Slashdot Mirror
The Full Nader Plus a Taste of Bush and Gore
This came out as a series of position papers rather than as direct answers to our questions. Reportedly, Mr. Nader "...wasn't going to answer any more questionnaires," so this is what we get. Note that not all questions were addressed. (Draw your own conclusions.)
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
Reply:
"Nader said the current war on drugs is a colossal failure that is costing the taxpayers dearly and coming up pitifully short on results."
Read More: "Sept. 8. "Nader Urges New Strategy for the War on Drugs"
"The War on Drugs has failed. It has corrupted many law-enforcement institutions and officials, it's filled our prisons with nonviolent offenders at a cost of billions of dollars a year to the taxpayer. We've got to look at the drug situation in this country the way we look at alcoholism and nicotine addiction - as a health problem, as a prevention problem... Drug addicts represent a serious health problem, and they've got to be dealt with in a very humane and effective manner. You don't throw them in jail with hardened criminals and allow corporations to build more jails with more tax dollars." Read More: "Ralph Nader Hemp Raider" interview in the Sept. 2000 issue of High Times magazine
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
No Reply
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Reply:
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like. We should tax stock market speculation. We should tax pollution. We should tax activities that we don't like, like sprawl, in order to get a better planning system and better zoning system. And we should lighten the taxes on things we do like, like honest labor, like food."
Read More: Jim Lehrer interview with Ralph Nader, June 30, '00
Corporate Vs. Individual Taxation
Hey, Corporate America! Show Taxpayers Some
Appreciation!
By Ralph Nader
February 23, 1999
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that April 15th of each year be designated Taxpayer Appreciation Day, a day when corporations receiving taxpayer subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare can express their thanks to the citizens who provide them.
Though it may not be evident, quite a few industries - and the profits they generate -- can be traced back to taxpayer-financed programs whose fruits have been given away to (mostly) larger businesses.
Read More: Ralph Nader's "In The Public Interest" column, Feb. 23, 1999
Also see:
Ralph Nader's "In The Public Interest" column,
"Distribution of Wealth"
June 12, 2000
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Reply:
Open up the two-party system: PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The two major parties, thanks to their addiction to big money, are converging into one corporate party with two heads. This leaves voters who are longing for alternatives without any significant choice on the ballot. This must change.
Every one of us has to stop saying that we are going to surrender to a winner-take-all political system. In our country we need a discussion about proportional representation and we're going to get it. With proportional representation, more votes count. There is greater voter turnout and more citizen interests can participate in government.
Read More: http://www.votenader.org/issues/politicalreform.html
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
Reply:
Then there is the Clinton/Gore policy on the scope of patents. The administration is embracing the policy of patenting "anything under the sun." This includes, for example, political campaigning on the Internet, picking stocks, accounting methods, uses of tax shelters and even golf swings. The administration is rushing through thousands of poorly conceived and unnecessary patents on business methods, including many which deal with e-commerce.
In the area of copyright protection, the administration has been extremely aggressive supporting legislation to reduce privacy and ban new technologies that could lead to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The theft of company trade secrets is now a federal crime.
Read More: Wired Debate, "Nader: Al Takes Too Much Credit"
In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?
In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.
But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.
During the government's antitrust investigation of Microsoft, Mr. Gore's daughter went to work for Microsoft. Could he at least respond to the repeated requests for the administration to talk about procurement and the free-software movement? Or find a way to use the federal acquisition regulations to fund the development of public-domain software?
And what can we expect from Mr. Gore on the issue of intellectual property rights? Right now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pushing as hard as it can for the public to accept patents on business methods.
We have patents on methods of Internet auctions, patents on one-click shopping, patents on methods of picking stocks, patents on methods of avoiding taxes on credit card transactions, patents on methods of political campaigning on the Internet, and even patents on Internet Web standards.
Mastercard has foolishly sued me, claiming their trademark rights can stop my use of parody in political ads, including using the word "priceless" itself.
There are lawsuits over hypertext links in Web pages. The Girl Scouts are told to pay royalties on campfire songs. Trade-secret laws are now a federal criminal offense. Students have been thrown in jail for refusing to turn patents over to giant corporations who fund university facilities.
I am opposed to patents on software, and opposed to patents on business methods. I believe that parody should be protected in copyright and trademark, that copyright enforcement should not override privacy rights, and that use of patents, trademarks and copyrights should be limited by fair use, and when necessary, compulsory licenses.
The public domain should be protected, and public figures need to speak out against the ever-escalated march of corporate lobbying for expanding intellectual property rights.
There is finally the issue of the privatization of law and policy making on the Internet, and the easy way that Mr. Gore has pushed for the elimination of democratic institutions. The creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is at the center of the Clinton/Gore Internet strategy...
The next issue will be copyright, as ICANN considers corporate proposals to use the ICANN control over domain names and IP numbers, to become an ever-ambitious police for alleged intellectual property infringements. In the trademark areas, ICANN is already throwing concepts such as fair use or free speech out the window. Mostly, however, it is an issue of corporate privatization.
Read More: Wired Debate, "Nader: Al Isn't Net's Best Friend"
The entire Wired Debate can be viewed at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39293,00.html
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
No Reply
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Reply:
"Things have changed dramatically in the movement against corporate globalization in the last six months. However unlikely such large-scale protests against international financial institutions which cultivate secrecy might have seemed last year, they now appear to have emerged as a part of the political landscape.
The growing protest movement against the IMF, World Bank and the World Trade Organization -- and the even broader public disenchantment with these organizations -- in part reflects a demand for minimal accountability from public institutions...
Read More: "In the Public Interest" column, 4/18/00
- Also check out Ralph Nader's speech before the April 16 (A16) Protest against the International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC www.votenader.org/downloads/000416NaderSpeech.mp3
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
No Reply
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Reply:
Over the past twenty years we have seen the unfortunate resurgence of big business influence, generating its unique brand of wreckage, propaganda and ultimatums on American labor, consumers, taxpayers and most generically, American voters. Big business has been colliding with American democracy and democracy has been losing. The results of this democracy gap are everywhere to be observed by those who suffer these results and by those who employ people's yardsticks to measure the quality of the economy, not corporate yardsticks and their frameworks. What we must collectively understand about the prevalent inequalities is important because so many of these conditions have been normalized in our country.
Read More: Acceptance Statement of Ralph Nader For the Association of State Green Parties Nomination
and were you taxed 70 years ago to pay for that paving? it's all part of living in a community. my grandparents don't like their money going to education anymore because "they're not using it." they think their taxes should go to programs that support them. what they're ignoring though is the taxes they paid while their children were in school come no where near to what it cost to put their children through school. if you choose to own property and belong to a community, you have to support that community. if you are really that offended by expanding the community then go to the town meeting or whatever form of local government you have with a petition filled out saying the citizens don't want it.
Bzzzt! That isn't Nader's platform. Go to votenader.org to see Nader's platform. The one you refer to is a radical movement (like there are in other parties)
Candaian Federal Election is coming up as well. Who would you vote for?
1) Jean Chretien. Liberal Party
2) Stockwell Day. Federal Alliance
3) Gilles Duceppe. Bloc Quebeqois
4) Alexa McDonough. National Democratic Party
5) Joe Clark. Progressive Conservatives
6) not Gonna Vote
7) Cmdr Taco
It means that fully 25% of posters in these political threads don't know WTF they're talking about.
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
I truly can't understand why there is such a strong nader contingent here at /.
I assume that its because most are young and have never really put 2 and 2 together that the fucked up tax structure could actually affect them...
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it allows for the selfish desires of an individual (more $$, own vacation homes, etc) to coincide with the greater good of society (More jobs, higher standard of living, etc)
The thing I find so disgusting, is that there are so many people that view taxes as an "OK" thing. That is -- much like sheep, they don't see how they are being led to slaughter.
