The real reason republicans want voter ID

But not until 1913 when the first progressive president decided government knew better than the people. It isn’t enshrined in the constitution, it is an invention.

 

Do you understand that Government represents itself and not you nor me?
Trump was working out ways to get Government to represent you and me and all others.

You praise high taxes and I deplore them.

This is what took place as to income taxes.

I am not clear you are a 1913 type of Democrat or where you lie in philosophy. You seem to be full tilt Government as I read your statements. And not for the people. I am for the people.
///////////////
The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114), re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates. The act was sponsored by Representative Oscar Underwood, passed by the 63rd United States Congress, and signed into law by President[1] Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson and other members of the Democratic Party had long seen high tariffs as equivalent to unfair taxes on consumers, and tariff reduction was President Wilson's first priority upon taking office. Following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, Democratic leaders agreed to seek passage of a major bill that would dramatically lower tariffs and implement an income tax. Underwood quickly shepherded the revenue bill through the House of Representatives, but the bill won approval in the United States Senate only after extensive lobbying by the Wilson administration. Wilson signed the bill into law on October 3, 1913.

The Revenue Act of 1913 lowered average tariff rates from 40 percent to 26 percent. It also established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population. A separate provision established a corporate tax of one percent, superseding a previous tax that had only applied to corporations with net incomes greater than $5,000 per year. Though a Republican-controlled Congress would later raise tariff rates, the Revenue Act of 1913 marked an important shift in federal revenue policy, as government revenue would increasingly rely on income taxes rather than tariff duties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

 

This man worked for the IRS and arrested those who failed to pay income taxes.
He did a ton of investigating and as a CPA as well, fully understood tax law.
Check him out.

 

I suspect that happened also in Georgia. Probably in PA as well.

 

Government is currently chaos. Seriously, Biden brought chaos.

 

Then and now: How Stacey Abrams changed her mind on voter ID



"Joe Manchin’s compromise bill in the Senate would make mandatory in all 50 states:"

If 69% of Black Voters think ID to vote isn't a problem, and Sen Warnock doesn't think it's a problem, why do White "Progressives" claims it's "racist"? Maybe they think Blacks should let White "Progressives" do their thinking and talking?

"(1) voter ID is broadly popular with the public and
(2) despite Abrams’s and Warnock’s demagoguery, voter ID doesn’t suppress" legal "turnout."

Well, that's not enough to change an election outcome, and the Left has been telling us for some time that fraud is only important if there is enough to change an election outcome. Certainly it should would work the same way for ID.

 

Not enough to change an election outcome.

 

That's a rather unfair characterization, and, in fact, it's hyperbole. It gives the impression he is like Alistair Crowley or something,
which is simply not the case. He is just someone who is not religious, believes in liberal and certain liberation values.
So, when you say 'Hedonist", you'll have to define it because I am not sure of what you mean.

Well, you know the old saying, facts and truth tend to have a liberal bias.

I am not concerned with the Mafia, that is the province of the FBI. So, not sure what you mean.

You really should rethink your presentation of your arguments, when you resort to such emotionally charged characterizations.
We can argue the right or wrongness of the Keystone Pipeline, but to say Biden is a 'rattlesnake', blah blah, is not a merit worthy debate point
and has nothing to do with the right or wrongness of the policy.

If you have links regarding the border, provide them, so I know what you are referring to.

Being president presents immense challenges. I'm not expecting miracles in his first 100 days, noting that, for quite a long time, as in many administrations of the past, no administration has solved the immigration problems to everyone's satisfaction, though I will say this, we are no longer separating children for the crime of a class B misdemeanor, anymore, and that is progress.

You want to make broad brush stroke criticisms of him, you can do that, but who, in the past, has really done much better? I can think of no one. Biden's just getting started, he's got a lot on his plate. Let's see what Harris can do. But, immigration is a nightmare for anyone, and everyone ( just like the Middle East is ). Even Reagan declared an Amnesty for over a million immigrants, which no republican today would even consider. Even Reagan's immigration policy was not considered a success. For such a difficult subject, I think it would be fair to let more time pass, and see what direction will be taken.

In my view, take a look at Mexico. We used to have tons of Mexicans trying to come into America, and now they are the minority crossing the border, this was due to the investments in industry down there, ( I think NAFTA was part of it) giving jobs to the locals, which took the pressure off them trying to come to America. Many of the crossers are from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, and they are fleeing persecution from the drug cartels. But why do the cartels exist? Because of American demand for their drugs.

