Page 26 of 58 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #251
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    Plus or minus 200K? Sorry. I don't buy figures with that large of a margin of error.
    So let me get this straight. You make a claim of approximately zero that is contradicted by the evidence in Tennessee, NC, PA and Texas to name a few. In all those states the numbers affected are in the hundreds of thousand range, and you ignore them.

    And then when I give a faithful effort of the 600,000 that was testified to in court, backed by extensive examination of the lists of registered voters versus the lists of those with acceptable Photo IDs (DLs, passports, etc.) and then have the intellectual honesty to recognize the number isn't exact but will probably vary some amount from the point estimate, THAT is the figure you "don't buy" but you do buy baseless assertions made by no one in court, EVER.

    The real issue is the intellectual dishonesty in your approach. You are asking me to buy a given number plus or minus 200K, while at the same touting a alleged count of two cases of impersonation fraud. I really don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe the numbers are that low in any state, much less Texas. Not that it matters. No citizen who is legally entitled to vote is disenfranchised by having to show a valid photo ID.
    That's the number testified to in court by the former guy in Texas who headed up elections for a couple of decades or so. If you have a better estimate, please cite it! And then you should give that number to the State of Texas who can't seem to find that estimate either, and to the GOP in PA who recognized in court the number was roughly zero, etc.

  2. #252
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    There is no such evidence, only partisan whining.
    Sure there is - read the opinion. Several made thorough estimates, presented the findings in court, subject to discovery and cross examination. If you disagree with that evidence, fine, present your own! But you can't claim the MULTIPLE studies, in several states don't exist, or that those estimates were not presented in court, where perjury carries with it a significant penalty. At least you can't do that if you want to be taken seriously.

  3. #253
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,725
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Sure there is - read the opinion. Several made thorough estimates, presented the findings in court, subject to discovery and cross examination. If you disagree with that evidence, fine, present your own! But you can't claim the MULTIPLE studies, in several states don't exist, or that those estimates were not presented in court, where perjury carries with it a significant penalty. At least you can't do that if you want to be taken seriously.
    And yet it was not persuasive to the court.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #254
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    And yet it was not persuasive to the court.
    The court that heard the evidence overturned SB14.

    And that evidence can be persuasive, but not sufficient to cause the next court to strike SB14, obviously. The number affected isn't presumably the ONLY factor on which the decision rests.
    Last edited by JasperL; 10-22-14 at 12:22 AM.

  5. #255
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's fine, but you realize, I hope, that the payroll tax increases also reduced the reported deficits during the Reagan years, and if we account for the "return" that retirees will get when they retire, deficits were FAR higher than reported. We accumulated roughly $3 Trillion in SS 'surpluses' since then that are now slowly being spent down as the baby boomers retire. That $3 trillion reduced reported deficits from Reagan to roughly now.

    Also too, total discretionary domestic spending approved by Congress (this does include military spending) was less than Reagan requested.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDO...c18-1-12-4.pdf

    Finally, yes, nominal collections went up by 60%, but that doesn't mean the big initial Reagan tax cuts, followed by six years of Reagan tax increases, paid for themselves.

    Typical liberal rhetoric and total lack of understanding of how SS is funded. Please tell me why SS and Medicare are on budget in the first place? Remember the Al Gore Trust Fund? It is absolutely amazing how easily some people are duped into believing the liberal rhetoric. It wasn't Reagan that took money from SS and Medicare to fund social program but it really is a waste of time explaining it to you over and over again.

    Discretionary spending including defense is 40% of the budget. Carter decimated our military and Reagan rebuilt it re-establishing our standing in the world, again something that drives liberals crazy. again, liberals have no concept as to the role of the Federal Govt.

    Now as for the Reagan increase in tax revenue, of course tax cuts stimulate economic activity and it was the economic activity that increased tax revenue, 17 million new taxpayers were created due to that activity. Too bad people like you still don't understand how people keeping more of their own money helps grow the economy and tax revenue

  6. #256
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Typical liberal rhetoric and total lack of understanding of how SS is funded. Please tell me why SS and Medicare are on budget in the first place? Remember the Al Gore Trust Fund? It is absolutely amazing how easily some people are duped into believing the liberal rhetoric. It wasn't Reagan that took money from SS and Medicare to fund social program but it really is a waste of time explaining it to you over and over again.
    None of that addresses my point, which is that payroll taxes increased, and SS ran up a surplus of nearly $500B which was used to offset the deficits elsewhere in the Reagan era budgets.

    Now as for the Reagan increase in tax revenue, of course tax cuts stimulate economic activity and it was the economic activity that increased tax revenue, 17 million new taxpayers were created due to that activity. Too bad people like you still don't understand how people keeping more of their own money helps grow the economy and tax revenue
    And of course tax cuts don't pay for themselves. They do juice growth, especially when paired with large deficits, but tax cuts reduce tax revenues....

  7. #257
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    JasperL;1063895518]None of that addresses my point, which is that payroll taxes increased, and SS ran up a surplus of nearly $500B which was used to offset the deficits elsewhere in the Reagan era budgets.
    That's because you don't understand the budget process at all and why FICA taxes HAD to be raised. The SS and Medicare Trust funds have been raided for years as they were put on budget by LBJ and spent by every Congress and President EXCEPT Reagan since the Fund was basically running out of money. There is no reason for either to be on budget as that just gives Congress a slush fund to waste and spend to buy more votes. You really need to take a civics class to understand how budgets are created and how the money is spent. You, like all other liberals, want to blame Reagan for the 1.7 trillion dollar debt he added but ignore the over 7 trillion dollar debt Obama has added. You want to ignore the doubling of GDP, the 17 million jobs created, as well as the peace dividend that was spent by Clinton. Why is that? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong when it comes to the Reagan economy, the benefits of even you having more spendable income, the attitude of the American people during the Reagan years?