I suppose it stems from poor economic education. They seem to think that the economy is a pie -- and that if the rich get 95% it leaves them with only 5%... that is to say, they think that because someone makes 10 million a year, that is taking a potential 10 million from THEM. However, they fail to see that if that person never existed -- they would stand no greater chance of being 10 million richer.....
It's amazing to me that people that make their money trying to understand complex systems (like programming) could have no knowledge of the complexities of the market....
People who complain about taxation for the purposes of social engineering fail to understand that ALL taxation is social engineering, intentional or not. Frankly, I think I'd rather have someone who thinks about the social consequences of his tax policies than someone who believes his tax policies have no social impact
A great example is the flat tax. Proponents often believe it has zero social-engineering impact, due to a leap of judgement that all things mathematically simple must therefore be socially simple. This is not only wrong, but more than a bit dangerous. If we implement a TRULY flat tax, those who earn under poverty level will be taxed out of their cardboard boxes, so we have to exempt them and jack up the "flat" rate to compensate for the resulting lack of revenue. Even Forbes admits this. Oops, it's a little less "flat" now. Now if we keep examining the flat tax, we realize that there's a middle class that gets taxed down just above poverty level and could easily get sent into poverty with something as simple as a medical emergency. Whoops, maybe we should give them a somewhat lower rate so that they have a safety cushion for unavoidable expenses. Now we need to jack the higher rate to compensate for lack of revenue. Hmm, now we have a three-tiered tax system. And how many tiers does our current "progressive" tax system have?
Yes, Nader was a bit contrite with "we like this" and "we don't like this". But since ALL taxes engineer our society, don't you think it's better to think about the results of this engineering? If you look at our current tax structure, taking into account sales/property/income/excise taxes, we tax the poor, not the rich. In Washington state, the poorest 20% of the population pays 17% of their income in ALL taxes (federal, state, local). The highest 20% pays 3%. And before you start talking about the mathematical simplicity of smaller totals necessarily giving larger percentages, why don't you imagine earning under half the median income. And then paying 17% of that. Now imagine a seven-figure salary. And imagine paying an extra 1% of that. Which hurts more?
And the question of the day is, what kind of society are we engineering right now?
"We should tax pollution. We should tax activities that we don't like, like sprawl, in order to get a better planning system and better zoning system. And we should lighten the taxes on things we do like, like honest labor, like food." Silly me, I thought the reason we had a tax code was to raise revenue, not to engage in this sort of asinine social micromanagement..... Until we get smart and implement a flat tax, people are just going to engage in whatever sort of financial misdirection they can to avoid paying taxes (as they should).
Ya know... I don't think you get it. A flat tax isn't the answer. More to the point, what is wrong with social managment? If you want to encourage the environment, you need to discourage polluting industry. If you want to encourage sane zoning discrougage sprawl. In the last 20 years (most of my life), I have seen once open fields in the country disappear and become large, crappily built houses on miniscule lots which fetch somewhere in the 1/3 of a million dollar range. With these houses in the country comes more roads, more pollution, more building, etc. It is not environmentally or psycologically healthy, nor is it sustainable. What would you propose to halt urban sprawl? Do you honestly think that the people out there developing the land care about anything other than the balance sheet? That being the case, what would your solution be?
When you look at an abstracted form of the econmical scale. For this example with 3 points: Poor, middle and rich. The poor group dosn't have all that much to spend. The middle class spends most of it's disposable income. The rich have money to spare and usually save large portions of it. This allows the rich to get richer. But the rich usually have sources of income so they keep getting money. Think about where this money comes from.. Since our economic system is ultimatly based on physical resources, be they iron, patrolium, silica or whatever. These resources are available in a finite amount so the injection of resources into the economy is limited. The only gain is from the sun.. But we lose a large portion of that to entropy. So the gain the rich are experencing must come for a large portion from the internal system.. ie other rich, middle class or poor. In practice this seems to take from the middle class, since the poor don't have that much to take. This results in a massive split in the income of the majority of the population. The mean is usually the same the median drops. This split is a charicteristc of a class of countries we know as the third world.
So why this rant after you're flat tax rate rant? Well a flat tax rate would permote the split (which is being documented in the United States of America). No lets look at the brackets from a numerical point of view. I'll pick the unrealistic values of 10 000, 100 000, 1 000 000 for the sake of an argument. Also I'll pick a tax rate of 10%. So the taxes will be 1000, 10000, 100000. While each class is paying the income of the one below, the poor are left with 9000 compared to 90000 and 900000. And let me tell you some thing it's much easier to "waste" 9000 on food than 900000. The greater net income for the upper class allows it to save more. This bring the scenario I outlined above into play. A graduated tax system lowers the rate at which it splits by giving the poor a break and taking a little more from the people who can afford it.
The taxes can then be used to pay for large scale projects which benifit society as a whole. Allowing the resources to be redistributed.
Before the supporters of a flat tax rate disregard me with a "he's leftist, kill the commmie bastard" think about what I said. I also encourage the supporters of a multi-tier tax system to think of problems with that sort of system, cause nothings perfect. Although most of the arguments against is along the lines of I get more money from a flat tax rate.. Give me a good counter argument for the flat rate system and I'll listen.
Look at the reasons that something is done, try to look at it from other perspectives. If you still see an insurmountable problem, try to find a solution. Who knows maybe it'll filter to someone who will implement it.
Reasonable points, but
1. A conceived zygote/embryo isn't a potential human being. It has already been created.
2. More importantly, brainwaves are measurable about 6 weeks after conception. The baby can react to stimuli at 3-6 weeks I believe (been a while since I studied it). That might give some leeway for EXTREMELY early abortions, but you wait at all and you're killing someone with feelings.
Yes. You can write me in after 2010. I wouldn't be Constitutionally able to serve as President before then anyway. Thank you for your support.
That's an interesting idea, and one I had never considered before. I'm an economic conservative, and would love to see income and cap gains taxes drastically reduced. But you know -- even as one who has done some stock market speculation myself -- I actually think this makes some sense.
Investing in stocks long term and taking risks in that definitely does benefit the economy and should be encouraged. But short term speculation is a zero sum game.
People that do nothing but day trade and succeed at it really do nothing for society. Why should that act be encouraged?
Maybe a 50% tax on all gains from stocks held less then, say, 10 business days, without the ability to deduct losses on said stocks, would really help the market stabilize and encourage more useful contributions to society.
Heh. That's exactly why I'm so desperate for Gore to lose. Suffering through four years of his blatent dishonesty and do-nothingness and divisiveness is one thing. Making the court ultra liberal for the next two decades is 50 times worse.
I think we all know that the "terrorists" in the pro-life camp are NOT the norm. None of their activities have been endorsed by any serious pro life group.
That may be true, but as a condition of being a citizen of a country, you can be obligated to help protect that country. It's not an unreasonable expectation, imho. After all, either that or your taxes will just go up to pay professionals to defend your country. Well, or you can be neutral and just pray nobody attacks you.
I have to disagree with this definition on investments vs. specualtion. Dividend policy should really depend on whether a company can make efficient use of funds or better off giving it back to shareholders. If a company is growing it's business it may very well pay no dividends and use the money for the growth. In that case investor gets the return through stock appreciation rather than dividend payments. If you're looking for more information on this. Modigliani and Miller have a work discussin why investor should be inifferent on getting return through dividends vs stock appreciation.
If you want real economic growth, you create goods and provide services, not generate "wealth."
Therefore, I can generate personal wealth by my creation of goods and services that people want to purchase. Nader's view of the world is that if I am successfull at this, I will have to give up most of my earnings. Why should I bother? Why should anyone? Goodbye growth, goodbye economy, hello socialist hell.
Um, because you'll still be way richer than most other people? If you make $100k annually and I make $20k, and I'm taxed 10% while you're taxed 50% (an extreme example),
Not an extreme example for Nader. He's talking about 90% tax rates for the "wealthy".
you're still left with well over twice of what I am. Does that mean that your work is twice as important as mine? Is a lawyer twice as important as a teacher?
