Paper ballots are hack-proof. It's time to bring them back.

[nebraska]

Paper ballots are hack-proof. It's time to bring them back.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/story/opinion...433343001/

[bobc]

This should be a bipartisan agreement. Good ballot security, understandable physical ballots that are routinely recounted.
Absolute assurances that everyone voting is the person they claim to be, a citizen, a resident of their district, not someone voting in more than 1 district, alive.

[nebraska]

Has anyone noticed the elites create a problem and then offer a solution?

Oh no, ballots have hanging chads, let's have electronic voting machines.

Oh no, terrorists attacked the WTC, let's have TSA groping, CIA torture, kill lists, and NSA wiretapping.

Oh no, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, let's invade Iraq.

Oh no, bankers committed fraud and ruined the economy, let's have bailouts.

Oh no, businesses are dangerous, let's regulate them.

Oh no, regulations have suffocated the economy, let's have food stamps.

Oh no, healthcare is expensive, let's have Obamacare.

Oh no, the Internet is slow, let's have more laws.

Oh no, the police are killing black people, let's have cop cameras.

Oh no, your phone might be stolen, let's have kill switches.

Oh no, someone shot people, let's ban guns.

Oh no, immigrants are buying mobile phones, let's ban prepaid phones.

Oh no, someone called someone a bad word, let's ban free speech.

Oh no, a junkie bought drugs, let's ban cash.

Oh no, a terrorist bought a clock with a debit card, let's ban anonymous debit cards.

Oh no, we started wars, let's import refugees.

Oh no, Muslims have encrypted mobile phones, let's ban encryption.

Oh no, Russia and China are large countries that might oppose the Jewish NWO of debt, bombing Iran, illegal immigration, immorality, homosexuality, and feminism, let's increase the military budget.

Oh no, the US has too many illegal immigrants, let's build a wall.

Oh no, Russia is releasing propaganda, let's ban free speech.

Oh no, Russia is hacking voting machines, let's allow DHS to control the elections.

Oh no, the 99% are unhappy about tyranny, let's ban protesting.

Oh no, George Washington owned slaves, let's tear down statues.

Oh no, we started a War on Terror and a War on Drugs, let's militarize the police.

Think.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2018, 07:19 PM)bobc Wrote: This should be a bipartisan agreement. Good ballot security, understandable physical ballots that are routinely recounted.
Absolute assurances that everyone voting is the person they claim to be, a citizen, a resident of their district, not someone voting in more than 1 district, alive.

Can I assume that disenfranchising legitimate voters is preferable to even one illegally cast ballot?  Nothing is perfect, so let's go for the best we can achieve, and not punish many for the sins of the very few.

[pbrower2a]

There is little gain from voter fraud. Anyone who applies to vote must sign a document stating that one is what one claims to be on penalty of perjury for impersonating a voter.

Vote fraud is most likely from administrators of the vote -- as in 'losing' applications by the 'wrong side', tampering with equipment, falsifying tabulations, having inadequate access to voting in places likely to 'vote wrong', or hacking the electioneering of the other side.

Picture IDs should be free and easy to get, and not connected to demographic realities.

Concern about vote fraud is much like concern for welfare fraud. For example, Michigan charges a 10-cent deposit on containers of soft drinks and carbonated water that the Bridge Card will pay for. Buying such beverages and dumping them so that one can return the bottles or cans for a quick refund is illegal -- and at the welfare office such is made obvious.

Would I report someone who did that? Sure.

(If I had my way I would deny eligibility for food aid for sodas, or at least require that those who get them on food stamps pay the deposits when purchasing them, which could include using bottle returns as payments).

[nebraska]

Why not just rid of welfare?

[pbrower2a]

(01-29-2018, 06:05 PM)nebraska Wrote: Why not just rid of welfare?

And bring back hunger?

Food aid turns potential shoplifters into paying customers, and not even right-wing Wal*Mart can resist the lure of accepting SNAP.

We have some moral values. We would be squeamish about seeing starving waifs on our streets.

[nebraska]

Were there charities before there were food stamps?

Why should the government steal money from Americans at the point of the gun when the private market can provide food aid?

[David Horn]

(01-29-2018, 06:05 PM)nebraska Wrote: Why not just rid of welfare?

Well, we have, to a great extent.  But welfare is not just a handout to individuals, it also protects all of us from social decline into chaos.  Hungry people will find a way to eat.  Let's make it a positive one.

In the 1970s, there was a small experimental program in a few counties that replaced welfare with basic subsistence in the form of cash.  It ran for a few years, but was not renewed or expanded, so it can be viewed as a controlled experiment.  The counties that got the program are uniformly better off, as a whole, than similar adjoining counties that didn't.  Crime is much lower, educational achievement much higher, and the overall prosperity much higher as well.  In other words, it worked as designed, and the small outlay 40 years ago has paid benefits far beyond the cost.

[David Horn]

(01-30-2018, 04:19 AM)nebraska Wrote: Were there charities before there were food stamps?

Why should the government steal money from Americans at the point of the gun when the private market can provide food aid?

