Let's see: Sam, having flopped with his "you're racist" ad hominem response, and having been called on his begging the question failures of logic, has now seized on yet a different ad hominem: that voter ID requirements aren't libertarian.

But that's a silly argument. Libertarians oppose government regulation of relations between consenting adults (whether in commercial, social, sexual, or religious spheres). But elections are not private interactions between individuals. They are government functions. A sexual liaison unregulated by the government, or the purchase of a product unregulated by government, is one thing. But an election (*) unregulated by the government doesn't make any conceptual sense at all. The government defines the election; it doesn't even exist without government. The government has to set procedures for casting ballots, including who can cast them. (Even if the answer is 'everyone,' there have to be some criteria for determining which offices one can vote for.) Now, that doesn't mean that it has to set voter ID requirements, but it does mean that those requirements are not intruding into the private sphere.

It should also be noted that there already are voter ID requirements pretty much everywhere. For instance, where I am now in NJ we sign a book right next to a copy of our signature from when we registered. (I doubt the old people who staff these places would notice if we signed "Donald Duck," but there you are.) The issue with the laws we're discussing is what sort of identification a voter must provide -- not whether he must identify himself. Which makes it even sillier to bring libertarianism into it. There's no libertarian position on whether driver's licenses are better than signatures or utility bills for voter ID.


(*) Election for public office, obviously. A private organization can hold elections, too.

In other words, the commonly understood definition of countercyclical fiscal policy is running a deficit in a recession and a surplus in an expansion.

That isn't what the text you quoted said. Deficit spending is an example of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, not the definition of it. For counter-cyclical fiscal policy to be counter-cyclical, it has to actually counter the business cycle. Otherwise, you're left with the statement that the Bush administration engaged in massive counter-cyclical spending from 2004-2007.

Why does it matter whether they are under the (short-term) control of policy-makers (obviously, over the long-run, policy-makers can change the automatic stabilizers too)?

Because stimulus or austerity are choices made by governments that include a signalling effect to the market.

I think most people's goal is simply to have a positive first-order GDP derivative -- in other words, as long as GDP is growing this year, then fiscal policy is working

This really isn't true. Look at recent discussion regarding China or the US. The US has a positive first-order GDP derivative, but everyone complains about the economy. People want robust growth, low inflation and full employment. This generally means greater than 3% annualized GDP growth, less than 3% inflation and roughly 5% unemployment. 1% GDP Growth is a failure for a central bank.

Actually, your post 401 seems like it would fit in well with that crowd. Obama's "stimulus" only reduced job losses, it didn't create new jobs. Hence, not stimulus).

/sigh. Stimulus kicked in mid-June 2009. Job gains since January 1, 2009:

Graphics courtesy of BLS (which is a million times better than Eurostat). That took like a minute to generate that graph. Eurostat took ten minutes just to find a page. LEARN TO WEB DESIGN EUROS!

whenever anybody starts talking about the economy, I stop listening.

Sorry, but this just sounds incredibly ignorant. It's the most important factor that drives electoral results, and policies directly affect your day-to-day life way more than whether or not someone suspected of terrorism is tried in a civilian or military court.

Only in Liberal La La Land could requiring one to get an ID in order to vote be a burden in the year 2012.

Sigh. You keep conveniently skipping my point that without ID laws, there's no way to tell whether "there is actually a problem to be addressed."

This is blatantly circular, self-reinforcing logic - "since there is no evidence of voter fraud, we clearly need to take drastic steps to prevent voter fraud!" It's the same logic as every conspiracy theory ever, where the lack of evidence IS the evidence.

First, I don't think that making people show a driver's license (or whatever) before voting is "drastic." I think it's trivial. Second, my statement that you quote is not remotely that the lack of evidence is evidence; my statement that you quote is that -- as I said earlier -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A better question would be, why would ID cards necessarily be a good tool for detecting fraud? To use your underage drinking analogy - I'm pretty sure that underage drinking is still pretty rampant.

That's a perfectly fair question, although I would note that the people serving alcohol to those with fake IDs generally have an incentive not to detect fake IDs. Whereas poll workers don't have a reason to 'look the other way.'

I'd go farther than this, and say that even if there was (I'm sure we could find some sort of modern-day fraud somewhere in the US), I'm not really inclined to put onerous new regulations in place to prevent isolated, minor cases here and there.

I'm not inclined to put onerous new regulations in place, either. Do people really think that having to show an ID is "onerous"? Seriously? The vast majority of people have licenses. People that don't generally have some other form of ID, because it's hard to function in our economy without ID. You can't cash checks, fly in airplanes, ride in trains, drive, collect government benefits, cross a border, enter a government building, enter lots of private buildings in NY, open a bank account, etc., without an ID.

Just to be clear, what is people's position here? That anyone should be able to walk into any polling place in the country, say, "I'm so-and-so," and be handed a ballot, no questions asked? Indeed, no questions allowed to be asked? That a poll worker can't say, "Excuse me; are you really so-and-so?" Or is it that some of the proposed voter ID laws are too restrictive, that more forms of ID should be allowed?

Only in Liberal La La Land could requiring one to get an ID in order to vote be a burden in the year 2012.

I'd be more inclined to take you seriously when you talk political matters if you hadn't already proven yourself to be severely disconnected from humanity on general human matters.

I'd be more inclined to take you seriously when you talk political matters if you hadn't already proven yourself to be severely disconnected from humanity on general human matters.

I'm pretty connected to being able to get an ID. It's not hard.

Well, we can argue the definitions of "drastic" and "onerous", but that seems to me beside the point. Frankly, my position would be the same even if I were to concede that requiring an ID card is a trivial matter - I tend to think that it's already more than sufficiently cumbersome to register and vote for too many people.

Whereas poll workers don't have a reason to 'look the other way.'

Why not? Poll workers are uncorruptible saints? They're not subject to intimidation? Would your voter ID plan have prevented the fraud in Texas counties in the 1960 election that McCoy referenced earlier?

Just to be clear, what is people's position here? That anyone should be able to walk into any polling place in the country, say, "I'm so-and-so," and be handed a ballot, no questions asked?

With some sort of supporting documentation (utility bill, apartment lease, etc.), yes. It's not clear to me that this would result in widespread, systematic fraud, especially if the penalties for improper voting were sufficiently severe. It's not like individuals have any incentive to commit fraud - it takes a large, coordinated effort to meaningfully sway results one way or the other.

Minnesota, for example, appears to allow neighbors to vouch for each other, or for an apartment management to vouch for residents, etc. Virtually any kind evidence of residence ought to suffice.

With some sort of supporting documentation (utility bill, apartment lease, etc.), yes.

Well, then, we're really just haggling about the price, aren't we?

