San Francisco Passes Proposition C Also Known as the "Homeless Tax"

[Zarathustra[H]]

It is because people (even Democrats) hate being taxed but they are more than willing to vote to tax someone else. This results in either hiding taxes and/or under funding the progressive program. Obamacare is a perfect example of both of these and the end result is debt, which is up to $21,000,000,000,000 thanks to Obama's poor policies. A debt we will never repay.

Our debt today has more to do with unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush (and Trump), two decades long and very expensive war efforts, corrupt reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and necessary stimulation and bailout efforts during the financial crisis, caused - in large part - by deregulation during the Bush era than it has to do with Obamacare at any level.

 

[purple_monster]

Our debt today has more to do with unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush (and Trump), two decades long and very expensive war efforts, corrupt reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and necessary stimulation and bailout efforts during the financial crisis, caused - in large part - by deregulation during the Bush era than it has to do with Obamacare at any level.

This is false, the housing crisis deregulation took place under Clinton:

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
This legislation established an "affordable housing" loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30% or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to "affordable housing" (borrowers who were below normal lending standards). However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and HUD soon increased the mandates. This encouraged "subprime" mortgages.

Also "unfunded tax cuts" are a classic liberal fallacy. Its your money to begin with, they shouldnt be spending more and more money and constantly requiring more of it. I got that tax-cut btw. I am very middle-class.

 

[Krenum]

Our debt today has more to do with unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush (and Trump), two decades long and very expensive war efforts, corrupt reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and necessary stimulation and bailout efforts during the financial crisis, caused - in large part - by deregulation during the Bush era than it has to do with Obamacare at any level.

O'really? President Obama added more to the nation debt than all other presidents combined.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

This is false, the housing crisis deregulation took place under Clinton:

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
This legislation established an "affordable housing" loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30% or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to "affordable housing" (borrowers who were below normal lending standards). However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements, and HUD soon increased the mandates. This encouraged "subprime" mortgages.

Also "unfunded tax cuts" are a classic liberal fallacy. Its your money to begin with, they shouldnt be spending more and more money and constantly requiring more of it. I got that tax-cut btw. I am very middle-class.

Maybe you should read up on the fiscal crisis. It was not some sort of mandate that was driving subprime mortages. It was a combination of demand, and financial incentive. Sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds and retirement plans wanted investments that provided more return in a time when the fed was keeping interest rates very low. Banks were making billions on these things trying to satisfy the demand of these investors, and at the same time congress deregulated these instruments allowing them to go hog wild.

The 1992 law you link did require Fannie and Freddie to seek out more low income mortgages from those traditionally overlooked by the mortage industry, but it did not lower lending standards in any way. This came on the heels of reports that otherwise qualified mortgage applicants were being overlooked by the industry if they were buying in lower income or minority neighborhoods. Affordable housing does not equal less qualified borrowers. It means focusing on cheaper houses that lower income earners can qualify for mortgages for, under the same lending standards.

I am referring to a series of laws in the late 90's and early 2000's resulting in deregulation of derivatives trading of the financial industry allowing them to disguise the low quality of many of the morgages they were selling to investors through creating derivatives and tranches and obtaining high credit ratings for them.

Two of the most important were he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed the Glass Steagall act of 1933, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which exempted credit default swaps and other derivatives from any regulation.


And sorry. Cutting taxes without correspondingly cutting spending, unless you are running a surplus inevitably results in more of a deficit. It's just as bad as increasing spending without funding it.

 

[Biznatch]

O'really? President Obama added more to the nation debt than all other presidents combined.

Thanks for the fox entertainment 'fake math'. Obama added 8.75T to the debt, mainly due to the completely effed up economy bush left him with (the same Bush who raised the debt at a higher rate and overall percentage than Obama). So Obama started in office when the debt was 11.1T, raised it 8.75T and somehow you equate that to more than all other presidents combined? Sure is if you ignore things like math and just tell people 8.75 > 11.1........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#4ea443fb1917

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

O'really? President Obama added more to the nation debt than all other presidents combined.

That's a disingenuous comment.

Firstly, I was strictly refuting the comment about Obamacare, not all spending during the Obama administration.

