PDA

View Full Version : Mandated voting



garhkal
03-19-2015, 08:23 PM
Since the left is always on 'fire' when people suggest we need Voter ID's to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen, i am struggling to see why Obama is putting the idea out there that maybe we need to go to Compulsory voting.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/19/obama-praises-idea-of-mandatory-voting/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/

Now YES i do find it sad that less than 40% of the eligible voters were out last cycle (according to the figures in those articles), but i don't think that should be a reason to mandate it.
Especially if you are not also then mandating Voter IDs.

What say you all?

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 10:03 AM
I didn't vote in 2004. That was me exercising my right to express my views on the candidates at the time.

However... if I was legally required to vote that year, I wouldn't be upset about it. We already "have to" pay taxes as it is, and if we fight a big enough war... some people may "have to" be in the military and be put in combat. So a mandate that will cost us neither our money nor our lives is hardly anything for anyone to lose their minds over.

In truth, we have so much "freedom" here in America that we're spoiled by it.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 11:04 AM
If I was mandated to vote, I'd probably write in Homer Simpson or something.

What's funny is that the suggestion of this mandate, as stated by the President himself, is to get the low income, the minorities, etc (the voters most likely to vote Democrat) to the polls.

Here's my question. What happens, if voting was to become mandatory, when the people who this is intended to get to the voting booths still don't go? The suggestion is that they would be fined. So now these low income people who, in the words of the Democrats, can't make it to the polls because it's too difficult to get there, are going to end up paying money because they "couldn't" make it. This creates more financial hardship for those who are probably already receiving government assistance. Is everyone else (as happens with Obamacare) going to end up paying these fines for those who can't afford it?

I know it was just a random thought expressed in words during this interview but I have a feeling there wasn't much thought put into it by the President.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 11:10 AM
If I was mandated to vote, I'd probably write in Homer Simpson or something.

What's funny is that the suggestion of this mandate, as stated by the President himself, is to get the low income, the minorities, etc (the voters most likely to vote Democrat) to the polls.

Here's my question. What happens, if voting was to become mandatory, when the people who this is intended to get to the voting booths still don't go? The suggestion is that they would be fined. So now these low income people who, in the words of the Democrats, can't make it to the polls because it's too difficult to get there, are going to end up paying money because they "couldn't" make it. This creates more financial hardship for those who are probably already receiving government assistance. Is everyone else (as happens with Obamacare) going to end up paying these fines for those who can't afford it?

I know it was just a random thought expressed in words during this interview but I have a feeling there wasn't much thought put into it by the President.

I'm sure this would be accommodated by setting up more polling sites. There'd have to be more in order to account the for the fact that there'd be almost twice as many voters. It would only stand to reason that the new polling sites would be in places that are more accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to vote.

Here's another idea I thought of: Pay everybody $30 for voting. That'll get people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't have come. That's what you get for a plasma donation, and it only takes half the time doesn't involve needles!

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 11:14 AM
Here's another idea I thought of: Pay everybody $30 for voting. That'll get people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't have come. That's what you get for a plasma donation, and it only takes half the time doesn't involve needles!

So who pays for this? In reality, this would be funded by the "rich Republican voters" in order to get the "poor Democrat voters" to the polls. That makes sense.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 11:17 AM
So who pays for this? In reality, this would be funded by the "rich Republican voters" in order to get the "poor Democrat voters" to the polls. That makes sense.

Remember back when Bush gave everybody $800? Twice? Yeah, giving everybody $30 ain't shit.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 12:22 PM
Rusty is correct that more polling places would be needed. SJ is right that this would cost money. Rusty is wrong in his assertion that polling places are now located in places inconvenient to any large group of people. This is an old and well worn strawman argument about voter turnout. People who don't vote generally don't because they don't want to. They may cite inconvenience (time off from work, travel to polling location, etc) but the fact is they just don't vote.

If you want to know why Obama said what he did read this over. http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/


As always when hypocrisy become evident I chuckle at a Democrat suggesting mandatory voting laws with a straight face while condemning any voter ID law passed by a GOP controlled state legislature, crying nefarious motivations.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 12:24 PM
Remember back when Bush gave everybody $800? Twice? Yeah, giving everybody $30 ain't shit.

Putting aside the huge difference between $800 and $30 what is your point in this comparison? I get that you were being sarcastic but I missed the point.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 12:41 PM
Putting aside the huge difference between $800 and $30 what is your point in this comparison? I get that you were being sarcastic but I missed the point.



This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

OR

They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 12:48 PM
This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

OR

They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.

Either way, the government needs to quit mandating that we do shit. The purpose of laws is to deter people from doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, not to insist that people do the things others think they should be doing. It would be like instituting a law that says that everyone MUST own a gun, because it is a right and those without one are somehow shirking their responsibilities.

What they need to do, if they want people to vote, is run viable campaigns and produce tangible results. Give us someone we want to vote for.

If a voting mandate was to be implemented, what's next? Mandate that people attend closed circuit broadcasts of debates, campaign ads, etc, to ensure the voters are, at least, minimally aware of who and what they are voting for?

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 12:51 PM
here in FL, I had a polling station 100 yards from my house, this was my previously assigned station. When I showed up to vote, I was told that I was in the wrong station (had never received any notification) and then given directions to another station about 2.5 miles away at a church in downtown, I drove around the downtown for 30 minutes looking for it and never found it. I eventually called the election commissioner's office and found out were it had been moved to, Less than 1/2 a mile from my house in another church. All told it ended up with me having to take half the morning off work and drive around and figure out were I was supposed to vote. Now, if I was financially or physically unable or just too lazy to do that I wouldn't have been able to cast my vote for Mick E. Mouse.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 01:18 PM
Either way, the government needs to quit mandating that we do shit. The purpose of laws is to deter people from doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, not to insist that people do the things others think they should be doing. It would be like instituting a law that says that everyone MUST own a gun, because it is a right and those without one are somehow shirking their responsibilities.

What they need to do, if they want people to vote, is run viable campaigns and produce tangible results. Give us someone we want to vote for.

If a voting mandate was to be implemented, what's next? Mandate that people attend closed circuit broadcasts of debates, campaign ads, etc, to ensure the voters are, at least, minimally aware of who and what they are voting for?

Or, here's another stipulation I could add to what I suggested: in the case of the second scenario (the payroll witholdings), you don't have to vote. But you STILL have to show up to the polling site to claim your money. And in order to claim your money, you are still given a ballot and you're indicating that you're not voting. Or... you could just vote. Your choice.

Problem solved. No one is forcing you to vote, but if someone has a candidate that they really want to win... but it's only a matter of people getting up off their asses, or financial reasons, or transportation, or whatever... I think the people who are there to claim their money are probably going to think "Well, I'm here. I may as well vote." And that's the point.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 01:29 PM
Since the left is always on 'fire' when people suggest we need Voter ID's to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen, i am struggling to see why Obama is putting the idea out there that maybe we need to go to Compulsory voting.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/19/obama-praises-idea-of-mandatory-voting/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/

Now YES i do find it sad that less than 40% of the eligible voters were out last cycle (according to the figures in those articles), but i don't think that should be a reason to mandate it.
Especially if you are not also then mandating Voter IDs.

What say you all?

How about Making WORKING mandatory?? This little statement he made, gives you some insight into the mind of this Internationalist- Socialist.

All the Communist Governments had compulsory voting, because Dictators are always Narcissistic Cocksuckers, that need their egos stroked.

And this Asshole can never have enough race-baiting for the Free Shit Army.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 01:33 PM
This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

OR

They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.

I guess I should have stated my confusion clearer. I get what you are saying but I don't understand the comparison to the past tax rebates (or whatever they were called) by Bush (and there were others under other Presidents as well). In any case, I now see your point.

I am certainly not a lawyer but there may be Constitutional issues with what you have proposed. In fact it may actually violate the Voting Rights Act (it could be ruled a poll tax, regardless of the zero sum result)

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 01:35 PM
Either way, the government needs to quit mandating that we do shit. The purpose of laws is to deter people from doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, not to insist that people do the things others think they should be doing. It would be like instituting a law that says that everyone MUST own a gun, because it is a right and those without one are somehow shirking their responsibilities.

What they need to do, if they want people to vote, is run viable campaigns and produce tangible results. Give us someone we want to vote for.

If a voting mandate was to be implemented, what's next? Mandate that people attend closed circuit broadcasts of debates, campaign ads, etc, to ensure the voters are, at least, minimally aware of who and what they are voting for?

Interesting point (comparing this to mandated gun ownership).