Well, then, we're really just haggling about the price, aren't we?

So what is that, like, your trump card? Are you especially desperate to score rhetorical points, or what?

What exactly is the logic you're employing here - that if someone wants to require any kind of supporting documentation whatsoever, then to be logically consistent they can't object to a state-issued ID?

By this logic, it's incredibly burdensome to fill out a tax return. So I shouldn't be forced to show my income; that would be too much work. I should just be allowed to pay whatever I owe, on the honor system, no questions asked, no auditing allowed.

And since people here seem to have no trouble either (a) with the honor system, or (b) arguing that the most trivial of tasks is a burden, this should be no problem.

I'd be more inclined to take you seriously when you talk political matters if you hadn't already proven yourself to be severely disconnected from humanity on general human matters.

Connected is a weird word here, since yesterday Linkedin suggested I should send an invite to Ray. I have no idea why.

By this logic, it's incredibly burdensome to fill out a tax return. So I shouldn't be forced to show my income; that would be too much work. I should just be allowed to pay whatever I owe, on the honor system, no questions asked, no auditing allowed.

And since people here seem to have no trouble either (a) with the honor system, or (b) arguing that the most trivial of tasks is a burden, this should be no problem.

There is significantly more evidence of tax evasion than there is of voter fraud.

Well, then, we're really just haggling about the price, aren't we?

So what is that, like, your trump card? Are you especially desperate to score rhetorical points, or what?

What exactly is the logic you're employing here - that if someone wants to require any kind of supporting documentation whatsoever, then to be logically consistent they can't object to a state-issued ID?

I thought my logic was clear: if someone wants to require any kind of supporting documentation whatsoever, then he's conceding there's nothing wrong with voter ID laws. All he's arguing about is which forms of ID are reasonable to require. There's a big difference between "Making people identify themselves is evil" and "Utility bills are good enough to prevent voter fraud; we don't need to require licenses."

Just to be clear, what is people's position here? That anyone should be able to walk into any polling place in the country, say, "I'm so-and-so," and be handed a ballot, no questions asked? Indeed, no questions allowed to be asked? That a poll worker can't say, "Excuse me; are you really so-and-so?" Or is it that some of the proposed voter ID laws are too restrictive, that more forms of ID should be allowed?

In Maryland, whenever I go into my local polling place they ask me for my last name, and when I give that, they then ask me for my first name and my address and compare it to their records. First time voters in Maryland may be asked for ID, but any kind of a utility bill, paycheck or bank statement serves that purpose, and if you didn't bring it with you, you can still cast a provisional ballot. And if you've voted at that precinct before, no ID is required. That seems fine by me, and if there's ever been any problem with voter fraud in Montgomery County I can't recall reading about it.

BTW I'm still waiting to know if David thinks that there's enough evidence of tax evasion and tax fraud to warrant stepping up the number of IRS audits among the classes who are known to cheat at the greatest rate, and cost the government the greatest amount of lost revenue. Or is this form of government curiosity to be consideered "class warfare"?

Let's see: Sam, having flopped with his "you're racist" ad hominem response, and having been called on his begging the question failures of logic, has now seized on yet a different ad hominem: that voter ID requirements aren't libertarian.

But that's a silly argument. Libertarians oppose government regulation of relations between consenting adults (whether in commercial, social, sexual, or religious spheres). But elections are not private interactions between individuals. They are government functions.

At last check, the IRS also performs a government function.

and if you didn't bring it with you, you can still cast a provisional ballot

The ID laws that people like Sam are whining about also allow provisional ballots to be cast if one doesn't have iD.

BTW I'm still waiting to know if David thinks that there's enough evidence of tax evasion and tax fraud to warrant stepping up the number of IRS audits among the classes who are known to cheat at the greatest rate.

Since I want the government to have less money, that would be sort of self-defeating.

There is significantly more evidence of tax evasion than there is of voter fraud.

That's because the government is allowed to look for tax evasion. If they couldn't investigate the matter and audit people, there wouldn't be any evidence of it.

I thought my logic was clear: if someone wants to require any kind of supporting documentation whatsoever, then he's conceding there's nothing wrong with voter ID laws. All he's arguing about is which forms of ID are reasonable to require. There's a big difference between "Making people identify themselves is evil" and "Utility bills are good enough to prevent voter fraud; we don't need to require licenses."

If you show up at your polling place, and you say, my name is "John Smith," you should be able to vote if your name correctly appears on the rolls. If your name does not appear, you should be able to provide ID and cast a ballot.

The system we currently have works very, very well.

and if you didn't bring it with you, you can still cast a provisional ballot

The ID laws that people like Sam are whining about also allow provisional ballots to be cast if one doesn't have iD.

I'll let you and Sam argue, but (a) I have no problem with Maryland's requirements, and (b) I'll also note that Maryland, unlike other states, isn't trying to purge its voter rolls or set new barriers for outside groups that are trying to register new voters.

BTW I'm still waiting to know if David thinks that there's enough evidence of tax evasion and tax fraud to warrant stepping up the number of IRS audits among the classes who are known to cheat at the greatest rate.

Since I want the government to have less money, that would be sort of self-defeating.

Thank you once again for admitting** that your main underlying "principle" is to keep your taxes low, and that your crocodile tears of concern about "voter fraud" has no underlying principle at all regarding fraud committed against the government in general. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

**If you wish to substitute "bragging" for "admitting", I won't argue.

Thank you once again for admitting** that your main underlying "principle" is to keep your taxes low,

Reading is fundamental. I said I wanted the government to have less money. Not less of my money.

and that your crocodile tears of concern about "voter fraud" has no underlying principle at all regarding fraud committed against the government in general. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

Voting fraud is not "fraud committed against the government." It's fraud committed against other voters. If a fake vote is cast for Romney, that nullifies a real vote for Obama (and vice versa).

If you show up at your polling place, and you say, my name is "John Smith," you should be able to vote if your name correctly appears on the rolls.

Really? So you think that voting fraud should involve... looking in the phone book to find the name of someone who lives in town?

If your name does not appear, you should be able to provide ID and cast a ballot.

You should be able to cast a vote if you aren't registered to vote? What function does "ID" exactly serve in that equation?

What's a phone book?

What's a phone book?

An app you can download.

Just been skimming, but the late national-finance digression reminds me how every four years, I save so much time in any political discussion (whether online, on television, or in person): whenever anybody starts talking about the economy, I stop listening. Nobody else is listening, either - I have never, ever, heard a person talking about anything to do with the economy, who at any point said "You know what? You're right; I never thought of it that way."

Election year or no, I find these commentators usually provide cogent economic analysis.

