Indeed

The issue is who gets to buy votes and how much money they can spend to do this. Without control of election spending anything goes !

No doubt that the Democrats used to be much better at this -- think Chicago, think LBJ, think the machine during the 30's in Missouri.

These days I don't think that applies near so much as the ability to buy (influence) voters via massive campaign war chests. And, of course the plutocratic support that the Supreme Court now offers.

The issue is who gets to vote and where and how many times. Without registration anything goes !

Oh, you mean like in Chicago, Obama's old stomping grounds, where it is a right to vote early and vote often.

Gary, your view is more nuanced than Williams (now why is that NOT a surprise) but I still think it reflects something of a prevailing Republican attitude toward the poor -- and one I don't agree with (why is that NOT a surprise).

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."

I'll agree with you there -- as I noted before - to suggest the games that go on with the rolls is non-partisan (but only when one party or the other is pushing the game) is ingenuous at best.

And I'll posit that when liberals control they refuse to purge the rolls because it increases Democratic voters at the polls.

I'll agree with you there -- as I noted before - to suggest the games that go on with the rolls is non-partisan (but only when one party or the other is pushing the game) is ingenuous at best.

And I'll posit that when liberals control they refuse to purge the rolls because it increases Democratic voters at the polls.

It seems to be a bunch of screaming that the rules are now being enforced after years of them not being enforced.

So the question is, should the rules be enforced?

---

Gary, your view is more nuanced than Williams (now why is that NOT a surprise) but I still think it reflects something of a prevailing Republican attitude toward the poor -- and one I don't agree with (why is that NOT a surprise).

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."

No not an attitude by the poor. An attitude described by the difference in the thought process. I know many poor whose first thought will be to get out and hustle up another job. Call them industrious. I also know many whose first thought will be to grab for assistance. Call them lazy.

Why are some industrious people poor? Because the skill set they have to offer is common and not rare and in demand. Lazy people are poor because ...

---

I'll agree with you there -- as I noted before - to suggest the games that go on with the rolls is non-partisan (but only when one party or the other is pushing the game) is ingenuous at best.

And I'll posit that when liberals control they refuse to purge the rolls because it increases Democratic voters at the polls.

It seems to be a bunch of screaming that the rules are now being enforced after years of them not being enforced.

So the question is, should the rules be enforced?

The rules as they are need to be enforced continuously not when its going to make a point of disenfranchising individual right before an election. Therein lies the problem. Why the sudden urge to purge right before an election. Conservatives? anyone? It's well established that the poor are more likely to be democrats and the poor happen to move more than the wealthy. I understand the problem. However, The problem doesn't rear its ugly head until just before elections. What better way to make sure someone cannot get a vote in if they are taken off the rolls then can't get put back on.

Texas has a deadline for being eligible to vote in upcoming elections. If one quietly drops voters off several months before the polls there is little that person can do to get back on.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

That might be the issue in Texas - and of course we know in Texas that there is absolutely no partisanship in the eligibility handling or the redistricting process -- it is the least partisan of all states in this regard.

Regarding the rules - if they are there (and valid), they should be enforced. I will agree that say 40 years ago, the lack of enforcement might well have been specifically to benefit the Democratic machine in Texas -- back then it was as formidable as the Republican machine in Texas is today.

It seems to be a bunch of screaming that the rules are now being enforced after years of them not being enforced.

So the question is, should the rules be enforced?

OK -- that's a non-partisan presentation and thus more nuanced. William was suggesting that Republicans are industrious and Democrats are lazy (using your terms). I rejected that as being a tad over the top.

There ARE decent conservative arguments to be made -- frankly, you have a far better aptitude for making them than some others who populate the boards.

No not an attitude by the poor. An attitude described by the difference in the thought process. I know many poor whose first thought will be to get out and hustle up another job. Call them industrious. I also know many whose first thought will be to grab for assistance. Call them lazy.

Why are some industrious people poor? Because the skill set they have to offer is common and not rare and in demand. Lazy people are poor because ...

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."

Yeah,
You're right.
I mean, it's not like there's anyone out there that at the same time would both send out resumes while also thinking "the MAN stuck it to me" and signed up to get unemployment for ONE MONTH ... ONE MONTH ... the first time in their middle age life.
I mean, heck, those unemployment checks are sooo HUGE! Certainly, they are incentive to stop one from seeking new employment.

OK -- that's a non-partisan presentation and thus more nuanced. William was suggesting that Republicans are industrious and Democrats are lazy (using your terms). I rejected that as being a tad over the top.

There ARE decent conservative arguments to be made -- frankly, you have a far better aptitude for making them than some others who populate the boards.

No not an attitude by the poor. An attitude described by the difference in the thought process. I know many poor whose first thought will be to get out and hustle up another job. Call them industrious. I also know many whose first thought will be to grab for assistance. Call them lazy.

Why are some industrious people poor? Because the skill set they have to offer is common and not rare and in demand. Lazy people are poor because ...