The Obama administrations attempts to save an economy in free-fall after the financial crisis did result in some addition to the national debt, but this was a.) caused by Bush era deregulation, b.) is exactly how national debt is supposed to be used, to be counter-cyclical to the market so you infuse more money into the market during market downturns, and take money back out when the economy is doing well, so you can afford to do it again the next time the market has a downturn, and c.) not more than all other presidents combined.

The problem we have now is that we are still deficit spending during the longest period of economic growth our country has seen in modern times, meaning that if we have another financial crisis we may be fucked, as we run up against the maximum debt/GDP rating treasury bond buyers are willing to put up with.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I always find people using the size of the U.S. as an excuse why we can't do things to be rather silly.

Yes, the U.S. population is give or take 36 times the size of the population of Sweden.

So, yes, of course fixing our social problems is going to be a bigger job and cost more than fixing the social problems of Sweden.

On the flip side though, we also have ~36x more people paying into the system, so these two pretty much cancel eachother out.

Now consider GDP per capita. Sweden's is about $53,400. The US is about $59,500. So we have almost 12% greater resources per person than they do. In other words, it ought to be MORE feasible here, not less.

Size DOES matter with implementation. As do the actual logistics of implementation.

You missed my point about the homeless being TRANSIENT.

So, SF pumps even MORE money in. Making it cushier to be homeless and idle in their neck of the woods.

At the same time they start getting even MORE homeless people migrating into the area to share in the benefits.


This is essentially the same problem with have with unchecked illegal immigration in this country.
Even if we have the greatest setup in the universe on our side of the border, we simply CANNOT support unchecked immigration from the entire planet.

As for the "We have 36x more people paying in.". Congratulations on mis-reading (or just ignoring) the ACTUAL point.

No, you don't. As I said, SF is trying to fight a non-local problem within the limits of their local budget.
Does this mean that people in Chicago need to start sending money to SF? Bangor Maine?

I'm sorry, no matter how you finagle it, and no matter what you try to ignore, your little mental exercise in social engineering doesn't work here in the US.

 

[XvMMvX]

Maybe you should read up on the fiscal crisis. It was not some sort of mandate that was driving subprime mortages. It was a combination of demand, and financial incentive. Sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds and retirement plans wanted investments that provided more return in a time when the fed was keeping interest rates very low. Banks were making billions on these things trying to satisfy the demand of these investors, and at the same time congress deregulated these instruments allowing them to go hog wild.

The 1992 law you link did require Fannie and Freddie to seek out more low income mortgages from those traditionally overlooked by the mortage industry, but it did not lower lending standards in any way. This came on the heels of reports that otherwise qualified mortgage applicants were being overlooked by the industry if they were buying in lower income or minority neighborhoods. Affordable housing does not equal less qualified borrowers. It means focusing on cheaper houses that lower income earners can qualify for mortgages for, under the same lending standards.

I am referring to a series of laws in the late 90's and early 2000's resulting in deregulation of derivatives trading of the financial industry allowing them to disguise the low quality of many of the morgages they were selling to investors through creating derivatives and tranches and obtaining high credit ratings for them.

Two of the most important were he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed the Glass Steagall act of 1933, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which exempted credit default swaps and other derivatives from any regulation.


And sorry. Cutting taxes without correspondingly cutting spending, unless you are running a surplus inevitably results in more of a deficit. It's just as bad as increasing spending without funding it.

Who signed both of those bills? Mr. Clinton.

So cut spending? Once again during one of your veiled (both sides do it but but republicans) attempts to come off as a "concerned moderate" has failed. You don't fund tax cuts as it is not your money to begin with.

All of the countries you love (which you wont move to for some reason) run their socialist programs off our military spending and our healthcare research. If the US went to single payer healthcare the rest of the world who lives off of our Pharama/Medical research by price capping would crumble.

Once again some liberal CEO gets rich off capitalism and then uses his wealth to shield himself from shit policies he espouses. The people whom liberals support build their own walls and dodge the tax increases they push for. Only to leave the middle class to pay. I earned mine and didn't get shit because of who my daddy was. So yeah FYGM or FY EARNED M. Go visit one of our top cancer hospitals and have the privilege of meeting the rich American hating leftist who ran here with their money to get the top care they couldn't get in their home country.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I feel the need to make a correction at this point.