Thank you once again for admitting** that your main underlying "principle" is to keep your taxes low,

Reading is fundamental. I said I wanted the government to have less money. Not less of my money.

Of course by leaving the auditing rates as they are now---which has resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue---you also reduce your own chance of being audited, so that's not exactly a disinterested position you're taking. And even if it were, it's still a position that effectively encourages tax cheats to keep on cheating.

and that your crocodile tears of concern about "voter fraud" has no underlying principle at all regarding fraud committed against the government in general. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

Voting fraud is not "fraud committed against the government." It's fraud committed against other voters. If a fake vote is cast for Romney, that nullifies a real vote for Obama (and vice versa).

But exactly the same principle applies to tax fraud. If the IRS could collect even half of the revenue lost to that crime, that would be that much less debt that future generations of taxpayers would be saddled with.

Oh, you've got underlying "principles", all right, but they're not quite the one that you're pretending they are.

But I'll leave you one last escape route. I've said that I was satisfied with the Maryland voting laws, which require first time (only) voters to produce any form of ID, including a utility bill or a bank statement, and in the absence of that, they are issued a provisional ballot. Voters already on the rolls need only give their names and addresses.

Do you agree that this is as far as the state should go in preventing voter fraud, or are you also in favor of restrictive legislation that goes beyond that, for example that of Florida's HB 1355?

1. I haven't called anyone "racist" in this thread. Only David and his poor little victimization complex would imagine as much.

2. I have stated my position pretty clearly a couple of times. It's not particularly hard, and it's not an ad hominem. Again, David is being an idiot, as is his wont. (That's an ad hom.)

3. I propose a voting requirement in New Jersey that requires all potential voters go through one of those "you must be this tall to ride" routines first.

I'm going to the beach. I'll come back when I feel like throat punching you again.

1. I haven't called anyone "racist" in this thread. Only David and his poor little victimization complex would imagine as much.

To be fair, the persecution complex on the right isn't only David's.

First principles:

The government has no legitimate business knowing how much money I make.

The government has an obvious and axiomatic interest in whether I'm eligible to vote in elections.

Your "first principles" are nothing more than a statement of preferences.

Sorry, all, I seem to have taken time out from this thread to sleep :)

DMN asks: Just to be clear, what is people's position here? That anyone should be able to walk into any polling place in the country, say, "I'm so-and-so," and be handed a ballot, no questions asked? Indeed, no questions allowed to be asked? That a poll worker can't say, "Excuse me; are you really so-and-so?" Or is it that some of the proposed voter ID laws are too restrictive, that more forms of ID should be allowed?

What I'd say is that it's true, most voters will have an unproblematic driver's license that shows them living at the address they're registered at, and they will proceed straight to the booth and cast a vote. No question. I did exactly that on my way to the ballgame last Thursday ? showed my license and my voter-reg. card, signed the rolls, voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary (mind you), and then suffered through the A's beating the Rangers.

However, adding an extra technical hurdle to the requirements can't result in more participation. It has to result in less. Depending on how the election officials handle this, a certain percentage of people will be denied a vote: those without the right ID, those with some discrepancy in ID, and so forth. As Brian C and Andy have said, there are already multiple safeguards built into the process everywhere. The rolls are computerized and cross-checked, and you sign them under penalty of God knows what.

IOW, to go back to your analogy, David, there's already carding, and there's already supplementary enforcement, and there's already a certain amount of discouragement – not just of underage drinking, but of drinking by 22- and 23-year-olds who forget their ID. More stringent laws requiring more and more proof of eligibility to be carried on the person just discourage more drinking. Less liquor gets sold. In an imaginary situation where there was virtually no underage drinking anyway (voting being a lot less fun than drinking), all one does is discourage the eligible people. And unlike drinking, any discouragement of voting ought to be anathema in a democratic country.

First principles:

The government has no legitimate business knowing how much money I make.

The government has an obvious and axiomatic interest in whether I'm eligible to vote in elections.

Your "first principles" are nothing more than a statement of preferences.

Yeah, and the next thing you know, he'll be comparing tax cheats to Martin Luther King. Watching these characters in action is truly edifying, and would be amusing if only their underlying attitudes didn't control the thinking one of our major parties.

The government only wants to know how much money I make so it can take part of it. I fail to see the nobility in that structure.

I'm happy to give the goverment money anonymously, e.g., at the point of sale or even in property taxes.

There's a big difference between "Making people identify themselves is evil" and "Utility bills are good enough to prevent voter fraud; we don't need to require licenses."

Well, I thought I was being very clear that my position was the latter - in #500, I even said this: "I'd be more inclined to listen to the voter ID case if there was systematic fraud that undermined actual election outcomes, and I see no evidence of that."

Sam's position appears to be the latter, as well - he was citing the lack of evidence of voter fraud long before I waded back in to the thread.

Is it possible that you've been arguing with the strawman in your head all this time?

The government only wants to know how much money I make so it can take part of it. I fail to see the nobility in that structure.

I'm happy to give the goverment money anonymously, e.g., at the point of sale or even in property taxes.

As Cary Grant might have put it, that's mighty white of you. Those "principles" of yours become more interesting with each successive explanation.

And what if you (anonymously) decide not to be so generous? That either leaves no revenue at all, or it leaves everyone else to pay for your free ride.

Sam's position appears to be the latter, as well - he was citing the lack of evidence of voter fraud long before I waded back in to the thread.

Yep. My position, stated previously and quite clearly, is that in lieu of actual evidence of meaningful voter fraud, the proper course of action is to do absolutely nothing. In the absence of an actual, documented problem, no further barriers to voting access should be placed on the citizenry.

The idea that the government has no "legitimate business" in collecting income taxes (even though that's explicitly empowered in the Constitution and all that jazz) but has an "axiomatic" interest in further barring access to the voting booth for even a small percentage of the population (even though that is explicitly denied in the Constitution and all that jazz) is... Well, it's emblematic of a political persuasion which believes the primary problem in the United States derives from the fact that too many people get to vote, apparently.

that's mighty white of you.

Drink whenever Andy says this!

And what if you (anonymously) decide not to be so generous?

And what if voters (anonymously) decide to commit voter fraud?

Yep. My position, stated previously and quite clearly, is that in lieu of actual evidence of meaningful voter fraud, the proper course of action is to do absolutely nothing. In the absence of an actual, documented problem, no further barriers to voting access should be placed on the citizenry.

Whether David's position on this is valid or not, he's right that you're not responding to his point. How do you expect to "document" whether there is a problem if you're not testing for the problem?

And what if you (anonymously) decide not to be so generous?

How would that work? I'd never buy another good or service the rest of my life?

Nor has the principle been addressed: What legitimate interest does the government have in knowing how much money I make?

