The Real Mitt Romney

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party!
....

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.

[Cyber Wolf]

One of the 47% Romney isn't concerned about...

http://news.yahoo.com/slammed-using-...XBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

Nerger said the reason she and her family - she is married with a daughter - must rely on food stamps is because her husband's carpentry business isn't profitable enough to support the family.

Meanwhile, Nerger must devote 12 hours every night to a dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11. She's been on a kidney transplant list for five years and hopes that someday, after a successful transplant, she can become a working member of society. She would like to attend college to major in child psychology.

"There's just so much stigmatism put on people on food stamps. They're just some losers who don't want to work. That isn't the case in every situation," she said.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The stigmatizing comes from Reagan's myths of the welfare queen in the Caddy and furs, and the lazy Black Buck with the food stamps buying the best steaks in the market. It's been carped by the right ever since, even though it's been disproven repeatedly. Before then, reasonable people understood that giving a helping hand to needy people was a good thing.

Personal story.. In 1970 I got in a squeeze between sudden divorce and being forced out of work for five months by a strike of the shop union at Westinghouse. I was salaried but we honored their picket line for two weeks and when we went back were laid off for the duration. Westinghouse fought our collecting unemployment during the layoff.

To make a long story longer, I collected welfare and food stamps for three months until the unemployment finally kicked in. I even got double food stamps one month through a clerical error. At that time you got a voucher in the mail and took it to the bank where they would give you the actual stamps. When I tried to return the stamps to the welfare office they had no mechanism to retrieve them, so told me to keep them.

It was tough getting by on unemployment (paying two lawyers and all) but when I went back to work the state sent me a letter asking me to repay the welfare. I did that over a couple months and became square with the state, meaning I would be eligible to collect again should the need arise, but didn't have to repay the food stamps. I feel it's a good program, working the way it did.

Now I realize welfare's been a tool for several generations, to keep them ghetto niggers in line so they won't be raping the white women with their free time they have, since we won't give them jobs. This was planned by some, but mostly unintended consequences to most of the population. It's a bad situation and very very difficult to remedy now. It's also, with the help of Reagan's myths, easy lose sight of the fact that most people on welfare are not black, and not in northern cities, but in the south.

So part of the problem is racism, partly misinformation, and partly cussedness.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.

List your "investigations", because it's common in So. CA, and infamous in Nevada and Illinois.

Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID. You need it to get a checking account, driver a car, travel out of the country, I need it when I withdraw cash from my bank, get a library or video store card, sometimes, even to cash a check.

And all those who don't have a valid photo ID, can get one from the state, for free.

So WHAT'S the *BIG PROBLEM* in showing it, when we vote?

Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).

Not Mexico, not Canada! Here's the requirements for Canada:

Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Example: driver's licence.


Option 2

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Example: health card and hydro bill.

or

Option 3

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

WHY do we need NOTHING in order to vote? What possible reason could there be for that?

Voter F-R-A-U-D.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Adak

Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).

England (can't talk for any other part of the UK).

You show your voting card. But that just has my name, address and voting number on it. I could easily use my sister's or my sister-in-law's or even my mother's voting card for all the interest which is shown in it. In fact I do know people who have voted for friends/ relatives/ housemates etc. It's illegal, but only in the same way it's fraud for me to use Mum's debit card - I've only ever done it when asked and with permission for a specific purpose.

[Griff]

I think the assumption of evil intent by each side in the voter ID argument is interesting. It is most likely true on both sides. Republicans do want to disenfranchise the poor who won't have photo ID. They think they can absorb the collateral damage of old timers whose drivers licenses are expired, because they will be known at their polling station and not challenged. My Dad, a GOP voter, was in that position, it took an entire Saturday and a trip to Dunmore to get him an ID because my county in PA does picture ID's for limited hours once a week on Thursdays. Not exactly helpful to someone who needs a ride. Two evil parties, we have them. This time Obama is closer to the center and less evil so I may vote for him. The big issue coming is attacking Iran, unfortunately Obama has been seduced by power so either way we're bombing.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Griff

I think the assumption of evil intent by each side in the voter ID argument is interesting. It is most likely true on both sides. Republicans do want to disenfranchise the poor who won't have photo ID. They think they can absorb the collateral damage of old timers whose drivers licenses are expired, because they will be known at their polling station and not challenged. My Dad, a GOP voter, was in that position, it took an entire Saturday and a trip to Dunmore to get him an ID because my county in PA does picture ID's for limited hours once a week on Thursdays. Not exactly helpful to someone who needs a ride. Two evil parties, we have them. This time Obama is closer to the center and less evil so I may vote for him. The big issue coming is attacking Iran, unfortunately Obama has been seduced by power so either way we're bombing.