Earlier I forgot the exact years of the two laws I mentioned above, Gramm-Leach-Bliley (1999) and Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) referring to the m as Bush era. They were both signed by Clinton, towards the end of his presidency, but were pushed through by conservative house and senate at the time, when Dennis Hastert was speaker.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Who signed both of those bills? Mr. Clinton.

So cut spending? Once again during one of your veiled (both sides do it but but republicans) attempts to come off as a "concerned moderate" has failed. You don't fund tax cuts as it is not your money to begin with.

All of the countries you love (which you wont move to for some reason) run their socialist programs off our military spending and our healthcare research. If the US went to single payer healthcare the rest of the world who lives off of our Pharama/Medical research by price capping would crumble.

Once again some liberal CEO gets rich off capitalism and then uses his wealth to shield himself from shit policies he espouses. The people whom liberals support build their own walls and dodge the tax increases they push for. Only to leave the middle class to pay. I earned mine and didn't get shit because of who my daddy was. So yeah FYGM or FY EARNED M. Go visit one of our top cancer hospitals and have the privilege of meeting the rich American hating leftist who ran here with their money to get the top care they couldn't get in their home country.

I was writing a correction as you were typing this. I got my years confused in my head. Either way it is moot. The president does not control congress. Congress does. Now why did he not veto them? I don't know. He was a bit of a centrist corporatist democrat in name only president. But it was republican controlled house and senate that pushed through the key deregulation that led to the crisis.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

All of the countries you love (which you wont move to for some reason) run their socialist programs off our military spending and our healthcare research. If the US went to single payer healthcare the rest of the world who lives off of our Pharama/Medical research by price capping would crumble.

You should look back at my post a few posts back regarding the 20th century military spending in Sweden. I already discussed this.

I grew up in Sweden. I would absolutely love to move back. My career and family responsibilities unfortunately keep me here though. Most of us don't have the freedom to just pick up and go wherever we please.

Life in Sweden was far superior to here in the U.S. Sure income was a little lower, but in exchange so many of the stressors we have to deal with every single day just weren't there, resulting in a much freer existence.

 

[sirsad]

Our debt today has more to do with unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush (and Trump), two decades long and very expensive war efforts, corrupt reconstruction contracts in Iraq, and necessary stimulation and bailout efforts during the financial crisis, caused - in large part - by deregulation during the Bush era than it has to do with Obamacare at any level.

Bush had no choice but to react to terrorist attacks and to prevent them while dealing with a crashed economy. Obama just spent money to build a bigger government. This is exactly the problem with progressive politics: spend money with no regard to paying for it.

The crash was not caused by deregulation, it was caused by people buying houses that they could not afford. It was made worse by the horrendous reaction by banks and others when it was realized. The deregulation would not have stopped the crisis and no one is all knowing to regulate for every situation.

 

[sirsad]

You should look back at my post a few posts back regarding the 20th century military spending in Sweden. I already discussed this.

I grew up in Sweden. I would absolutely love to move back. My career and family responsibilities unfortunately keep me here though. Most of us don't have the freedom to just pick up and go wherever we please.

Life in Sweden was far superior to here in the U.S. Sure income was a little lower, but in exchange so many of the stressors we have to deal with every single day just weren't there, resulting in a much freer existence.

Your career doesn't exist in Sweden? Don't you think that is a major drawback and limitation to Sweden?

 

[Biznatch]

Bush had no choice but to react to terrorist attacks and to prevent them while dealing with a crashed economy. Obama just spent money to build a bigger government. This is exactly the problem with progressive politics: spend money with no regard to paying for it.

The crash was not caused by deregulation, it was caused by people buying houses that they could not afford. It was made worse by the horrendous reaction by banks and others when it was realized. The deregulation would not have stopped the crisis and no one is all knowing to regulate for every situation.

And what allowed those people to get loans for houses they couldn't afford..... Nothing to do with deregulation right?....

 

[purple_monster]

Maybe you should read up on the fiscal crisis. It was not some sort of mandate that was driving subprime mortages. It was a combination of demand, and financial incentive. Sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds and retirement plans wanted investments that provided more return in a time when the fed was keeping interest rates very low. Banks were making billions on these things trying to satisfy the demand of these investors, and at the same time congress deregulated these instruments allowing them to go hog wild.