Are you suggesting that the government should be deciding who should be more highly paid? [sarcasm]I know I trust the government to do this[/sarcasm]
Secondly, you have to take into account the fact that the very rich aren't making wealth. None of them. They aren't sitting in a factory sewing buttons onto shirts
What? In order to make wealth you have to do manual labor? I'll have to tell that to the people I know who thought that long nights, years of education and brain power were important.
I assume by "we" he means the People (although in reality it's the Party).
Uh, we're all People. If Nader were to be elected, you'd just have to be sure you were the "right" people. If you're not in the right group, you'll lose the money you worked hard to earn. His "party" line: If you have wealth, you must have oppressed someone to get it.
I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
What kind of thing? Wealth creation? Job creation? Let's make sure no one gets rich. [sarcasm]That will make everyone work hard to get ahead.[/sarcasm]
Forget about your dreams of a beautiful house, vacations, and nice things for your family. Why work hard when the government will tax away 90% of that extra dollar...
Not where I live. In the bay area (for instance), the cost of living is high enough in proportion to entry-level wages that I can see people being barely able to live. However, people in such a situation have the ability to move.
As for much of the rest of what you say, I know people without cars -- I was one of them until a few months ago. However, my point is that an entry-level wage is sufficient to purchase a car, electricity, etc if allocated responsibly. Most of the people I've interfaced with who have some job and don't have those things either have a drug habit or a significant (spouse and > 1 child) family to support. Responsible folks wouldn't allow themselves to get saddled with either of those without first being able to sustain them.
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
I agree with that statement. I have been reading several posts here and I can't believe techies,geeks or whatever "our" demographic is, seem to support Gore or Nader. There probably is more support for Nadar because he's an outsider/underdog. Man all this whining about about some corporate goobers getting 100 million dollars year. Who gives a rip if they didn't earn it. Don't we all strive to get rich. "Honest work?" It won't be long before the "Nader" "Gore" types decide that 50k a year is too much money to give a 18year old high school dropout just because he can code. It wouldn't be considered honest work. Gore invented the internet and he sure as hell will regulate it! I'm voting for Harry Browne and I did so in 1996. I know he won't win but I don't care. By the way I'm not rich ( I'll be lucky to make 25k this year) but I don't want goobers like Gore and Nader screwing my opportunities up!
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
If you were a sentient person you would know that Keyes isn't running. But I'd like to see him run sometime. Or Larry Elder a real black (libertarian) conservative. Surely G.W. isn't hoping on filtering the whole internet. He must be talking about libraries. I can agree with filters on libraries computers or public computers. What you view or allow to be view at home is up to you tho. I wonder if they'll put internet filters on bc's presidental liebrary, dang the whole place would need to be filtered. Btw the bc liebrary ( we call it the pyramid to the sun king) is about 15 miles from my house and I won't go near it!
It goes against some of the fundamental beliefs of most geeks. While the geek would go for decentralization, fostering productive competition and progress, liberals try to centralize the power.
I could go on with examples and such, but that's basically my point.
... and scream loud enough to break windows for 5 blocks.
uhm... Windows has been broken since the first day MS released it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Your logic is flawed. Not all situations are as black and white as you make them seem. Does not the man who works hard and 'earns' his living have the right to give to his children to make his life better? You seem to like this at one point, and not at another.
As for the other issues....
You're right, I am not your responsibility.
But, if I've been drained of all my wealth for one reason or another and steal your car stereo to put food on my kids' table, all of the sudden I am.
Perhaps because you're from that tiny oilfield town is the reason that you percieve such things, as the cost of living is undoubtedly cheaper there than in the city. I lived in a small town as well, one with a 30% (no kidding) unemployment rate. A local giant mail order company manages to hire over 20,000 people each year for 3 months there, the total population is probably around 100K - do the math. There are simply not enough jobs there.
Sprawl is what welfare is supposed to prevent - to a degree it does this. You can sit in your nice suburban home and not have to worry about it being broken into, at least, with a relative low chance of it happening. All of 'those people' are on the other side of town, in their subsidized housing and near all the supermarkets that take food stamps.
Now, when I was younger I used to work in one of those stores, and talked ot a lot of people that came in and out, and the ones that had homes were working. They also had their handy oregon trail card (food stamps ala plastic) with them.
These people WERE working, but because they didn't have a computer growing up or parents who could pay for college, they weren't getting paid shit.
I don't know about your state, but minimum wage here is $6.50 - I remember making that, working double shifts to pay rent, etc. It's not fun. And I didn't have any children, either.
If you want real welfare reform then the minimum wage is going to have to be raised significantly. And if that happens, what you make means a lot less.
So, go ahead, remove welfare, but please, let me know ahead of time, so I can move out of the country... Darwinism as a culture is only Anarchy - I'd like to see the stock market (read: our economy) survive through that.
Must have been nice to do it without a loan. I can't recall when I've ever been able to hold onto $30k-$40k a year... Wait... did you get SCHOLARSHIPS? Now that wouldn't be charity, of course, because you traded that paper or project you wrote for the money, right? After all, your project or paper is going to be used towards something that might equate to work, right?
I doubt it. I got scholarships because I was studying a certain subject or I made a certain amount of money or I had certain grades. Does that equate to work? Not really. I didn't perform a service as trade with the givers. They gave it to me as charity, because I wanted to get an education and they had money to give for it, and I met certain criteria.
The fact is, is that in your world, where everyone looks out for themselves, is impossible. You seem to say that everyone who works makes this country successful, but there are many people in this world who don't 'work' in the conventional sense yet still provide a service to our country.
We call these people 'volunteers'. They do good things, you should talk to one or two. They enact in something called 'charity'. Welfare is a economic volunteer. It aids those in our country in times of need. Unfortunately, as with any good work, it gets abused. We see this everywhere. This is the nature of humans.
Now, if you want to get more abstract and anecdotal, by all means, do.
So let me get this straight -- 10% of your new lexus isn't worth feeding hundreds of people?
I'm not saying that you can even afford a lexus, but get my point here.
As for the 'standards', I don't recall setting any. I didn't say I had all the answers, I just said that eliminating welfare is simply ignorant.
Perhaps if you, like a lot of people in this country, wouldn't froth in the mouth at the concept of losing 1 single penny of your cash for something that might not benefit you directly, there might be some foresight in to this issue instead of simple bickering (which is what we're doing here, and the politicians in washington have been doing since the system was created).
Also, to some degree authority is needed to create a stable society. Now, I don't agree with the level that our current government thinks is enough authority, but I feel that welfare is something that does good things(tm).
It is interesting to see people complain about this, all the while our parents and grandparents suck our social security (that we are supposed to be 'investing' in) dry. After all, why should they get the money when we're supplying it to them, right? Of course when SS is dead and we're all 70, that won't matter.
At least if I'm paying into my unemployment and welfare (which, if you work minimum wage, good luck getting that unemployment), I know that if shit happens I'll have an out until I can get back on my feet.
You may not get direct returns from welfare, you may not even need it, but the possibility of being in that situation should be enough to foster faith in the system. Even at what we currently give people through welfare it's not enough to help, even with a job in some instances.
Sorry about all the long posts,
Erik
I agree with you, that most people can do what you did.
Of course, it would have been interesting to see if your elderly friend would have let you and your 3 kids live in her house.
I've done close to what you've done, it's not hard, I didn't need help. It sucked, but it wasn't hard. I had to crunch, but I made ends meet. I even paid rent.
But if I had 3 mouths to feed other than my own, I would have ran right down to the welfare office - my kids aren't starving for nothing.
I bet you would too.
Progressive Taxation sounds great.... until the masses (with all the electoral votes and make less than you) decide that you should be on the heavily taxed. This is a slippery slope. Perhaps George Bush is doing the right thing.
