|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vod,
So, if it stops one and disenfranchies 10 it's worth it? How about 100? 1000? 10000? At what point is disenfranchising people too high a cost for you? Because at the moment, you're stopping at most a few hundred in person frauds,which wouldn't change any result in any state whatsoever even if they were all in one place, and putting 10000 people off the rolls in places. Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least 700+ of those voted in both states.
Now I know you are going to say, "but Romney won NC." But I don't care about who won, or which side is voting fraudulently. I just want to stop voter fraud. As for Dead people voting more for Republicans, I suggest you take a look at Chicago. Dead voters are going to vote for whichever side is in control. In Republican areas it's Republican, in Democrat areas it's Democrat.
Yes, BUT NOT BY IN-PERSON VOTER FRAUD.
Seriously, stop dissembling and pay attention to what is being said.Just for a moment.
Voter ID laws DO. NOT. STOP. absentee ballot voter fraud, which is ALL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
Not "even when" but "only because". He's a partisan hack.
Vod,
So, if it stops one and disenfranchies 10 it's worth it? How about 100? 1000? 10000? At what point is disenfranchising people too high a cost for you? Because at the moment, you're stopping at most a few hundred in person frauds,which wouldn't change any result in any state whatsoever even if they were all in one place, and putting 10000 people off the rolls in places. Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
It isn't disenfranchising people. Anyone get an ID, that is all they need. Where are these people cashing checks? Requesting government benefits? Doing any of the things that they need an ID for?
You say it's too expensive, well if it is too expensive, then they are probably on some sort of government assistance, how did they apply for that without ID? All of those excuses are just that excuses.
Yes, BUT NOT BY IN-PERSON VOTER FRAUD.
Seriously, stop dissembling and pay attention to what is being said.
Just for a moment.Voter ID laws DO. NOT. STOP. absentee ballot voter fraud, which is ALL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
I assume you have documentation that all of that was done via mail? Or absentee? Seriously? Not one of those one people could have driven across a state line to vote twice?
|
|
Vod,
As you're the one making the assertive claim that they did, do you have evidence for that?
As for the burden of these laws? Don't blame me, take it up with the judge.
Link to ruling in WI
Vod,
As you're the one making the assertive claim that they did, do you have evidence for that?As for the burden of these laws? Don't blame me, take it up with the judge.
Link to ruling in WI
Link to Indiana Ruling So an ID is required in Indiana. Inidiana Voting Law Note that this survived a US Supreme Court ruling.
So you can take it up with the Supreme Court, oh wait someone did and lost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope you are just repeating every Liberal talking point about voting... voter ID is only to take the vote away from honest voters, etc.
I don't need a democrats saying this to believe this, because i have republicans on video saying this. Until you acknowledge and somehow deal with this fact nothing else you say matters because you're not having an argument at all, you're having a meta argument.
You're not discussing facts, you're attempting to change what the facts are. You are trying to make your feelings into facts (rasmusen poll), and to put how you FEEL on equal footing with the way things are. You want to put two statements , one a fact, and one a lie, on the same level because you feel there is truthiness to the lie.
You want to equivocate between (voter fraud) and (in person voter fraud). Its not the same thing.
When did the republican party become the kumbaya touchy feely "we must all accept everyone elses feelings as valid" party?
You cannot simply recategorize a fact as a talking point, therefore its only as good as any other talking point, and all talking points are equal. Its disingenuous chicanery and you're falling for it.
A fact meanssomething. Its an idea that corresponds with reality. Republicans needing to increasingly ignore them is the most worrisome thing about the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not "even when" but "only because". He's a partisan hack.Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
Bingo. May as well argue with a fence post.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't disenfranchising people. Anyone get an ID, that is all they need. Where are these people cashing checks? Requesting government benefits? Doing any of the things that they need an ID for?You say it's too expensive, well if it is too expensive, then they are probably on some sort of government assistance, how did they apply for that without ID? All of those excuses are just that excuses.
