As for your “paved paradise” line...

Motor voter laws, same day registration and expansion of absentee balloting all create extra opportunities for fraud.

I don’t watch Fox News. Never have. According to “Read Across the Aisle” (link: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/) the “Average Bias” of my news sources is “Centered”. You should look into it, it’s a pretty cool browser extension.

I apologize. I missed your hashtag showing you support Bernie. I’ll see if Pravda (the original one) or the Venezuala state media has discussed the issue. ;)

True, although you can stuff a [paper] ballot box. It’s just that such election fraud is both harder to pull off (requires multiple people at the polling place) and easier to detect (the paper ballots can be inspected and compared to voter rolls and the signatures can be checked).

Agreed. There is no reason to have local polling places doing the counting. It just makes it easier for fraud to take place.

It’s using UNICEF figures. Do you dispute the figures? Because the actual analysis isn’t complex. But if it makes you feel better, here’s a Forbes article.

I wasn’t replying to you originally. I was replying to EchoChamberParticipant (ironic name given the discussion). He brought up the amount of taxes paid by people in various states.

Like other non-profits?

Yeah, optical scan systems work well. We had a great system almost 20 years ago in Maryland. They replaced it with a more “modern” touchscreen system. Luckily they realized their mistake and are now back to something similar to the old system.

Why would someone pay more rather than accept an interest free loan?

Two words: Paper ballots.

The comment I was replying to brought up how “Red States” were a bunch of hypocrites because they didn’t pay as much in taxes. I think the greater level of voluntary giving by the people of those states is relevant to such a charge. Certainly on a scale of morality, the people who willingly give their own money…

“Cockroach”. Nice insult.

“as poor as the american poor actually are”

Yup. The “25 Mississippis = 1 California” reveals the ignorance. :)

Um....the story is about limiting future increases in the cost of this entitlement. I know it’s fun to oppose any attempt to reign in government spending as if that is akin to throwing the poor into the streets with nothing.

It’s close to impossible to scientifically quantify the effectiveness of charitable social programs compared to government ones - the scale is different as is (usually) the purpose. But one thing is clear, the government programs are vastly more inefficient. Best estimates are that close to 70% of tax dollars spent on…

Seriously? A Federal agency proposes to LIMIT future increases in a program (not eliminate, not even cut current benefits) and Gizmodo treats it like an affront against all that is decent and right. I mock that response, and you call me a sociopath. Ok then.

Damn those Christians giving money to their churches, and volunteering their time to help others. They should stop that and give money to the government. I’m sure Trump has some ideas for how it should be spent.