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 01:57 PM
This was in response to SJ's worries, did you not see that? There are still other ways around it, if you don't want the scenario that SJ described - despite the negligibility, especially when compared to Bush's stimulus checks: that $30 could simply be an advance on the voter's tax return, if they decide to take it. In that case, since it's not costing anyone else but the individual voter, they could be given the option to take a higher amount - and with the option to split repayment out of their tax returns for up to four years, since that's how often elections occur.

OR

They could come up with a new payroll withholding that would equal, say, $100 per year (we could go lower, I'm just putting an arbitrary number out there). That's roughly $8.33 per month. When you vote, you get your $400 back. Doesn't cost anyone else a dime.

What a Great idea! So, If you already pay 35% of your check, you'd get to Give even more of your money interest free to the fucking government every month for the purpose of exercising your right to vote.

Or even better.... How bout we give a "tax credit" to the lazy motherfucker's that don't even have to file returns in the first place.?

Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. They shouldn't get to decide what to do with Working People's money.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 02:27 PM
[QUOTE=sandsjames;352472] what's next?QUOTE]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSh0VAVYn4

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 02:31 PM
And are we talking just mandatory Federal elections? Or are we talking state/local elections also? Does one get paid each time they vote? Does the Federal Government impose sanctions on the states that don't follow through. Does this impose on State's rights?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-20-2015, 02:47 PM
I don't agree with making voting mandatory, especially considering, at least in Presidential elections, we are realistically only given two choices to vote for. In supporting the whole notion of liberty (I know, how outdated this concept is for some!), I believe people should have a choice whether to vote or not.

Now let's talk about this whole Voter ID thing. How is it that so many liberals are absolutely opposed to this, yet voting should be mandatory? Huh? Many of the arguments against Voter IDs is that poor people don't all have the means to travel to the DMV to get the ID....yet somehow, miraculously, they mysteriously found a way (months or years prior to the election) to find a ride to the voting booth?

If you value liberty and our constitution (assuming you even know what it means), why in the world would ANYONE one to give yet more control over our lives to the government? My fear, and it's not unjustified, is that with regard to mandatory voting, most poor, uneducated voters would unintentionally vote for the type of people who would gladly, yet slowly, replace our current system of government with one similar to the failed governments that millions of immigrants have been running away from. Imagine that...fleeing to a new country to vote for the same policies that destroyed the one you left (i.e., gov promises to take care of you).

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 02:53 PM
I am certainly not a lawyer but there may be Constitutional issues with what you have proposed. In fact it may actually violate the Voting Rights Act (it could be ruled a poll tax, regardless of the zero sum result)

I think we could already be crossing that line legally mandating voting in the first place. Incentivizing it is probably the safer option.


What a Great idea! So, If you already pay 35% of your check, you'd get to Give even more of your money interest free to the fucking government every month for the purpose of exercising your right to vote.

Easy solution - those deductions would be put into an interest bearing account for you until you claim it at the polling site.


Or even better.... How bout we give a "tax credit" to the lazy motherfucker's that don't even have to file returns in the first place.?

Make the deductions apply to TANF checks as well


Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. They shouldn't get to decide what to do with Working People's money.

Act on that, and you've got the rest of the world's attention due to human rights violations. Besides, when have even working people decided what's done with the money?


And are we talking just mandatory Federal elections? Or are we talking state/local elections also? Does one get paid each time they vote? Does the Federal Government impose sanctions on the states that don't follow through. Does this impose on State's rights?

State and local governments can decide whether or not to create incentives for voting.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 02:56 PM
I think we could already be crossing that line legally mandating voting in the first place. Incentivizing it is probably the safer option.

Oh, I agree with that but I see a trickier situation with paying someone (or withholding a portion of tax money due) to vote.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 03:10 PM
Oh, I agree with that but I see a trickier situation with paying someone (or withholding a portion of tax money due) to vote.

It's not surprising, though. We have become a society of rewarding people for doing what they are supposed to do. "Oh, you didn't get in trouble during this 4 year assignment? Here's an award/dec". "Hey, you helped your wife change the kids diaper? You're such a great father!". We can't reward people fore excelling at something because that's unfair to those who don't excel, so we have to reward them for doing what they are supposed to do. "Rewarding" someone for voting is no different.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 03:12 PM
I don't agree with making voting mandatory, especially considering, at least in Presidential elections, we are realistically only given two choices to vote for. In supporting the whole notion of liberty (I know, how outdated this concept is for some!), I believe people should have a choice whether to vote or not.

Now let's talk about this whole Voter ID thing. How is it that so many liberals are absolutely opposed to this, yet voting should be mandatory? Huh? Many of the arguments against Voter IDs is that poor people don't all have the means to travel to the DMV to get the ID....yet somehow, miraculously, they mysteriously found a way (months or years prior to the election) to find a ride to the voting booth?

I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Conservatives want less people to vote, liberals want more people to vote. Both groups are trying to make laws that support their respective desires.


If you value liberty and our constitution (assuming you even know what it means), why in the world would ANYONE one to give yet more control over our lives to the government?

Chances are, if you care so much about these things in the first place, you were going to vote anyway. I can't see someone poor uneducated soul crying about their freedom to not vote being violated if voting was to be made mandatory. The only people would who would be upset are the ones who are pissed that those people would now be voting.


My fear, and it's not unjustified, is that with regard to mandatory voting, most poor, uneducated voters would unintentionally vote for the type of people who would gladly, yet slowly, replace our current system of government with one similar to the failed governments that millions of immigrants have been running away from. Imagine that...fleeing to a new country to vote for the same policies that destroyed the one you left (i.e., gov promises to take care of you).

What you really want to say is that you want to keep people who would vote Democrat away from the polls.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 03:13 PM
It's not surprising, though. We have become a society of rewarding people for doing what they are supposed to do. "Oh, you didn't get in trouble during this 4 year assignment? Here's an award/dec". "Hey, you helped your wife change the kids diaper? You're such a great father!". We can't reward people fore excelling at something because that's unfair to those who don't excel, so we have to reward them for doing what they are supposed to do. "Rewarding" someone for voting is no different.

Not really. You're "rewarding" someone with their OWN money.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 03:21 PM
If this Communist imposter really cared about the corruption of the electoral process, He'd be suggesting a move to break up the 6 owners of EVERY media outlet in this country.

Voting doesn't matter anymore when they continually stack both parties with the same globalist puppets (see: Bush 3 vs. Hillary 2 coming in 2016). The only reason Rainmaker even still bother to vote is for the local issues.

This shit-show is about creating the illusion that you still have a "choice". The government is only legitimate when they have the "consent of the governed". So, When you don't vote, they can't claim to have your consent, which is why they're planting this seed.

A lot of People are starting to drop out of the system, Liquidating assets, taking money out . They have stripped away most of our rights already and all it will take is one more shock to the system and they're coming for the rest, and they want to make you vote for it, so you can't "Legitimately" complain about it.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 03:39 PM
Not really. You're "rewarding" someone with their OWN money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpnF8MXfdgE

Will these guys be guarding my check?

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 03:42 PM
Not really. You're "rewarding" someone with their OWN money.

No, because for most who are being targeted with this suggestion, they are getting more tax refund than they are paying in anyway, so this is just adding to it. You can't withhold it if they don't vote, or at least register, because there is nothing to withhold. There is nothing to lose by not taking part but there is something to gain.

Do we really want to condone blackmail and extortion when it comes to voting? It's happening behind the scenes already and look how that has turned out. Now there's talk of that same blackmail and extortion being mandatory?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-20-2015, 03:49 PM
I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Conservatives want less people to vote, liberals want more people to vote. Both groups are trying to make laws that support their respective desires.

I'm conservative and want everyone to vote.



Chances are, if you care so much about these things in the first place, you were going to vote anyway. I can't see someone poor uneducated soul crying about their freedom to not vote being violated if voting was to be made mandatory. The only people would who would be upset are the ones who are pissed that those people would now be voting.


Being required to vote is not the same is having the freedom to vote. If I'm given the choice of two candidates who, in my view, would be equally damaging to this country, then I should have the FREEDOM to NOT vote.



What you really want to say is that you want to keep people who would vote Democrat away from the polls.

What Obama and his followers "really want to say" is that they want all Democrats to vote. If most poor, minorities, etc were traditionally conservative, then do you think Obama would advocate making voting mandatory? Either way, I think it should remain a CHOICE.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 03:53 PM
Being required to vote is not the same is having the freedom to vote. If I'm given the choice of two candidates who, in my view, would be equally damaging to this country, then I should have the FREEDOM to NOT vote.