I've never needed a physical ID to buy liquor, cash a check, or apply for government help. Once you're old enough they don't card you for liquor, if you go to the same bank and they know you they never ask for ID (and moreover more employers offer direct deposit, including McDonalds and WalMart), and typically when applying for government assistance you just need a SS card and/or birth certificate. Neither of which are picture ID.
When you say "it isn't disenfranchising people" what you're saying is that it MUSTN'T be doing so because that wouldn't make sense to you. In actual practice, tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters are prevented or deterred from voting by these requirements.
You're asking me to prove that dead people didn't vote in person. Think about that for two seconds. Was it some elaborate weekend at Bernie's?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand this attitude. You have to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, to cash a check, to fly, to enter many Federal Buildings, to do many things in the modern world. But for what is possibly the most important thing a person can do, you don't want to make sure that John Doe, is who he says he is.
Vod: you either know what you're doing - in which case I have no sympathy or patience for you - or you are arrogantly flaunting your ignorance because it happens to line up with your personal ideologies - in which case I have no sympathy or patience for you.
You do understand this attitude. You have had it explained to you multiple times. You have ignored those explanations, because you don't actually care about whether the "attitude" you are pointing to is right or not. It's not important to you that in-person voter fraud is so rare as to be utterly insignificant. It's not important to you that voter ID laws invariably prevent many times more legitimate voters from casting ballots than it prevents illegitimate ones. It's not important to you that it takes advantage of systemic gaps and makes it difficult for those with incomplete documentation to actually get ahold of acceptable ID.
No, what's important to you is that the sorts of people disenfranchised by these laws overwhelmingly vote Democrat. There is no other reason for anyone to push these policies. Literally none.
So you have a choice. Your conduct up until this point has revealed some really unflattering things about your personal convictions, because it's starting to look more and more like you know exactly what voter ID laws are and why they exist, and that you don't care. That's pretty disgusting. So you get to either change your views to something more reasonable (I suggest changing them top-to-bottom, but I'll settle for you pulling your support for voter ID laws), or you can continue doing what you've been doing and cement that unflattering portrait in our minds (I suspect you'll do this!).
Your call.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say it's too expensive, well if it is too expensive, then they are probably on some sort of government assistance, how did they apply for that without ID? All of those excuses are just that excuses.
Holy. Balls.
I haven't been carded to buy alcohol since i was 16.
nm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bingo. May as well argue with a fence post.Not "even when" but "only because". He's a partisan hack.Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
FIND Gary Busey!
FIND Gary Busey!Bingo. May as well argue with a fence post.Not "even when" but "only because". He's a partisan hack.Is that acceptable to you, especially when those excluded overwhelmingly vote one way?
Oh My God.
I think I just died of laughter.
You say it's too expensive, well if it is too expensive, then they are probably on some sort of government assistance, how did they apply for that without ID? All of those excuses are just that excuses.Holy. Balls.
Let's not forget other, more blatant attempts to suppress the minority vote by Republican shills. Stuff like eliminating same-day registration, eliminating pre-registering for 17-year olds, eliminating early voting, changing voting dates to the days that are inaccessible to minorities.
My forum-fu is not good, but this link is self-explanatory:
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup
In before "This website is obviously liberally-biased. New York Univerity?! Obviously a wretched hive of scum and socialist villainy."
Come on now, you have to understand that it's a conservative goal to cut the vote down because they can't reliably win sane and rational people with their rhetoric.
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to insult a large group of Americans. Just the Republican base, whom the GOP has become shills for.
Or various state voter ID laws, including Texas, that allowed concealed carry permits to be used, but not photo college ids.
That won't skew Republican.
Expired, photoless conceal carry permits FROM OTHER STATES!
This would be the same Clinton Administration that passed on several offers to have Osama bin Laden arrested?
Clinton went after the people that committed the terrorist acts, but not the people that ordered the attacks.
It's like going after the mob, you can arrest the hitmen, but if the Mob boss isn't busted nothing is done to stop the crime.
OBL was still a CIA asset at the time.
OBL was still a CIA asset at the time.
In 1996? I doubt that.
If he ever was. His role in Afghanistan was after we'd been heavily into funding the fight against the USSR there.