Jump up into the Iran nuclear thread I started, please.

You're quite wrong about the Republicans not wanting everyone to vote, though. Voting is the right of every citizen, and the more who exercise that right, the more that right is likely to produce a better democracy. It would be a great shame if somehow, our voting percentage fell way off. Terrible precedent for a democracy, imo.

I don't know where Bruce lives, but in So CA, you need a photo ID for just about anything that involves a monetary transaction, without cash. You want to buy something with a DEBIT card (no less) at Fry's Electronics - you show your driver's license. You want a Blockbuster card, you show your driver's license, etc. You want to cash a check at a store, you show your driver's license. If the purchase amount is small, it may be waived, but most times, it's required.

Bought some tools awhile back in Sears. They wanted to see my driver's license, of course. Then they requested my SS number! I told them they could get it, but only if they were going to contribute to my SS account. The clerk had to call over her supervisor.

As far as welfare goes, I've seen both sides of it. No doubt it's useful and a good thing, but it's also massively abused. Free school lunch programs are just one example. In CA, it started out with just the needy getting free lunches. Over the years, the people running it have let it be known that they aren't going to check your income requirements. I don't know if they ever did that check, but if so, they have stopped doing it.

Now the percentage of kids getting a free lunch every day has soared to over 90% of the kids, in some schools. These aren't all poor kids - these are mostly kids who were encouraged to get enrolled with their parents, in the free school lunch program. And I've never seen a single student who was ON the free school lunch program, who was EVER taken off - for any reason.

My favorite however, was a spinster we worked with for many years. Our business made her a millionaire, (and then some), over a period of about 18 years.

After she reached "senior" age, she would ask me to drive her down to the community center, every two weeks or so, to pick up her bags of free food, for low income seniors. By then, she was a millionaire a few times over, with substantial income every month. How do I know? We did her tax returns.

Which is one of the big problems with most welfare programs. They have (typically, in the past), had *NO* incentive for progress to get the person back into the work force, and off the public dole. Quite the contrary. Welfare recipients are viewed as "job security", by those working for the program itself. It's a lot of "nod nod, wink wink, and once a worker, now a welfare recipient, by the power of my pen".

They're getting a bit better about the incentive to get them off welfare, but that's only for some programs - not most. Once you're on it, you stay on it.

That's why we can't get a national healthcare system that works, and that we can afford. WAY too much fraud and abuse from both doctors (medical workers), and patients abusing ("working") the system, to make it affordable.

I haven't seen Bruce's welfare links yet, but I look forward to seeing them. Thank you Bruce.

I have only one handle, for the forum, btw.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't know where Bruce lives, but in So CA, you need a photo ID for just about anything that involves a monetary transaction, without cash. You want to buy something with a DEBIT card (no less) at Fry's Electronics - you show your driver's license. You want a Blockbuster card, you show your driver's license, etc. You want to cash a check at a store, you show your driver's license. If the purchase amount is small, it may be waived, but most times, it's required.

PA, the civilized rednecks.
Perhaps they require a license (photo ID) in your neighborhood because you're hard on the Mexican border, and of course they would have to make it a uniform policy.

I haven't seen Bruce's welfare links yet, but I look forward to seeing them. Thank you Bruce.

Say what? Who was your lackey last year?
I, unlike you, provided plenty of links for my claims about Reagan's welfare myths. If you have more questions you can damn well do your own research... or just keep spouting Karl Rove's bullshit.
I have no delusions about trying to sway you, your soul is lost. I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID.

Not true. I'm guessing you don't live in an large urban area?