I agree with this, but I also think it would be much more productive if all of those who didn't like either candidate wrote in someone else. If the 2 "major" candidates were to receive few votes than all of the "other" write-ins, people might start to take notice.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 05:09 PM
I agree with this, but I also think it would be much more productive if all of those who didn't like either candidate wrote in someone else. If the 2 "major" candidates were to receive few votes than all of the "other" write-ins, people might start to take notice.

"people might start to take notice" hahaha...You guys are such dupes..... How can you be so gullible??? You still think they give a shit about your vote?!!!? hahaha

Guess who's buying this house..... http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-purchase-magnum-pi-home-116233.html#ixzz3UtFqWn8J

Yep that's right.. ... Dick Cheney's cousin The fraud- in-chief hisself....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/17/all-in-the-family-cheney-and-obama-related/

See they tell you the truth. but, you still you just refuse to see the obvious.......Man you are so Brainwashed!

Homeboy's even gonna get Magnum's P.I's Casa @ half price too. Hope and Change Bitchez!!!

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 05:44 PM
If this Communist imposter really cared about the corruption of the electoral process, He'd be suggesting a move to break up the 6 owners of EVERY media outlet in this country.

Vote Republican then. I'm sure that the next Republican president will do it. Ooh, or maybe vote Libertarian. Because we know how much Libertarians just love getting involved in business and making and enforcing rules.


No, because for most who are being targeted with this suggestion, they are getting more tax refund than they are paying in anyway, so this is just adding to it. You can't withhold it if they don't vote, or at least register, because there is nothing to withhold. There is nothing to lose by not taking part but there is something to gain. Do we really want to condone blackmail and extortion when it comes to voting? It's happening behind the scenes already and look how that has turned out. Now there's talk of that same blackmail and extortion being mandatory?

Under the second option, yes, you can withhold it whether they vote or not. Remember, they have to go to the polling site to claim their money. If they don't go to the polling site, then they lose their deductions. Remember, they don't have to vote. They can just go there to indicate that they're not voting, and claim their money. Basically, we're bringing the horses to the water in hopes that they'll drink. They don't have to drink, but at least they were brought to the water.


I'm conservative and want everyone to vote.

If that's the case, then how do you explain this:
My fear, and it's not unjustified, is that with regard to mandatory voting, most poor, uneducated voters would unintentionally vote for the type of people who would gladly, yet slowly, replace our current system of government with one similar to the failed governments that millions of immigrants have been running away from. Imagine that...fleeing to a new country to vote for the same policies that destroyed the one you left (i.e., gov promises to take care of you).


Being required to vote is not the same is having the freedom to vote. If I'm given the choice of two candidates who, in my view, would be equally damaging to this country, then I should have the FREEDOM to NOT vote.

I actually proposed something a bit different. I'm sure you saw it.


What Obama and his followers "really want to say" is that they want all Democrats to vote. If most poor, minorities, etc were traditionally conservative, then do you think Obama would advocate making voting mandatory? Either way, I think it should remain a CHOICE.

I think you know as well as I do that it's not a matter of them simply choosing not to vote, and that you're really not concerned about "their" freedom to not vote. Think about this: how many poor white folks out in Hickville USA will now be voting too? Granted, voting Republican is against their own economic best interests... but that's what the Southern Strategy is all about... getting poor and middle class whites to cut off their noses to spite their faces by appealing to their views on minorities

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2015, 06:06 PM
I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Conservatives want less people to vote, liberals want more people to vote. Both groups are trying to make laws that support their respective desires.

The hypocrisy is quite evident, uncomfortable as it may be. Here's an alternative viewpoint.

Conservatives (pretty sure you mean Republicans when you use that term) want people to vote once and not illegally.

Liberals (pretty sure you mean Democrats when you use that term) want as many low income people to vote (and they traditionally have low turnout rates) because when they do vote they almost universally vote Democrat.

Rainmaker
03-20-2015, 06:29 PM
Vote Republican then. I'm sure that the next Republican president will do it. Ooh, or maybe vote Libertarian. Because we know how much Libertarians just love getting involved in business and making and enforcing rules.

I think you know as well as I do that it's not a matter of them simply choosing not to vote, and that you're really not concerned about "their" freedom to not vote. Think about this: how many poor white folks out in Hickville USA will now be voting too? Granted, voting Republican is against their own economic best interests... but that's what the Southern Strategy is all about... getting poor and middle class whites to cut off their noses to spite their faces by appealing to their views on minorities

Red Team/Blue Team doesn't matter. They're owned by the same people

and Dude are you still harping about the southern strategy from 1968? Jesus Christ man, Give it a rest. It's ok Jim Crow is over now.... Here watch your idol talkin bout his Dignatah 'fo his Grandfatha" in his best phony black preacher voice that he apparently learned at Columbia Law school or was it the Santo Fransiskus Assisis school in Jakarta or maybe at .Punahou School in Hawaii??.. either way, you can feel better because it's over now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QxgN5YegE

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-20-2015, 06:38 PM
Granted, voting Republican is against their own economic best interests... but that's what the Southern Strategy is all about... getting poor and middle class whites to cut off their noses to spite their faces by appealing to their views on minorities

How is voting Democrat going to benefit their own economic interests (at least in the long term) when their policies (higher taxes, regulations, job-killing wage increases) will result in tougher economic conditions in future years? The problem is, most poor people (rednecks, minorities included) are voting in favor of HANDOUTS, not actual opportunities for them to better themselves through hard work. They WANT/DEMAND that the government GIVE them more. My solution is to give the best incentives possible for people to want to start a business and stay in business (results in jobs). Democratic policies do just the opposite. Your solution? Tax the rich more. GIVE more money to poor people. At $500-$600 annual deficits (forecasted to go to $1 trillion), your solutions will make it impossible for future poor people, old people and middle class to have any chances. Tell me Rusty, do you HATE tomorrow's poor and old people? I think you do.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 06:49 PM
Under the second option, yes, you can withhold it whether they vote or not. Remember, they have to go to the polling site to claim their money. If they don't go to the polling site, then they lose their deductions. Remember, they don't have to vote. They can just go there to indicate that they're not voting, and claim their money. Basically, we're bringing the horses to the water in hopes that they'll drink. They don't have to drink, but at least they were brought to the water.





As I said, it's pretty bad that we have to resort to bribery (I think I used the term blackmail initially, but am now correcting myself) and/or extortion to get people to vote? That, in itself, proves that people know it doesn't matter who they vote for because it's all the same result, no matter who "wins". What it will take to get people to vote is for someone who is actually worth voting for runs.

Over the past few years, seats were being given away, as was merchandise, at Atlanta Hawks games, because they were, until recently, a pretty consistently shitty team. That still didn't improve attendance because the team sucked and nobody cared. So, what did they do instead? They started winning. They started doing the right things. You know what happened? People started buying tickets again and filling the arenas. All it will take to get people to vote is for the "teams" to have people worth voting for, with some hope of improvement and success.

Until that happens, the government will just be giving away free t-shirts in order to put more butts in the arena for TV broadcasts.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 06:51 PM
How is voting Democrat going to benefit their own economic interests (at least in the long term) when their policies (higher taxes, regulations, job-killing wage increases) will result in tougher economic conditions in future years?

It's not. Just as the poor and middle class "southerners" have been fooled into thinking that the Republicans are looking out for their best interests, the poor and middle class "minorities" think that the Democrats are looking out for theirs. It's 2 sides of the same coin.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 08:12 PM
How is voting Democrat going to benefit their own economic interests (at least in the long term) when their policies (higher taxes, regulations, job-killing wage increases) will result in tougher economic conditions in future years? The problem is, most poor people (rednecks, minorities included) are voting in favor of HANDOUTS, not actual opportunities for them to better themselves through hard work. They WANT/DEMAND that the government GIVE them more. My solution is to give the best incentives possible for people to want to start a business and stay in business (results in jobs). Democratic policies do just the opposite. Your solution? Tax the rich more. GIVE more money to poor people. At $500-$600 annual deficits (forecasted to go to $1 trillion), your solutions will make it impossible for future poor people, old people and middle class to have any chances. Tell me Rusty, do you HATE tomorrow's poor and old people? I think you do.


How many "rednecks" do you know that vote Democrat? I personally know whites on public assistance who vote Republican (baffles the FUCK out of me), and I know an even greater number of whites who qualify for public assistance but are too proud to take it. One, in particular, has confessed to me that he actually rummages through trashcans at night for food that people throw out. And, of course, they vote Republican.

