Should voting be mandatory?

[Lagboltz]

I do nt think It would make much difference if Voting was compulsory in the USA. Even in Australia the rich usually get elected. Pensioners usually vote Conservative. It is true we have a Labor Party but much of its support comes from the Middle Class. Denying the vote to any group would be unfair. Even the Old paid xes most of their life.
You have election November next year and already have candidates. We also have elections next year but no campaigning yet

America is probably different than Australia in that regard. The Republicans in Florida were afraid of the Democratic vote by minorities to the extent that they actively tried suppressing their vote.

From the Palm Beach Post Nov 25, 2012:
“Floridians endured election chaos and marathon voting lines this year, largely thanks to reduced early voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican legislators. In an exclusive report by the Palm Beach Post, several prominent Florida Republicans are now admitting that these election law changes were geared toward suppressing minority and Democratic votes.”

Apparently Republicans (and myself) would disagree with you when you don't think it would make much difference.

 

[dogtowner]

America is probably different than Australia in that regard. The Republicans in Florida were afraid of the Democratic vote by minorities to the extent that they actively tried suppressing their vote.

From the Palm Beach Post Nov 25, 2012:
“Floridians endured election chaos and marathon voting lines this year, largely thanks to reduced early voting hours, voter purges, and voter registration restrictions pushed by Republican legislators. In an exclusive report by the Palm Beach Post, several prominent Florida Republicans are now admitting that these election law changes were geared toward suppressing minority and Democratic votes.”

Apparently Republicans (and myself) would disagree with you when you don't think it would make much difference.

You really have a flair for fantasy writing.

 

[Lagboltz]

I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity.

There is no chance that a significant percentage of mankind will behave that way.

Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed.

Are you saying there should be no welfare of any sort? Do you think charities can handle the 49% that need assistance? As I quoted in post #16, "Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)”

 

[Lagboltz]

You really have a flair for fantasy writing.

Voter suppression was a big stink in Florida in the mid term elections. There is no exaggeration in the Palm Beach Post.
Google the key words,
voter suppression florida
and you will see it is no fantasy.

 

[dogtowner]

Voter suppression was a big stink in Florida in the mid term elections. There is no exaggeration in the Palm Beach Post.
Google the key words,
voter suppression florida
and you will see it is no fantasy.

Big stink perhaps but while you can smell a skunk for miles and miles its just one little animal in reality.

 

[dogtowner]

What happened before government got into vote buying, charity of many sorts was what managed this.
The fact that 49% are on the dole in one way or another is unsupportable. Even if only 9% are optional thats still a lot of potential economic growth if they go back to work.
We really have no choice here. But as long as people can vote themselves money they will. Pols will gladly oblige.

 

[Lagboltz]

Big stink perhaps but while you can smell a skunk for miles and miles its just one little animal in reality.

First you think voter suppression is a fantasy on my part, and now you belittle it as inconsequential. It is happening in many states. It looks like you don't mind political corruption in one of the most basic aspects in our democracy. Shame on you.

 

[Lagboltz]

Even if only 9% are optional thats still a lot of potential economic growth if they go back to work

You seem to treat those who can't find jobs as deadbeats. Do your homework. They do go back to work when they can find a job.

A study by LaDonna Pavetti
“The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.”

 

[dogtowner]

First you think voter suppression is a fantasy on my part, and now you belittle it as inconsequential. It is happening in many states. It looks like you don't mind political corruption in one of the most basic aspects in our democracy. Shame on you.

I assume you are equally concerned with voter fraud.

 

[dogtowner]

You seem to treat those who can't find jobs as deadbeats. Do your homework. They do go back to work when they can find a job.

A study by LaDonna Pavetti
“The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment.”

And they cant find jobs because bo has killed off growth with the worst recovery since fdr.
Where exactly do i accuse them of being deadbeats ? Thats right, i didnt. Any chance you can stay on topic ?

 

[Lagboltz]

I assume you are equally concerned with voter fraud.

It's not much of a concern.

ABC News:
“Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.”

 

[Lagboltz]

And they cant find jobs because bo has killed off growth with the worst recovery since fdr.

That's why they had no place to turn except welfare.
While you are off topic,
(Feb 2015), "Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 295,000 in February, and the unemployment rate edged down to 5.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today." - around the historical average. That sounds like a good recovery to me.

Where exactly do i accuse them of being deadbeats ? Thats right, i didnt. Any chance you can stay on topic ?

Right, you didn't call them deadbeats. You called them moochers. In post #21 you said, "I dont care who the moochers are. I just dont want them to vote themselves more of my money." Maybe you have different definitions of the two, but in this context they are pretty close to the same.

 

[BigRob]

Right. Furthermore the moochers are also corporations such as Mc Donalds and Walmart that pay wages that are below subsistence level. Gov welfare helps the workers survive. Who benefits? It's Walmart and Mc Donalds at the tax payers expense.

