in the cards. Political and economic systems are constantly evolving and words and intentions from 200 years ago don't provide an answer for everything today. Keep the best and move on.

Commonsense461
DynoDon wrote: Sorry, I don't

DynoDon wrote:

Sorry, I don't equate SS and Medicare with giving everyone a car. In a democracy, programs are debated and implemented with the votes of a majority. Nobody is going to agree with everything. Somehow, I don't believe a car giveaway is in the cards. Political and economic systems are constantly evolving and words and intentions from 200 years ago don't provide an answer for everything today. Keep the best and move on.

Then edit the documents that govern us and stop trampling on our current document.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge#Finance

Local bank ownerbloated nearly all of the money as the depression dried up funding. 

They were bonds......................The public paid for it with tolls.  Just because somebody lends someone else money for a project does not mean that the lender paid for it.  I guess my banker bought my house and my car.

Commonsense461
Yes he did until you paid it

Yes he did until you paid it off.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Yes he

Commonsense461 wrote:

Yes he did until you paid it off.

No he did not.  He never paid one dime more toward the purchase of my house than you did.  Do you think that bankers use their own private stash to make loans?  The origination of the money for loans comes from ....you guessed it.....the public.  Profiteers always position themselves in the middle of cash flow.  It is usually cash that originates from the public that's being transferred to the public while someone like a banker skims off the top. 

Commonsense461
They own the house until you

They own the house until you pay off the note.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: They

Commonsense461 wrote:

They own the house until you pay off the note.

Here in lies the problem with you.  You don't even understand the most fundamental basics of economics or money and yet you will argue for days over economic truths and solutions.  You really aren't worth the time anymore.  Adios.

Commonsense461
Bush_Wacker

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

They own the house until you pay off the note.

Here in lies the problem with you.  You don't even understand the most fundamental basics of economics or money and yet you will argue for days over economic truths and solutions.  You really aren't worth the time anymore.  Adios.

The property is collateralodor the loan and will be repossed if payment is not made.  Thats baisic banking system.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Dr.

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

rigel1 wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

As long as you require the Republicans to do the same. The point is that the voter ID laws are biased. I'm not sure why a Libertarian would want to vote for the party that made it legal policy to torture people.

You my love your party but conservatives and libertarians really have contempt for all of these nit wits. Here is our delemma. We are forced to vote republican because if a politician shared ANY of our concerns he would not be a member of the democratic party. It's a crappy choice. Which self serving bastard is the least offensive. Go ahead and trumpet the virtues or your precious democratic party. I will continue to despise them both.

Really? I think all Libertarians should vote democrat.  I mean, so you have to pay more in taxes, what difference does that make compared to the pollution, the corporate malfeasence, the torture, the unending drum beat for war? And the Republicans have a real nasty way of elliminating some regulations, while leaving others, which makes things worse. For example, it was conservatives who said we must only pay for single mothers during the original AFDC debates. The Liberals wanted single mothers and married ones. And look how that turned out.

There are other examples. The individual mandate for health care. The deregulation of ...well just about everything under Reagan. The lifting of restrictions on mortgage loans. The partial privatizing of fannie mae of freddie mac.  Not to mention the use of highly paid contractors during the war.

Let's see. There's also the current madness to close underperforming schools. But these schools are all underperforming because they are in poor neighborhoods - so the effect was simply to close more inner city schools. Not a great solution.  It is actually worse to do that than nothing.

Then there is the Bush record - cut taxes and not spending.  Republicans love to cut taxes but not so much spending. Sounds like a horrible idea, threatening the fundementals of our economy.  Wouldn't the Democrats with their higher taxes and spending actually be better for the economy?

And then there are the alternative energy subsidies. As you know, the Republicans are all for subsidizing oil. But they like to remove the ones on alternative energy.  This distorts the market in favor of fossil fuels. Wouldn't you rather distort the market in favor of alternative energy?

When you think about it, I would rather have teacher's unions creating too many schools than corporations being allowed to pollute and kill people.

The democrats limit personal freedom for everyone but them selves they week to control everything but be responsible for nothing . Why would a libertarian vote for that 

I see you are unable to read. Should I repost what I just wrote?  Do I dare add to it?

Yes, you will pay more taxes. But so what? Look at, say France. You have nearly free education, health care.  How much would you pay for all that in a Republican corrupted free market? In France, you have holidays, paid maternity leave, and lots of small shops. You can study in france, pick whatever profession you whish, work wherever. You have to pay more to drive, but there is great public transportation.

Is that better than in the US, that engages in wars of aggression. torture, spying, and the rest of it?

What would the Republicans, do? Look at Bush.  Did he increase your personal freedom? Now, he kept most of your hated welfare state and then on top of it added war and torture.

 

Free education comes with a cost of lack of freedom of choice.

I see, you are not even pretending to respond to my points. Oh well, what did I really expect? My logic and points are so sound no one can refute them. There is simply no way a Libertarian should vote Republican.