Bullshit.
Progressive Taxation != Arbitrary Taxation.
Maybe it would be best to state an immaginary example. Say there are three households, A, B, and C. A earns $25,000, B earns $45k, and C earns $125k. Lets say the tax brackets are: 0% for the first $40k, 10% for the second $40k, 20% for the third, and so on.
A would pay 0% of its $25k.
B would pay %0 of its first $40k, and 10% of the $5k that excedes this, in total B would pay $500 in tax, which is approx. 1.1% of its total income.
C would pay 0% of its first $40k, 10% of its second $40k (or $4k), 20% of its third $40k (or $8k), and 30% of the remainder (or $1500), for a total of $13.5k in tax, which is 10.8% of its total income.
In reality the incriment would get slightly lower on each step so that the bracket percentage would approach but not excede some cap, like 95% or something. A houshold reaching that cap would be paying a much lower (then 95%) of their total income in tax, but for each additional $40k they made, they would be able to keep slightly less of that $40k. This would encourage CEO's of large corporations to invest more in, say, paying their employees, then in additional pay for themselves.
The current tax system in the USA is slightly progressive, but if it were to be plotted as a graph, it would be closer to "flat" then it would be to the one I describe above. Of course, we all know that the current system is needlessly complex, complexity is not necessary to inpliment a fair progressive tax system.
For the record, I do not feel really great about using the tax system as a carot/stick kinda thing to discourage vice, like Nader suggests, but I absolutely support a "steep" (as in what the graph would look like) progressive tax system.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
And even so, how are you going to rate gross income? If you get a company car, is that income? How is it valued? A company house? Company vacation? If you don't include these as income, you are creating a system ripe for manipulation. If you do count them, you are creating something complicated.
Either way, there's still no justification for capital gains tax to be lower than income tax.
Bush is stupid, easily manipulated, and connected with corporate and monied interests who will use him for their own nefarious goals. But still, it's only four years. And Gore is easily manipulated and connected with those very same corporate and monied interests anyway, so what do I care if he loses?
If Bush wins because of Nader, that's fine by me. The Democratic party doesn't represent progressives anymore, and Gore certainly doesn't. If nothing else, maybe in four years the Democratic party might actually offer a progressive candidate. That's worth suffering a slightly more conservative president for a few years.
I don't like being a pawn in the faux-struggle between two parties who don't represent me. I don't like being scared into voting for someone I can't respect.
If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?
Because the US charges a lot more when you don't live in the US. Also, having a corporation outside the US would increase tarriffs.
but I do think that progressive taxation makes sense
Being taxes are percentage based, they hit everyone equally. For every dollar A makes more than B, A pays more taxes than B.
I disagree wholly with progressive taxes. I think they are a punishment for being rich by people who can't stand you. The United States is based on survival of the fittest in the economical sense, with Welfare as a safety net so the non-fittest don't become completely destitute. Any other raising of Welfare, is just plain Socialism. A bit of it may be nice, but let's not lose ourselves.
Anyway, if a progressive tax was implemented, it should be a *balanced* progressive tax.
A balanced progressive tax would be that we set a central tax rate some agreed upon income level. Then, for every tax bracket less than that, the tax will go down by some percentage, and a matching tax bracket, more than the agreed upon income level, would go up by the same percentage. The idea would be, as soon as you reach the tax bracket that pays no taxes, the top tax bracket will pay 2 * the agreed upon rate. After that, of course, the rate drops to the central rate.
The advantages of this are:
Have you read my journal today?
No, it means that because the only "logical" way to view a small clump of cells as a human being is if you have a religous belief that God "injects" a soul into the zygote at the instant of conception. Only then can you be so rabidly pro-life as many are.
OK, so we should just let megacompanies pollute to such an extent that we either die of lung cancer or wind up with our homes underwater because of global warming? Ever heard of the tragedy of commons?
All these behaviors we're talking about: polluting, smoking, or even stock market speculation, are examples of the tragedy of commons.
Lets hear your solution to that without taxes or other penalties for the people destroying the commons. And please don't say private ownership of everything unless you are going to suggest a way for me to own and control the air hovering above my house, and to prevent the flood waters of the melted artic ice from destroying my property.
As someone already told you, you are being much too black and white with this. We all pollute all the time in our everyday lives. If we completely outlaw pollution, we'll have to ban cars, electricity, lawn mowers, flashlights, and farting.
Some amount of pollution by the human race would be acceptable, because the planet is really not that fragile. It's just like drinking: alcohol is poisonous to your body, but if you only have three or four drinks, you'll be OK. If you have 30, you'll die. Does that mean you should never drink anything containing alcohol? No, it means you should drink in moderation. We should pollute in moderation. Some pollution is avoidable, some isn't. Therefore we tax it to try to keep the level to something below planet-killing.
This is a fairly simple concept, and it's too bad that most Libertarians can't understand it.
Well, that's not exactly true. The abortion issue has everything to do with choices, and everything to do with taking responsibility.
Every choice we make has consequences. Some choices have good consequences, others have bad consequences. For every consequence, good or bad, we must take responsibility.
When a man and woman choose to have sex, there will be consequences. Sometimes the consequences are good (bringing a couple closer together, just having fun, etc) but sometimes there are bad consequences (STD's, injury, pregnancy???). Pregnancy can easily be fit into either category.
Pregnancy can happen. If you are having sex, protected or not, it can happen.
I personally believe abortion is an evil and abhorrent practice. I believe that every man and woman that chooses abortion has committed a violent sin and that sin will in one way or another come back to them, now or in eternity.
Misfit
It makes only sense to vote if voting makes you feel good, for instance because you think it is "the right thing to do" or because some forefathers died for your right to vote. Voting is an utterly irrational and idealistic act.
I'm not arguing against voting of course: idealistic acts are good. But never vote for "the lesser evil", it doesn't make sense: your vote has not effect anyway. Vote idealistically, vote for whomever you think is the best candidate. Strategic voting works in the senate but it is idiotic in such a large country.
--
If you tax something, you discourage it--so what will a "progressive" taxation scheme discourage? Working. (Too bad MS has so corrupted the I-word, or I'd use it here, too.)
By this logic then, a regressive or flat tax system would discourage poverty.
So that's my problem!! I don't pay enough income tax!!!
My bet is that you don't have the faintest grasp of what either a liberal or conservative supreme court would mean.
You fail to explain why we need this. I suppose you don't much care for women having the right to choose who's child grows inside their body, or maybe black folk being able to use the same water fountain as you.
EeeeyAAahh... from what I gather, the rest of the world already thinks we're pretty stupid. They envy our wealth and consequences-be-damned attitudes, but other than that...
Previous post aside, I completely agree with you.
"Do you speak English?... I said DO . YOU . SPEAK . ANY . ENGLISH?!!"
protects your oh-so-important monetary interests here and abroad
Actually, private run interests have always outperformed government run funds. Did you have a specific example you wished to use?
How about "bombing Iraq back to the stone age" when they threatened one of our oil allies? I've heard Kuwait was slant-drilling under Iraq, but I don't have a source to back that up.
a number of do-nothing idiots repairing perfectly good roads
One service might be providing police protection if, say, those "do-nothing idiots" found out what you said about them.
<SARCASM>I suppose they could get a second job and put themselves through college. 60 hours + 60 hours = $4 a day. Leaving 48 hours a week of free time for college, which probably doesn't cost much over there.</SARCASM>
Ooof... sounds good... in theory. But just the act of bringing health care to rural life increases the supply of workers beyond what the non-industrialized farming practices can support. The glut of workers _has_ to go somewhere or starve and die. What do you think? Can supposed good intentions create slave labor?