Oh I agree William is speaking in talking points for preaching to the choir.

---

OK -- that's a non-partisan presentation and thus more nuanced. William was suggesting that Republicans are industrious and Democrats are lazy (using your terms). I rejected that as being a tad over the top.

There ARE decent conservative arguments to be made -- frankly, you have a far better aptitude for making them than some others who populate the boards.

No not an attitude by the poor. An attitude described by the difference in the thought process. I know many poor whose first thought will be to get out and hustle up another job. Call them industrious. I also know many whose first thought will be to grab for assistance. Call them lazy.

Why are some industrious people poor? Because the skill set they have to offer is common and not rare and in demand. Lazy people are poor because ...

Don't sell William Rothamel short on aptitude, Barry. From what I can tell, William and I have very similar backgrounds and interests, with him being about 20 years older.
The thing is, we are interested in these politics, but I and I suspect he, didn't take courses in political science, macro- and micro-economics, so on and so forth.
I, and perhaps WIlliam as well, can only contribute so much to these discussions. I do my best not to assert things as fact if I do not know them to be with 100% certainty or nearly so.

The rules as they are need to be enforced continuously not when its going to make a point of disenfranchising individual right before an election. Therein lies the problem. Why the sudden urge to purge right before an election

Is it right before an election? I mean, how can it be at any other time? Are you saying it doesn't happen before a non-partisan school board election but only a Presidential race? Or is it because it is a Presidential race that the partisans care and shove the issue on the press?

Sorry if I'm a cynic, but both sides reek. Rules are rules.

---

Ah yes, all Republicans want to earn their living and all Democrats want a hand out.

You have cracked the code.

Not everyone just more on one side than the other.

Note, I did collect unemployment for about 8 weeks in 1979. And it was in some ways a bit 'plush' -- in as much as the benefits were from Connecticut (or at Connecticut rates) while I was in Arizona.

When I took a voluntary from Motorola there was a reason I took a voluntary (after 10 years there) -- left them on a Friday, started with Honeywell on the Monday -- and got 10 weeks severance.

When I was 'downsized' at Honeywell 6 years later -- well as one of the managers in a department of over 100, I was responsible for crafting the downsize budget -- I reduced the number of managers by one -- knowing it was going to be me -- in order to protect two of my subordinates -- too much of their compensation was based on company specific skills. As for me, I'd been preparing to go out on my own for quite some time (when I hired in I told the Director there that I was looking at a 5 to 8 year company time frame and thus leaving at 6 years was well 'within scope'.

I mean, heck, those unemployment checks are sooo HUGE! Certainly, they are incentive to stop one from seeking new employment.

1) That is not what you posted to begin with.

2) I don't think it is more on one side than the other -- but at the manipulative level it sure sounds like something to sell.

Ah yes, all Republicans want to earn their living and all Democrats want a hand out.

You have cracked the code.

Not everyone just more on one side than the other.

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Is this statement implying that there aren't hard working poor people who earn their living? You can work 60 hours a week and still be penniless.

And I love when republicans say this stuff. I always ask, do you know any multi-millionaires? Billionaires? Do you know that many of us dems only want those people taxed more? Are you one of those people? Then don't imply that any dems are after what you've earned.

The republicans will raise your taxes and my taxes along with the poor's taxes, and give breaks to the aforementioned *aires groups. This is the world you want?

---

#resist

Yes I said it. This has been a Conaservative tool to eliminate or reduce Democratic voters at the polls.

I just mentioned the same thing in another thread a few days ago. And I 100% agree. It's a conservative ploy, and they did it before, in 2000.

---

#resist

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

Ah, she said it all already. ....

Soft for Madam President. Please.

---

#resist

being a white men's club.

I see it as a distinction, not of race, but rather of those who want to earn their living and those who think they are entitled to a handout from those that do.

Most people would be happy to earn a living. Most are not content with "earning" subsistence while others wallow in wealth that is certainly not "earned" but compiled in the blood sweat and tears of others desperatly trying to earn a "living" only to be cast aside at the whim of those with the purse strings.

I think the distinction is a bit different. Those that when laid off first thought is to start sending out resume's and those whose first thought is the unemployment office. Likely the difference is thought process, "well that is life, better get on with it." vs "damn the man stuck it too me again, he'll hold me down so I better milk it for all I can."

Wow that's closed minded.


If you get laid off, obviously you start looking for another job! Duh!

What the hell are you going to do for income in the meantime? I guess people should just go hungry and homeless during their job search? Instead of getting the unemployment that they paid into out of their own taxes?

Wow. I'm really speechless Gary.

You speak as if unemployment is even close to supplementing job income. In my state it's capped off at well less than I make at my job, and I don't make much...

You don't think perhaps there are people that would say "damn the man stuck it too me again, well that is life, better get on with it."?
(part of getting on with it is filing for unemployment, which is there to provide financial security...)

---

#resist