WHAT? YOU NEED A PHOTO ID FOR WHAT?

[KRAM1]

OK, let's check the logic here...The US government has announced that as of 2013 it will no longer issue paper checks for social security and other forms of government payments. It seems the federal government wants to cut down on FRAUD and to reduce costs. So, everyone receiving a social security check or other form of government payment will need to have a bank account in place or a debit card issued through some bank sponsored program. Hmmmmmmmm...last I checked you needed a valid photo ID to open a bank account or to get a debit card...and you had to go to the bank to open the account or get the card. Hmmmmmm...let's see, Texas passes a Voter ID law structured after the Indiana Vote ID law that the US Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional and not discriminatory in any way and Eric Holder and the US Justice Department goes ape nuts over it and sues Texas....now the Justice Department wants to depose Texas Sate elect legislators to see if they had any discriminatory "intent" in drafting the legislation.

All the while, the federal government in essence passes a "valid photo ID" rule regarding the receipt of federal payments....Hmmmmmmmm....what am I missing here? So, folks can't vote in Texas because a valid photo ID might be required yet than CAN receive federal payments if they have a valid photo ID...I guess the feds are trying to cut off grandma and grandad and want the poor to starve....how dare they. Way to go Attny Gen. Holder and the US Justice Dept. Talk about discrimination...I think Texas is the one being blatantly discriminated against.

The irony is just dripping here folks.....only under the current administration in DC could this not be seen as ridiculous. Ahhhhhhhh, the logic of it all.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

OK, let's check the logic here...The US government has announced that as of 2013 it will no longer issue paper checks for social security and other forms of government payments. It seems the federal government wants to cut down on FRAUD and to reduce costs. So, everyone receiving a social security check or other form of government payment will need to have a bank account in place or a debit card issued through some bank sponsored program. Hmmmmmmmm...last I checked you needed a valid photo ID to open a bank account or to get a debit card...and you had to go to the bank to open the account or get the card. Hmmmmmm...let's see, Texas passes a Voter ID law structured after the Indiana Vote ID law that the US Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional and not discriminatory in any way and Eric Holder and the US Justice Department goes ape nuts over it and sues Texas....now the Justice Department wants to depose Texas Sate elect legislators to see if they had any discriminatory "intent" in drafting the legislation.

All the while, the federal government in essence passes a "valid photo ID" rule regarding the receipt of federal payments....Hmmmmmmmm....what am I missing here? So, folks can't vote in Texas because a valid photo ID might be required yet than CAN receive federal payments if they have a valid photo ID...I guess the feds are trying to cut off grandma and grandad and want the poor to starve....how dare they. Way to go Attny Gen. Holder and the US Justice Dept. Talk about discrimination...I think Texas is the one being blatantly discriminated against.

The irony is just dripping here folks.....only under the current administration in DC could this not be seen as ridiculous. Ahhhhhhhh, the logic of it all.

Soooooooooooo......are you for this?

[yyz28]

OK, let's check the logic here...The US government has announced that as of 2013 it will no longer issue paper checks for social security and other forms of government payments. It seems the federal government wants to cut down on FRAUD and to reduce costs. So, everyone receiving a social security check or other form of government payment will need to have a bank account in place or a debit card issued through some bank sponsored program. Hmmmmmmmm...last I checked you needed a valid photo ID to open a bank account or to get a debit card...and you had to go to the bank to open the account or get the card. Hmmmmmm...let's see, Texas passes a Voter ID law structured after the Indiana Vote ID law that the US Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional and not discriminatory in any way and Eric Holder and the US Justice Department goes ape nuts over it and sues Texas....now the Justice Department wants to depose Texas Sate elect legislators to see if they had any discriminatory "intent" in drafting the legislation.

All the while, the federal government in essence passes a "valid photo ID" rule regarding the receipt of federal payments....Hmmmmmmmm....what am I missing here? So, folks can't vote in Texas because a valid photo ID might be required yet than CAN receive federal payments if they have a valid photo ID...I guess the feds are trying to cut off grandma and grandad and want the poor to starve....how dare they. Way to go Attny Gen. Holder and the US Justice Dept. Talk about discrimination...I think Texas is the one being blatantly discriminated against.

The irony is just dripping here folks.....only under the current administration in DC could this not be seen as ridiculous. Ahhhhhhhh, the logic of it all.

KRAM, you KNOW I'm with you on this issue, but this is a faulty comparison; let me explain why.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that even discusses, much less forbids any type of barrier being erected to residents or citizens receiving any type of social or government program. Conversely, while I personally reject that requiring someone to have a valid ID to vote IS a poll tax or an unreasonable barrier to being allowed to vote, there IS language in the constitution regarding this specific matter which may be interpreted in a variety of different ways, depending on the intent of the writer or the political or ideological bent of the person doing the interpreting.