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it allows for the selfish desires of an individual (more $$, own vacation homes, etc) to coincide with the greater good of society (More jobs, higher standard of living, etc)
Your argument doesn't establish a relationship between the two. For example one could move to Mexico and take advantage of very cheap labor for their vacation home. 1. how does that benefit the society they earned their money from? and 2. how does taking advantage of an impoverished workforce make such a wonderful difference?
But what makes the good people different from the mediocre people? Simply put, drive. Will. And if some mediocre guy can't put together the drive to pull himself up (because he's content with his lot or is simply unwilling to work hard), leave him there.
Because... when you're working hard day-to-day you focus on making it to the next day and not on the "brass ring." In such a state, instead of investing in their betterment, any money they get goes to having some fun now. You might not be able to understand, but poverty is demoralizing and debilitating.
Gun is probably very lucky to have friends as examples of what training and education can get him and who give him encouragement.
Just because a person has a clue and opts NOT to spend ridiculous amounts of money is no reason to penalize him, or to expect him to pay higher taxes.
I don't think we do. Except for sales tax, I cannot think of any tax that would apply to what you have "stuffed under the mattress."
her sh*tty choices
You shit head. She has no other choice, why don't you go talk to her and find out. You're probably both too stupid and afraid to go into the city and see for yourself.
There is no excuse for a family to live several generations on welfare, except their own laziness.
Lack of education opportunity. Poor environment (mental). Lack of public transportation to get to a decent job. Businesses moving out of the cities (no transportation). Television programming and commercials designed to seduce people into making bad choices and spending money they don't have. Credit card debt. Poor housing conditions. Needing to escape this reality through drugs. Fearing for your life because of the crime this all creates. And stupid republican's who can't understand any of the above while sitting on their fat asses in their cushy office.
If they had intellegence and common sense, they would have kept their legs closed.
Eeeeyahhh. As I to a previous AC shit head like you.:
You shit head. She has no other choice, why don't you go talk to her and find out. You're probably both too stupid and afraid to go into the city and see for yourself.
I'm sorry, this isn't the strongest argument. You might wish instead to make the case that if we bring the millions of people currently living in poverty up to middle class level they would become more prolific consumers and spend more money on products, making companies even richer. Wouldn't this be in CEO's best interests? However, who would work in McDonalds?
Is anyone's original attention to be bad at what they do? Of course not that still doesn't mean they should be doing it.
Good point. My housemate is a graduate assistant and teaches geology to education students who have to develop their own teaching plans and present it to the group for a grade. The result is complaints that some of these students should _not_ go into teaching.
Anecdote aside. Who decides that you can be a structural engineer? Who decides which perspective teachers receive a teacher's certificate. How do these people graduate from college? How did Dubya graduate from college? We are probably trying to treat a symptom and not a cause here.
So rather than trying to decide which programs match what the majority consider "the greatest good," let the people decide for themselves and fund them on their own. People will do so; goodwill is part of what is good about being a human being.
That is where we disagree. I believe that people will do the do the ignorant, selfish thing first. (Present company excepted.) America is too big to see the results of our actions, we can run from our problems, bury them in decaying cities, dump pollutants where no-one has the power to object.
The difference between the Indies and the Bandies is one of responsibility. Bandies believe that Indies are going through life with blinders on, refusing to see the effect of their actions on others... Driving over families of squirrels, racoons and bunnies in their Mercedes SUV, never noticing the soft bump, only watching out for the other SUVs.
Yes, I believe that Americans as a culture just don't notice anything that doesn't affect them. Our advertising industry and mass media seem to only exist to perpetuate this problem.
If you want to see a difference in platforms, compare the Libertarian platform on education to the Natural Law party's. Notice that one is detailed (with references), the other is a generalization.
As if the Democrats would be any better...the left-wing whackos are just as f*cked up as the right-wing whackos. Having either of Bush, Gore, or Nader in office frightens me.
Even given your f*cked up viewpoint, if you happened to be a minority or non-conformist, you wuold be better off with left-wing wacko than a right-wing fascist bigot.
In terms you can understand, it's the difference between "love your neighbor or I'll tax you" and "shoot your neighbor if he's foreign, gay, plays dnd, is a Pagan, goth, doesn't like football, or just doesn't fit in..."
"We don't like your type around here."
To counter the other post, Nader is someone who, for his entire life, has exposed and fought big businesses when they were hurting average Americans.
Nader is an Arab-American "radical" who would like to form a left-wing third party in the United States. is not an accurate statement http://www.votenader.org
An old saying is "Porn is anything that gives the judge an erection."
When was the last time a poor person signed your paycheck?
That depends on where you work... There used to be many mom-and-pop businesses that no-one would call rich.
even the people living below the poverty line today have luxuries that were unattainable to the wealthy 200 years ago.
Does having luxuries satisfy a person? Let's say that we define these luxuries as good food, entertainment and fast transportation.
Dude yeah, they'd both legalise marijuana.
However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution.
Almost certainty... some of us commute by bike and don't manufacture S.U.V.s. We all have a choice on the amount of pollution we create. There is a big difference between not intending to pollute and intending not to pollute.
Then I guess "we" the people do _not_ like people getting rich... since that's what "progressive" taxation goes after.
The theory behind progressive taxation is that after paying the bills (and taxes), someone making $15,000 a year has no money left over. However, after bills and taxes, someone making $150,000 a year has a considerable amount to play with. And don't try to feed me any bullshit of the rich having the same worries about making the mortgage payment as the poor. They chose to buy a quarter million dollar house.
What is fair? Should we tax poor people the same as the rich knowing full well that they have far less ability to pay $1k than someone making $150k has of paying $15k?
<SARCASM>After all, poor people could depend on their local charity/church. We all know how generous your boss is when it comes to working with the poor.</SARCASM>
Agreed. But how do we determine where the decision to pollute was made and who was complicent (word?). Possibly if it were criminal, the choice between losing your job for squealing and complying with the company's orders would be clearer.
the ratio of givings to charity is directly proportional to how well the economy is doing.
It's a good tax write-off too!
To say that the rich don't squeeze a bunch out of the government is extremely short-sighted.
Experts can make a living knowing how to squeeze that money out of a rich person's taxes.
The question that I asked you and never got an answer was; do you expect teachers to support programs that make them accountable for their actions, thus if they fail, they are fired?
That's a "gotcha, not gonna play that game"... I know of few teachers who started teaching for the money. After ten/twenty years of abuse, of course, some sort of lose sight of their original intentions, but their original intent is not to be a bad teacher.
The Corvair, by the way, was perfectly safe, at any speed.
Contrast this to Larry Niven's short story "Safe at any speed." There is a complex set of variables that determine safety from the engineering and manufacture of the components to the competency of the owner.
the top 40% of the population pays 90% of the taxes.
Given 60% making $25k/yr @ 15% tax = $2250.
Given 40% making $250k/yr @ 15% tax = $15,000.
$2250 is 15% of $15,000. Conversely 85% of the taxes, even at a flat tax. (Did I do the math right? It can't be too far off, anyway)
I don't for a moment believe the rich are suffering at the tyranny of the poor. Please make a better argument than that.
A good question, but also an inescapable question no matter who's tax policy you're talking about. No matter how you choose to tax (even if you choose not to whatsoever) you are engaging in 'social engineering'. Services will or won't be provided and someone will pay for them, and the way this happens will favor some picture of society. Burying your head in the sand about this won't change it. Better to be very open that there is a politics behind however we tax and try to be as honest as possible about that politics.
FWIW, I'd still recommend the 1994 book "America: who really pays the taxes?" by reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. Unsurprising conclusion: the middle-middle class. (These days I'd hazzard the $30 to $55k range.)
What was interesting to me was the contrast of the two candidates, in light of the pro-encryption but left leaning Slashdot audience.
/. readers being anarcho-libertarians, look at the election poll-- Nader (socialist) and Gore (whatever he's chosen to re-invent himself as this week) are walking away with it. Libertarians are trailing Bush.