And spare me the bullshit about Republicans creating opportunities for them to better themselves through hard work. They chant "hand up, not hand out" all day... but where the fuck are these "hand ups" they're talking about? All this bullshit about "if you want this, this is what you have to do" is more about defending their "trickle down" economics than anything else.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 09:26 PM
How many "rednecks" do you know that vote Democrat? I personally know whites on public assistance who vote Republican (baffles the FUCK out of me), and I know an even greater number of whites who qualify for public assistance but are too proud to take it. One, in particular, has confessed to me that he actually rummages through trashcans at night for food that people throw out. And, of course, they vote Republican.

And spare me the bullshit about Republicans creating opportunities for them to better themselves through hard work. They chant "hand up, not hand out" all day... but where the fuck are these "hand ups" they're talking about? All this bullshit about "if you want this, this is what you have to do" is more about defending their "trickle down" economics than anything else.

So you're saying that these "rednecks" would rather fend for themselves than take handouts from the government? Those bastards.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2015, 09:39 PM
So you're saying that these "rednecks" would rather fend for themselves than take handouts from the government? Those bastards.

Well, I think there's a bit more to it than that, based on certain conversations I've had.

Let's talk about the guy who eats out of trashcans (whom I wouldn't consider a redneck). For one thing, he's breaking laws by doing that (i.e., trespassing, maybe a few others). How would you react to someone on your property taking things out of your trashcan?

Secondly, he's potentally eating biohazards. Just because he's in your trashcan at 11 pm right after you went to bed, doesn't mean that what he's getting is scraps from that night's dinner. You could've cleaned out your fridge that night, and he might be eating month old leftovers that you never got around to eating.

We pay taxes so that he doesn't have to do that. So why the fuck is he doing it?

Sure, there's the pride issue. But I think there's more to it than that. He - and many others who refuse the assistance that they qualify for - likely have negative opinions of people who are on public assistance. They don't want to associate themselves with them. They don't want to become one of them, and they get to convince themselves that they're better than them by not going on public assistance.

Granted, it's their right to feel that way and refuse public assistance... but luckily in the case of the one eating trash, he wasn't married or had children. What about the people who refuse public assistance that DO have children? Their children get to suffer because of their parents' choices.

sandsjames
03-20-2015, 11:29 PM
Well, I think there's a bit more to it than that, based on certain conversations I've had.

Let's talk about the guy who eats out of trashcans (whom I wouldn't consider a redneck). For one thing, he's breaking laws by doing that (i.e., trespassing, maybe a few others). How would you react to someone on your property taking things out of your trashcan?

Secondly, he's potentally eating biohazards. Just because he's in your trashcan at 11 pm right after you went to bed, doesn't mean that what he's getting is scraps from that night's dinner. You could've cleaned out your fridge that night, and he might be eating month old leftovers that you never got around to eating.

We pay taxes so that he doesn't have to do that. So why the fuck is he doing it?

Sure, there's the pride issue. But I think there's more to it than that. He - and many others who refuse the assistance that they qualify for - likely have negative opinions of people who are on public assistance. They don't want to associate themselves with them. They don't want to become one of them, and they get to convince themselves that they're better than them by not going on public assistance.

Granted, it's their right to feel that way and refuse public assistance... but luckily in the case of the one eating trash, he wasn't married or had children. What about the people who refuse public assistance that DO have children? Their children get to suffer because of their parents' choices.

Just one thing I think you already know and that's that trash on a sidewalk is no longer private property.

Regardless, there are obviously different situations for different people. Personally, I wouldn't do it. I'd have no issues taking the assistance if I needed it. As a kid, we lived on welfare a couple times while my dad was in between jobs. Luckily it was never for long as he was always able to find a job (or two/three) before too long in order to get us off of welfare. He preferred to work 18 hours a day, if necessary, to support us.

So in no way am I anti-welfare. Not by a long shot. I just don't think that it should be used as a way to gain votes. I don't think we should have received the $800 a few years back either, as it's my opinion that everyone should pay a fixed rate with no deductions or refunds, but that's another conversation.

However, back to the original point of the post, the idea was not to offer incentives for those not voting, it was to fine them. So that helps nobody. Not only that, it seems pretty immoral.

As I've said, I wish everyone would vote. I also wish that everyone would educate themselves, at least a little, on who/what they are voting for. Unfortunately, we know that's not going to happen. I think we are better of having those who choose not to vote just stay away. Attempts should be made to make it as simple as possible, but to threaten those who are already having financial difficulty with taking more money from them seems like something that would happen in a monarchy or dictatorship, not in a country that based on being able to make choices.

I'm also not sure what benefit there is to having people vote who can't be bothered. People vote for things they want, or believe in, or a number of other reasons. But to vote out of fear of repercussions just doesn't make any sense.

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2015, 12:05 AM
Well, I think there's a bit more to it than that, based on certain conversations I've had.

Let's talk about the guy who eats out of trashcans (whom I wouldn't consider a redneck). For one thing, he's breaking laws by doing that (i.e., trespassing, maybe a few others). How would you react to someone on your property taking things out of your trashcan?

Secondly, he's potentally eating biohazards. Just because he's in your trashcan at 11 pm right after you went to bed, doesn't mean that what he's getting is scraps from that night's dinner. You could've cleaned out your fridge that night, and he might be eating month old leftovers that you never got around to eating.

We pay taxes so that he doesn't have to do that. So why the fuck is he doing it?

Sure, there's the pride issue. But I think there's more to it than that. He - and many others who refuse the assistance that they qualify for - likely have negative opinions of people who are on public assistance. They don't want to associate themselves with them. They don't want to become one of them, and they get to convince themselves that they're better than them by not going on public assistance.

Granted, it's their right to feel that way and refuse public assistance... but luckily in the case of the one eating trash, he wasn't married or had children. What about the people who refuse public assistance that DO have children? Their children get to suffer because of their parents' choices.

Once again I am confused. How is that your anecdotal story of the man who eats garbage from the trash illustrative in a universal way of white voting habits? I grew up in a union household and I always said that my dad would vote for Mickey Mouse if the Democrats put him on the ticket. It is a fact of life. Union people tend to vote Democrat (wherever they live). They are also in many ways very conservative. It seems a dichotomy but really isn't. People often can't be put in simple boxes. They are complex and of varied thought. Your posts seem to paint people as one thing or the other, without variation. I find this to be a failure in critical thinking.

You seem to think (without any empirical proof) that whites generally vote GOP. Even if you modify that to say that southern whites universally vote GOP you are still wrong. You seem to live a life based on sound bites and other anecdotal stories.

As of 2012 there are exactly two southern states that are solidly GOP (SC and MS) and one that leans GOP (AL) every other southern state is 'competitive'. This means that no one can predict one way or the other in any future election which way it will go.

Rainmaker
03-21-2015, 01:02 AM
How many "rednecks" do you know that vote Democrat? .

Actually, Rainmaker knows of quite a few that voted for Obummer in 08 (some even in his own family) But, don't know of one that'll actually admit they voted for him in 12 though.... Tried to warn em that he was a lying, elitist, leftist pandering to the mob. Don't think we'll be seein another "black" president for a loooong ass time after this lunatic gets through.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/1YKAI/matt-foley/image.jpg

garhkal
03-21-2015, 02:12 AM
I didn't vote in 2004. That was me exercising my right to express my views on the candidates at the time.

However... if I was legally required to vote that year, I wouldn't be upset about it. We already "have to" pay taxes as it is, and if we fight a big enough war... some people may "have to" be in the military and be put in combat. So a mandate that will cost us neither our money nor our lives is hardly anything for anyone to lose their minds over.

In truth, we have so much "freedom" here in America that we're spoiled by it.

If people are required to vote though, shouldn't that also mean that they should have ID to prove who they are?
Also, what punishment(s) should get levied if they don't vote as they are obligated to do.. Jail time? Fines? Something else??



Here's another idea I thought of: Pay everybody $30 for voting. That'll get people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't have come. That's what you get for a plasma donation, and it only takes half the time doesn't involve needles!

And which party ponies up that 30$ a person? WHo pays into it?

Also, is that not technically what is already going on with all the welfare handouts, since 80% of those receiving them seem to always vote Democrat?


Either way, the government needs to quit mandating that we do shit. The purpose of laws is to deter people from doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, not to insist that people do the things others think they should be doing.

Also, since many who HAVE voted still have not had their votes counted due to fraud in the mail in vote systems in several states (such as FL with its issues with Absentee ballots), how do yo get it so all those overseas get their votes counted, when as is we can't ensure it is done properly.


What a Great idea! So, If you already pay 35% of your check, you'd get to Give even more of your money interest free to the fucking government every month for the purpose of exercising your right to vote.