I would like to state from my own left over here that I'm not entirely convinced that voter IDs are an evil I'm willing to fight over. I offer this up in opposition to the sweeping YOU LEFTIES ALL CRY RACISM thing.

With that said, I also find it beyond weird that the hardcore small-government they-are-pointing-guns-at-me libertarian types are calling for additional government money to do additional government tracking on citizens' lives.

Nor has the principle been addressed: What legitimate interest does the government have in knowing how much money I make?

In order to collect taxes on your income. This is not a hard question. You may disagree with income tax as a policy matter, but there's no question that the federal government has the right to collect income taxes, and that duly elected representatives have enacted an income tax via a legitimate democratic process.

If you don't like it ... well, that's what First Amendment free speech rights are for, I guess. And it's a good reason to make it as easy for you to vote as possible.

In order to collect taxes on your income.

Exactly ... assuming arguendo that that's a legitimate interest, it's less compelling and fundamental than assuring that people that vote in elections are eligible to vote. And asking for ID is much less invasive than asking me how much money I make and asking me to fill out a bunch of forms breaking down how much I make and how I spend it and take the time and effort to keep records of all that -- a much more difficult and time-consuming and complicated task than going down to DMV and getting a drivers' license.

So you have zero principled grounds to object to voter ID requirements.

Exactly ... assuming arguendo that that's a legitimate interest, it's less compelling and fundamental than assuring that people that vote in elections are eligible to vote. And asking for ID is much less invasive than asking me how much money I make and asking me to fill out a bunch of forms breaking down how much I make and how I spend it.

So you have zero principled grounds to object to voter ID requirements.

This conclusion following from the previous statement actually made me laugh out loud in the office.

But exactly the same principle applies to tax fraud. If the IRS could collect even half of the revenue lost to that crime, that would be that much less debt that future generations of taxpayers would be saddled with.

Sure. If the magic small government fairy prevented Congress from simply spending all of that extra revenue.

The problem for the people here arguing against the need for an ID in order to vote is that their argument proves too much:

1. If the trivial task of getting an ID is too burdensome, then so too are many things - including breaking down your income for the government.

2. If the honor system is sufficient for voting, then it should be sufficient for many things - including breaking down your income for the government.

3. If absence of evidence of X qualifies as evidence that there is no X occurring, then absence of evidence should be sufficient to show that Y and Z aren't occuring either - including tax evasion after moving to the honor system.

This conclusion following from the previous statement actually made me laugh out loud in the office.

Gallows humor.

So you have zero principled grounds to object to voter ID requirements.

So if I'm OK with eating an orange, I have zero principled grounds for disliking apples. Got it.

At any rate, I've made it quite clear now that the burden on voters is not my principle reason for opposing voter ID laws (see #508). So I'm not really sure why you think that this tortured analogy of yours addresses the actual argument that I'm making. If it makes you feel better, I'm all for supporting measures to make your tax paperwork much less of a burden, although I suspect probably not in ways that you'd prefer.

I would like to state from my own left over here that I'm not entirely convinced that voter IDs are an evil I'm willing to fight over.

To elaborate on my own position, I don't think this is THE WORST THING EVER myself. For example, I think it's a far greater injustice that felons can't vote in most states. So if a theoretical compromise was on the table that would enfranchise felons while requiring a state-issued photo ID, I'd happily support that compromise.

But I'll leave you one last escape route. I've said that I was satisfied with the Maryland voting laws, which require first time (only) voters to produce any form of ID, including a utility bill or a bank statement, and in the absence of that, they are issued a provisional ballot. Voters already on the rolls need only give their names and addresses.

Do you agree that this is as far as the state should go in preventing voter fraud, or are you also in favor of restrictive legislation that goes beyond that, for example that of Florida's HB 1355?

No, I don't agree that this is as far as the state should go. One should have to show ID (of some sort -- I have not endorsed every voter ID law, some of which IMO are far too stingy in what they will accept) every time one votes, not just the first time. With, yes, the opportunity to cast provisional ballots if necessary. Florida's HB 1355, as your own link shows, has nothing to do with voter ID laws, and is thus completely off-topic. (As with most laws, I support some provisions of that law, oppose others, and am indifferent on others.)

If the honor system for voting suffices because voting is not that important -- and collecting taxes is more important -- that would be one thing. But people opposed to IDs for voting don't have the view that voting is not that important. Quite the contrary. Which makes their arguments completely confused and unsustainable.

Again, it's the problem with the arguments of many (I hope you're sitting down, Lassus, because I'm going to say the word) liberals. Liberals don't want to apply their arguments for X across the board, to Y or Z. It's the precise problem with having whims and fancies and preferences as opposed to actual principles.

Sure. If the magic small government fairy prevented Congress from simply spending all of that extra revenue.

We actually were paying down the national debt during the late Clinton years.

If absence of evidence of X qualifies as evidence that there is no X occurring, then absence of evidence should sufficient to show that Y and Z aren't occuring either - including tax evasion after moving to the honor system.

If we went to the "honor system" for reporting taxes (whatever that would even mean in practice), and people used that opportunity to cheat on their taxes, then the evidence of fraud would be immediate and massive because overall tax revenue would immediately plummet.

Really, Ray, your arguments along these lines are self-evidently stupid. The fact that you're following SBB's lead on this ought to be a major clue that you need to think harder.

However, adding an extra technical hurdle to the requirements can't result in more participation. It has to result in less.

Well, it doesn't have to result in less. If voter ID laws increase the public's confidence in the integrity of the elections, then maybe it will prompt more people to come out and vote, and those additional people could outnumber the legitimate voters that are prevented from voting (obviously, we want to prevent illegitimate voters from voting) by such laws. Not saying this is true, but it could be.

So if I'm OK with eating an orange, I have zero principled grounds for disliking apples. Got it.

I think you missed the analogy. If you're going to ask me to spend many hours a year keeping records and then another many hours breaking out my finances for the government, I'm not going to get all weepy over people who can't take the ####### time or are too stupid to navigate the DMV.

Whether David's position on this is valid or not, he's right that you're not responding to his point. How do you expect to "document" whether there is a problem if you're not testing for the problem

Do you accept that in the very recent past investigative committees have formed to assess voter fraud in the various states?

If so, do you accept that those investigations almost certainly had some sort of criteria for determining what voter fraud means?

If so, why are you asking me to reinvent the wheel?

If we went to the "honor system" for reporting taxes (whatever that would even mean in practice), and people used that opportunity to cheat on their taxes, then the evidence of fraud would be immediate and massive because overall tax revenue would immediately plummet.

No, that argument doesn't follow, because it assumes that a large percentage of people would cheat on their taxes. But nobody is arguing that a large percentage of the population is committing voter fraud. So you're not applying the argument consistently.