Don't start in about most
It's pretty much wrapped up at this point, Bush is going to take the electoral college by a big margin and the popular vote by at least 3-5 points.
>It is my body.
Your body isn't in question here, it's the baby. Why doesn't he or she get a choice?
We've determined that we don't treat other humans as property-- we've outlawed a whole raft of things like murder, slavery, assault, etc. that confirm this. Some believe (I'm in this camp) that an unborn child is human.
My standard litmus test:
Is it alive?
Is it human?
Did you kill it?
Is it murder?
I suspect that there are people that disagree with my views, but I hope that some are open minded enough to see why a sizeable portion of the populace does not agree that infanticide should be legal.
I absolutely cannot see where people get off saying that birthing a viable baby and sucking its brain out would be considered "a choice" about "my body" (in reference specifically to the so-called "partial birth" abortion).
Why? I do not understand this? The stockmarket has made so many people wealty and he wants to tax it more????
But he does know a lot about TAX, THE ECONOMY, and everything else he has an opinion on??
say = says....
Opps;->
I've been sick of the lesser of two evils for decades now (I'm 45, you can call me an old fart, but I'm an old fart that has had some experience :-)
I voted libertarian the first time I had a chance to vote in a presidential campaign (I believe it was 1980) and Regan became president. No one noticed my vote for the libertarian candidate and we had 8 years of regressive politics and the biggest runup of the US deficit in history.
So don't think that voting a 3rd party actually does anything. You might as well not vote.
If you vote for anyone other than the two parties you are voting for Bush.
And if you want a repeat of a president who sleeps through most of his rule and allows the old (and new) guard monopolist (Oil, Real Estate, Big Ag, Microsoft) do what they want with the World, vote Bush or a 3rd party.
I myself am voting for Gore this time. Not because he's great or perfect, but because:
Gore will not destroy the environment (as much)
will definately not allow reproductive freedoms be squashed and allow women to be second class citizens again (see the Republican Platform on Abortion, not what Bush doesn't say in public)
In case of an emergency Gore may have a Clue and G.W. Bush won't know what to do unless Dick, an Oil Company exec or Dad tell him what to do.
Mathematically illiterate? Its mathematically illiterate to be unable to conceive of any function mapping income to buying power that isn't linear. Not coming down on one side or the other, but lets call a spade a spade.
Admittedly, I could ask my neighbors, but the packet (that I did not receive) also contains information on the major issues. (Here in California we have "propisitions"... and numbers like 34, 35, and 38 don't tell me alot about them.)
Now to my question:
Does anyone know of an online resource similar to an "interactive" online registration packet?
Loren Osborn
It's not at all well explained either here or on his site, AFAICT.
75%? Hmm, my ECON-102 (macro economics) teacher just told us yesterday that we're currently at a top taxation rate of 44%... or maybe he meaned average, I forget. He was going on about Bush reducing taxation because he feels we're a bit too high above the sweet spot on the Lauffer curve (when taxation is optimal so that the government gets the most money it'll ever get out of the people). The premise is that if you tax everyone less, more people will want to become rich and thus pay more taxes than they would anyway had they been less wealthy, since they see the tax rates have gone down.
the real at&t mix
Thanks for the correction, no thanks for the flame.
the real at&t mix
today i saw a gore rally highlight on cspan or cnn or the like. Rob Reiner stood on a podium with a "who let the gores out" sign on the front of it. rob says (I swear to god, he actually said this). "Who are we going to vote for on election day? AL GORE! And why are we going to vote for him? BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET THAT 'OTHER GUY' WIN. THAT GUY IS AN IMBECILE." (or something to that effect) Mass applause ensued. I started to laugh, and then I felt sorry for all of those people at that rally, including Rob Reiner. When the best argument (only argument? I haven't heard any other coherent arguments as to why one would vote for Al Gore) is just to keep The Other Guy out of the whitehouse, shouldn't it be readily fucking apparent to everyone involved that there is something seriously wrong with the political system in this country? I think some people are starting to see that, but I fear that the vast majority are so caught up in the lies of the system that they'll never find their way out.
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
1. Enter earnings ______________ (I)
(sum of all capital gains, interest, wages, and all other earnings minus capital loses)
2. Compute rate using
R = 0.6 - 0.9*exp(-I/100000) some tweeking needed
______________ (R)
3. If R is less than 0 you owe nothing, stop.
4. Multiply I times R. Mail it in as your yearly tax.
______________
See nice and simple, can be sent on a postcard. Of course, under this system selling a house would be murder. ;-) You like that better?
--Karl
No, this response is not "better than a socialist and a libertarian." At least those candidates took the time to answer the questions personally.
Nader's like Citizen Kane. He wants to lord his "gift" of freedom and justice over an island of ignorantly grateful monkeys.
That bitch belched, lemme add that nothing but the shades of injustice will change by voting Republicrat. If you want to change the colors, vote your heart.
--
#19845
I love the soccer mom mentality that if they buy a car with 3 rows of seats, give each kid a row, that means they won't bother each other. So why are these monstrous SUVs always wandering into my lane because someone's not paying attention to the road? Kids are going to be kids, unless you want to strap them in and hook up electro-shock collars (yes, I realize this in inhumane, nor am I saying that you SHOULD do this) they won't stop. Either find a way to deal with it or don't be a parent, dumbass.
So if I haul things around 10-15% of the time, and I'm driving around by my lonesome the other 85-90% of the time, does that justify using that 5mpg guzzler 100% of the time? At what point does common sense break down for you?Or should I ease a vehicle for work use (writing it off on taxes, since it really IS a work expense), and then I buy a REASONABLE vehicle for my use? You know, you don't have to buy a NEW car for your own use, there are excellent USED vehicles which are in GREAT condition and get 35-45mpg.
I don't know - maybe you'll join the sane members of society and get a car that costs less to drive?Again, this whole attitude of your kind assumes that everyone has to replace their huge, monstrous, NEW SUV with a NEW Audi TT is just absurd. There are plenty of reasonable slightly-warmed-over used vehicles out there that can fit your requirements and pocketbook.
Moof!
The older you get the more cynical you get, and, frankly, I'm pretty damn cynical.
Moof!
Based on this logic, everyone who wants to pull themselves up by their bootstraps CAN pull themselves up.
Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that for every person like your father that accomplished that feat, there are hundreds of individuals who worked just as hard but didn't succeed.
In other words, the world is not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
And since you come from a position of privilege, you have a severe advantage over the individuals who are trying to accomplish your father's feat. Does it bother you that if you and that person were competing for the same job, you would probably get it due to your better training, education, etc.? Not even a twinge?
This is part of the reason why children of the rich generally tend to stay rich, and the children of the poor generally stay poor.
Moof!
Yeah, like he has the time to actually sit down for a couple of hours and do this. C'mon, folks. The guy is busy as hell campainging his butt off. He's either speaking or hitching a ride to the next town. Give the guy a break. At least you KNOW where he stands. What difference would it have made if it were more "personal?" WOuldn't have made one bit of difference b/c the answers would be the same!!! DUH!
...because they're "tough on crime." See this Scientific American article.
> Would it be "best for the species" to kill any elderly person who is no longer contributing to society, but just sucking up resources?
> How about chronic mental patients?
How about the incompetent? If someone can't follow orders or do a good job, aren't they just taking up space? Or people who just are motivated to contribute to society in a productive manner? They aren't helping the species much at all, except maybe circulating some capital in and out of convenience stores and video rentals.
--GAck
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories, at least try to get your facts straight. Last time I checked (and I have my Illinois absentee ballot right here in front of me), the Reform Party kicked ol' Pat out a couple months ago. John Hagelin is the Reform candidate. Pat's running independent.
Jeff Sand
shroom@bradley.edu
Exactly what nation are you from? I can't quite figure out how you came up with that figure, assuming you are living in the USA (this is a thread about US politics, after all).