...as a result, attempts to compare the requirement of an ID to vote to requirements to have an ID to do virtually anything else fall somewhat short of intellectual honesty if you fully understand the issue.

Just my opinion.

[KRAM1]

KRAM, you KNOW I'm with you on this issue, but this is a faulty comparison; let me explain why.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that even discusses, much less forbids any type of barrier being erected to residents or citizens receiving any type of social or government program. Conversely, while I personally reject that requiring someone to have a valid ID to vote IS a poll tax or an unreasonable barrier to being allowed to vote, there IS language in the constitution regarding this specific matter which may be interpreted in a variety of different ways, depending on the intent of the writer or the political or ideological bent of the person doing the interpreting.

...as a result, attempts to compare the requirement of an ID to vote to requirements to have an ID to do virtually anything else fall somewhat short of intellectual honesty if you fully understand the issue.

Just my opinion.

Oh, I agree with you, but you missed my point. My point is the hypocrisy of people who say that a voter ID law would PREVENT people from voting because getting a valid photo ID would place an undue burden on them...and the US Justice Dept. under our current administration...while those same folks argue that poor and elderly are discriminated against in having to show a photo ID to vote in Texas. If it is discriminatory and burdensome to get a valid photo ID to vote, why are the same people OK with these same folks having to get a valid photo ID to receive federal benefits? It's the hypocrisy that I point to here.....

[Legend500]

yyz28

As for the "hypocrisy" here - there is a good reason for their handling of these situations differently. Social security fraud is a problem for which the government has found a solution, but voter fraud is not a problem. According to the Republican National Lawyer's Association, there has been only 1 prosecution for vote fraud in Texas worth mentioning since 2004 - and even then it was a violation which an ID would not have stopped.

Of course it shouldn't be a shock that there's hypocrisy in politics. What is a shock is that people blame anyone but themselves. Our politicians are hypocritical because we've asked them to be. An example:

...from the left:

The voters want a President who will not "bail out" corporations, but make exceptions form GM or green energy companies.

...from the right:

The voters want a president who wants to keep government from interfering in religion, contracts or personal rights, but make exceptions for gay marriage or marijuana.

In short, don't complain about hypocritical politicians - we asked for them.

[meanrob]

You need a id to open a bank account but I bet you can get some kind of debit card without id. I had a prepaid card I bought off the shelf.

[KRAM1]

You need a id to open a bank account but I bet you can get some kind of debit card without id. I had a prepaid card I bought off the shelf.

OK, let's see...the gov. then allows folks to buy debit cards off the shelf that will then be loaded with their SS payments. WOW...how many ways could that INCREASE FRAUD, not eliminate it? let me count the ways. "Hello, SS office, yes, it's me grandma Smith. I have my debit card...just start sending my $ to this card number". Thanks. have a nice day". Oh, sure, I see that working.

And, guess what...you still had to go get the card...some argue that poor and elderly have no way to go get a valid photo id.

Again...this is not about comparing voting and ss .... it's about the fact that if one needs a bank acct and/or debit card, they will need a photo ID. If they can get a photo ID for that...they can get a photo ID period! So, how is getting a photo ID discriminatory? Cannot have it both ways.....not discussing at all, the fact whether anyone likes the ID of needing a valid photo ID to vote...just that the govt.'s argument through Holder and Obama is stupid and hypocritical. Argue the merits of Voter ID's all you want, but stop the hypocrisy and the inane argument that folks cannot get a valid photo ID...that is where the discussion is here folks...sorry some just have missed the point entirely....this is pretty blatant hypocrisy on the part of the feds....if you can't see it, you either are not looking or just don't want to see it.

That's all....

[yyz28]

Oh, I agree with you, but you missed my point. My point is the hypocrisy of people who say that a voter ID law would PREVENT people from voting because getting a valid photo ID would place an undue burden on them...and the US Justice Dept. under our current administration...while those same folks argue that poor and elderly are discriminated against in having to show a photo ID to vote in Texas. If it is discriminatory and burdensome to get a valid photo ID to vote, why are the same people OK with these same folks having to get a valid photo ID to receive federal benefits? It's the hypocrisy that I point to here.....

No, I didn't miss your point at all. I understand the hypocrisy. ...but again, there is constitutional language about placing burdens on the ability to vote, not on getting government aide or taking advantage of social programs.

As such, while you and I may see the hypocrisy in these arguments, they DO have a leg to stand on constitutionally when arguing against voter id laws. Like I said before, I reject and disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution in this way, but they can whip out and argue the poll tax clause. There is no federal assistance tax clause to get in their way when making policy regarding the distribution of taxpayer funded benefits.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

yyz28

As for the "hypocrisy" here - there is a good reason for their handling of these situations differently. Social security fraud is a problem for which the government has found a solution, but voter fraud is not a problem. According to the Republican National Lawyer's Association, there has been only 1 prosecution for vote fraud in Texas worth mentioning since 2004 - and even then it was a violation which an ID would not have stopped.

