US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1380

On October 30 2014 13:42 Introvert wrote:
I'm not sure that for a significant portion of the population they couldn't take a lunch break to stop by the DMV or ask their boss. I wonder how realistic that situation is. From what I've read of the court cases so far (granted it's been a while) there have been almost no cases where these civil rights groups have been able to demonstrate that the hardship angle was actually a real worry, i.e., all their examples were found lacking or the trade-off was acceptable, since it was so small.

This rings true as well because most of the population has some form of government ID. You need it for lots of things- banks, liquor, driving, etc.

I'm not sure that for a significant portion of the population they couldn't take a lunch break to stop by the DMV or ask their boss.

This says so much more than you know...We can agree that the voter ID laws are an unnecessary waste of time and money, and agree to disagree on the rest.

On October 30 2014 14:08 oneofthem wrote:
hardship isn't the standard. it's a distorting and undue burden.

On October 30 2014 15:12 IgnE wrote:


What does this post mean?

I didn't say it never happens.

I'm saying that based on currently established fact, it's not a real, sizable concern.

On October 30 2014 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


I never said you did?



This is talking about voter fraud right? So we should probably just stop wasting taxpayer money and courts times arguing for laws we don't need when there are plenty of ones we do need or need amending right?

Or is it good practice to waste time and money solving problems (with inexplicable solutions) that for all practical purposes don't exist?

On October 30 2014 15:43 Introvert wrote:


That was about the hardship/burden objection in the court cases, not voter fraud.

On October 30 2014 16:41 Introvert wrote:
hardy-har, a couple of jokesters!

On October 30 2014 17:11 Introvert wrote:
I was just going to drop it. But personally, voter ID is not high on my list of urgent things to deal with. At the same time, these are state lead efforts, they can do what they want while the federal government continues to be of more pressing importance.

Though polls are generally supportive of voter ID as an idea, so as a purely political matter it could work.

But no, not in my top 5 list of things to be concerned about. Honestly I was just bored earlier. Combine that with my annoyance of all this "suppression" BS, and I decided wade in.

On October 30 2014 17:38 Introvert wrote:
I have no idea how much it costs, most states have a very low number of people who take advantage of the free ID's. So your cost would have to come from somewhere else, and google is proving to be very unhelpful. Perhaps the cost isn't worth it, I have no idea.

Basically you want me to agree with almost every point you were making from the beginning. No thanks. You already have my opinion. And I'm just going to leave it at at that.

The Obama administration has released a final version of regulations targeting for-profit colleges that is significantly weaker than the initial rules proposed earlier this year, caving to complaints and legal threats from industry lobbyists.

The regulations could still shut down 1,400 programs at for-profit colleges, which collectively enroll about 840,000 students.
The administration has made reining in the for-profit college industry a key component of its education agenda.

For-profit college companies, like Apollo, which owns the University of Phoenix and DeVry, receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money each year in the form of federal financial aid, drawing as much as 90% of their revenue from the federal government. Many of the biggest for-profits are mired in lawsuits from organizations like the Justice Department, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and dozens of state attorneys general, which allege a raft of violations, from misleading enrollment claims to predatory lending schemes.

For-profit college students make up just 11% of the total higher education population, but take out a disproportionate
percentage of federal loans, defaulting on them at high rates. Their earnings after graduating from programs targeted by the employment regulations, such as medical assisting and cosmetology, are relatively low, and students sometimes pay up to four times as much for their educations as they would have done at a community college.

The for-profit college industry says its students’ high debt levels are simply proof that it largely enrolls poor and minority students, who are more likely to need to borrow to finance their education.

The administration’s “gainful employment” regulations cut off access to federal funding for career training programs — the vast majority of them at for-profit colleges — where students graduate with high levels of student debt in comparison to their earnings. But a second accountability metric which would have penalized programs with high loan default rates was dropped in the final version after being included in the preliminary regulations released in March.

Five hundred programs that would have failed the draft rules are now expected to pass, Education Department officials said.

The administration likely dropped that second metric to give the regulations stronger legal footing. In the past, attempts to regulate the for-profit college industry fell prey to industry lobbyists, who successfully sued to strike down a 2011 version of the gainful employment rule. In that case, a judge ruled that one of the regulations’ two metrics, the rate at which students repaid their loans, was invalid because it was set arbitrarily.

On October 30 2014 15:31 Doublemint wrote:


When you know all the arguments in and out, but more so "right and wrong", you are bored and discuss things on a meta level from time to time.

But I have not thanked him for the INETeconomics link yet, so thanks one!