Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: As November Approaches, Courts Deal Series Of Blows To Voter ID Laws

  1. #11
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I think one big difference is that there is no individual mandate to purchase / finance a home. Nor are you required to pay a penalty for not owning / financing a home.
    What's the difference between a penalty and a tax?

    ...your new nickname is Jimmy Two-Times

    The Voice of Reason

  2. #12
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    What's the difference between a penalty and a tax?

    ...your new nickname is Jimmy Two-Times

    I don't consider a tax to be a penalty, it is the cost of living in our society.

    The original legislation and the current tax code refers to the fee for not carrying health insurance a 'penalty' ... generally for not doing what you were supposed to do.

    What made me LOL at that is that my first name is Jimmy ... now if you don't mind:

    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I don't consider a tax to be a penalty, it is the cost of living in our society.

    The original legislation and the current tax code refers to the fee for not carrying health insurance a 'penalty' ... generally for not doing what you were supposed to do.
    So, if the law changed ot instead of being a $500 penalty (or whatever it is now) for not having insurance...you get a $500 tax credit for having it?

    (Then...we'll raise taxes by $500).

    This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.

    The govt. uses the tax code for getting people to do what the govt. thinks they should do all the time.

    All comes out the same....if you do what "you should" you pay less, get more, whichever...

    What made me LOL at that is that my first name is Jimmy ... now if you don't mind:

    I love that movie
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 08-03-2016 at 07:36 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #14
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    [QUOTE=Bos Mutus;366721]So, if the law changed ot instead of being a $500 penalty (or whatever it is now) for not having insurance...you get a $500 tax credit for having it?

    It would in some ways change the perception of being penalized for not buying insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    (Then...we'll raise taxes by $500).
    Probably ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.
    Absolutely ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The govt. uses the tax code for getting people to do what the govt. thinks they should do all the time.
    Yes and no ...

    Yes, we tax the bejesus out of cigarettes to pay for smoking cessation programs, medical expenses etc. ... or is it a way to de-incentivize the behavior? Probably both.

    No, what is the true purpose of taxes. To pay for the government expenditures / necessities ... is it really meant to sterr the populaces' social behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    All comes out the same....if you do what "you should" you pay less, get more, whichever...
    Agree. I don't have too much ill regard for the concept that came about in the AMA, I don't like that the bill (now law) was hurriedly pushed through with so many mistakes, errors, contradictions and procedural tricks that we got a really poorly written law that after 6 years is still being fixed with legislative corrections not due to the situation changing ... but that the law wasn't written or reconciled well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I love that movie
    It is a classic
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    but, I get your meaning...any decision you disagree with is the definition of activist liberal judges.

    Surely We can totally trust all SCOTUS judges (Like this dual American-Israeli-Citizen & Demented- Old -Gas-bag-of -Communist-Diarrhea) to remain completely impartial and only rule based on the evidence presented to them or the absence of such?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...517_story.html

    Last edited by Rainmaker; 08-03-2016 at 08:43 PM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    ... is it really meant to sterr the populaces' social behavior?
    "meant to"? Probably not in its purest form...but we have a system of deductions that encourages:

    Asset/property ownership
    Charitable contributions
    Education
    Use of/converting to renewable energy
    Saving for retirement
    etc.

    Some of those, for sure, like tax credits for converting to renewable energy and deductions for retirement savings are "meant to" bring about preferred behavior.



    Agree. I don't have too much ill regard for the concept that came about in the AMA, I don't like that the bill (now law) was hurriedly pushed through with so many mistakes, errors, contradictions and procedural tricks that we got a really poorly written law that after 6 years is still being fixed with legislative corrections not due to the situation changing ... but that the law wasn't written or reconciled well.
    I don't disagree with you.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 08-03-2016 at 10:14 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,326
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    This is an issue I always have a hard time wrapping my head around...I've never lived in a world where it is difficult to get an ID, so I don't understand it.

    North Dakota: 25% of Native Americans do not have ID? That blows my mind...but, rather than pass laws to say those people can't vote because we're afraid some illegals might also get to vote...why not work to eliminate whatever is keeping them from getting IDs first? Or is it that they don't want them? What is the issue that so many people can't or don't get IDs?
    Well if you note, most of the states which are pushing AGAINST them are being pushed by liberal activists.. Almost like they are saying "How dare you question whether someone is legit to vote.."
    But when you see the sheer # of things you need ID for these days, it flabbergasts me how ANYONE can claim they 'don't have proper ID, and thus these laws are too harsh on the poor.. Even though poor use ids for as much if not more than the rich. Someone rich (or even just middle class) doesn't have to sign up for EBT, resign periodically for welfare/unemployment etc, which you need ID to do (last i checked)..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    What I'm seeing in these court decisions is that the number of legitimate people prevented from voting by Voter ID laws is many times greater than the number of fraudulent voters without the laws.
    The other thing that gets me is effectively these judges are saying, you shouldn't have to Prove you are even eligible to vote (by being a citizen/having proper id).. Almost like they are Wanting fraud to happen..