Of course it shouldn't be a shock that there's hypocrisy in politics. What is a shock is that people blame anyone but themselves. Our politicians are hypocritical because we've asked them to be. An example:

...from the left:

The voters want a President who will not "bail out" corporations, but make exceptions form GM or green energy companies.

...from the right:

The voters want a president who wants to keep government from interfering in religion, contracts or personal rights, but make exceptions for gay marriage or marijuana.

In short, don't complain about hypocritical politicians - we asked for them.

---You are absolutely right.... one case since 2004... and an ID would not have stopped it. Soooo--What is the need for an ID in Texas....

---It actually sound like a great idea but after you look at what it does especially in remote places where there is no close place to get one (no drivers license offices) or/and to people who just don't drive or anymore... then I see problems.. Even if the ID did not have to current but an expired licence for example which obviously shows the person is who they say they are would be acceptable... then I would have less objections. It appears to be an effort to deny some from voting because fraud doesn't seen to be a big problem [i work elections] The big hole for fraud could be mail-in ballots in which no election offical watches the voter cast votes. Who knows who actually marks them.??

Hypocritical: Both sides are some .. but the craziest one to me are the ones that doesn't want any interferance from the government in religious matters but at the same time they want "their" religous guys to be in charge and doing things as they believe. Government should not control religion and religion should not control government.... that is why that was put in our Constitution. Our founders saw what happened in Protestant Reformation and even at Salem and other places here [Christian] and now we see what that does in the Middle East [islamic] .. It is not a good thing to mix them. Religion is reponsible for more wars than any other cause... Even WWII had religious overtones... note: a mostly Christian country tried to exterminate the Jewish religion ...

..

Edited April 24, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTLifer]

---You are absolutely right.... one case since 2004... and an ID would not have stopped it. Soooo--What is the need for an ID in Texas....

---It actually sound like a great idea but after you look at what it does especially in remote places where there is no close place to get one (no drivers license offices) or/and to people who just don't drive or anymore... then I see problems.. Even if the ID did not have to current but an expired licence for example which obviously shows the person is who they say they are would be acceptable... then I would have less objections. It appears to be an effort to deny some from voting because fraud doesn't seen to be a big problem [i work elections] The big hole for fraud could be mail-in ballots in which no election offical watches the voter cast votes. Who knows who actually marks them.??

Hypocritical: Both sides are some .. but the craziest one to me are the ones that doesn't want any interferance from the government in religious matters but at the same time they want "their" religous guys to be in charge and doing things as they believe. Government should not control religion and religion should not control government.... that is why that was put in our Constitution. Our founders saw what happened in Protestant Reformation and even at Salem and other places here [Christian] and now we see what that does in the Middle East [islamic] .. It is not a good thing to mix them. Religion is reponsible for more wars than any other cause... Even WWII had religious overtones... note: a mostly Christian country tried to exterminate the Jewish religion ...

..

How do you know the people getting voter ID cards are eligible to vote?

How do you know the person using the voter ID card is actually that person?

If someone grows up in a religious home, then how do you not expect that person to be swayed by their belief system. I agree with what you are saying, but the fact is people will be swayed by their belief system in every decision they make.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

1.How do you know the people getting voter ID cards are eligible to vote?

2.How do you know the person using the voter ID card is actually that person?

3.If someone grows up in a religious home, then how do you not expect that person to be swayed by their belief system. I agree with what you are saying, but the fact is people will be swayed by their belief system in every decision they make.

1. That is the County's problem to verify it.

2. Its confirm the person standing there is probably that person.... BUT only ONE fraud case since 2004 means it doesn't seem to be a problem that need to be corrected..

2. I do expect them to be swayed (individually) by their religious upbringing.... I just don't want peachers standing in front of a church telling people who to vote for [it happened in my former hometown] and preachers on TV doing the same. Do you want prohibition again.??. Some churches support it [one preacher of a huge church in my town constantly condemns it, never had one drink, (so he says) and pretty much thinks you are headed for Hell if you have one**. . Catholics priests want birth control eliminated... I could go on... The Nazi political party did not want the Jewish religion even in their country... same with some here now.. Where is the limit.? I am not saying I don't want Christians in government... just not religous fanatics that want their "brand" of religion imposed. How about the guys in El Dorado or some other odd group. Keep the government and religion apart... with neither trying to control the other, after all it is in the Constitution with no mention of Christinity, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or any group.. Heard Michael Reagan even say on radio that if you are Christian you will vote only Republican.. [ doesn't sound like separation to me] Likely as many Democrats are Christian as Republicans... Carter even taught Baptist Sunday School. Reagan almost never attended church. Amazes me that Perry (who constantly mentions religion) supports gambling which preys on the stupid and often poor...

.

**once went there for several years ..left... changed churches... before this one showed up.

Edited April 29, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66