Or even better.... How bout we give a "tax credit" to the lazy motherfucker's that don't even have to file returns in the first place.?

Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. They shouldn't get to decide what to do with Working People's money.

That is a good point RM. Many of those on welfare cause of how many tax credits they get, don't even PAY anything in taxes (well income at least), so this suggestion of them being paid $30 or $400 is effectively PAYING them to vote, not giving them back what they paid out in taxes withheld.
Also since Illegals DO get to do taxes with the individual identification #s they get (rather than SSNs), what's stopping them from voting and getting money?
Elsewhere where i am discussing this, a point has been raised that in the past the 'right to vote' used to be limited to those who "Had skin in the game" Meaning property tax payers. So should we limit it to those who pay property taxes only? Wouldn't that impact all those who rent, by Disenfranchising them/??
Should we tell all those on welfare, say over two straight years, sorry no vote for you?


Now let's talk about this whole Voter ID thing. How is it that so many liberals are absolutely opposed to this, yet voting should be mandatory? Huh? Many of the arguments against Voter IDs is that poor people don't all have the means to travel to the DMV to get the ID....yet somehow, miraculously, they mysteriously found a way (months or years prior to the election) to find a ride to the voting booth?

My thoughts exactly. Hasn't Obama been one of those more outspoken against voter ID laws, even going so far as to 'sick' the DOJ on states who try to implement it? So how is it right that now he wants to make it compulsory everyone votes?


Act on that, and you've got the rest of the world's attention due to human rights violations. Besides, when have even working people decided what's done with the money?

Rusty, why would removing the ability to vote from those on welfare, be a violation of human rights? We already do so for convicted felons.


It's not surprising, though. We have become a society of rewarding people for doing what they are supposed to do. "Oh, you didn't get in trouble during this 4 year assignment? Here's an award/dec". "Hey, you helped your wife change the kids diaper? You're such a great father!". We can't reward people fore excelling at something because that's unfair to those who don't excel, so we have to reward them for doing what they are supposed to do. "Rewarding" someone for voting is no different.

Great point SJ. We seemed to have gone from a nation where those who excelled were the ones rewarded to where mediocraty is rewarded (well so it seems to me).


I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Conservatives want less people to vote, liberals want more people to vote. Both groups are trying to make laws that support their respective desires.

Rusty, how is wanting everyone who votes need to provide ID wanting LESS people to vote?


Being required to vote is not the same is having the freedom to vote. If I'm given the choice of two candidates who, in my view, would be equally damaging to this country, then I should have the FREEDOM to NOT vote.

Kind of like the chant of "None of the above" from Brewster's millions, where Richard Prior runs just to have people vote None of the Above, to show their displeasure in the 2 'established' runners...


I agree with this, but I also think it would be much more productive if all of those who didn't like either candidate wrote in someone else. If the 2 "major" candidates were to receive few votes than all of the "other" write-ins, people might start to take notice.

Then you get into the issue, of what happens should that 'write in candidate' actually win the popular vote.. such as the always put down Mickey mouse..


As I said, it's pretty bad that we have to resort to bribery (I think I used the term blackmail initially, but am now correcting myself) and/or extortion to get people to vote? That, in itself, proves that people know it doesn't matter who they vote for because it's all the same result, no matter who "wins". What it will take to get people to vote is for someone who is actually worth voting for runs.
..snip.
Until that happens, the government will just be giving away free t-shirts in order to put more butts in the arena for TV broadcasts.

Good point SJ. Get someone worthy of voting for, and see how many actually get out there to vote!

Rusty Jones
03-21-2015, 03:31 PM
Once again I am confused. How is that your anecdotal story of the man who eats garbage from the trash illustrative in a universal way of white voting habits? I grew up in a union household and I always said that my dad would vote for Mickey Mouse if the Democrats put him on the ticket. It is a fact of life. Union people tend to vote Democrat (wherever they live). They are also in many ways very conservative. It seems a dichotomy but really isn't. People often can't be put in simple boxes. They are complex and of varied thought. Your posts seem to paint people as one thing or the other, without variation. I find this to be a failure in critical thinking.

You seem to think (without any empirical proof) that whites generally vote GOP. Even if you modify that to say that southern whites universally vote GOP you are still wrong. You seem to live a life based on sound bites and other anecdotal stories.

As of 2012 there are exactly two southern states that are solidly GOP (SC and MS) and one that leans GOP (AL) every other southern state is 'competitive'. This means that no one can predict one way or the other in any future election which way it will go.

Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or this is a straw man. The intended message was not "white people vote Republican." Mostly, I'm talking about the mindset of the poor whites who do happen to vote Republican. They're not doing it to benefit themselves. They're doing to spite others. There's that famous quote from LBJ that talks about that.

Let's be realistic here: all these threats from Republicans to scrap or reduce "entitlement" programs are idle. They're not going to do it. And not because they can't, either. They don't want to. They NEED the entitlement programs there. After all, by doing away with or cutting them... they get rid of the scapegoats that they need in order to get working class whites riled up.

Rusty Jones
03-21-2015, 03:32 PM
Don't think we'll be seein another "black" president for a loooong ass time after this lunatic gets through.

Why's that?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-21-2015, 03:33 PM
Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or this is a straw man. The intended message was not "white people vote Republican." Mostly, I'm talking about the mindset of the poor whites who do happen to vote Republican. They're not doing it to benefit themselves. They're doing to spite others. There's that famous quote from LBJ that talks about that.

Let's be realistic here: all these threats from Republicans to scrap or reduce "entitlement" programs are idle. They're not going to do it. And not because they can't, either. They don't want to. They NEED the entitlement programs there. After all, by doing away with or cutting them... they get rid of the scapegoats that they need in order to get working class whites riled up.

In your honest opinion, why do you believe that conservatives want to reform, cut (whatever you want to call it) entitlements?

Rusty Jones
03-21-2015, 03:43 PM
If people are required to vote though, shouldn't that also mean that they should have ID to prove who they are?
Also, what punishment(s) should get levied if they don't vote as they are obligated to do.. Jail time? Fines? Something else??

Did you read the two other options I proposed? They were alternatives to mandates.

Though, I imagine that if the mandate goes through, it will probably be enforced the same way having health insurance is. I think the alternatives that I proposed are a bit more fair.


And which party ponies up that 30$ a person? WHo pays into it?

Read what I said. That option would simply be an advance from the next tax return.


Also, is that not technically what is already going on with all the welfare handouts, since 80% of those receiving them seem to always vote Democrat?

Yeah, so?


Rusty, why would removing the ability to vote from those on welfare, be a violation of human rights? We already do so for convicted felons.

Are you comparing being poor and on welfare to being a convicted felon? Man, if only I was allowed to post my "Jesus Fucking Christ" meme...


Rusty, how is wanting everyone who votes need to provide ID wanting LESS people to vote?

Because that's what it's going to result in, and people who want that are fully aware of this.

garhkal
03-21-2015, 08:22 PM
Why's that?

Maybe because along with Eric Holder, this one has done nothing but pushed the racist card, Ignored the Constitution, and many other issues..

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2015, 10:24 PM
Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or this is a straw man. The intended message was not "white people vote Republican." Mostly, I'm talking about the mindset of the poor whites who do happen to vote Republican. They're not doing it to benefit themselves. They're doing to spite others. There's that famous quote from LBJ that talks about that.

Let's be realistic here: all these threats from Republicans to scrap or reduce "entitlement" programs are idle. They're not going to do it. And not because they can't, either. They don't want to. They NEED the entitlement programs there. After all, by doing away with or cutting them... they get rid of the scapegoats that they need in order to get working class whites riled up.

Well, I guess we would first have to define 'poor whites' but my confusion still stands. I will restate it. How is that your anecdotal story of the man who eats garbage from the trash illustrative in a universal way of poor white's voting habits?

Once again you have made an incredible leap to a conclusion that is completely without any empirical support whatsoever. It is a mathematical certainty that unless something drastic is done regarding entitlement spending it will bankrupt the government. Some might say, with the ever increasing debt, that is already a fact. Let's face it, if I could merely continue to borrow money without limit I could get away with not fully paying my bills too but how long could that realistically last?

Just to get ahead of the next distraction, I am not stating that entitlement spending is the sole reason for our massive debt but it certainly is more than a drop in the bucket.

I have never, ever heard a mainstream Republican state that any particular entitlement program should be eliminated. So, dismissing that part of your assertion, that leave reductions. Now we can talk about that nasty math again.