That's what they WANT you to think!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New York Univerity?! Obviously a wretched hive of scum and socialist villainy."
How about any university? They're all liberally biased, you know. Which dovetails nicely with our rampant anti-intellectualism.
That's right, folks! If you believe in a omnipotent, omniscient being, the existence of whom we have NO evidence to support, that belief should be respected. In fact, apparently society should spend public money to endorse shout your belief from the rooftops. On the other hand, if you find the (literal) tons of evidence in support of evolution compelling, and you don't hesitate to say so -- well, then you're just a militant bigot, plain and simple. Keep that @#$@ to yourself.
Not that I'm bitter or anything. :P
How about any university? They're all liberally biased, you know.
That's hogwash and you know it!
The right are happy to accept expertise from Liberty or Bob Jones...
How about any university? They're all liberally biased, you know.That's hogwash and you know it!
The right are happy to accept expertise from Liberty or Bob Jones...
They like to make them judges. The crazier the better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I choose not to comment on Vod's opinions, I do thank him for presenting his case. I know he's not the only conservative on the boards but he's the only one who stepped up to the plate here.
Its hard to argue a republicans case when people can fact check you in conversational time.
Why bother?
I think a reasonable case can be made for fiscal conservatism.* I don't think it has been made here.
*Depending upon what one means by fiscal conservatism, of course. Fiscally conservative = supply-side is relatively new in my experience.
Why bother?
I often feel that way myself.
I think I continue bother in order to combat stereotypes, but I admit all too often it just becomes "us vs. them." I'm as guilty as anyone. It's such an ingrained (or possibly evolved) mindset.
Indeed.
I think the obtuse responses to what you're trying to say, getting downgraded to whatever talking point is popular at the time gets old really fast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a reasonable case can be made for fiscal conservatism. I don't think it has been made here.
Only for a rather narrow definition of fiscal conservatism, and not for a huge swath of what appear to be modern right-wing touchstone beliefs. As a simple example, literally no "reasonable" case can be made that Barack Obama is Muslim, is not a US citizen, and so forth. Thank whatever powers may be that the birther nonsense has finally died out for the most part.
But there are a lot of similar beliefs that have not died out:
* that anthropogenic global warming does not exist and is not a serious long-term threat
* that mankind suddenly appeared in substantially the same form as today, or alternatively that humanity is not the end product of billions of years of evolution starting with primitive single-celled organisms
* that recognition of gay marriage will cause significant harm to society
* that in-person voter fraud is a significant issue in any jurisdiction in the United States
* that free market systems such as the United States will produce higher standards of living than other systems such as Nordic social democracy
* that the free market will deliver higher quality health care at a lower cost than European-style single payer
* that Social Security is in the long term unsustainable and is in serious trouble
* that expanding the money supply (as through recent Fed policy) will necessarily cause high levels of inflation
Literally none of these beliefs can be defended "reasonably," and many of them are in fact objectively false.
I would also like to point out that the last four beliefs (which I consider to be objectively false, as they have been disproven empirically) are pretty much what I would consider core to fiscal conservatism as it's practiced in the US today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I'd consider a reasonable, fiscally conservative position:
That I can get behind.
Unfortunately, fiscally conservative in contemporary U.S. politics seems to be supply-side: Cut taxes, growth will take care of the rest. If it doesn't, cut taxes more. The market is not only always right, but sacrosanct.
That I can't get behind.
In my opinion, government has a legitimate role to play in providing services that the private sector can't or won't provide. Quite simply, there are situations where everyone acting in their own best interest does not result in the best outcome. Tragedy of the commons, Nash Equilibrium, etc.
Twenty years ago, I was considered fiscally moderate, or even slightly fiscally conservative. Now, even the suggestion that the market doesn't always provide the optimal outcome is enough to immediately be branded a Socialist (or worse).
We all blame the other team for all of our problems...there is just so much rage. If there is a way back, I'm afraid I don't know what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, I do and have always considered myself to be fiscally conservative. It's just that, to me, that means optimizing expenditures. Basically, getting the most bang for your buck, and this includes calculating the social utility of public goods.