Are you including FICA in that? Are you including it twice, since your employer pays it, too? Hmm...that might cross 52% if you're in the top tax bracket (still a stretch, though...read on...). Are you including sales tax? Inheritance tax? Capital gains tax? Maybe...but these come out after your paycheck, not before.
However, people in the top tax bracket pay, on average, about a 22% nominal federal income tax (i.e. not the tax rate applied to taxable income) rate before FICA. FICA takes out an addition 15.4%, up to some amount. However, if you're in the top tax bracket, only a small amount of your salary is subject to FICA. State taxes can be high in some states, but not enough to make up the difference.
I'm not sure where you came up with 52% from. Unless you live in Europe. But, then, why would you be bitching in a thread about US taxes, then?
--Be human.
Btw, I don't really like your 'biological' way of thinking (reminds me of many nasty things that have been allowed in the past because of 'biological' reasons), in particular:
Woman's "fundamental function of reproduction"...
um... women are fundamentally here for the purpose of reproduction. men are too. essentially all animals exist for the fundamental purpose of reproducing and allowing their species to continue. any purpose beyond that depends on one's answer to the question "why am i here?", but first and foremost we're here for reproduction
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
And we sure as hell don't want to smell as bad as you do.
-Jeff
-Voting Is A Waste Of Time
Replace 'Voting Is A Waste Of Time' with 'Absaining' as a catch all that are of age and US citizens, there are many reasons that one would not vote. 'Not Registered' would be another good option.
Where are?:
CONSTITUTION PARTY & INDEPENDENT AMERICAN PARTY
Howard Phillips
GRASSROOTS PARTY
Denny Lane
NATURAL LAW PARTY
John Hagelin
PROHIBITION PARTY
Earl Dodge
REFORM PARTY & RIGHT TO LIFE PARTY
Pat Buchanan
SOCIALIST PARTY USA
David McReynolds
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
James Harris
WORKERS WORLD PARTY
Monica Moorehead
There are NO Socialists who read Slashdot?
I don't think so.
pronoblem
Unh, and when did subsistence and tax become
the same thing? Part of the reason we have
a progressive tax system (more or less) is to
make sure the lower income people CAN subsist.
Wealth was created. Jobs were made. Something was created and sold. If that is not good what the fuck is.
#=-weo-=#
"I would really like to know who 'doesn't deserve' some form of welfare system for unfortnate situations"
The ones who steals from those who have. Just because someone does not one to give their hard earned money to an ineffective and moraly corrupt government does't mean that they will not give to charity. I believe in people. I believe people with money will give to charities. I'm not rich but I give money to charities.
Nobody is saying that the poor do not need assistance. Its just that the government is not the way to do it. Give prople the chance to show how good they are and they will suprise you. If you didn't know... the ratio of givings to charity is directly proportional to how well the economy is doing.
#=-weo-=#
Basically he wants to tax the weathly to fund welfare for the poor. That's socialism. I've got nothing agaist people who want to vote for a socialist government, but before you vote for Nader you should recognise that that is what he stands for.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
Which of course translates to things *he* doesn't like. When you vote for Nader (or to be fair, anyone but Browne) you are giving the government the power to make moral decisions like this for you.
Like I said above, Nader is essentially a socialist. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I hope those who are voting for him realise that they are voting for socialism.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
What you forget is that corporations are not big evil entities. They are owned by shareholders who are regular people like you and me. Why should they be penalised for being successful?
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
The GOP isn't going to care about your concerns, in fact they're actively hostile to them. They'll be laughing at you, and the only attention Nader is going to get will be in another four years, when he'll be encouraged to run again. Hell, they should just fund Nader's whole campaign. He's fantastic news to them.
All actions have real, tangible consequences that must be considered. The consequence of voting for Nader in this particular election could very well be to give Bush just enough electoral votes to win this election.
It's also looking like the GOP will take the house and senate. And of course, it's perfectly timed, because several Supreme Court justices are due to kick off any time now. With control of both houses, it's much easier for Bush to appoint right-wing whackos to the Court. Since he's praised Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as model justices, it's not too hard to see which kind of people he'll appoint. And then we'll have the grand slam -- house, senate, president, and supreme court, all under Republican control. The GOP will be free to remake the country in its own image.
As if the Democrats would be any better...the left-wing whackos are just as f*cked up as the right-wing whackos. Having either of Bush, Gore, or Nader in office frightens me.
As for the House and Senate, they are extremely close, and may even end up being split evenly in the Senate. It's not nearly the foregone conclusion you make it sound like.
More numbers:
The top 1% of the US population pays 35% of the federal income tax. The top 5% pays 54% of the federal income tax. (Source: Wall Street Journal, dead tree version from about a week ago, or I'd give a link)
A large chunk of the population (I don't remember exact percentage, I think about one-third) doesn't pay ANY federal income tax. So of course, a tax cut isn't going to help those people - but that's perfectly fine, since they're paying NOTHING as it is. Further, I see no problem with a larger dollar amount of refund going to those who paid more taxes - we have a surplus, which means everyone overpaid, which means those who overpaid more should get more back (in proportion to how much they overpaid). Seems only fair.
--
I live in Adelaide, and Jeff was the Premire of our (often scorned) neighbourng state of Victoria. Whatever you may think about Victoria, Jeff rocked. I went over to campaign for him at the last election, and despite all predictions, he go taken out and beaten with a big stick. That doesn't stop me wanting to have his children.
At one stage he had registered www.jeff.com.au to promote his campaign, but I think it just redirects these days.
Jeff! yeah! whoooo!
Believe with me, my saplings.
Well, here we go again. An election which usually has zero impact on us but which we have to put up with all over our media for the twelve month lead up. Admittedly, this election has been better (I've seen less of it) than the previous two.
:p
Still.
I've developed opinions. I'm a politics/computer science double major in Arts from Adelaide, Australia. I'm also a member of the Liberal Party of Au (in fact the more conservative of the two major parties, and the one with the economic credentials) and am liberal on social issues.
So here's what I see:
Bush has a bit of the white-trash feel to him, I think. He's also the first one I took a disliking to because I've got an awful feeling he'll rape funding to the DoJ case into Microsoft, and that would be a terrible thing. I also don't like his far-right cliche style of talking. Ugh.
Gore is a total sap. I've read a lot of P J O'Rouke, and what he says is true except more of it. Gore is clearly a liar and speaks whatever he wants his audience to hear. He takes shallow stands on issues. The fact his father was an opponent of democracy in South East Asia during the Vietnam War doesn't exactly help my feelings towards him. Having said that, my biggest concern related to US politics at this time is the DoJ trial, and if Gore can not break that effort, I'd be happy to have you guys put up with him.
And then Nader. Somethign about the Corvair investigation jumps in my mind. Consumer protection, etc. The fact he's green - hey that's good. But he's too left, and I am sick and tired of lefties running around claiming they own the environmental platform.
So good luck those of you who are US voters - you've got a really shit lineup of candidates, and I wish you luck in choosing the least bad among them.
Believe with me, my saplings.
and these laws are all bullshit, and unconstitutional (at least at the federal level) by any reasonable interpretation (see the 9th and 10th amendments.) Unfortunately, most of the legistlature and judiciary is far from reasonable.
---
Beginning in the 80's, that curve was dramatically flattened - the median household nearly doubled its tax burden, while the top 1% has halved its burden to a maximum of less than 49%. Until this period, all Americans were increasing in prosperity at approximately the same rate - real wealth was doubling for just about everyone over a constant period of time. Now, the different ends of the curve are moving in different directions, with the lower half actually losing wealth and earning power.
I advocate going back to the original model. I believe that this is fair if you consider money as having a utility value on a logarithmic curve: that the last $1000 someone owns is worth much much less than the first $1000 they own. I would agree to a flat tax for income intervals: that everyone by taxed at n% for their first 10K to 50K of income, income from 50K to 100K being taxed at n+k%, income from 100K to 200K at n+2k%, etc. This is, frankly, much fairer than a flat tax.