If the honor system for voting suffices because voting is not that important -- and collecting taxes is more important -- that would be one thing. But people opposed to IDs for voting don't have the view that voting is not that important. Quite the contrary. Which makes their arguments completely confused and unsustainable.

It's just another manifestation of their philosophy of asking absolutely nothing of millions of people and demanding a sh!tload from productive people.

No, that argument doesn't follow, because it assumes that a large percentage of people would cheat on their taxes. But nobody is arguing that a large percentage of the population is committing voter fraud. So you're not applying the argument consistently.

Except that the incentive to cheat on one's taxes is both much more real and immediately apparent than the incentive to commit voter fraud. If I cheat on my taxes, that's real extra money in my pocket. If I go the next county over and cast a fraudulent vote, that doesn't make a ####### difference in the world to me.

Again, think harder.

And what if you (anonymously) decide not to be so generous?

And what if voters (anonymously) decide to commit voter fraud?

Since I've not argued against laws that requires some form of identification for first time voters, I'm not sure why you're directing that question to me.

OTOH neither you nor SBB have any serious response to the question I asked him, other than "it's none of the government's business how much money I make."

-------------------------------------------------------

The government only wants to know how much money I make so it can take part of it. I fail to see the nobility in that structure.

I'm happy to give the goverment money anonymously, e.g., at the point of sale or even in property taxes

And what if you (anonymously) decide not to be so generous?

How would that work? I'd never buy another good or service the rest of my life?

No, you tell me how "it would work" if the government's revenue stream depended solely on voluntary anonymous contributions.

Nor has the principle been addressed: What legitimate interest does the government have in knowing how much money I make?

It has a wholly legitimate interest in being able to collect as much (or as little) revenue from your income as the law allows. You have a perfect right to exploit every loophole you want to in order to minimize that amount, but you don't have a right to unilaterally decide how much to pay, let alone do it anonymously.

-------------------------------------------------------

But I'll leave you one last escape route. I've said that I was satisfied with the Maryland voting laws, which require first time (only) voters to produce any form of ID, including a utility bill or a bank statement, and in the absence of that, they are issued a provisional ballot. Voters already on the rolls need only give their names and addresses.

Do you agree that this is as far as the state should go in preventing voter fraud, or are you also in favor of restrictive legislation that goes beyond that, for example that of Florida's HB 1355?

No, I don't agree that this is as far as the state should go. One should have to show ID (of some sort -- I have not endorsed every voter ID law, some of which IMO are far too stingy in what they will accept) every time one votes, not just the first time. With, yes, the opportunity to cast provisional ballots if necessary. Florida's HB 1355, as your own link shows, has nothing to do with voter ID laws, and is thus completely off-topic. (As with most laws, I support some provisions of that law, oppose others, and am indifferent on others.)

I didn't say that Florida 1355 has to do with voter ID. I said (or obviously implied) that it would restrict voter participation in other ways.

Which still leaves unanswered the strange set of "principles" that wants to see further barriers placed on voter participation in order to prevent hypothetical cases of voter fraud, while at the same time not wanting to see increased budgeting for IRS auditing, which would be far more likely to pay off in decreasing tax fraud. Your "principles" appear to want to crack down on lawbreakers only when they fall into categories you don't like, which sure sounds more like a "preference" than any "principle".

-------------------------------------------------------

Again, it's the problem with the arguments of many (I hope you're sitting down, Lassus, because I'm going to say the word) liberals. Liberals don't want to apply their arguments for X across the board, to Y or Z. It's the precise problem with having whims and fancies and preferences as opposed to actual principles.

That sounds like you're describing SBB more than you're describing this liberal. I have no problem with preventing actual voter fraud by requiring some form of ID the first time around, and by issuing provisional ballots only if ID isn't required. I'd also be fine with requiring it for subsequent elections if the government proactively mailed those IDs to each voter's current address, and allowed voters new to their precinct to cast a provisional ballot if that ID hadn't yet reached them. If a politician's actual goal is to maximize legitimate voter participation, as opposed to creating new barriers that disproportionately affect voters in demographic categories that tend to vote against them, they should have no objection to that last qualifier.

I'd also be in favor of increasing the IRS's budget for auditing, under the same principle that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing willful disobedience of its laws, particularly so in cases where such fraud costs the government hundreds of billions of dollars a year, causing you and me to have to make up for the shortfall. Any truly principled person who wants to step up enforcement of the relatively minor problem of voter fraud could scarcely argue with this point. Only people like SBB (and perhaps you) can contort themselves into a "principle" that favors added enforcement of voter fraud laws but resists added enforcement against tax cheats.

Except that the incentive to cheat on one's taxes is both much more real and immediately apparent than the incentive to commit voter fraud. If I cheat on my taxes, that's real extra money in my pocket. If I go the next county over and cast a fraudulent vote, that doesn't make a ####### difference in the world to me.

Again, think harder.

So: voting is not that important.

Somehow, I doubt Sam/Andy/Lassus et al would agree.

So: voting is not that important.

How on Earth does that follow from what I wrote, unless "incentive to cheat" the sole measure of how important something is to you?

I do think incentive shows importance. No, not the "sole measure."

What problem does more intrusive voter ID laws solve, Ray?

Bar code everybody. Quick scan and zoom, you're verified as being who you are, off to vote. Tis has the added advantage of making the routine management of prisoners in the FEMA camps easier.

I do think incentive shows importance. No, not the "sole measure."

This is basically non-responsive to the actual point in contention. Do you actually disagree with the incentive structure as I laid it out in #555? If not, what is your disagreement?

No, you tell me how "it would work" if the government's revenue stream depended solely on voluntary anonymous contributions.

Sales and use taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc.

Bar code everybody. Quick scan and zoom, you're verified as being who you are, off to vote.

Microchipping. Like with dogs. Allows for quick ID *plus* convenient GPS tracking should we ever step out of alignment with THE LAW!

Sales and use taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc.

Sales and use taxes are extremely retrograde. Tariffs are protectionist.

Microchipping. Like with dogs. Allows for quick ID *plus* convenient GPS tracking should we ever step out of alignment with THE LAW!

I'm concerned that terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and other who hate American because of our freedom might illegally remove their microchips if they were implanted subcutaneously as the are in dogs,

Sales and use taxes are extremely retrograde. Tariffs are protectionist.

Yeah, and?

They're also protective of privacy, less intrusive, and more voluntary (though not entirely).

No, you tell me how "it would work" if the government's revenue stream depended solely on voluntary anonymous contributions.

Sales and use taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc.

Sales and use taxes are extremely retrograde. Tariffs are protectionist.