I think the GOP would have a lot to hang it's hat on if they could get control of spending and strengthen the economy so I don't think they need to borrow a page from the past and blame some particular group to rile the masses.

Rainmaker
03-22-2015, 02:11 AM
Why's that?

Because, race relations in the country have been set back at least a generation. So, I don't think enough of White Americans will be willing to take a chance on voting for a black candidate for one to get elected again anytime soon

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-22-2015, 04:56 AM
Because, race relations in the country have been set back at least a generation. So, I don't think enough of White Americans will be willing to take a chance on voting for a black candidate for one to get elected again anytime soon

Best thing that could happen would be for a business savvy, black conservative to become POTUS. Maybe then would the brainwashed masses start to believe that lifetime government dependency isn't the answer.

Rainmaker
03-23-2015, 02:05 PM
Best thing that could happen would be for a business savvy, black conservative to become POTUS. Maybe then would the brainwashed masses start to believe that lifetime government dependency isn't the answer.

Bush/Clinton/Obama. These guys are all working for the same agenda of murdering the American Middle class. The only difference between them is on fringe social issues. When it comes down to brass tacks there's really no difference. but this wanna be communist does have a really nasty poverty pimp bent to him. Probably The best thing you can say about Obama is that he prevented the Hilldabeast from becoming POTUS.

SomeRandomGuy
03-23-2015, 02:49 PM
Best thing that could happen would be for a business savvy, black conservative to become POTUS. Maybe then would the brainwashed masses start to believe that lifetime government dependency isn't the answer.

Herman Cain?

garhkal
03-23-2015, 05:48 PM
Best thing that could happen would be for a business savvy, black conservative to become POTUS. Maybe then would the brainwashed masses start to believe that lifetime government dependency isn't the answer.
How's about Thomas Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Rainmaker
03-23-2015, 06:06 PM
How's about Thomas Sowell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

No.. we already have too many career academics with no real world experience running the government as it is.Theory is not the same as reality.

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 12:07 PM
How is voting Democrat going to benefit their own economic interests (at least in the long term) when their policies (higher taxes, regulations, job-killing wage increases) will result in tougher economic conditions in future years? The problem is, most poor people (rednecks, minorities included) are voting in favor of HANDOUTS, not actual opportunities for them to better themselves through hard work. They WANT/DEMAND that the government GIVE them more. My solution is to give the best incentives possible for people to want to start a business and stay in business (results in jobs). Democratic policies do just the opposite. Your solution? Tax the rich more. GIVE more money to poor people. At $500-$600 annual deficits (forecasted to go to $1 trillion), your solutions will make it impossible for future poor people, old people and middle class to have any chances. Tell me Rusty, do you HATE tomorrow's poor and old people? I think you do.

So, telling companies that they should pay their employees more money is bad? How about telling the rich that since they have so much, then they wouldn't miss a mill or 2 in tax? Is that what you think that those "dirty Dems" are up to? They just want to give the money away to people who don't want to work? If those dirty Dems wasn't always messing things up, the country would be a lot better off.


How exactly do you kill a job by wage increases? Or, is it more likely that the ones that are complaining don't want to pay their employees anything? Pay employees little, keep the profits for yourself. "Oh no, we're going to have to give up some of our paycheck to provide a living wage to our employees." "What if we told people it would kill jobs because we would have to raise the price of service and then people won't come and then we'd have to fire people?" "Brilliant!!" There's no such thing a job-killing wage increase, just greedy managers who could care less about their employees. If they could, they would pay them nothing (oddly enough, they have tried). It's ok. You like supporting people who want others to work their ass off, but shouldn't be paid enough to live. And that's not hyperbole.



As for higher tax, for who? Most people from the middle to lower class don't like taxes mostly because they don't like who it's going to. To them, they seem to be paying for shitty service. Not like they can get that person fired right then and there. That person would have lots of time to do what they will. "Vote for me, I'm the best out of the rest. They're garbage, I'm the one you want, tell you're family to vote, even your aunt." As such, some lying dirtbag gets into office, does their own thing, throws the people a bone once in a while to make it seem like they care, cash in at everything they do and then probably move on to some company/corporation that they was suppose to be regulating but somehow was in actuality their biggest champion. Meanwhile, the people from middle class on down are getting screwed left and right. But hey, maybe you rather they start conducting criminal activities to support themselves. It's ok. You already have a job, you have no idea how hard it is to find a job that pays you enough and leaves enough time for you to take care of your family. It's ok to just be a paycheck to your family. Kids don't need to see you and neither does the spouse. Even better if you're both working. Tell the kids to work too because even if they manage to find a way to get a degree without being heavily in debt, a degree without work experience is worthless nowadays. But hey, it's all the stupid poor peoples fault. If only they would just find a job, we wouldn't have these problems. Again, not hyperbole.


As for your solution, who would qualify for it? I would think that you want people who have degrees as a demonstration that they know what they're doing. On top of that, to ensure success, they would need references to prove reliability. Oh... wait... stupid hyperbole.

Side note: Not a personal attack at you. I just want to know, how can you think this?

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 12:10 PM
No.. we already have too many career academics with no real world experience running the government as it is.Theory is not the same as reality.

Oh really? Name 126 of them. Wait...

On second thought, there is too many of them. You got room in your bunker for one more?

UncaRastus
03-25-2015, 01:56 PM
With jobs being at stake in the future, with robots supposedly taking over many of them ...

I wonder if sending my robot to the polling place for me will be frowned upon?

Or will the Votetron robot allow this?

Or will robots do the voting because we will have a Demobot and a Repubot running for the office of POTUSBot?

I don't think that we'd have to worry about the Green Party, because robots wouldn't really care about the environment being polluted. Why should a robot care about air pollution? It's not like there would be lungs to worry about, amongst them.

A bit of sarcasm. I hope, anyway.

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 02:39 PM
With jobs being at stake in the future, with robots supposedly taking over many of them ...

I wonder if sending my robot to the polling place for me will be frowned upon?

Or will the Votetron robot allow this?

Or will robots do the voting because we will have a Demobot and a Repubot running for the office of POTUSBot?

I don't think that we'd have to worry about the Green Party, because robots wouldn't really care about the environment being polluted. Why should a robot care about air pollution? It's not like there would be lungs to worry about, amongst them.

A bit of sarcasm. I hope, anyway.

I tried building a Repubot but it kept complaining that I was lazy for building a robot to do things and that I should go get a "real" job. I converted it into a Demobot but then it was droning on and on about how the economics of being a Demobot would only make sense if it built with the ability to tax the Repubot and that it didn't matter that it was one before the software change.


Long story short, I converted it into a lawn chair.

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 03:29 PM
Oh really? Name 126 of them. Wait...


As for higher tax, for who? Most people fromthe middle to lower class don't like taxes mostly because they don't like whoit's going to.


Oh really? Source?

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 03:37 PM
I tried building a Repubot but it kept complaining that I was lazy for building a robot to do things and that I should go get a "real" job. I converted it into a Demobot but then it was droning on and on about how the economics of being a Demobot would only make sense if it built with the ability to tax the Repubot and that it didn't matter that it was one before the software change.


Long story short, I converted it into a lawn chair.

But wouldn't a Repubot be happy for eliminating a job and increasing profit margin. Can't have your hyperbole both ways.

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 03:47 PM
Now that we have thrown some silliness out there let's discuss with real points.

The topic of the pros and cons of increased minimum wage has been discussed before. Flaps had a pretty good grasp on one negative aspect (and answers Rolly's question. (Rolly, didn't this even occur to you?)

".....Third, 70% of the economy is driven by small business (not Wallmart). How do you propose the average small business owner, who works 70-80 hours per week and makes maybe around $100K, pay for doubling their labor costs (increase to $15 per hour)? Surely you don't expect these hard working owners, who've risked everything to start this business, to take a massive pay cut, do you? I suspect if I were the owner I would find ways to cut costs or save money. Perhaps reduced operating hours to reduce staff requirements (i.e., fewer jobs), automation, or maybe higher product/service costs? Let's be real and discuss the reality of how raising minimum wage will impact the small business owner, shall we? ....."

It isn't as simple as a yes or no or a good or bad move. The problem lies when people aren't willing to discuss every aspect of this issue.

"It is absolutely necessary and anyone who opposes it doesn't give a shit about the working man"....."This move will kill millions of jobs".

Silly shit really. At least two of the big chains TJ Maxx and Walmart have announced raises to $9. This is good and the trend will most likely continue. Just be prepared for the inevitable aftermath with regard to small businesses if these increases become mandatory. Some number will close. Those employees will then be unemployed. If you were making around $100K a year but working 70-80 hours a week and a mandated wage increase was going to decrease your salary (the amount of profit you can take from your business) to a point where you could match that working 40 hours a week for someone else.......can anyone else do the math.