The 1992 law you link did require Fannie and Freddie to seek out more low income mortgages from those traditionally overlooked by the mortage industry, but it did not lower lending standards in any way. This came on the heels of reports that otherwise qualified mortgage applicants were being overlooked by the industry if they were buying in lower income or minority neighborhoods. Affordable housing does not equal less qualified borrowers. It means focusing on cheaper houses that lower income earners can qualify for mortgages for, under the same lending standards.

I am referring to a series of laws in the late 90's and early 2000's resulting in deregulation of derivatives trading of the financial industry allowing them to disguise the low quality of many of the morgages they were selling to investors through creating derivatives and tranches and obtaining high credit ratings for them.

Two of the most important were he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which repealed the Glass Steagall act of 1933, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which exempted credit default swaps and other derivatives from any regulation.


And sorry. Cutting taxes without correspondingly cutting spending, unless you are running a surplus inevitably results in more of a deficit. It's just as bad as increasing spending without funding it.

My sources are just the following-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

Thats just from Wikipedia, sorry its not some right-wing site you can so easily dismiss with your existing perceptions(i just figured out you are from Sweden, so your bias is natural), which constitutes 100% of this follow up comment. Your assertion that the 1992 legislation did not lower the standards for borrowings is just plain false on its face.

you spin me 'right round baby 'right round yeah...

 

[sirsad]

And what allowed those people to get loans for houses they couldn't afford..... Nothing to do with deregulation right?....

The easy out scapegoat answer to any problem is "if only we had regulation in place to prevent everything bad from happening".

 

[XvMMvX]

And what allowed those people to get loans for houses they couldn't afford..... Nothing to do with deregulation right?....

You keep saying this and it shows you have no clue what the CRA required banks to do.

Also, there wasn't any law on the books that forced people to take loans on houses they could not afford.

 

[purple_monster]

THIS THREAD IS LIT ! !!11

 

[aaronspink]

I was going to break it all down for you, but then I realized you're just trolling. Sure. You can BOARD a plane without showing ID. But you can't actually get to the terminal wihtout showing an ID, so it's really a moot point now isn't it? The TSA states:

The TSA can state what they want, but will still allow you in the terminal without valid ID as they are required by law.

But be my guest. Show up for a flight without any form of ID. Let us know if you board that plane.

Actually done it, thanks.

 

[purple_monster]

The TSA can state what they want, but will still allow you in the terminal without valid ID as they are required by law.



Actually done it, thanks.

i dont envy the tsa agent having to look up laws that no one else is apparently aware of except this fuggin' lunatic trying to board a plane without id lol

 

[aaronspink]

I think there is a confusion with passing the TSA check point and boarding a plane. Yes at some point in the system an ID is needed for you to get on an airplane by virtue that you need to show an ID to pass a TSA checkpoint with a "valid" boarding pass, however once you are past the check point you could basically board any plane you want if you had a ticket in hand whether it is purchased by you or stolen from some poor slob who left it sticking out of his backpack, and ID is not required in that case.

Nope, you can get through TSA security without valid ID. TSA even has procedures for it. No they don't publish them generally nor do they encourage it, but it is allowed. Originally they tried to prevent it, but were sued and lost.

 

[purple_monster]

Nope, you can get through TSA security without valid ID. TSA even has procedures for it. No they don't publish them generally nor do they encourage it, but it is allowed. Originally they tried to prevent it, but were sued and lost.

i think you've lost a lot of people at this point drawing the connection that because you dont need an id to get on a plane, it shouldnt be required to vote. thats quite a stretch down the mental olympic rabbit hole, even if its true. we dont need to legislate for every possible situation, just the 99% of functioning adults. the excuses for not having id will always be non-zero, therefore by your reasoning an id should never be a requirement.

 

[sirsad]

Nope, you can get through TSA security without valid ID. TSA even has procedures for it. No they don't publish them generally nor do they encourage it, but it is allowed. Originally they tried to prevent it, but were sued and lost.

Half truth.

In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.

You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.