And by the logic of your prior question, what business is it of the government to know (or care) how much your house is worth? What if they decide it's worth three times as much as you think?

Again, it's the problem with the arguments of many (I hope you're sitting down, Lassus, because I'm going to say the word) liberals. Liberals don't want to apply their arguments for X across the board, to Y or Z. It's the precise problem with having whims and fancies and preferences as opposed to actual principles.

So going back to #439, explain how you apply your superior principles for X (when X = small government taking less of your money) to the Y and Z of applying additional government money to create additional government powers and application for the purpose of fixing a problem that no one can find.

And by the logic of your prior question, what business is it of the government to know how much your house is worth?

It's not making me attest to it and already has access to sales price information from the Recorder of Deeds.

Exactly ... assuming arguendo that that's a legitimate interest, it's less compelling and fundamental than assuring that people that vote in elections are eligible to vote.

The problem with the tax analogy is that the quoted sentence is exactly backward. The compelling and fundamental interest of government is (or at least should be) assuring that people eligible to vote are able to vote. Accordingly, any restrictions on the vote should be as narrow as possible. Whether or not on agrees with the existence of income taxes, the collection of taxes is the funamental point of the income tax so there is nowhere near an analogous interest in reducing the burden of compliance (other than the general annoyance of the citizenry that we all experience every April).

Microchipping. Like with dogs. Allows for quick ID *plus* convenient GPS tracking should we ever step out of alignment with THE LAW!

And maybe, like with dogs, we can put up those invisible fences to keep Sam out.

And maybe, like with dogs, we can put up those invisible fences to keep Sam out.

You must be *this high!*

The compelling and fundamental interest of government is (or at least should be) assuring that people eligible to vote -- and only people eligible to vote --are able to vote.

FIFY.

Only in Liberal La La Land could requiring one to get an ID in order to vote be a burden in the year 2012.

I'm an elections judge in NC. In NC, you are required to state your name and address and party affiliation (in a primary). If any of the information provided doesn't match, the voter is sent to the help table, where an official will ask the voter to restate his information. If we have any question about the voter's stated identity, the voter will have to cast a provisional ballot.

Think about what a voter has to do to pretend to be someone else:

1. He has to remember the name, address and the party affiliation of the person whose identity he has assumed, and state it on request, sometimes more than once;
2. Because we have access to date of birth information, the pretender has to be somewhat close in age to the person whose identity he has assumed in order to avoid any questions; I probably could not pretend to be my neighbor, for example, because I'm 20 years older than he is.

I think it is difficult to recruit a sufficient number of people who can do this without a hitch. (Last time I checked, we had a total of eight confirmed cases of attempted election fraud in NC by people attempting to assume someone else's identity, think that was going back to 2008.)

On the other hand, I think it would be easier, by comparison, for people to obtain a fraudulent photo ID for the purposes of voting. And I think that as election officials we'd have more difficulty dealing with potentially fraudulent IDs. Furthermore (and I see this all the time in my tax practice as well), honest people often forget to renew their IDs in a timely manner, and it can take several weeks after ID renewal for people to receive a current ID - the state of NC has stopped issuing them immediately.

Finally, I think that there's a bigger source of potential election fraud out there than false voters - paperless electronic voting machines that have few controls to prevent manipulation and that don't generate an audit trail, which makes it difficult to conduct proper recounts in close elections. Spend the effort trying to get voter ID passed to prevent use of electronic voting machines that lack verifiable trails instead.

-- MWE

I'm concerned that terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and other who hate American because of our freedom might illegally remove their microchips if they were implanted subcutaneously as the are in dogs,

Deep tissue injection. Like bone marrow deep. Best to do it before they go home from the birthing pods. What's a little spinal tap for infants in comparison to making sure undesirables don't sully up our pristing voting outcomes?

The compelling and fundamental interest of government is (or at least should be) assuring that people eligible to vote -- and only people eligible to vote --are able to vote.

FIFY

This is still backward. Let's say that a constitution loosely has the following two provisions: 1) People have the right to vote and 2) Government can collect income taxes. The argument seems to be that governmental restrictions on constitutional mandate #1 are analogous to governmental actions in support of constitutional mandate #2. The analogy doesn't work.

(Meant that revision doesn't quite work in quoted paragraph in 577 rather than it still being backward)

And by the logic of your prior question, what business is it of the government to know how much your house is worth?

It's not making me attest to it and already has access to sales price information from the Recorder of Deeds.

Of course those forms your employer and / or stockbroker / bank / etc. send out to the IRS already let the government know how much your income is, at least within a certain range, for people who don't choose to do deals under the counter. The problem is that the IRS doesn't have the manpower to audit enough returns in order to check for things like bogus deductions and suspiciously high expenditures. While there are certain red flags that might cause a particularly egregious return to be looked at, in reality the chances of being caught haven't been sufficient to prevent hundreds of billions of dollars a year in lost revenue.

But to get back to your main point: By the logic you apply to your level of income, what legitimate reason does the government have for obtaining any access to house sales price information in the first place? What business is it of theirs if you choose to buy or sell your house to any other individual? What "principle" places your income behind some sacred confessional wall while the worth of your house is legitimately a concern of that same government?

This is basically non-responsive to the actual point in contention. Do you actually disagree with the incentive structure as I laid it out in #555? If not, what is your disagreement?

He doesn't disagree; he's being deliberately obtuse, which is the closest he'll ever come to saying "you win." Time to move on.

What business is it of theirs if you choose to buy or sell your house to any other individual?

Because government has an interest in facilitating clear title to real property. In other words, it has an interest beyond merely collecting taxes. The only reason the government asks me how much money I make is because it wants to take some of it.

That isn't what the text you quoted said.

Yes, it is.

Deficit spending is an example of counter-cyclical fiscal policy, not the definition of it.

Actually, it's neither. Deficit spending during a recession is counter-cyclical fiscal policy, as are budget surpluses during an expansion.

For counter-cyclical fiscal policy to be counter-cyclical, it has to actually counter the business cycle.

Yes, and deficit spending during a recession does that. It puts more money in the hands of people who will spend it and shifts the "aggregate demand curve" to the right.

Otherwise, you're left with the statement that the Bush administration engaged in massive counter-cyclical spending from 2004-2007.

Have you been reading my posts? That was pro-cyclical because it was deficit spending during an expansion.

This really isn't true. Look at recent discussion regarding China or the US. The US has a positive first-order GDP derivative, but everyone complains about the economy. People want robust growth, low inflation and full employment. This generally means greater than 3% annualized GDP growth, less than 3% inflation and roughly 5% unemployment. 1% GDP Growth is a failure for a central bank.

