SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
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.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Jack Hays said:
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.

Jack Hays · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
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.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Jack Hays said:
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.

Conservative · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
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-CDOC-107sdoc18/pdf/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18-1-12-4.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

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

Conservative said:
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....

Conservative · Oct 22, 2014

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???

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

Conservative said:
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?

j-mac · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
... 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?

BWG · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
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.

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

j-mac said:
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.

And according to the court, about 100k of the 600k without ID are disabled. So that only leaves 500,000. And the disabled or others getting out of the photo ID rules are then shunted to absentee ballots, which require no ID at all, and which are FAR more likely to be used for "voter fraud" than someone impersonating another at the polls, so even the exception for the disabled will have the predicted effect of making elections less, not more, secure.

Conservative · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
I'm not really sure what your point is, except that I don't understand something you haven't explained that I got wrong.

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'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?

Only a liberal believes that an American taxpayer keeping more of what THEY earn is a free lunch. Why is that? do you even understand what taxes you pay and what those taxes fund? You think that Federal Income Taxes fund the roads, Medicare, SS? Do you have any idea why Federal Income Tax revenue increased 60% AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts? Can you name for me any time in history where FIT increased that much? Why is this so hard for you to understand, you keeping more of your own money creates greater demand and that increases jobs-17 million of them during the Reagan term? Whether you save it, invest it, spend it, or pay down debt it doesn't matter, that helps stimulate economic growth and that creates jobs thus new taxpayers. Get it yet? one of these days the light bulb is going to go off in your head

As for tax increases growing revenue, you are in total denial of what happened in 1994. Figure it out and get back to me

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

BWG said:
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.

I agree with that. Those are the "next courts" I was trying to refer to above. The point was the only decision so far struck down the law.

BWG · Oct 22, 2014

j-mac said:
You ought to just stop...Those that don't have ID's and can't get them, can apply for a permanent exemption...

According to your source, that doesn't include ALL without Photo Id. Note the bolded.

j-mac said:
"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?

Conservative · Oct 22, 2014

BWG said:
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.

Early voting has begun in Houston and throughout the state. Houston is 58% Hispanic and has a Democrat Mayor. Reports from the polling areas show no problems at all and people aren't complaining about showing a photo ID. Only those with something to hide seem to have a problem with it.

BWG · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
I agree with that. Those are the "next courts" I was trying to refer to above. The point was the only decision so far struck down the law.

Yep, the court that actually heard the evidence.

j-mac · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
And according to the court, about 100k of the 600k without ID are disabled. So that only leaves 500,000. And the disabled or others getting out of the photo ID rules are then shunted to absentee ballots, which require no ID at all, and which are FAR more likely to be used for "voter fraud" than someone impersonating another at the polls, so even the exception for the disabled will have the predicted effect of making elections less, not more, secure.

Yep, so the other 500K need to get their butt's down and get an ID. If they can't they can do a provisional ballot.

If your argument is that people can still cheat using absentee ballots, then you shouldn't be against Voter ID, because demo's will just use absentee to steal elections like they have recently in contests like Al Franken's win....

Liberals are just showing that they really don't want integrity of the vote...

j-mac · Oct 22, 2014

BWG said:
According to your source, that doesn't include ALL without Photo Id. Note the bolded.

Yep, the argument was the emotional one that liberals were using, that people couldn't get down to the DMV to get an ID, and I just provided that if they are disabled then they get an exemption...If they are not disabled, then they have NO excuse.

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

Conservative said:
Only a liberal believes that an American taxpayer keeping more of what THEY earn is a free lunch. Why is that?

That's a deliberate, I assume, misstatement of my position. What I object to is the a belief that easy, gutless, cowardly decision to pair spending increases with tax rate CUTS requires someone to believe in a free lunch, a Tax Santa Clause, a Tax Fairy, magic - pick your metaphor.

Bottom line is society has a difficult task setting spending levels. If we want to spend MORE, we have to raise taxes. If we want to cut taxes, then some very painful decisions have to be made about spending CUTS. Right wing fiscal policy rests on the notion that if we want to spend MORE, then to pay for it, we give everyone another tax cut!

do you even understand what taxes you pay and what those taxes fund? You think that Federal Income Taxes fund the roads, Medicare, SS? Do you have any idea why Federal Income Tax revenue increased 60% AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts? Can you name for me any time in history where FIT increased that much? Why is this so hard for you to understand, you keeping more of your own money creates greater demand and that increases jobs-17 million of them during the Reagan term? Whether you save it, invest it, spend it, or pay down debt it doesn't matter, that helps stimulate economic growth and that creates jobs thus new taxpayers. Get it yet? one of these days the light bulb is going to go off in your head

Yes, I understand what taxes I pay because I've done taxes for a living since 1988.

