Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Policy and Intentions

Jerry, Moose and I are arguing about Policies and Intentions back here. It all started with me stating one of my core beliefs after Moose accused Jerry of prioritizing corporate "profits over pretty much anything else"...
"Then maybe you should assume good intent more often...Usually I have found that folks want to do the right thing for our country and citizens..."
I am never sure why Tribe Liberal and Tribe Conservative folks feel the need to accuse the other side of intentionally trying harm their fellow citizens?  I just have not found that to be the case very often.  I mean sometimes people want to implement policies to:
  • help themselves (ie tax cuts, program increases, etc)
  • help others (ie abortion laws, affirmative action, etc)
  • help the USA (ie border security, higher min wages, etc
However I can not think of many times when people said "let's pass this policy to punish that group of citizens"...  But maybe that is just my na├»ve friendly helpful optimistic nature showing. Thoughts?

19 comments:

Sean said...

Clearly, there are provisions passed with the intent of punishing people. You yourself frequently talk about the need for sticks (in addition to carrots). It's just that no one wants to admit that their policy does such a thing.

John said...

Please remember that carrots and sticks are normal motivational tools.

I don't think I would consider them being passed to harm a citizen.

Or do you think parents are out to harm their children as they mete out rewards and consequences?

You know my view that policies that keep adults securely dependent are some of the cruelest policies out there. I can not imagine the hopelessness and lethargy those folks live with.

Anonymous said...

I take a more positive view. I try to support the interests of groups I identify with. In an exercise in projection, perhaps, I think people who disagree with me tend to do that too. I don't think policy is necessarily a zero sum game. I believe lots of things that benefit my folks, benefit the community as a whole. Just as some believe in trickle down economics, I believe in trickle up economics.

--Hiram

Sean said...

How about voter suppression?

John said...

That may be a good example.

Though I support requiring people to have a legal photo ID with the correct address on it for many reasons that have nothing to do with "voter suppression".

Simply: Citizens should not be allowed to live "off the grid"...

Remember that I support a National ID which feeds a National Database of a citizen's statuses, rights, limitations, donor status, etc... This 50 unique systems is silly.

Anonymous said...

There are lots of reasons to favor voting changes. But politicians are primarily concerned with voter turnout. Republicans know lower voter turnout benefits them and that's why they favor voter ID.

Whether citizens should be or shouldn't be allowed to live off the grid has no relationship at all to their right to vote.

Whether or not there should be national, regional, or local ID's, bear in mind that possession of such a document has nothing to do whether anyone has a right to vote. Everyone has an identification, and therefore presumably a right to an ID, but not everyone has the right to vote. Roughly a hundred and thirty million people voted in the last presidential election. What seems to be the case is that there is substantial support for a national effort to determine whether each of those voters has the right to vote. Such an effort would require billions of dollars in expenditures, and would be of mind boggling complexity, involving perhaps decades of litigation, on a scale never before seen in our courts. It is surprising to me that such a course of action has the support it does.

--Hiram

John said...

Well it becomes pretty easy with a National Photo ID and Database...

The election officials can look up a potential voters address and if there is any restriction against them voting... If not, "here is your ballot and there is the booth"...

Just think. We wouldn't need to even register...

Anonymous said...

The question is what does an ID identify? In this form apparently something pretty close to nothing. It's just a card with a picture, and an address on it. There is no guarantee that the any of the three are linked to each other. Note that the card would have to be changed each time the person moved.

Now there is also here, a proposal not just for an ID, but a national databank, which is where the real expense and effort would come. 130 million voters voted in the last presidential election. There are probably 170 million or so people who could vote. This databank keeping track of these potential voters would first have to be created. All voters would have to be matched against their birth certificates, a hugely complex process. If we don't have a registration process, presumably each voter will have to be checked at each election to make sure there haven't been any changes. All voters will have to be checked for criminal convictions. Of course, each check will involve false results since multiple people can have the same or similar names, and since people can change their names. Basically, we are talking a mess of cosmic proportions. Would the voting system be more secure? My guess is that a lot more qualified people would be disqualified on election day, then disqualified voters are voting now. This, in a system that had no problem at all with throwing out the votes of 2.8 million Americans who gave Hillary her majority in the last presidential election.

--Hiram

John said...

Don't be bashing my "brain storming idea"... :-)

I just wanted to point out that my intent is good.
- Every citizen registered
- No duplicate database wastes / errors / records
- Government knows where everyone lives... bwaahaahaa...
- No need to register to vote...
- One record per citizen. Less fraud...

Anonymous said...

You forgot...

-more government intrusion

You've lost half of your support already.

Moose

Anonymous said...

- Every citizen registered

Non citizens not registered?

- No duplicate database wastes / errors / records

Quite the challenge as people are born, live, move and die. Federal government only? States not involved?

- Government knows where everyone lives... bwaahaahaa...

Will they rely on citizens keeping them informed?

- No need to register to vote...

Non voters don't have to register.

- One record per citizen. Less fraud..


What is the purpose of ID?

To identify a person?

To tell us where they live?

To indicate their citizen status?

To establish their right to vote?

To provide relevant information about them? Age, etc.?

--Hiram
I imagine there will lots of ways to commit fraud..

jerrye92002 said...

I've got a better one: How about decrying "tax cuts for the rich" while promoting raising taxes on the rich? Surely the purpose of both is to punish the rich, right? And I would argue that Photo ID for voting-- the lack of it-- harms everybody that DOES legally vote, by diluting or offsetting that vote.

John said...

Moose and Hiram,
It is really no different than today except with the data for each person being held. accessed and updated in one database. I mean States keep addresses, voting rights, criminal records, donor record, etc, etc

It would probably be smaller than what the data Amazon holds...

Yes people with VISA's and/or Green Cards would be in there.

And yes I know the idea is doomed because people on the Left and Right fear Big Brother... Even if could help cut costs, save lives, etc...

John said...

Jerry,
Only Conservatives think of progressive taxation as "punishing the rich"...

Most people think of it as those who benefitted the most from our society, pay the most for our society to keep it healthy and profitable.

And the more pragmatic reason: poor people do not have money...

No more voter fraud conspiracies... :-(

jerrye92002 said...

Really? What else would you call it? Isn't "tax cuts for the rich" the same thing as calling for more taxes on the rich? Does that not harm them, directly? Is it the purpose of the tax code to be "fair"? And who gets to define "fair"?

No more voter Fraud conspiracies; I agree. We have all the proof we need that Illegal voting takes place, and that there are many more opportunities for it to occur.

Anonymous said...

It is really no different than today except with the data for each person being held. accessed and updated in one database. I mean States keep addresses, voting rights, criminal records, donor record, etc, etc

States don't keep voting right information, exactly. They, or maybe the counties within them, have birth certificates. All of those certificates would have to be collected in one central database. Each certificate, I would imagine, would have to be linked to a specific individual on a national basis, since people move from state to state. Of course, Americans born abroad are citizens to, so the effort will have to be international. Lots of people don't have birth certificates at all, so the state would have to find some way to prove such an individual is a citizen. The burden of proof that a person is not a citizen would be on the state, wouldn't it? Bear in mind that we are talking about maybe a 130 million people here, so the effort would be quite large.

--Hiram

John said...

Not so big... The States would just fill in the information regarding their current residents.

The Feds would fill in their legal citizen / resident info. Then some cleaning would occur.

I mean between Real ID, Passports, VISAs, Green Cards, etc we should have done a lot of the heavy lifting.

John said...

I mean E Verify pulls off some database that people trust.

John said...

Speaking of E Verify