Governments, local state and federal, waste so much money on crap that they don't need or is not really the government's business to do, on this I agree with traditional fiscal conservatives. I just think that free education and health care for all, a strong social safety net, infrastructure, green space and the commons, air and water quality regulation, roads, a strong defense, and space exploration (among other things) are important and worthwhile investments for public funds that return a utility to the public well above their price tag.
There's always fat to be trimmed, and I do think it's incumbent upon the legislature to minimize the burden on taxpayers as much as possible, but even in that there's optimization. Lessen the burden on those who can least afford it and who will put any money saved back into the economy, and shift that tax burden to those who can afford it and won't.
The problem arises when the discussion of what we should cut is hijacked by partisan politics.
I just think that free education and health care for all, a strong social safety net, infrastructure, green space and the commons, air and water quality regulation, roads, a strong defense, and space exploration (among other things) are important and worthwhile investments for public funds that return a utility to the public well above their price tag.
Socialist dog. ;-)
Seriously though, I can picture the replies already: Why should I have to pay for someone else's education or healthcare or unemployment? (a question usually posed by someone who largely wouldn't be paying anyway). Never mind that all of us have already benefited from the investment of those who came before. It's very "me before we," but some view taxation as theft, plain and simple.
|
|
After wading through this thread, I thought I'd go back to the beginning, and say that the most meaningful and long-lasting impact of the Gore Presidency would be the 5-4 (potentially 6-3, as I believe Souter and Stevens waited until a Democrat was elected to retire) makeup of the Supreme Court in contrast to it's current composition.
Going forward, that would make the most difference, IMO.
After wading through this thread, I thought I'd go back to the beginning, and say that the most meaningful and long-lasting impact of the Gore Presidency would be the 5-4 (potentially 6-3, as I believe Souter and Stevens waited until a Democrat was elected to retire) makeup of the Supreme Court in contrast to it's current composition.
Going forward, that would make the most difference, IMO.
No citizens united ruling for sure.
I think that's going to be the dread scott decision of our time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I'd consider a reasonable, fiscally conservative position:
That I can get behind.
I'm not sure I consider that position "reasonable," I'm afraid. Sometimes being responsible means spending money you don't have, because the alternative is more expensive than the money plus the interest. If you've ever owned a house and found the roof leaking, you should understand. If not,... GET IT FIXED NOW, BORROW IF NECESSARY. The cost of the damages goes up much faster than the 20% per year Visa charges you.
At a macroeconomic level, a demand slump can be handled in two ways, either by the central bank lowering interest rates (to encourage consumption) or by the government using deficit spending to artificially create demand. But the first only goes so far, as the central bank can only lower rates to zero. Paul Krugman has written extensively about the zero lower bound and its effects, and I can't do justice to him in the length of a forum post. But, basically, there are some things that the bank can't fix, and the alternative of not fixing them is substantially worse. (After all, if the government spends too much, it just results in slightly higher inflation, which the bank can fix.)
And, no, this isn't hypothetical. This is the entire stimulus debate, and most of the past five years of European economic history. And the facts are now in, and the freshwater economists lost. The "fiscally conservative" position has been tried and found not only wanting, but actively harmful.
We all blame the other team for all of our problems...there is just so much rage. If there is a way back, I'm afraid I don't know what it is.
On the other hand, if one doesn't blame the other team, I'm not sure who is to blame. As a simple example, take gay marriage. It's not the liberals who are preventing gays from having their marriages recognized. It's not the liberals who are refusing to raise government spending to pull the economy out of a demand slump, and it's not the liberals who are preventing people who can't afford a state-sponsored ID from voting. It's not the liberals who insist that global warming is a myth, or that creationism should be taught in public school. It's not liberals who oppose single-payer health care or who insist that the minimum wage must not be raised. It wasn't the liberals that blocked Elizabeth Warren's appointment to the CFPB.
"Blame" is a strong word, and I agree that assigning "blame" is rarely useful. But I'm not going to pretend that Congressional Republicans would just love to do something useful to prevent global warming, but that they're being thwarted by pixies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have missed, as I did on first reading: "Instead, we should never carry a debt, and we should save during periods of prosperity to build a cushion against future recession." The theory is to never get to the point where you have to borrow in order to do the necessary spending. Save ahead of time.