I say let's go Libertarian all the way on drugs, make them all legal, and provide them by the government, under supervised conditions, in a program to get people off the drugs, in a safe environment. Something along these lines, and put the cartel out of business. hell, the last thing the drug kings want is for America to legalize drugs. Then, with that out of the way, we could start investing in industry down there and gradually, the immigration problem will be much less. That's my opinion, on the matter.

 

Trump wasn't doing squat. He spent more time on the golf course and watching TV than any president in history.

On the extremely rich, I do. Not for everyone else.

Jeez,anyone can claim 'I am for the people" seems to me communism made a similar argument. I'm not for 'full tilt government', and I don't even know what that means, but you are trafficking in meaningless platitudes here. Below, you are getting specific, so let's take a look.

I do not support tariffs on raw materials, only finished products, and even then where it is absolutely necessary in industries where foreign countries are undercutting us by hiring sweat shop cheap labor, and never as a tit for tat thing, That being said, I'll need to study it more. Overall, I don't like tariffs, as a general rule. Tariffs are a tax on American citizens. If they are designed to protect jobs, it depends on the industry, such as finished products. Like I said, I'm against tariffs on raw materials, which raises the cost of many goods.

Taxes on goods, sales taxes, consumption taxes, etc,, these tax the lower rung of society far more than the upper. So I believe the revenue act was a good thing.

I favor a progressive income tax, and those close to a livable wage where they have little or no disposable income, should pay no taxes. Insofar as taxation, I'm listening to Nick Hanauer now, and considering his proposals. ( You'll have to look him on on YouTube).

Taxes on small entrepreneurs are too steep, and I know this because that is what I am. I don't make a lot, and I pay a lot more in taxes than I would have paid if I were on a W2 payroll, and my social security is double than what someone would pay as an employee.

 

Landslide: 80% support photo ID for voting, including 62% of Democrats and overwhelming share of minorities



"Being chronically on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue" must be frustrating.



"Whites split 77/21"
Nonwhites approaching unanimity at 84/13."

"Earn less than $50,000 per year in favor of voter ID (81 percent)"
"Earn more than $100,000 (76 percent)."

"It’s a boutique issue for woke white liberals."

"Even liberals support photo ID 56/39."

 

They keep saying the quiet part out loud.

Rep. Ronny Jackson: "We have redistricting coming up and the Republicans control most of that process in most of the states around the country. That alone should get us the majority back."
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1405912329129185284

They aren't shy about their perversion of democracy. They haven't been for some time.

 

If Chaos bothers you, you must hate Donald Trump.

 

You made a case for Americans to hate Biden.

 

If you are going to enforce voter ID, then it needs to be free. Shouldn’t be forced to pay to have the right to vote.

 

Indubitaly and then some.My Proof.Look at how virulent Voter Suppression
advocates who insisted Voter ID was Racist.Not just a few times.
But for years.Like newly elected Senator from Georgia { Raphael Warnock }
lying outright that he never opposed Voter ID.And of course Stacy Abrams
who started a few years ago a Site dedicated to Election Law revisions.
And according to Miss Laura Ingraham,last night on that site still
has up it's Opposition to Voter ID still up and advertised.
The left virtually believes it can LIE it's way into Transforming this
Country.Believeing that Big tech,the entire MSM literally ALL Democrats,
Major league sports and Big Woke Corporations can overwhelm
any Truth and the American Way.

 

To trust elections, we need voter ID, a finger print on the ballot, and no computers used on the ballots in any way.

 

I needed my CA Birth Certificate here in Idaho to get a Drivers license. CA charged me a fee for that and later ID charged me for the drivers license with the ability to fly all over permit on it.

 

Fingerprint? F*** that. Absolutely terrible idea.

 

Meh, who cares? There are fees charged to exercise your right to bear arms. In California, you have to pay $25 for a handgun safety certificate to buy a handgun.

 

The "fundamental right to vote" is the deadliest weapon. Unauthorized use has killed more people than guns ever have.

 

The cost is so negligible that it is effectively free. It's the price of fast food meal, in many cases.

So let's see you try to defend those who can find the money for a fast food meal, but not for ID.

 

Should people have to pay for the gasoline / bus / cab / subway fare for their trip to the polling place?

 

They shouldn’t have to do any of that. Should be enough polling locations a simple walk would suffice

 

-You- are responible for the means necessary to exercise your rights - including the right to vote.

 

Sure, let’s put a polling site 100 miles from the poorest sides of town.