Because charity is limited and targeted.  "Desirable people" get help, "undesirable people" don't.

[pbrower2a]

(01-30-2018, 01:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-30-2018, 04:19 AM)nebraska Wrote: Were there charities before there were food stamps?

Why should the government steal money from Americans at the point of the gun when the private market can provide food aid?

Because charity is limited and targeted.  "Desirable people" get help, "undesirable people" don't.

Add to this -- charity is voluntary. The government could ensure that enough money goes to charity were it to mandate  tithes... but that would be little different in practice.

Besides, the need for the most pressing sorts of relief, namely food, clothing, and fuel to the poor,  intensifies in the bad times when charitable sources themselves get lesser contributions.

[nebraska]

If communism is so great then why did millions of people starve to death in
China, the USSR, and Cambodia?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...house.html

There is not one rule that says everyone must eat everyday in NYC, but how
many starved to death in New York City in 1899?

[bobc]

(01-29-2018, 10:17 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 07:19 PM)bobc Wrote: This should be a bipartisan agreement. Good ballot security, understandable physical ballots that are routinely recounted.
Absolute assurances that everyone voting is the person they claim to be, a citizen, a resident of their district, not someone voting in more than 1 district, alive.

Can I assume that disenfranchising legitimate voters is preferable to even one illegally cast ballot?  Nothing is perfect, so let's go for the best we can achieve, and not punish many for the sins of the very few.

You are being disingenuous. ID's are needed to collect public benefits, buy alcohol, buy certain medicines, travel by airplane, train, sometimes intercity bus, get medical care, drive a car, cash a check, open a bank account.
Needing an ID to vote is not too much of a burden.

[nebraska]

Can ID's be forged?

[1948]

Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.

[The Wonkette]

(01-30-2018, 08:46 PM)nebraska Wrote: If communism is so great then why did millions of people starve to death in
China, the USSR, and Cambodia?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...house.html

There is not one rule that says everyone must eat everyday in NYC, but how
many starved to death in New York City in 1899?

Who said that Communism was so great? A country that provides food assistance isn't exactly Communist, if that is supposed to be your point? Actually, hunger in America was a big problem as recently as the 1960s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h94bq4JfMAA.

[pbrower2a]

(02-03-2018, 02:00 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-30-2018, 08:46 PM)nebraska Wrote: If communism is so great then why did millions of people starve to death in
China, the USSR, and Cambodia?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...house.html

There is not one rule that says everyone must eat everyday in NYC, but how
many starved to death in New York City in 1899?

Who said that Communism was so great?  A country that provides food assistance isn't exactly Communist, if that is supposed to be your point?  Actually, hunger in America was a big problem as recently as the 1960s.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h94bq4JfMAA.

Hunger as a norm for millions in America suggests more shame than greatness. 

Thank you, Wonkette, for reminding us. I suggest that people who think that America has solved its 'poverty' problem watch the video, even if it is hard to watch. Even with the late Charles Kuralt narrating!

[Galen]

(01-30-2018, 01:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-30-2018, 04:19 AM)nebraska Wrote: Were there charities before there were food stamps?

Why should the government steal money from Americans at the point of the gun when the private market can provide food aid?

Because charity is limited and targeted.  "Desirable people" get help, "undesirable people" don't.

That is also kind of the point aside from the tax burden of a massive bureaucracy to administer.  There are dysfunctional behaviors that I do not want to subsidize or encourage.

[nom]

The government is not your daddy. The government is not your mommy.

http://f2bbs.com/bbs

[pbrower2a]

(02-03-2018, 08:41 PM)Galen Wrote:

(01-30-2018, 01:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-30-2018, 04:19 AM)nebraska Wrote: Were there charities before there were food stamps?

Why should the government steal money from Americans at the point of the gun when the private market can provide food aid?

Because charity is limited and targeted.  "Desirable people" get help, "undesirable people" don't.

That is also kind of the point aside from the tax burden of a massive bureaucracy to administer.  There are dysfunctional behaviors that I do not want to subsidize or encourage.

I prefer that we have welfare that gets people through bad situations usually not of their own making (at the least, give children a chance) than that people be compelled to make the satanic choice between bondage as a serf and starvation to maintain freedom to the end.

Hunger is not liberty, and it must never be seen as the price of liberty. I have gotten food aid recently due to a handicap after I lost everything while a caretaker for both parents who had costly, degenerative diseases (Parkinsonism and senile dementia)..  I have Asperger's syndrome diagnosed at age 60 (which is too late for doing something with it  so that I can get away with it), and difficulty in getting and holding jobs because I do not get non-verbal communications, I am physically clumsy, and I cannot link as a team player. In blue-collar work I am an industrial accident waiting to happen. Sure, I have excellent verbal and mathematical skills... but people think that I am a creepy person and confuse me with a dangerous, evil person. I am the most artificial person that you may ever meet; I must put on an acting job to seem normal.

If I get disability I will be able to do some sporadic work for pay and do plenty of volunteer work, as at food pantries. Of course I will canvass for the Democratic Party as I have done in good times and bad -- but that does not quite count as charity. The value of a man has little to do with his ability to earn.