If you could actually pull that off it would allow you to spend for stimulus during recessions without borrowing.
It's not at all clear that's actually possible though. It certainly hasn't been done in the US. There are some good theoretical reasons that moderate deficit spending is necessary.
I'm having a hard time seeing the "reasonable" part of that, though. If the idea is that you've previously saved $X and therefore can spend up to $X from your reserves,.... what if the economy needs $X+1 dollars? At a rough cut, when the government does deficit spending it puts additional money into the economy (which is inflationary), and when it runs a surplus, it takes money out (which is deflationary), and both of those, judiciously applied, are good tools for controlling the money supply and the economy.
But there's no sensible reason to say "oh, inflationary policies are good but only up to this arbitrary level that the accountants have set." It betrays a deep a confusion between micro and macro economics to think that the current money supply is somehow sacrosanct, when in fact, control of the money supply is probably the single most important activity the government undertakes.
This is, however, getting us far afield.
BTW, it's certainly true that inflationary polices are only good up to a certain point. Hyperinflation is bad. But I don't think that's what you meant.
No, I meant something different. I meant something more akin to "we're all in agreement that inflationary policies are appropriate for the economy at this time, and that in the absence of any other considerations, a stimulus of about $X would be appropriate. But I insist that we can only do $Y << $X because to do otherwise would not be fiscally conservative."
Even a genuine difference of opinion -- I think $X is necessary, you think $Y is sufficient -- is possibly "reasonable" depending upon how we both got our numbers. It's when we both agree that $X is necessary but it crosses some arbitrary red line and is therefore unacceptable that one has left the path of reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just not as silly as it looks at first glance.
I disagree and in fact, I think it's more silly than it appears at first glance. But that seems to be an issue with a lot of the "conservative" positions; they are superficially sensible, but only if you know little to nothing about the subject under discussion. Which, I suppose, gets back to the anti-intellectualism discussed earlier.
For example, what could be more superficially sensible than geocentrism? I mean, it's obvious that the earth is flat and fixed, and that the sun (along with everything else in the sky) moves around it from east to west. The idea that the earth is not, in fact, flat and fixed requires detailed observation which not everyone has made, not everyone is interested in making, and not everyone has the background knowledge to interpret correctly.
Creationism is similar -- it's superficially obvious that animals and humans are different and that the child of a monkey could never be a human.
It's equally obvious that the way to prosperity is to spend less than you make -- "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditures, nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness." The idea that macroeconomics is different from microeconomics writ large is an observation usually attributed to Keynes, and (I believe) a lot of right-wing economics is defined by simple rejection of the Keynesian belief that the economy of a country is different than the economics of a country club.
I think that much of conservative thought is, in fact, simply a rejection of evidence in favor of conventional wisdom.
I'm not saying I agree that it never makes sense to borrow; only that in theory we could put aside resources to minimize or eliminate the need for such borrowing. At the very least, we could move to quickly pay off any such debt as soon as possible. I don't believe that is an irrational position. Heck, I'm a Keynesian, so obviously I support the need for stimulative deficit spending under the right circumstances. On the other hand, I think the objection that politicians have a great deal of incentive NOT to pay down debt during good times is a very legitimate concern.
My point is that in a world where suggesting that the government has a legitimate role in regulating economic activity is sufficient to draw accusations of Socialism, we need to move the conversation to the center if we're going to have any hope of reconciliation.
On the other hand, if one doesn't blame the other team, I'm not sure who is to blame. As a simple example, take gay marriage. It's not the liberals who are preventing gays from having their marriages recognized. It's not the liberals who are refusing to raise government spending to pull the economy out of a demand slump, and it's not the liberals who are preventing people who can't afford a state-sponsored ID from voting. It's not the liberals who insist that global warming is a myth, or that creationism should be taught in public school. It's not liberals who oppose single-payer health care or who insist that the minimum wage must not be raised. It wasn't the liberals that blocked Elizabeth Warren's appointment to the CFPB.