And like I said, we have a natural experiment in our lifetimes. On an inflation adjusted bases, tax receipts (total, individual, corporate, payroll) increased by 20% in the Reagan era. Receipts increased by 47% in the Clinton era. Real GDP growth during that time was roughly the same - about 33% for both periods.

Real tax data here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z3.xls
I will find a real GDP link if you want to check that number.

So tax receipts, given similar increases in GDP, rose more than twice as fast (47 versus 20) during the Clinton era, following Clinton tax rate increases. And that's consistent with individual income taxes as a percent of GDP. During the Reagan years, that decreased from 9% to 8%. During Clinton years, that increased from 7.5% to 9.4%. This is baby math, and the GOP wants to argue with math. Tax cuts lower revenue, tax increases raise revenue.

As for tax increases growing revenue, you are in total denial of what happened in 1994. Figure it out and get back to me

If you have a point, make it. I'm not going to guess what that point might be. Several things happened in 1994. Other things happened in 1996. Etc.

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

j-mac said:
Yep, so the other 500K need to get their butt's down and get an ID. If they can't they can do a provisional ballot.

They can cast a provisional, but it won't count unless they get the photo ID.

If your argument is that people can still cheat using absentee ballots, then you shouldn't be against Voter ID, because demo's will just use absentee to steal elections like they have recently in contests like Al Franken's win....

Yeah, whatever. Democrats bad, republicans good, only democrats cheat, I get it.

Liberals are just showing that they really don't want integrity of the vote...

No, we don't want right wingers seeking partisan advantage by putting barriers to the right to vote in front of the poor that will have no effect on 'voter fraud' at the polls, which by every estimate everywhere is nearly zero.

j-mac · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
They can cast a provisional, but it won't count unless they get the photo ID.

Yep, so I guess they should go get the proper ID. All the other excuses are just nonsense.

Yeah, whatever.

Whatever is right...You know that is what happened and have no response to it...Noted.

Democrats bad, republicans good, only democrats cheat, I get it.

No one said that, so you have to create a strawman...

No, we don't want right wingers seeking partisan advantage by putting barriers to the right to vote in front of the poor that will have no effect on 'voter fraud' at the polls, which by every estimate everywhere is nearly zero.

No, that argument is nonsense...Everyone in this country has ID, the over the top faux outrage over requiring an ID only goes to show that it would cut into liberal election tampering, NOT disenfranchising of any kind...Me thinks thou protest too much.

Conservative · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
That's a deliberate, I assume, misstatement of my position. What I object to is the a belief that easy, gutless, cowardly decision to pair spending increases with tax rate CUTS requires someone to believe in a free lunch, a Tax Santa Clause, a Tax Fairy, magic - pick your metaphor.

Bottom line is society has a difficult task setting spending levels. If we want to spend MORE, we have to raise taxes. If we want to cut taxes, then some very painful decisions have to be made about spending CUTS. Right wing fiscal policy rests on the notion that if we want to spend MORE, then to pay for it, we give everyone another tax cut!

Yes, I understand what taxes I pay because I've done taxes for a living since 1988.

And like I said, we have a natural experiment in our lifetimes. On an inflation adjusted bases, tax receipts (total, individual, corporate, payroll) increased by 20% in the Reagan era. Receipts increased by 47% in the Clinton era. Real GDP growth during that time was roughly the same - about 33% for both periods.

Real tax data here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z3.xls
I will find a real GDP link if you want to check that number.

So tax receipts, given similar increases in GDP, rose more than twice as fast (47 versus 20) during the Clinton era, following Clinton tax rate increases. And that's consistent with individual income taxes as a percent of GDP. During the Reagan years, that decreased from 9% to 8%. During Clinton years, that increased from 7.5% to 9.4%. This is baby math, and the GOP wants to argue with math. Tax cuts lower revenue, tax increases raise revenue.

If you have a point, make it. I'm not going to guess what that point might be. Several things happened in 1994. Other things happened in 1996. Etc.

Don't really give a damn about "real" GDP because spending, revenue, and economic activity are in real time, not future value of the dollar. You seem to have a very distorted view as to the role of the Federal Govt. What exactly is that role and why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar(Obama proposed)budget?

Inflation adjusted expenses and debt are always an issue with you, why not inflation adjusted revenue? why is it such a problem to allow people to keep more of what they earn so they need less govt?

I don't think you really have a clue as to what taxes you pay and their purpose. SS and Medicare were never intended to be on budget. Highway and bridge funding are not part of the FIT expenses, Police, fire, and schools are state responsibilities.

Again, you seem to forget that in 1994 the Clinton economic policy led to a take over of Congress by the Republicans and most of the Clinton tax increases were reversed. You seem to have a problem understanding the Contract with America and how much of it was implemented. You further ignored the Clinton Tax reduction act of 1997. Why is that?

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

Conservative said:
Don't really give a damn about "real" GDP because spending, revenue, and economic activity are in real time, not future value of the dollar. You seem to have a very distorted view as to the role of the Federal Govt. What exactly is that role and why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar(Obama proposed)budget?

The only way to compare apples to apples in the presence of variable inflation is to remove inflation from the figures. Bottom line is you asked a question you didn't know the answer to, got caught, found out that receipts rose more than twice as fast under Clinton as under Reagan, and so are trying anything to keep from recognizing that evidence.

I'd address the Obama point but it's off topic and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Inflation adjusted expenses and debt are always an issue with you, why not inflation adjusted revenue? why is it such a problem to allow people to keep more of what they earn so they need less govt?

I just gave you inflation adjusted revenue, and linked to the proper table.

I don't think you really have a clue as to what taxes you pay and their purpose. SS and Medicare were never intended to be on budget. Highway and bridge funding are not part of the FIT expenses, Police, fire, and schools are state responsibilities.

Intended or not, SS and Medicare were on budget almost all of the Reagan years, most of the Clinton years, the Bush years, and Obama years. And you're quoting total receipts, and growth in total receipts, then claiming that highway and bridge funding, paid for at least in part with gasoline taxes, and so aren't part of federal income taxes. Yes, but gasoline taxes are included in total receipts so what's the point?

You seem to forget that in 1994 the Clinton economic policy led to a take over of Congress by the Republicans and most of the Clinton tax increases were reversed. You seem to have a problem understanding the Contract with America and how much of it was implemented. You further ignored the Clinton Tax reduction act of 1997. Why is that?

No, most were not reversed. The capital gains tax rates came down in 1997, but the bulk of the tax rate increases in the 1993 bill were left in place.

And you can't complain that I don't go through every tax bill in the Clinton era, when you first ignored everything in the Reagan era post the big tax cuts in ERTA 81, including the biggest tax increase in history the very next year with TEFRA 82.

Finally, yes, I know that all that's good is the result of republicans and all that's bad is caused by democrats, but we are talking about taxes here, so let's limit the discussion to that and not bring in the Contract on America unless relevant.

JasperL · Oct 22, 2014

j-mac said:
No, that argument is nonsense...Everyone in this country has ID, the over the top faux outrage over requiring an ID only goes to show that it would cut into liberal election tampering, NOT disenfranchising of any kind...Me thinks thou protest too much.

Everyone might have "ID" but about 600,000 in Texas do not have one of the narrow list of Photo IDs accepted at the polls.

And you can't show any "liberal election tampering" occurs through impersonation fraud at the polls. Republicans have tried like heck to find a problem of "voter fraud." Years of futile efforts to find a problem they could "solve" with Photo ID. So, finally, they gave up looking for any evidence of an actual problem of 'voter fraud' and just rammed through solutions to a non-problem anyway.

Texas was a hilarious example. There is no one that can demonstrate more than a handful of impersonation fraud cases in Texas, total, over a decade or more. But despite this total lack of any evidence of a problem, Texas fast tracked the photo ID rules under almost unprecedented rules reserved for "EMERGENCY!!!" legislation. What was the "emergency?" Demographic changes that are eroding GOP prospects in Texas. They're hanging on to a declining majority by their fingernails - that's the "emergency" that needed solving with Photo ID rules.

longview · Oct 22, 2014

JasperL said:
Everyone might have "ID" but about 600,000 in Texas do not have one of the narrow list of Photo IDs accepted at the polls.

And you can't show any "liberal election tampering" occurs through impersonation fraud at the polls. Republicans have tried like heck to find a problem of "voter fraud." Years of futile efforts to find a problem they could "solve" with Photo ID. So, finally, they gave up looking for any evidence of an actual problem of 'voter fraud' and just rammed through solutions to a non-problem anyway.

Texas was a hilarious example. There is no one that can demonstrate more than a handful of impersonation fraud cases in Texas, total, over a decade or more. But despite this total lack of any evidence of a problem, Texas fast tracked the photo ID rules under almost unprecedented rules reserved for "EMERGENCY!!!" legislation. What was the "emergency?" Demographic changes that are eroding GOP prospects in Texas. They're hanging on to a declining majority by their fingernails - that's the "emergency" that needed solving with Photo ID rules.

What about any evidence of the 600,000 Texans without a valid ID?

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Traveler