 

[aaronspink]

i dont envy the tsa agent having to look up laws that no one else is apparently aware of except this fuggin' lunatic trying to board a plane without id lol

Supervisors know the procedures. TSA is there to check security, not IDs. They do full pat down and baggage search, etc. The reality is the security of people traveling without ID is more secure than those with due to the procedures. Though I will say the TSA security screening is still lacking compared to places that really care about security. Toughest and most thorough security screening I've ever received was when traveling to Lei/Ladakh in Jammu & Kashmere India due to the whole state being in a constant state of heightened alert (boarder with both China and Pakistan) and the airport used for commercial travel being shared with the military air base. Not only did they basically do a prison style patdown of all passengers, they basically disassembled electronics/cameras.

 

[Dr. Righteous]

In unrelated news, 49 states are now contemplating free one way flights for the homeless to San Francisco.

You are not far off.
I live in Knoxville TN for many years and the city had a many program, shelters, etc to take care of homeless people. So what happened? Other cities put homeless people on a bus and shipped them to Knoxville. Soon the city had 10 times the typical number of homeless people for a city of its size.

 

[purple_monster]

Supervisors know the procedures. TSA is there to check security, not IDs. They do full pat down and baggage search, etc. The reality is the security of people traveling without ID is more secure than those with due to the procedures. Though I will say the TSA security screening is still lacking compared to places that really care about security. Toughest and most thorough security screening I've ever received was when traveling to Lei/Ladakh in Jammu & Kashmere India due to the whole state being in a constant state of heightened alert (boarder with both China and Pakistan) and the airport used for commercial travel being shared with the military air base. Not only did they basically do a prison style patdown of all passengers, they basically disassembled electronics/cameras.

you completely lost me at the underlined part as well as with your super-anecdotal mega-niche-and-specific foreign land situation with airline procedures in the travelogue. My chair is starting to spin in irl after reading this.

 

[aaronspink]

you completely lost me at the underlined part as well as with your super-anecdotal mega-niche-and-specific foreign land situation with airline procedures in the travelogue. My chair is starting to spin in irl after reading this.

pat downs and full bag searches are more secure than just back scatter and x-rays.

 

[purple_monster]

pat downs and full bag searches are more secure than just back scatter and x-rays.

right, and since we dont have time to do that and keep airlines running at the same schedule we have now, a valid ID is an improvement to security since we cannot do the full body cavity search, in most regular, non-chinese-packistan-warzone situations.

 

[NukeDukem]

All of the countries you love (which you wont move to for some reason) run their socialist programs off our military spending .

BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)

 

[nutzo]

I don't get carded much anymore when I got to bars or the liquor store. I'd argue this is pretty typical once you hit your mid 30's. This also assumes that poor people, who disproportionately are the ones who don't have ID's have the spare money to buy booze, which I'd imagine often isn't the case.

As far as renting apartments goes, there are many ways around that. Sometimes people sublet, and some landlords in poorer areas don't bother with that level of identification. It's not a legal requirement I'm aware of, at least not in my state.

Same with work. As long as you can provide a social security number, many places, especially on the lower income side of things don't bother much with identification. A lot of people in this country also work completely under the table.

The educated, above board employment experience is a lot less universal than you think.

And how many citizens are subletting a room, working under the table, don't have an ID, yet really feel the need to get out an vote?

If they are working under the table, they are not paying taxes on their income, and shouldn't be allowed to vote anyways.

 

[Biznatch]

BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)

So lets follow suite and stop playing effing world police and slash our military spending..... Too bad war makes a ton of money and a bunch of red states economies that depend on that would crash and unemployment skyrocket. So they will never vote to cut that, instead they just keep coming up with a new boogey man to scare everyone into being ok with spending more and more.

 

[c3k]

The assumption in the Constitution was that only property owners could vote. This led to women being denied that ability since property law (mostly) put all property in the hands of men. That's the background.

The idea is that you need to have skin in the game to vote.

So, if someone is living on someone else's paycheck because they've getting EIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc., then they should not be allowed to vote for a period of 4 years from the date of their last payment.

I'd be happy to see my taxes support my fellow Americans...if the left could no longer buy votes with my money.

Similarly, and on topic, it is so hypocritical of San Fran to vote to tax "those others" that extra .5%. This is the heart of left-wing ideology. Imagine if no one could vote to tax someone else, unless they too would have to pay that tax?

