Previous 11 - 20 Next
So... 1) This group that liberals say will be disenfranchised does nothing but sit around all day in a home that is not theirs (I mean not even leased to them), or... 2) This group that liberals say will be disenfranchised already have picture ID, but the liberals are (at best) looking for something to whine about, or... 3) I have been discriminated against my entire life by being required to show ID. (which I doubt) Choose your scenario. None of them is a good argument against requiring photo ID to allow registered voters to cast their ballots.
Let's give the liberals an inch in this argument. Let's agree that it is a hardship to acquire valid ID. My question is not "Why do you oppose showing ID to vote?" My question is "Why don't you push for measures that would help these people legally obtain valid ID?" Having a valid ID would not only allow them to vote (once registered), but to also to rent an apartment, obtain a job, get a library card, and open a bank account. I had to show state-issued picture ID for all of these things.
How do you define paying no taxes? While my husband and I pay very little in income tax (small income), we pay taxes on every purchase we make, on our vehicles every year, and in the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid scam that is mandatory. Furthermore, I am currently a stay at home mom. Since I have (technically) no income, I pay no taxes. Should I not be allowed to vote because I am raising our children? I understand your frustration at the thought of individuals voting for more entitlements for themselves. But the solution you are promoting may create more problems than it solves.
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:44 PM
Thank you.
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:43 PM
But, John, none of these immoral methods of achieving personal gain are capitalism. Capitalism, at its core, is achieving personal gain by providing something of value to others. You tacitly agreed that this is moral. Where does capitalism bear fault here?
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:39 PM
...(cont., and done) Capitalism is built on mutually beneficial exchanges between two parties. If the exchange is not viewed as beneficial by even one of the parties, it does not occur. Employees are not forced to work for employers who do not provide adequate wages and working conditions. Employers are not forced to pay for employees who do not provide enough service. Consumers are not forced to buy goods at a value higher than they are willing to pay. Companies are not forced to sell goods at a value lower than their production cost. *That* is true capitalism.
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:33 PM
...companies have no choice but to pay a higher price for goods, thus charging a higher price for their product. When the government grants a monopoly, individuals have no where else to go to obtain a product. When unions force companies to deal with large groups of people as if they were all identical automatons rather than individuals with individual skill sets, highly skilled people suffer for those who have not gained skills yet. ...(cont., one last time)
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:28 PM
(cont. from above, again) If the employer/employee or producer/consumer relationship is controlled or influenced by a third party (such as unions or the government), then the workings of capitalism fail because it is no longer capitalism. Do not blame capitalism for failing when it has not been allowed to work for over half a century. Since minimum wage laws went into effect, no worker has legally been able to offer his services for less, even if he was willing to in order to get started in a company. When the government imposes tarriffs on a material for the purpose of inflating its price above that of a domestically produced equivalent,...
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:25 PM
(cont. from above) Companies must have customers to buy goods. Providing poor customer service, producing an inferior product, or over-pricing goods is anti-capitilistic because customers will stop buying goods from the company. Basically, any company that has a "profit at any cost" attitude will learn that the cost is eventually loss of profit. But this only works if all of those relationships are allowed to work through the market. ...(cont., again)
In response to:

Blame Barclays, Not Capitalism

PluckyMo Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Your argument against capitalism makes no sense. If a company (or person) maximizes profits at the expense of all of its resources, then it/he/she is profitable only in the short term. Companies must have materials from which they can produce goods. Destroying the environment is anti-capitalistic because it reduces those materials. Companies must have employees to produce goods or provide services. Treating employees poorly, paying less than a fair wage (as determined by the company and employee, not a third party), or creating unsafe working conditions is anti-capitalistic because people will not continue to work for the company. ...(cont. below)
Check your facts before you post. The Democratic and Republican parties did not exist when the Founding Fathers settled on the 3/5ths Compromise in the Constitution. This compromise had slaves count as 3/5 of a person for both apportionment (representation in the House) and taxation. The South wanted them to count for apportionment but not taxation, but the North wanted them to count for taxation but not apportionment. Neither group wanted to let them vote. KYoung43, if you are going to make arguments like this, get your facts straight. Failure to do so undermines everything you are doing.
Previous 11 - 20 Next