This is complete crap - and any honest look at the facts will bear that out:

1) Most people in this country already make more than minimum wage.
2) Of those that makes minimum wage and are 25 or older (an even smaller segment), the average family income for this group is $43,000. (for the group 16-24 average family income is over $60,000)
3) Less than 25% of this group lives at or below the poverty line.
4) Of those that do - only 7% of these households that sit at the poverty line work full time.

People are not in poverty because their wages are too low - people are in poverty because they either don't work or don't work enough hours. The stats simply do not lie. You want to help this very small segment of people the solution is jobs - nothing else.

You want to paint this as some corporate greed issue, but any look at the basic facts surrounding the issue promptly ruins such an argument.

 

[Lagboltz]

This is complete crap - and any honest look at the facts will bear that out:

1) Most people in this country already make more than minimum wage.
2) Of those that makes minimum wage and are 25 or older (an even smaller segment), the average family income for this group is $43,000. (for the group 16-24 average family income is over $60,000)
3) Less than 25% of this group lives at or below the poverty line.
4) Of those that do - only 7% of these households that sit at the poverty line work full time.

People are not in poverty because their wages are too low - people are in poverty because they either don't work or don't work enough hours. The stats simply do not lie. You want to help this very small segment of people the solution is jobs - nothing else.

You want to paint this as some corporate greed issue, but any look at the basic facts surrounding the issue promptly ruins such an argument.

That may be one “honest” way of looking at some of the facts, but it is not a clear picture.

You talk about groups that make minimum wages of $43 K and $60 K. A person at minimum wage, $8 per hour, amounts to about $16 K per year. The average family size is 2.54 people. On average, if all in the family have minimum wage jobs they can't make more than $40 K total. So obviously some in the family make more than minimum wage, especially if some are below working age. You obscure the picture when you intermix the statistics.

When you talk in averages and percentage of averages the picture is obfuscated. What is more significant is the absolute percentages in terms of the total population. That is, 7% of 25% of some undefined number is not an totally honest way of looking at the facts.

It is obvious that most people make more than minimum wage. And it is obvious that anyone in poverty can get out of poverty by working more. However, elderly, disabled people, cannot always work more. “The solution is jobs - nothing else” What jobs?

McDonalds and Walmart are paying sub-survival wages because they can and they add to their profits that way. Sure that's what businesses are supposed to do. The upshot is that the government has to help bail those in poverty and thus indirectly subsidize those companies. I stand by my statement that Walmart and Mc Donalds benefit at the tax payers expense.

 

[cashmcall]

That may be one “honest” way of looking at some of the facts, but it is not a clear picture.

You talk about groups that make minimum wages of $43 K and $60 K. A person at minimum wage, $8 per hour, amounts to about $16 K per year. The average family size is 2.54 people. On average, if all in the family have minimum wage jobs they can't make more than $40 K total. So obviously some in the family make more than minimum wage, especially if some are below working age. You obscure the picture when you intermix the statistics.

When you talk in averages and percentage of averages the picture is obfuscated. What is more significant is the absolute percentages in terms of the total population. That is, 7% of 25% of some undefined number is not an totally honest way of looking at the facts.

It is obvious that most people make more than minimum wage. And it is obvious that anyone in poverty can get out of poverty by working more. However, elderly, disabled people, cannot always work more. “The solution is jobs - nothing else” What jobs?

McDonalds and Walmart are paying sub-survival wages because they can and they add to their profits that way. Sure that's what businesses are supposed to do. The upshot is that the government has to help bail those in poverty and thus indirectly subsidize those companies. I stand by my statement that Walmart and Mc Donalds benefit at the tax payers expense.

The CEO of Wal-Mart and McDonalds lie awake at night thinking of how to make my life better. The President of the United States does not. That's amazing, isn't it? The greedy corporate chieftain, the robber baron, the 1-percenter, has a personal interest in making me happy. The community organizer, the solution-provider, the too-good-for-profit public servant has no such motivation.

Anyone in any business is in the business of pleasing customers. It's not just Owners and Managers, and not just those in the employ of retail giants. Software engineers, designers, assembly-line workers, all devote time and energy to making their goods faster, better and cheaper. For me. They even want my buying experience to be a pleasant one (hello, HeathCare.gov?). And there are millions of these folks around the world.

Now, Barack Obama has a phrase for this vast, unseen army of people striving 24/7 to improve my life. They call it, "You're on your own."

In contrast, they call their philosophy of growing the vast army of pensioned bureaucrats scheming to relieve me of my liberty and property, "We're all in this together."

Ironically, competition produces cooperation.

Lag, I have one question for ya, Where is this money going to come from my friend? This will not and can not continue, it will come to an end and it won't be pretty.. Regards Doug