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Its insane really. The left throws out speculation while facts like those in GA have shown more minority voter turnout after the law was passed. GA even made it part of the law to help the impoverished to get IDs free of charge. This is the lefts racism of low expectations of minorities and their way of rigging more and more elections. But hey, why change something when its only half broke right? 120% voter turnout is common in democrat cities right?
    IT certainly seems they care not about how easily it will be for fraud to happen now.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Actually, sadly to say, Judges are just as guilty of opinionated verdicts to fall in line with their ideologies as anyone else. Its like the whole thing over Obamacare and how people are forced to buy something against their will. The SCOTUS didn't see the same opinion as the people who brought the lawsuit, so it was struck down and now people have to buy something or get taxed for not having it. Since 1790's, when the SCOTUS ruled they were allowed to interpret the constitution instead of reading it literally, the SCOTUS has been the safe haven for activist judges passing laws without the population's consent.
    Thing is, they are not supposed to let their PERSONAL opinions or political leanings sway their decisions..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    This would've been a better way to sell the ACA, but would amount to the same....this is what the SCOTUS said (to get back to second off-topic tangent of this thread)...that the penalty amounts to a tax, which is within Congress's authority.
    Yes taxes are put in place by congress, however they are NOT allowed to tell all citizens they have to BUY something or be taxed for not having it..

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Yes, we tax the bejesus out of cigarettes to pay for smoking cessation programs, medical expenses etc. ... or is it a way to de-incentivize the behavior? Probably both.
    IMO more an attempt (Flawed at that) to de-incentivize the behavior. Especially when you consider in some states we are taxed on smokes to pay for stuff, that has NOTHING to do with smoking...

  8. #18
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Well if you note, most of the states which are pushing AGAINST them are being pushed by liberal activists.. Almost like they are saying "How dare you question whether someone is legit to vote.."
    But when you see the sheer # of things you need ID for these days, it flabbergasts me how ANYONE can claim they 'don't have proper ID, and thus these laws are too harsh on the poor.. Even though poor use ids for as much if not more than the rich. Someone rich (or even just middle class) doesn't have to sign up for EBT, resign periodically for welfare/unemployment etc, which you need ID to do (last i checked)..

    The other thing that gets me is effectively these judges are saying, you shouldn't have to Prove you are even eligible to vote (by being a citizen/having proper id).. Almost like they are Wanting fraud to happen..
    Where in the constitution does it give govt the power to require IDs?
    IT certainly seems they care not about how easily it will be for fraud to happen now.

    Thing is, they are not supposed to let their PERSONAL opinions or political leanings sway their decisions..
    ...impossible.

    Yes taxes are put in place by congress, however they are NOT allowed to tell all citizens they have to BUY something or be taxed for not having it..
    why not? Where are the limits to what congress can and can not tax?
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #19
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Where in the constitution does it give govt the power to require IDs?

    It's hard to believe Bos. But, back in the old days, before our republic was subverted, and the Supreme Court of the United States became the Sanhedrin Council of the United States, We Citizens had what was known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It was the collective name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There you could find words of THE TENTH AMENDMENT, which said:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

    Of course post 9-11 all that is now null n void and in the immortal words of dear leader "Bush the Younger" the constitution today is "just a goddamned piece of paper".....so, Instead of "IN GOD WE TRUST" our new National Motto is "DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH!!!! (meaning except for White Northern European Protestants, the country's founding stock and whose descendants built the country and must forever more be forced out of the Banking industry, Universities, The Press, Hollywood, Both Political parties, The Military and Court systems, and any other positions of public trust)"
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 08-04-2016 at 03:38 AM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    It's hard to believe Bos. But, back in the old days, before our republic was subverted, and the Supreme Court of the United States became the Sanhedrin Council of the United States, We Citizens had what was known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It was the collective name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. There you could find words of THE TENTH AMENDMENT, which said:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

    Of course post 9-11 all that is now null n void and in the immortal words of dear leader "Bush the Younger" the constitution today is "just a goddamned piece of paper".....so, Instead of "IN GOD WE TRUST" our new National Motto is "DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH!!!! (meaning except for White Northern European Protestants, the country's founding stock and whose descendants built the country and must forever more be forced out of the Banking industry, Universities, The Press, Hollywood, Both Political parties, The Military and Court systems, and any other positions of public trust)"
    Founding Fathers didn't need a photo ID to vote...gnome saying
    The Voice of Reason

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •