StrangeSox

Well as mike said, not sure how many people on welfare vote, anyway. It's only a few million total. A study found significantly lower civic participation rates among welfare recipients

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) I openly admitted some of what I'm saying is harsh and even absurd. I just think we need higher standards in this country. Voting standards shouldn't be much above "has a pulse" since everyone deserves a say in their own government. Again, completely different from advocating for a more informed electorate. Not true. Also are you specifically referring to welfare or social programs more broadly?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) There is a big difference when talking about those who pay the most taxes vs those that pay almost none, while collecting free money from the government. Go back a few pages. The actual tax rate on the poor is still significant when all taxes are taken into account, though we obviously still have a progressive taxation system. Because they control a majority of the wealth and income and have taken something like 90% of the gains in the past few decades. The wealth of the bottom 50% has actually decreased in that time period. Hard to get out of poverty when the wealthy control government and keep getting trickle-up policies enacted. I'm not ignoring anything. Even if I accept all of your premises, I still don't come to the conclusion that accepting welfare should come with giving up your right to vote. Not sure how "people on welfare should be allowed to vote" is a utopian position...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:53 AM) As I said to him, I repeat to you. I never said anything of the sort...nothing even close. Way to go with the typical hyperbolic bulls*** I expect from you, though. Try to have a conversation with someone, and this is the kind of retardation I deal with in response. You're saying a lot of really dumb things like "people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote," "people on welfare don't work," "welfare is just Democrats buying votes and they want people to be on welfare perpetually"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:51 AM) You're argument against the wealthy holds no water and is completely illogical, as they have a stake, and pay the majority of the taxes as is. Bulls***. This accurately describes our current plutarchy:

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) OK. People on welfare control this country. You know who has too much power and sway in Washington? The destitute.

You've now moved from anyone on welfare people abusing welfare. You're also perpetuating the stupid meme that welfare is enslavement and Democrats do it intentionally to buy votes. Following the same logic, all wealthy people should be disallowed since they invariably vote for tax breaks, regulatory reform, trade policies etc. that benefit them and with a significantly larger cost.

Why? They are subject to the same government as you. Why do they deserve no say in it?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) It moves based on both. But since oil is traded in dollars, the value of the dollar has a big impact. It's not the only impact, however. My point is, move the dollars value back to where it was during Clintons administration, and you'd be paying a buck 50 for gas now. You also might need to go back to 90's level BRIC demand.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) Because one party favors keeping people on welfare (take a guess which one), so one party is essentially buying votes with taxpayer dollars. Good enough reason? I sincerely hope that you're just trolling me and really don't believe that welfare recipients should lose their rights of self-governance.

Not sure why needing government assistance should mean giving up one of your most fundamental rights. There's also a world of difference between advocating for an informed electorate and restricting voting rights based on some sort of test, because the content of that test would inevitably be politicized. Additionally, I could give a s*** about national or even state politics but desire to vote on a local referendum. Not sure how your test would capture that or why I shouldn't be able to vote in that case.

You're also advocating for a de facto literacy test. Stupid people deserve a say in their own governance.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) I agree that *almost* everyone should be able to vote with a few exceptions. 1) I do not think anyone on welfare should have the right to vote, it should be an incentive to get off the system (a system designed to get you back on your feet, not keep you on your knees). Holy f***, poor people shouldn't have a say in their own governance?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) I wouldn't post such a blame on an entire party, but there are definite extremes to blame such absurd stuff on. But this goes for both sides. There's always this, which means we get the laws the lobbyists want (and wrote) passed by the representatives they paid to get elected.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) Strengthen the dollar the gas falls. It's really that simple. We have the weakest dollar of all time...high gas prices should be expected. We're actually a little above where we were in the Spring of 2008.

Should've been three or less, like all bills.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) The public reaction has supported exactly that. How much does campaign financing and media coverage influence or even overwhelm what "the public" wants, though? The debt ceiling deal certainly doesn't match what polling indicated, and I'm pretty sure there was overwhelming support for substantial financial regulation reform, investigation and prosecution.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) I wouldn't post such a blame on an entire party, but there are definite extremes to blame such absurd stuff on. But this goes for both sides. Both parties are s*** but are not equally s***ty overall and especially on specific issues.

I'd wager a good amount that the correlation between "Jersey Shore Watchers" and "Likely Voters" is pretty low.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) And that's the really sad part. Only one party ideologically believes that EPA regulations are one of if not the main driver of our economic malaise, though.

I don't find anything disagreeable about ss2k5's "public votes against their own best interests" argument. Replace "high wages and cheap goods" with "lots and lots of spending and no taxes" and you've got California.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) That's a dubious claim, since they all are, including the liberals that claim to be against big business. With a few rare exceptions like Kucinich and Paul, this is true of both parties.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) In part. There are independents that can be voted for, but almost nobody does. It'll be even less likely post-Citizens United Money is speech, and some people have a lot more speech than others.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) I see what you did there. I was poking fun, obviously, but doesn't it make sense from the "don't have children until you're financially stable" perspective?