So, no $50 Million floor to the tax. Instead, it would apply to all, without exception.

After all, you're doing this for the good of all, so shouldn't all pay into it?

 

[purple_monster]

BINGO. How do people think nations like Germany afford such lavish social benefits? THEY DON'T HAVE A MILITARY BUDGET. They have been living high off the backs of the UNITED STATES TAXPAYER for decades. It is time for Europe (and Japan) to defend themselves. It is time to close up shop and start using OUR tax money for OUR people. (San Francisco homeless included.)

This is one policy where i have done a 180 in the past 10 years. Bring it all home. Bring it all home and cut the military. Use the Navy only to protect trade routes that interest us. Close all foreign bases. Dump that money back into the economy or sure more social programs, but keep it here. Everyone hates us for it, so lets see how the world does after a guaranteed decade of US world military absence. If anything all of our allies will come crawling back begging for renewed bases and Navy presence after Russia immediately takes back the Baltic states and China invades Taiwan, and oh yeah- Iran turns Iraq into a satellite state. Lets see how fast France can make its one tiny carrier zip all over the map haha

 

[bugleyman]

its always fun to see what happens to all the leftist world come crashing down once they leave Reddit. Never gets old.

Why does everyone here have it out for Reddit? Lost a few too many arguments?

 

[Kinestron]

I don't get carded much anymore when I got to bars or the liquor store. I'd argue this is pretty typical once you hit your mid 30's. This also assumes that poor people, who disproportionately are the ones who don't have ID's have the spare money to buy booze, which I'd imagine often isn't the case.

As far as renting apartments goes, there are many ways around that. Sometimes people sublet, and some landlords in poorer areas don't bother with that level of identification. It's not a legal requirement I'm aware of, at least not in my state.

Same with work. As long as you can provide a social security number, many places, especially on the lower income side of things don't bother much with identification. A lot of people in this country also work completely under the table.

The educated, above board employment experience is a lot less universal than you think.

Just went to Rite-Aid yesterday for some cough syrup. Bought their generic brand that is similar to Nyquil and the cashier asks for an ID. I was thinking how hilarious the timing after commenting in this thread. Yeah, they card you for that now. I'm assuming because the bottle said 10% alcohol.

Also, what you are describing are outliers and I would say hardly representative of a large voting population. That is not a good reason to not implement Voter ID laws for such a small percentage.

 

[purple_monster]

So lets follow suite and stop playing effing world police and slash our military spending..... Too bad war makes a ton of money and a bunch of red states economies that depend on that would crash and unemployment skyrocket. So they will never vote to cut that, instead they just keep coming up with a new boogey man to scare everyone into being ok with spending more and more.

I like what you are saying, but you are woefully naive if you think the military industrial complex is a problem in only one party. The war foundry tentacles are DEEP in this country, in every state, in almost every politician. For example, the F-35(the most expensive defense program of all time) is produced in Texas... BUT all its R&D and continued development takes place at Lockheed headquarters in PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA.

 

[purple_monster]

Why does everyone here have it out for Reddit? Lost a few too many arguments?

yeah I wish the news mods even allowed arguments. all i see is just "removed removed removed."

 

[bugleyman]

I'd be happy to see my taxes support my fellow Americans...if the left could no longer buy votes with my money.

Both sides buy votes, but only one side explicitly thinks money == speech, and it ain't the left.

 

[bugleyman]

yeah I wish the news mods even allowed arguments. all i see is just "removed removed removed."

Here's a funny story: I had never, ever visited Reddit until the umpteenth time someone on these boards told me to "go back to Reddit."

Reddit isn't perfect, but at least most subreddits don't bother with the pretense of impartiality. If you log into r/Conservative, you know what you're getting.

 

[filip]

Both sides buy votes, but only one side explicitly thinks money == speech, and it ain't the left.

What? Both sides buy votes (speech) according to you, but did you know both sides take money (speech) from private interests. Yes money is speech for everyone, supreme court decided this.

Now the Super PAC funnel this money to your politician of choice. There is no right or left everyone has their hand in the cookie jar, just ask the justice department: they bought 250 muffins for $4200 with taxpayers money.

If the government pays that much for muffins how much is spent for everything else on our dollar?