So opposing the mandated increase universally doesn't make you an unfeeling monster.............anymore than supporting the increase makes you a supporter of unrestrained entitlement programs. The truth lies in the middle

sandsjames
03-25-2015, 04:07 PM
Now that we have thrown some silliness out there let's discuss with real points.

The topic of the pros and cons of increased minimum wage has been discussed before. Flaps had a pretty good grasp on one negative aspect (and answers Rolly's question. (Rolly, didn't this even occur to you?)

".....Third, 70% of the economy is driven by small business (not Wallmart). How do you propose the average small business owner, who works 70-80 hours per week and makes maybe around $100K, pay for doubling their labor costs (increase to $15 per hour)? Surely you don't expect these hard working owners, who've risked everything to start this business, to take a massive pay cut, do you? I suspect if I were the owner I would find ways to cut costs or save money. Perhaps reduced operating hours to reduce staff requirements (i.e., fewer jobs), automation, or maybe higher product/service costs? Let's be real and discuss the reality of how raising minimum wage will impact the small business owner, shall we? ....."

It isn't as simple as a yes or no or a good or bad move. The problem lies when people aren't willing to discuss every aspect of this issue.

"It is absolutely necessary and anyone who opposes it doesn't give a shit about the working man"....."This move will kill millions of jobs".

Silly shit really. At least two of the big chains TJ Maxx and Walmart have announced raises to $9. This is good and the trend will most likely continue. Just be prepared for the inevitable aftermath with regard to small businesses if these increases become mandatory. Some number will close. Those employees will then be unemployed. If you were making around $100K a year but working 70-80 hours a week and a mandated wage increase was going to decrease your salary (the amount of profit you can take from your business) to a point where you could match that working 40 hours a week for someone else.......can anyone else do the math.

So opposing the mandated increase universally doesn't make you an unfeeling monster.............anymore than supporting the increase makes you a supporter of unrestrained entitlement programs. The truth lies in the middle

Seems pretty simple. If everyone makes at least $15 an hour then all of those currently making $15/hr will be that much (relatively) poorer, as will everyone else who doesn't get a pay increase. If you double minimum wage then all other wages are effectively cut in half.

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 04:22 PM
But wouldn't a Repubot be happy for eliminating a job and increasing profit margin. Can't have your hyperbole both ways.

Problem is, it doesn't want to do the work itself. It would rather I work and give it all of my money. No thank you, lawn chair is much better.

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 04:46 PM
Now that we have thrown some silliness out there let's discuss with real points.

The topic of the pros and cons of increased minimum wage has been discussed before. Flaps had a pretty good grasp on one negative aspect (and answers Rolly's question. (Rolly, didn't this even occur to you?)

".....Third, 70% of the economy is driven by small business (not Wallmart). How do you propose the average small business owner, who works 70-80 hours per week and makes maybe around $100K, pay for doubling their labor costs (increase to $15 per hour)? Surely you don't expect these hard working owners, who've risked everything to start this business, to take a massive pay cut, do you? I suspect if I were the owner I would find ways to cut costs or save money. Perhaps reduced operating hours to reduce staff requirements (i.e., fewer jobs), automation, or maybe higher product/service costs? Let's be real and discuss the reality of how raising minimum wage will impact the small business owner, shall we? ....."

It isn't as simple as a yes or no or a good or bad move. The problem lies when people aren't willing to discuss every aspect of this issue.

"It is absolutely necessary and anyone who opposes it doesn't give a shit about the working man"....."This move will kill millions of jobs".

Silly shit really. At least two of the big chains TJ Maxx and Walmart have announced raises to $9. This is good and the trend will most likely continue. Just be prepared for the inevitable aftermath with regard to small businesses if these increases become mandatory. Some number will close. Those employees will then be unemployed. If you were making around $100K a year but working 70-80 hours a week and a mandated wage increase was going to decrease your salary (the amount of profit you can take from your business) to a point where you could match that working 40 hours a week for someone else.......can anyone else do the math.

So opposing the mandated increase universally doesn't make you an unfeeling monster.............anymore than supporting the increase makes you a supporter of unrestrained entitlement programs. The truth lies in the middle

I have considered what he said. I'm ashamed to admit that I used to work for Walmart and hated everyday of the job. As such, I can tell you that while I was there, it was really weird to hear the store manager complaining that people didn't want to work overtime. For some odd reason, the store manager had it in his head that overtime was a God-sent and other people would be begging for a job that "gives" them the opportunity of overtime (I'm not kidding, he actually said this). I just couldn't work the hours because I relied on public transportation and if I didn't get to the station in time, I would have to spend the night at the store. Getting a ride from someone else was rare, but even then, I was either keeping them from getting home sooner or they would only be able to drop me off at the station (so still no overtime for me). I would love for the politicians who thinks raising the minimum wage would be bad for business to show that they actually held a minimum wage job before they elevated themselves out of it. Otherwise, they can just shut the hell up.

As for solutions, maybe just allow a slight raise of minimum wage for small businesses (up to $8 or $9) and for the businesses that have corporate backing (aka big business), raise it to $15. That way, everyone gets a slight raise, but the ones who work for large companies that can afford to pay their workers more money without taking that much of a hit would do so. How's that for a middle?

Rainmaker
03-25-2015, 05:06 PM
The whole Minimum wage debate is a smokescreen to distract us from talking about the offshoring of all the millions of good jobs that paid more than the minimum wage. (to countries that use 3rd world slave labor) The government can make the min. wage whatever the hell they want and it basically makes no difference because less than 3% of the workforce even makes minimum wage. The median Individual American wage is what matters and it's around $13.50 an hour. That is pathetic in a country where The banks and wall street walked away with Trillions of taxpayer dollars and almost no one was punished in the last collapse. And people are worried about what fucking teenagers at McDonalds are making.

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 05:24 PM
The whole Minimum wage debate is a smokescreen to distract us from talking about the offshoring of all the millions of good jobs (to countries that use 3rd world slave labor) that paid more than the minimum wage. The government can make the min. wage whatever the hell they want and it basically makes no difference because less than 3% of the workforce even makes minimum wage. The median Individual American wage is what matters and it's around $13.50 an hour. That is pathetic in a country where The banks and wall street walked away with Trillions of taxpayer dollars and almost no one was punished in the last collapse. And people are worried about what fucking teenagers at McDonalds are making.

I agree. If only we can bring those jobs back to the U.S., but that would never happen while we have greedy capitalist and their political partners-in-crime who seem bent on telling the American public that hiking minimum wage would kill jobs. I guess they don't care as long as their bottom line (more like their wallets) aren't affected, even if it leads to a U.S. that goes down the tube. Seriously though, do you have space in that bunker? I'll bring beer if that helps. :cool:

Rainmaker
03-25-2015, 06:09 PM
I agree. If only we can bring those jobs back to the U.S., but that would never happen while we have greedy capitalist and their political partners-in-crime who seem bent on telling the American public that hiking minimum wage would kill jobs. I guess they don't care as long as their bottom line (more like their wallets) aren't affected, even if it leads to a U.S. that goes down the tube. Seriously though, do you have space in that bunker? I'll bring beer if that helps. :cool:

All veterans will be welcomed with open arms at the bunker. Make sure to bring your work gloves, sense of humor and a bottle a Rainmaker's favorite purple drank Man-O-Manischewitz with you when you come! Gnomesayin?

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/manischewitz-great-story-great-wine/

UncaRastus
03-25-2015, 06:34 PM
Rainmaker,

Mogen David 20/20 mixed with Miller beer. Back when I was a DI in the Corps, in the few days we got off between platoons, I would do that. Worked wonders!

Rollyn01
03-25-2015, 06:41 PM
All veterans will be welcomed with open arms at the bunker. Make sure to bring your work gloves, sense of humor and a bottle a Rainmaker's favorite purple drank Man-O-Manischewitz with you when you come! Gnomesayin?

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/manischewitz-great-story-great-wine/

Work gloves? Check. Sense of humor? Check. Purple drank? Double check. Only question is where do I set the claymores? As a Cav Scout, if I don't set a protective perimeter, I get that unnerving itch that tells me I did something wrong.

Rainmaker
03-25-2015, 07:11 PM
Rainmaker,

Mogen David 20/20 mixed with Miller beer. Back when I was a DI in the Corps, in the few days we got off between platoons, I would do that. Worked wonders!

Ouch...Blackout in a bottle!

