birdog1960

you really are totally incapable of empathy aren't you? what does the renewal date of the photo matter? for once, i agree with tom. just use the current ss card and number. make it as easy as possible. none of you has raised an objection against some iteration of this idea. except, of course, your ad hominem. sadly, it's probably your most effective debate tactic.

i know plenty of people that don't drive, have a car or likely ever will do either. for just a moment, remove yourself from whatever current reality you live in and imagine yourself in someone else's (it could happen to me or even to you). i then have a few hundred bucks for food, heat and shelter for the next couple of weeks. am i likely to spend it on getting a photo id? so why not make it compulsory and easily available? still haven't read an explanation. and, btw, the interpretation of the constitution appears quite liquid these days as evidenced by the recent scotus rulings. and, if i'm not mistaken, i need to update my passport photo every 10 years. pain in the ass? maybe. onerous and undoable? nope.

yeah, not surprised that wasn't a popular plan with you all. how bout photos on social security cards? a year's grace to get it done at no cost to the citizen, no benefits without doing it after that? what would be the objection there?

there are a disproportionate number of poor, old and black citizens without photo id. now, if everyone carried a photo id for national health insurance, that wouldn't be an issue. why is it that voter id is such a pet issue of republicans and detested by democrats? answer that and you have your answer. but why not national photo id cards? what's the argument against that? the whole thing goes away if that's enacted. it appears ontario has this. http://www.ontario.ca/government/ontario-photo-card. don't know about the rest of canada. seems such an easy solution....what's the hold up?

if multiple states have voter id laws, then they are not racist...that's the reasoning ,correct? that's like saying if the confederate states supported slavery then it's not racist. but in reality both are racist: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/voter-id-laws-racism rest assured, i'd never ask or allow you to speak for me. i'm saying that the legacy exists, not that it's universally handed down. new racists are made everyday.

does anybody really think that the folks that brought about the educational disparities back then don't have a continuing legacy in their children, grandchildren and friends? this is the legacy the scotus majority is denying the existence of. and to prove my point, it takes only hours before texas takes a stab at resurrecting part of that legacy.

i went to grammar school for a year in rural louisiana in the late 60's. very early years of integration. we had 16 yo black kids in our 4th grade class who couldn't read but had been going to the colored schools regularly. the facilities they were previously schooled in were disgraceful and not used again after integration. they did have an advantage on the playground playing football with little kids like me, however...ouch, i still remember being on the bottom of a pile on one of the few occasions they gave me the ball to run with.

still scratching my head here. i think your reading comprehension needs some work, not my writing. over counting votes or obstructing people from casting votes or undercounting votes are all bad. one is not worse than the other unless you've got a dog in the hunt that favors one tactic and are willing to compromise principles. i'm not.

and you see this as good? these acts support the majority scotus contention that the states have moved on from their ignoble past? of course you do. you believe somehow that it stands to benefit you. i'm interested in why you think one type of voter discrimination is more important than another. oh, i think i know why. i think they're equally important. and who are these powers that be of whom you speak?

let's just say that for every scalia there's a ginsberg in the wings. parody all you want. but from my perch, it's much easier to parody scalia.

so we"re to ignore Ginsberg's examples where the DOJ had to step in and undo blatantly racist actions in the states in question? are you ignorant to those cases?

I find Ginsberg's dissent more eloquent than your summation. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/best-lines-ginsburg-dissent-voting-rights-act-decision

well, yes...or is it the other way around? they've been doing this stuff for millennia. we're the neophytes. house of cards. when does it fall?

So I guess this is part of what all the fuss in the markets has been about the last few days: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/china-giant-ponzi-scheme-won-t-end-well-150742253.html. Do you think the Chinese press has been running articles about the giant US ponzi schemes of social security and fighting wars on credit?

right this way to the chicken coop foxes. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/banks-present-own-crisis-plan-000300815.html hmmm, aren't these the sames banks screwing up mortgage refis and bringing about unnessecary foreclosures?

right on cue. so why are you correct? so far we have the gao and writers from several prominent financial and legal publications in agreement that HAMP and TARP are linked and then there's you and no one else claiming that they're not. where's the independent confirmation of your position?

Ok. TARP is not HAMP. But the settlement ($25billion or so) was agreed to on the contention that the major banks were not following the rules in regard to refis for troubled borrowers. This was not formally contested by the banks in court. The banks obstructionismmade it very difficult for trouble mortgage holders to obtain refi's as prescribed by a govt policy that the banks agreed to (acronyms ignored). Then the banks didn't comply with the conditions of the settlement that obliged them to undo the first wrong resulting in even more unneccesary foreclosures. Is that not correct?

I'm not an expert on finance or banking. Freely admitted. I can smell skunk when I'm near it. This smells very bad, like the day my dogs cornered one in my garage. The banks are not fulfilling their appointed obligations. That's hurting homeowners that might otherwise be spared foreclosure and thus the economy in general. Agreed?

Wow. Thanks for that. I must admit, i didn't wade through the 1st pdf very far but your 2nd and 3rd citations confirm my suspicions. It begs the question, why isn't this all over thew national TV and radio airwaves? This is seriously scary shite. As I said before, this affects everything in the attempted economic recovery and normal American's everyday life from our home values to job creation. It's extremely short sighted and callous. I'm starting to become numb to these actions but currently remained stunned.

i see the tiger face clearly in the kia stable. i agree that ford has a nice, fresh look too but i think i like the kia's better (the look, don't know much about the ride, performance and such). overall, i think the designers are stepping up to the plate with trendy but not too trendy designs.

saw this article linked to drudge. comments are hilarious. talk about distortion.primary care numbers have been down for years. it's not about obamacare, which is actually likely to help. it's about pay. specialists make multiples of what primary care docs do, on average. and this is a result of for profit medicine not obamacare. this level of disparity is not found in countries with socialized medicine. it happened imo, because in general, the specialities attract more vocal and aggressive personalities. they leveraged the smaller initial difference in pay to larger and larger differences by lobbying and monetary based influence and it produced a viscous cycle. obamacare has actually already begun to level the playing field and will continue to do so. and no, there won't be a shortage of applicants to med schools. the writing's on the wall and there are still record numbers of applicants.

has anybody noticed this? http://www.businessw...-its-tiger-nose. lot's of cars have been inspired by sharks (makos especially) but this is the first time i've seen this. pretty clever and sharp imo.

i'm having flashbacks to sister mary alice from 4th grade. i feel really guilty now. is that what you're aiming for?

fair enough...maybe i'll start diagramming my sentences before i post.

yes, i knew that it was more profitable. that may be an answer but not to the question posed. why weren't they doing HAMP refi's as they contractually agreed to. if i sign a lease for an office and someone offers me a better deal at a better location can i just walk away from the contract on the first lease? that would be more profitable for me.the fact is, a very small percentage of eligible troubled mortgages have been refi'ed through HAMP and millions of foreclosures have occurred with real consequences to us all. the allegations brought forward recently are a possible explanation. inefficiences or issues with the regulation may well be also. but, given all that we've seen since the crash, why would anyone (outside of the banking industry) give the banks the benefit of the doubt?