"Blame" is a strong word, and I agree that assigning "blame" is rarely useful. But I'm not going to pretend that Congressional Republicans would just love to do something useful to prevent global warming, but that they're being thwarted by pixies.
It's the knee-jerk "it's all the _________'s fault" that I have a problem with.
Go into a political thread on CNN. There are literally thousands of people who will blame anything -- anything at all -- on the opposing political party. The hyperbole is boundless on both sides. That sort of discourse is the opposite of useful.
All very much true, though I honestly see paying down the debt as a very minor issue. Growing the economy faster than the debt grows is a worthwhile plan.
Naturally. But if we could grow the economy just as fast with less debt, wouldn't that be a better plan? It seems obvious to me that not all government expenditures contribute equally to economic growth.
Put another way: If we're earning a larger return on the money we borrow than the rate we're paying, great! Have at it. It's just that in many cases I question whether we're actually earning that larger return...even assuming an effective interest rate of zero on government bonds. For example, is it worth borrowing money to fund cutting the capital gains rate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying I agree that it never makes sense to borrow; only that in theory we could put aside resources to minimize or eliminate the need for such borrowing, and that advocating doing so isn't irrational.
All right, then..... how do we do that?
I'm serious. Let's start from a zero baseline; the government has no debts, no liabilities, and no assets. It then takes in $100 billion more than it spends, over the course of the next year.
What do we do with that? We can't simply retire the money, as that would destroy it, instead of putting it aside. We can't invest it anywhere, as that would involve substantial distortions of the free market. (Imagine what would happen if word got around that the government was buying AAPL instead of MSFT, and how the senators from California and Washington would react). We can't even lend it out as a conventional bank would. The idea of sending all of our hard-earned dollars abroad and supporting foreign economic development would be ridiculous. Or we could cut tax rates and return it to the taxpayers, but in this case it's not been stored for a rainy day.
The way the government handled this issue with the Social Security Trust Fund was by having the Social Security Administration purchase government securities -- i.e. government debt, because at that time there was a local surplus in SS, but a robust US debt market. Basically, the government lent money to itself, offsetting a surplus in SS with (greater) shortfalls elsewhere, which reduced the need for government borrowing overall and provided a nice income stream for SS. But that wouldn't be an option because under your proposal, government debt wouldn't exist.
About the best option that I can see is to spend the excess money, putting $100 billion into a windfall for infrastructure and R&D. All of a sudden, a lot more potholes are fixed and a lot of new ideas are coming to market, which will in turn create more economic growth. But if this kind of spending was a good idea, then we should have been doing this in the first place instead of trying to "put aside resources" in an unproductive way.
Now, if we're not starting from a zero baseline, then it makes sense to use any excess resources to pay back current debt and get closer to that baseline, as long as there's nothing better to do with the money. Again, that's situational and depends as much on what level of interest current debt is paying (right now the interest rates are essentially zero, so we should be spending like drunken sailors while things are cheap).
Basically, the phrase "put aside resources" doesn't make sense when you're talking at the macroeconomic level. Governments spend as much as they want to spend, and they take in as much as they wish to collect. Any difference is neither "spent" nor "saved" but merely reflected by a change in the money supply. Our ordinary understandings of economics from running a household or a hot dog stand don't apply because we can't supply our own money.
About the best metaphor I can come up with is something you can control -- coupons in the local paper. ("Bring in this ad for a free Pathfinder session!") If you print too many coupons, you'll be obligated to redeem too many of them and you won't have time to run all the games -- this is basically inflation. If you print too few, you'll not get any new customers coming in. The idea is to print just enough to be able to expand your business appropriately.
What do you do if people bring in more coupons than they redeem? Let's say some helpful person comes in, a regular customer, with a stack of 200 coupons, and he gives them to you -- doesn't redeem them, just gives them to you -- because he's a "temporal conservative" and he wants, out of the kindness of his heart, for you not to be obliged to run those games. Are you really "saving" those coupons for later? Or are those coupons just wasted marketing effort because they're not getting into the hands of the people who would use them?