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 11:07 PM
Problem is, it doesn't want to do the work itself. It would rather I work and give it all of my money. No thank you, lawn chair is much better.

Someone else work and give you money? That doesn't sound Republican, that sounds like something else entirely. You got yourself in a bit of a humor pickle here. Satire only works if it makes sense.

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 11:14 PM
I have considered what he said. I'm ashamed to admit that I used to work for Walmart and hated everyday of the job. As such, I can tell you that while I was there, it was really weird to hear the store manager complaining that people didn't want to work overtime. For some odd reason, the store manager had it in his head that overtime was a God-sent and other people would be begging for a job that "gives" them the opportunity of overtime (I'm not kidding, he actually said this). I just couldn't work the hours because I relied on public transportation and if I didn't get to the station in time, I would have to spend the night at the store. Getting a ride from someone else was rare, but even then, I was either keeping them from getting home sooner or they would only be able to drop me off at the station (so still no overtime for me). I would love for the politicians who thinks raising the minimum wage would be bad for business to show that they actually held a minimum wage job before they elevated themselves out of it. Otherwise, they can just shut the hell up.

As for solutions, maybe just allow a slight raise of minimum wage for small businesses (up to $8 or $9) and for the businesses that have corporate backing (aka big business), raise it to $15. That way, everyone gets a slight raise, but the ones who work for large companies that can afford to pay their workers more money without taking that much of a hit would do so. How's that for a middle?

Couple of points.

I worked part time for K-Mart once so I can't speak to Wal-Mart but one of the big complaints of the big chains is that they limit the hours of employees because if you go over a certain limit you are full time and get benefits. Were you full-time? I thought that was a pretty rare thing but admittedly my experience dates pretty far back. Of course my 23 year old son works in retail and says in his more recent experience the situation remains the same. Ok, that irrelevant part done with.

So your solution is that the mandatory minimum wage would be based on the profits of a particular business?

Not sure how that would fly legally but regardless picture the small business's results in hiring new people. Not so bright huh? Not so good a middle solution either.

TJMAC77SP
03-25-2015, 11:16 PM
Work gloves? Check. Sense of humor? Check. Purple drank? Double check. Only question is where do I set the claymores? As a Cav Scout, if I don't set a protective perimeter, I get that unnerving itch that tells me I did something wrong.

These are the days I miss AA (the poster, not the organization)

Rollyn01
03-26-2015, 01:07 AM
Couple of points.

I worked part time for K-Mart once so I can't speak to Wal-Mart but one of the big complaints of the big chains is that they limit the hours of employees because if you go over a certain limit you are full time and get benefits. Were you full-time? I thought that was a pretty rare thing but admittedly my experience dates pretty far back. Of course my 23 year old son works in retail and says in his more recent experience the situation remains the same. Ok, that irrelevant part done with.

So your solution is that the mandatory minimum wage would be based on the profits of a particular business?

Not sure how that would fly legally but regardless picture the small business's results in hiring new people. Not so bright huh? Not so good a middle solution either.

Condescending much? You really don't care about any point I tried to make as demonstrated by you saying "Ok, that irrelevant part done with."

And yes, if it's going to be mandatory, might as well base it off of the size and profits of the company. Isn't that how we determine how much taxes people should pay anyway?

So, those who want to get hired would only be able to work for big business? Are you sure? Aren't most of the people working now working for small businesses? I could have sworn it was already brought up once and you tried to reiterate it like I was an idiot. No, couldn't have been. It would have actually meant that you have now just suggested that that's not already happening w/o the increase. Are you sure you about that?

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2015, 01:47 AM
Condescending much? You really don't care about any point I tried to make as demonstrated by you saying "Ok, that irrelevant part done with."

And yes, if it's going to be mandatory, might as well base it off of the size and profits of the company. Isn't that how we determine how much taxes people should pay anyway?

So, those who want to get hired would only be able to work for big business? Are you sure? Aren't most of the people working now working for small businesses? I could have sworn it was already brought up once and you tried to reiterate it like I was an idiot. No, couldn't have been. It would have actually meant that you have now just suggested that that's not already happening w/o the increase. Are you sure you about that?

How was your story of working for Walmart and managers bitching because you wouldn't work overtime relevant to the 'solution' you mentioned? Maybe I missed that. BTW, you didn't answer my question, were you a full time employee?

There is a huge difference between a graduated tax rate and a mandated minimum wage based on profits. If you can't see that difference and the fallacy of your 'solution' there really isn't going to be much of a discussion here. You could try more humor like i

I am not even sure what the last part of your post meant. Did you not understand what I was saying the possible backlash of your 'solution' would be? It seems possibly you didn't.

Rollyn01
03-26-2015, 02:56 AM
How was your story of working for Walmart and managers bitching because you wouldn't work overtime relevant to the 'solution' you mentioned? Maybe I missed that. BTW, you didn't answer my question, were you a full time employee?

There is a huge difference between a graduated tax rate and a mandated minimum wage based on profits. If you can't see that difference and the fallacy of your 'solution' there really isn't going to be much of a discussion here. You could try more humor like i

I am not even sure what the last part of your post meant. Did you not understand what I was saying the possible backlash of your 'solution' would be? It seems possibly you didn't.

Wasn't meant as part of the solution. It was stated as a setup to make the point that most of the politicians who say raising the minimum wage is bad has never worked a minimum wage job. In some cases, never needed a job at all (because their parents provided for them for most of their life). As such, for them to state that minimum wage is good enough for a person to subsist on is disingenuous at best and highly ignorant at worst. And yes, I was a full-time employee. I choose the hours that would be best for me because it wouldn't make any sense for me to work at a job where I would come in and stay stranded there. I would like to know if you would do that if it was you.

Raise taxes or raise minimum wage. It's one or the other. People need enough money to live. If they are not getting it, they can't live. If you don't raise minimum wage, people will end up on public assistance (if they are not already on it) which means more taxes are required to pay for it. But if you don't raise taxes, the government goes bankrupt to try to support those on public assistance. If they don't, these people will suffer. Cut the people who are on public assistance, they will end up working a job at minimum wage and suffer due to not earning enough money to live. Let's say you do raise minimum wage. Doesn't that give more incentive for people to work? I would think so. You seem to think trickle down economics still work. I say this because no one in there right mind would think that increasing minimum wage is bad for business unless they somehow they think that less money is going in their pocket. If you have enough to throw money in an off-shore account to hide it from the IRS, then you have enough to pay your workers $15/hr. You bring in small businesses as if they would suffer remarkably for raising minimum wage even just a little. That's the real fallacy here. Big business are perpetuating that to keep from having to pay their workers the money they need because it's all about keeping most of the money up the ladder.

As for the last part, you seem to think that raising minimum wage would hurt a small business' ability to hire more people. I was trying to tell you that it becomes irrelevant if everyone gets a raise. Maybe not everyone gets $15/hr, but a raise nonetheless. If everyone is getting more money, they would have more to spend. That money will goes where the market drives it to. If the small business suffers from having to raise the minimum wage when it applies to everybody, then they wasn't a good business to begin with. Or do you really think that higher wages won't cause people to want the job,, thus allowing the small business to expand and improve services?

garhkal
03-26-2015, 07:03 AM
OI guys.. Cut it out and let's get back to the subject of whether voting should be mandatory or not!

Rollyn01
03-26-2015, 11:42 AM
OI guys.. Cut it out and let's get back to the subject of whether voting should be mandatory or not!

Well, to be honest, it shouldn't even be a question. Mandatory voting is a symptom of the problem of bad candidates and bad politicians. All that's being done is forcing people to vote for more bad people in office. I really wish all sides would get their collective act together and stop the mudslinging and scapegoating. At this point, we need people who will put effort into solving actual problems that endanger the lives of Americans first, then work on increasing the "luxuries" of life (basics are part of the first thing). After all that, maybe then we can start back with the mudslinging. At least then, it wouldn't be out of malice, just out character.

Simply put, if I like none of them, I'm not voting. If I like one of them, I will. If I can't get to the polls in time because of something else that is more important in my life is going on (kids, work, etc.), I guess I loss the chance and would only be mad at the limited hours for voting. Seriously, if it was an all day affair, candidates probably would be complainging too many people came to the polls instead.

Rainmaker
03-26-2015, 12:17 PM
These are the days I miss AA (the poster, not the organization)

agree. Things were more lively when you were arguing with yourself. What happened anyway, did you forget your alternate account password?

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2015, 03:49 PM
agree. Things were more lively when you were arguing with yourself. What happened anyway, did you forget your alternate account password?

No, both accounts have the same password...........................password.