I was using hyperbole, but yes, you've just proven my point. People care about GDP growth, unemployment, and inflation *right now*, regardless of whether it is sustainable or what the effect on the future might be. That's the only way that most people evaluate the success or failure of policies. They don't compare them against alternative policies and they don't take a long-term view.

Actually, your post 401 seems like it would fit in well with that crowd. Obama's "stimulus" only reduced job losses, it didn't create new jobs. Hence, not stimulus).

/sigh. Stimulus kicked in mid-June 2009. Job gains since January 1, 2009:

Your link didn't work, but I'm not sure what you're sighing about. Here are civilian employment levels (seasonally adjusted, in thousands):

1/31/09 142,187
2/28/09 141,660
3/31/09 140,754
4/30/09 140,654
5/31/09 140,294
6/30/09 140,003 <----Stimulus kicks in
7/31/09 139,891
8/31/09 139,458
9/30/09 138,775
10/31/09 138,401
11/30/09 138,607
12/31/09 137,968 <-----Lowest level of employment
1/31/10 138,500
2/28/10 138,665
3/31/10 138,836
4/30/10 139,306
5/31/10 139,340
6/30/10 139,137
7/31/10 139,139
8/31/10 139,338
9/30/10 139,344
10/31/10 139,072
11/30/10 138,937
12/31/10 139,220
1/31/11 139,330
2/28/11 139,551
3/31/11 139,764
4/30/11 139,628
5/31/11 139,808
6/30/11 139,385
7/31/11 139,450
8/31/11 139,754
9/30/11 140,107 <-----Employment returns to level it was at when the "stimulus" began
10/31/11 140,297
11/30/11 140,614
12/31/11 140,790

In other words, it took two years and three months for the "stimulus" to generate any positive net change in jobs. So by your logic, it wasn't even stimulus.

Apparently Kevin Williamson of NRO reads BTF, or this "the GOP is the really real party of civil rights" claptrap is the big lie of the moment in the fever swamps.

Aren't the "fever swamps" talking about Obama telling his literary agent he was born in Kenya?

You can't cash checks, fly in airplanes, ride in trains, drive, collect government benefits, cross a border, enter a government building, enter lots of private buildings in NY, open a bank account, etc., without an ID.

1) Not everyone is paid by check. And I haven't "cashed" a check in 30 years. They are auto-deposited or mailed in (see 9). Also, you can get an ID at those ripoff check cashing places by giving a name and getting a photo taken. Would that allow you to vote in a voter ID system?
2) poor people don't fly in airplanes
3) pool people don't ride in trains
4) Many people - especially in big cities don't drive
5) Not sure this is true. You might need a social security card. This is not a photo id. Actually this is probably the one example in your favor. However, not all people collect government benefits. And giving them free ids might make more of them apply!
6) So what
7) Not true, you can open one online. Also, many people don't have bank accounts.

So, we have 1 that's irrelevant (can't enter buildings in NYC), 1 that I don't think is true and even if it was is biased against poor people who don't have bank accounts.
4 that are essentially biased against the underclass and poor and 1 that is biased FOR them.

But there are still people who can't afford, don't need to, or don't WANT to do any of those things. They are NOT requirements for citizenship or voting rights, and nor should they be. You, as a Libertarian should understand that.

Actually, investigating voter fraud is MUCH like investigating MOST income tax fraud (also welfare fraud, etc.).
It's a complete waste of time and money to investigate or prosecute *minor* or *trivial* fraud. Like someone picking a name out of the phone book, investigating which precinct they vote in and getting a "doubled" vote. It's simply impossible to "shift" an election this way. You'd be better off just randomly harassing people on the street on Election Day, hoping they have a bad day or get freaked out and forget to vote. Of course, you would have to racially, socially, or geographically profile to get the results you wanted {note to self: Sell this idea to the GOP ... and the Dems. Mercenary Code: Only thing better than getting paid is getting paid twice}.

Systematic, widespread, or (in the case of income taxes - large income discrepancies) fraud is the only place where it's worth any effort at fraud investigations and compliance.

Anyone who is capable and organized enough to commit significant voter fraud is capable and organized enough to generate fake ids.


It's all moot anyhow. In 10 years you will just give a cheek swap or a hair and they'll bar code you by DNA on the spot.

I'm an elections judge in NC. In NC, you are required to state your name and address and party affiliation (in a primary). If any of the information provided doesn't match, the voter is sent to the help table, where an official will ask the voter to restate his information. If we have any question about the voter's stated identity, the voter will have to cast a provisional ballot.

Think about what a voter has to do to pretend to be someone else:

1. He has to remember the name, address and the party affiliation of the person whose identity he has assumed, and state it on request, sometimes more than once;
2. Because we have access to date of birth information, the pretender has to be somewhat close in age to the person whose identity he has assumed in order to avoid any questions; I probably could not pretend to be my neighbor, for example, because I'm 20 years older than he is.

I think it is difficult to recruit a sufficient number of people who can do this without a hitch. (Last time I checked, we had a total of eight confirmed cases of attempted election fraud in NC by people attempting to assume someone else's identity, think that was going back to 2008.)

On the other hand, I think it would be easier, by comparison, for people to obtain a fraudulent photo ID for the purposes of voting. And I think that as election officials we'd have more difficulty dealing with potentially fraudulent IDs. Furthermore (and I see this all the time in my tax practice as well), honest people often forget to renew their IDs in a timely manner, and it can take several weeks after ID renewal for people to receive a current ID - the state of NC has stopped issuing them immediately.

Finally, I think that there's a bigger source of potential election fraud out there than false voters - paperless electronic voting machines that have few controls to prevent manipulation and that don't generate an audit trail, which makes it difficult to conduct proper recounts in close elections. Spend the effort trying to get voter ID passed to prevent use of electronic voting machines that lack verifiable trails instead.

-- MWE

Bears repeating (and NC was another of the states I mentioned when commenting on WI's "voter fraud" investigations that found that the numbers simply do not bear out the hyped up nonsense).

Regardless of the degree of difficulty for certain demographics in procuring a 'photo ID' -- we still end up right back in the neighborhood of something the supporters of this practice claim to hate... needless government regulation and red tape encumbering a process that works fine WITHOUT said government red tape.

So going back to #439, explain how you apply your superior principles for X (when X = small government taking less of your money) to the Y and Z of applying additional government money to create additional government powers and application for the purpose of fixing a problem that no one can find.

Whoops. When Ray or any of the other small-government voter-ID people care to answer, this is #539, not #439.

And maybe, like with dogs, we can put up those invisible fences to keep Sam out.

If ever there was a yellow lab too single-minded to be put off by repeated electric shocks, it's Sam.

BTW - back to the original point of the post...

