It didn’t matter in Michael Moore’s case. Wasn’t there talk of bringing him up on charges in Michigan because he offered Ramen Noodles and clean underwear to college students who registered to vote?
There was talk, but it was confined to the right-wing blogospere, where registering to vote is often confused with voting.
Nah…That’s his money. It’s only a liberal/socialist dream come true if you’re spending *someone elses * money.
It most likely would. Just like tax deductions on home mortgages raise housing prices. You can’t get around simply laws of supply and demand.
We’re having a special today. Buy 12 Senators and we throw in the entire Pennsylvanian delegation to the House for free!!
I hope this was said tongue in cheek and you weren’t serious. Assuming you were serious and not whooshing me, what effect to you predict would happen if someone gave a million dollars to everyone in the US?
How about the effect of taking 500 billion from the richest American’s (no one ‘gave’ them the money) and simply redistributing it to the other 98%?
-XT
The statute in question, quoted earlier in this thread, clearly covers payment for registering or voting. The talk was not confined to the right-wing blogosphere. I heard Moore himself mention it on NPR, and there was law-enforcement interest, IIRC. What he was doing was clearly a violation of the law.
So why wasn’t he charged, tried and punished? Hmmm?
For the sarcasm impaired: :rolleyes:
Hyperinflation, no doubt. My point was, tax cuts that benefit the wealthy at the expense of ballooning the deficit have the same effect, but to a proportional degree.
How about scrapping the tax cuts and using the 500 billion to pay down the deficit, instead of waging a war on plastic and rewarding Bush’s cronies? Where is all that “accountability” conservatives are famous for?
See above, re: M. Moore.
In the conservative of the species, the use of the terms “accountable” and “personal responsibility” are to be directed at others, preferably the opposition or the downtrodden.
In fact, he could do better than that. All he has to do is pay off 51% of the voters in enough states to win 51% of the electoral votes. I did the math on this once, and I think it’s possible to get elected in a two-party race with very close to 25% of the actual votes. With voter turnouts of 60%, that’s around 15% of the eligible voters in the country.
Um…riiigggghhhtttt. I can see how the two relate. :dubious:
Well, I’m unsure what this has to do with the topic at hand actually. Is this just a cheap shot at conservatives to make you feel good or do you want to explain what in hell it has to do with the OP?
-XT