    And of course tax cuts don't pay for themselves. They do juice growth, especially when paired with large deficits, but tax cuts reduce tax revenues....
    Wrong, tax cuts that stimulate growth don't in themselves increase spending but give Congress more money to spend. Tax cuts DID NOT reduce revenue. JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, as did GW Bush. Liberals continue to sell their minions that tax cuts reduce revenue and of course the govt. needs that revenue to waste and buy votes. The American people certainly don't need the revenue, do they? Did you ever consider why we need a 3.9 TRILLION dollar budget? Could it be that liberals create dependence by taking more money from the taxpayers and use that money to continue to keep their jobs?

    I suggest going to the U.S. Treasury website so you stop making a fool of yourself. Please explain to me how Reagan cutting FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue three years in a row generated a 60% increase in FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE???

  8. #258
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    That's because you don't understand the budget process at all and why FICA taxes HAD to be raised. The SS and Medicare Trust funds have been raided for years as they were put on budget by LBJ and spent by every Congress and President EXCEPT Reagan since the Fund was basically running out of money. There is no reason for either to be on budget as that just gives Congress a slush fund to waste and spend to buy more votes. You really need to take a civics class to understand how budgets are created and how the money is spent. You, like all other liberals, want to blame Reagan for the 1.7 trillion dollar debt he added but ignore the over 7 trillion dollar debt Obama has added. You want to ignore the doubling of GDP, the 17 million jobs created, as well as the peace dividend that was spent by Clinton. Why is that? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong when it comes to the Reagan economy, the benefits of even you having more spendable income, the attitude of the American people during the Reagan years?
    I'm not really sure what your point is, except that I don't understand something you haven't explained that I got wrong.

    Wrong, tax cuts that stimulate growth don't in themselves increase spending but give Congress more money to spend. Tax cuts DID NOT reduce revenue. JFK knew it, Reagan knew it, as did GW Bush. Liberals continue to sell their minions that tax cuts reduce revenue and of course the govt. needs that revenue to waste and buy votes. The American people certainly don't need the revenue, do they? Did you ever consider why we need a 3.9 TRILLION dollar budget? Could it be that liberals create dependence by taking more money from the taxpayers and use that money to continue to keep their jobs?
    Liberals don't sell their base snake oil. So liberals believe the obvious - there is no Tax Santa Clause. It's amusing that the party of fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility believes in a free lunch on taxes as a cornerstone of their fiscal policy. If government decides to increase spending, that comes with the difficult and painful necessity to RAISE TAXES. Only lemmings believe the trade-off to higher spending is....more tax cuts, to pay for the added spending!!

    I suggest going to the U.S. Treasury website so you stop making a fool of yourself. Please explain to me how Reagan cutting FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue three years in a row generated a 60% increase in FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE???
    I've spent a great amount of time with those tables. First, ERTA '81 was a large tax cut that was slowly unwound over the rest of Reagan's terms. TEFRA '82 was at that time the biggest tax increase in history. In 1983, Reagan raised payroll taxes which you include in that total. TRA 86 lowered rates but was scored as a tax increase. Reagan signed minor tax increases in the rest of the years.

    And federal revenue has increased every decade, regardless of changes in tax rates. And if you want to show that the tax cuts increased revenues, then you have to back out the effect of the tax increases, like TEFRA, and also account for normal population growth, inflation, and some baseline economic growth that has also occurred nearly without pause for more than 200 years.

    Furthermore, you can't ignore the many times in history that tax rates were increased and..... revenues increased. Compare real revenue growth during the Reagan years to the Clinton years. If tax cuts raise revenues, tax increases MUST reduce them. Show me the evidence Clinton's tax increases caused revenues to fall, when revenues increased at a rate far higher than during the Reagan years?

  9. #259
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    ... the difficulty and/or expense of getting IDs, particularly in Texas where 1/3 of counties have no office that issues the "free" IDs....
    You ought to just stop...Those that don't have ID's and can't get them, can apply for a permanent exemption...

    "A permanent exemption is available for voters with documented disabilities. Voters with a disability may apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written documentation from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing the applicant’s disability, or from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition, the applicant must state that he or she has no valid form of photo identification. Those who obtain a disability exemption will be allowed to vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting the exemption.

    Affidavits are available for voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed and for voters who do not have any photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor within 45 days of the day the ballot was cast."

    VoteTexas.gov » Need ID?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #260
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The court that heard the evidence overturned SB14.

    And that evidence can be persuasive, but not sufficient to cause the next court to strike SB14, obviously. The number affected isn't presumably the ONLY factor on which the decision rests.

    Just an FYI...

    A U.S. District Court judge in Corpus Christi struck down the ID law after a nine-day trial.

    Neither the Fifth Circuit’s action so far nor the Supreme Court’s order dealt with the issue of the law’s constitutionality.
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

Page 26 of 58 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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