Tom Ricketts is pulling out all the stops kissing Chicago aldermanic, mayoral, and community leader ass in an effort to salvage the bucks he wants from the city of Chicago (good luck with that, Tom) -- a good column by Phil Rosenthal in the Trib today...

Wrote Jonathan S. Tobin, the senior online editor of Commentary on the neo-conservative magazine's website, the Rickettses' "hypocrisy comes from their desire for public subsidies for their baseball operation while opposing the president's support for high taxes and unlimited government spending.

"The sorry truth," Tobin noted, "is that almost all of the millionaires and billionaires who own sports teams in this country are ardent capitalists when it comes to taxing their incomes but devout socialists when it comes to getting government to subsidize their business."

What business is it of theirs if you choose to buy or sell your house to any other individual?

Because government has an interest in facilitating clear title to real property. In other words, it has an interest beyond merely collecting taxes. The only reason the government asks me how much money I make is because it wants to take some of it.

Jesus ####### Christ, SBB, what "principled" difference is there between the government collecting taxes on your property and the government collecting taxes on your income? If you simply take a principled pee in your principled pants when you see the unprincipled government coming after your pee-stained money, why does it matter if that coercive shakedown comes in the form of income taxes or property taxes? Either way it's coming out of your pocket, and in many cases** the government already has a more accurate idea of your income than it has of the true value of your house.

**for people whose sole income derives from wages, salaries, and / or stock dividends / bank interest, all of which are duly reported to the government at the end of each year.

"The sorry truth," Tobin noted, "is that almost all of the millionaires and billionaires who own sports teams in this country are ardent capitalists when it comes to taxing their incomes but devout socialists when it comes to getting government to subsidize their business."

I think that's one statement that we can all agree on.

@582 I went to the site and generated the graphs, too. But what are YOU complaining about? That it took 6 months for the stimulus to start creating net jobs?

My research group received a fair amount of ARRA funding in 2009. We did not actually INSTANTLY hire people. It takes a few months to find qualified candidates and interview them. Obviously we are very white collar tech (software), b One person was not laid off because of the additional funding.
One person was hired. Two contractors were hired for small oursource projects (i.e, they were never employees of Stanford U).

The only argument that the stimulus "didn't work" is either:
1) It took longer than advertised (i.e, projects were not really 'shovel ready')
2) The economy would have recovered anyway

1) yeah well, politicians oversell. It does NOT follow that the country wouldn't have been worse off without it.

2) Fine, I'm sure there's some economic theory that supports that. But showing a chart and saying "see?" doesn't really hold for either side. I have read detailed modelling (by the gov'mt) which suggests that the recession would have been much worse in terms of lost jobs and lost revenues without the stimulus - even factoring in the interest cost etc. Is that a good model?? HTF should I know? But it's a model at least. It's established "Keynesian" (or is that demi-Keynesian since spending is never cut in boom times -- heck, call it Kenyansian) theory. I have not seen a similar cogent argument from the austerity or anti-stimulus side. The argument seems to be mostly "increased deficit bad -- just like running up money on your credit card you can't pay"

So going back to #439, explain how you apply your superior principles for X (when X = small government taking less of your money) to the Y and Z of applying additional government money to create additional government powers and application for the purpose of fixing a problem that no one can find.

I object to the premise. It doesn't have to be "additional government money" at all. They can re-allocate what they already have.

And I don't understand the objection to the statement that if we're going to have elections, those elections should be fair.

Jesus ####### Christ, SBB, what "principled" difference is there between the government collecting taxes on your property and the government collecting taxes on your income?

1. It's simple and non-invasive. (That's the topic under discussion -- the government demanding, at gunpoint, that we outline our finances for them. That doesn't happen when I buy or sell a house.)
2. It's collecting the information for a purpose beyond merely taxing me.
3. I can rent and thereby avoid the tax.


**for people whose sole income derives from wages, salaries, and / or stock dividends / bank interest, all of which are duly reported to the government at the end of each year.]

It's "duly reported" for the sole purpose of facilitating the taxing of it. There's nothing to be gained for your argument by distingushing between the government making me give them information, and the government making someone other than me give them information about me.

I object to the premise. It doesn't have to be "additional government money" at all. They can re-allocate what they already have.

Of course. I'm glad the current bloated level of government is at your liking. That is certainly some superior X principle you have - over us whimsical liberals - that you are able to strictly apply to Y and Z. If only we had your laser-like fortitude.

Jesus ####### Christ, SBB, what "principled" difference is there between the government collecting taxes on your property and the government collecting taxes on your income?

1. It's simple and non-invasive. (That's the topic under discussion -- the government demanding, at gunpoint, that we outline our finances for them. That doesn't happen when I buy or sell a house.)

But those W-2 forms and reports that your bank and stockbroker furnish the IRS each year are similarly simple and non-invasive for the bulk of taxpayers for whom these forms declare their sole sources of income.

2. It's collecting the information for a purpose beyond merely taxing me.

But of course the government collects income information from individuals for use in evaluating government programs. It also collects family income information from randomly selected households during their census surveys, which also is not used for money-collecting purposes.

3. I can rent and thereby avoid the tax.

Well, sure, if you've got one of those nice landlords who doesn't pass on his property tax to you. Perhaps you can provide us with a handy directory of these benevolent souls.

Of course. I'm glad the current bloated level of government is at your liking. That is certainly some superior X principle you have - over us whimsical liberals - that you are able to strictly apply to Y and Z. If only we had your laser-like fortitude.

I wasn't commenting on the level of government but on the odd notion that new programs always need "additional money." People never contemplate re-allocating, or (heaven forfend) slashing.

But I'm happy to slash government by 75%, if you like. The Clemens trial alone should show you that government has far too much money on its hands.

@582 I went to the site and generated the graphs, too. But what are YOU complaining about? That it took 6 months for the stimulus to start creating net jobs?

@592, I agree with you. But tshipman says that something isn't "stimulus" unless it generates positive job growth. Simply making job growth less negative than it would otherwise be doesn't meet his definition of stimulus.

The "stimulus" didn't create net jobs in 6 months - that took over two years. By tshipman's definition, the stimulus wasn't "stimulus". He sounds like a Republican. That was my point.

"The sorry truth," Tobin noted, "is that almost all of the millionaires and billionaires who own sports teams in this country are ardent capitalists when it comes to taxing their incomes but devout socialists when it comes to getting government to subsidize their business."

I think that's one statement that we can all agree on.

Not just the government.

Aren't the "fever swamps" talking about Obama telling his literary agent he was born in Kenya?

And his super duper fake Connecticut Social Security number. And revisionist histories where the GOP has spent the last 40 years defending civil rights.