"Wealth creation" without increased productivity is just the concentration of capital into fewer hands. Nader is right on about this, and it is why market speculation is a really *bad* engine for "growth." If you want real economic growth, you create goods and provide services, not generate "wealth."
By the way, those who truly manage are working. Management is a service that requires expertise and ability, and I recognize it as real work as much as 'physical' labor. A lot of things go to create the market value of a thing - it isn't just supply and demand, it's at least as much about perception, constraint on choices, consensus of value, and status.
Those of us who don't want capitalism to be unchecked or unfettered by public-sector forces intend to reduce the negative social impact caused by those distortions of valuation. After all, how many of the people who have made so much wealth with their expertise truly paid for the acquisition of their expertise over their entire lives? (N.B.: expertise is bigger than 'technical know-how,' and has as much to do with B-schools, law schools and 'people skills' - better described as class communication skills - than with just knowing what buttons to push.)
Fred: Amherst;
Daphne: Mt. Holyoke;
Velma: Smith;
Shaggy: Hampshire;
and of course, Scooby Doo himself is UMass.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
I agree with Mr. Nader's assertion that corporations, especially large ones, have too much influence in American politics. The framers of the constitution went to great lengths to put limits on the power of the federal government (which are now largely ignored) to avoid such conflicts.
However, Mr. Nader seems to want to fix it by worsening the root of the problem. Make the federal government bigger, more powerful, and more activist (the government knows what's bad for you - how dare you invest in the stock market!). The only way to rid the federal government of corruption is to return it to its limited role as intended by the constitution
.Hey, how about you donate your money? You'll know exactly where it's going/what it's doing. Also, you won't be deciding how I, or anyone else spends their money! when you want to tax everyone because YOU want to help others, that's called socialism.
No offense, but raising taxes on gas and smokes has already proved to be a failure. The economy is so good that people who can afford big SUV's can pay almost any price for gas. Who you hurt is the poorest segment of the population who can only afford $500 and $1000 cars. Those cars usually produce the most polution and use the most gas. Until someone can come up with a viable solution that will keep these people mobile (they need to get to work/school/day care too!), increasing the penalties will only hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt. And taxing tobacco has been a horrible failure. Smokers arn't going to stop smoking because the price goes up; they'll just drive to Canada or down south, where the prices are cheaper, or steal cigs.
-Ryan
uhmm... here in The Netherlands we have a progressive taxation, which kinda makes me wonder why I should try and work any harder. Because of every dollar (dfl.) I'd make extra they take more. So it really makes a dent in productivity.
[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]
Dear US Citizen,
I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.
I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting
that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens
feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for
the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of
unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be
capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a
foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of
Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the
world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in
the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.
[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]
The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.
Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:
What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.
It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.
Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.
"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.
Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.
When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.
Yours,
Alejandro Gómez de Argüello
I agree... I quoted it from the article.
<sarcasm>
Thank you for your reasoned response, free of ad hominem attacks. It's a gift that you have, really.
</sarcasm>
At one point, the majority in this country thought it right to enslave another race. At one point, a majority in this country thought women shouldn't vote. At one point, a majority thought seperate but equal really was...
Fine. Pollution is a problem. Criminalize it. Impose huge financial penalties to those who violate the law. Use that for cleanup.
But don't use the tax code to make me be a good little boy. I'm not a child.
Hooptie
P.S. All population/area numbers are from the CIA WorldFactBook
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Then please feel free to do so. Libertarians are not saying that noone should be allowed to help anyone they see fit. But, no person should be REQUIRED to contribute to charities. Should you feel the need/desire to do so, no one will stop you, but do not try to force me to.
Even if you still think there should be some type of governmental welfare program in place, would it not be better to implement such a program at the state or local level. Federal bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient. And the Federal government will impose the same program on the residents of Barrow, Alaska and Key West, Florida. Would it not be better to have more local control over such programs?
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Also, this could turn out to be a self correcting system. As the wealthy move from B to A there will be a smaller economic base in County B from which to provide welfare etc... to the poor of County B. Likewise as the wealthy move to County A there is a larger economic base to provide those same services.
The main problems with a Federal program in this country, are inefficiency, as I already pointed out, and the imposition of a "cookie-cutter" solution to many varied parts of the country. In a Federal program the poor in say, San Jose, CA receive the same type of benefits that the poor in Ottumwa, IA, even though their economic situations may be vastly different.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
As I recall, the foundation of the HMO model is that proprly applying preventive care, etc. will reduce the cost of health care. The HMO business model was designed by the government- and pushed forward by gov. regulations requiring HMOs to be offered by employers.
I think the problem with health insurance is that the wrong people buy it. The System as it is now usually has companies buying it for their employees, which is, IMHO, just plain stupid. It should be illegal for companies to buy health insurance for their employees, damnit. The person who is insured should be the customer, not the company they work for.
Everyone hates HMO's these days, and for some reason they come to the conclusion that the answer to the problem is that we should just have one big HMO.
As for accountability, see above.
As for universal health care/socialized medicine- I don't see how the federal government has the constitutional authority to do that.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Proper name = no assistance from spell check!
Not that one was probably used!
They go inside the air conditioners and refrigerators, of course! You just answered it for him!
Oh... you meant AFTER they've outlived their usefulness. Well, they clearly get cleaned up and disposed of properly. Nothing to see here, continue living in your dreamland...
Smart-assed remarks property of:
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Thread over :-)
(Can we have this as a slashdot option? Detect references to Nazism and immediately make the thread read-only or something.)
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
a "tax break" is a govt. service??
Please explain.
Also, how does paying taxes get someone a tax break?
I understand that most people on Slashdot aren't likely to put their vote in the (R) column on November 7th, ...
<column type="R">my vote</column>
-- Grow up and use mutt.
How's it an irrelevant point when you drag out the hysterics about how Bush in the White House will plunge us back into the dark ages? That's what I was addressing.
And for what it's worth, your 'important' point that I didn't address is just wrong. Nader almost got endorsements from the major labor unions, but they reluctantly went with Gore. The same with the Sierra Club. When the Greens continue their work after election day, they'll listen. And just recently, a large group of farmers did endorse Nader. In addition, Nader's campaign is a natural extension of the sentiments that came to the fore in the Battle of Seattle, the protests in Prague, and the like. In these cases, labor, farmers, environmentalists, and other groups came together. There is a building leftist coalition. You just don't hear about it in the mainstream media.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, especially if you think you know my beliefs better than I do. I would like to hear how you think the "real work" should be done, though.
The New Party is a grassroots, progressive political party that's working toward progressive goals starting small, in local elections. I think it complements the Greens very well. The Greens go for the Presidency with a high-profile candidate and thereby garner much publicity. The NP takes the slower, but more lasting approach. The complement each other well by attacking the problem at both ends.
Let's put this idiotic notion to bed, shall we? First of all, how much of a role does the Federal government really play in the treatment of gays, blacks, unionists, women, et cetera? The problems of racism, sexism, homophobia stem from the attitudes of individuals, and to fix them, hundreds of millions of individuals will need to change their attitudes. The government can encourage one way or the other, but all-out mind control is way out of its reach. And even government encouragement can fail. Witness the incredible backlash against Affirmative Action.
So I have to ask, will a Bush administration cause people who believe in tolerance, an integrated society, who are committed to abolishing social injustice to suddenly change their minds and become white supremacists? Hardly! Will a Gore administration cause the KKK to doff their sheets and love all of their fellow humans? Yeah, right!
Secondly, I have to ask: What has Clinton/Gore done to further the causes of gays? The Defense of Marriage Act. "Don't ask, don't tell." Blacks? Welfare "reform.". The continued War on Drugs. Unionists? Supported the corporations. Women? Hmm, well, at least they didn't hurt feminist causes.
Third, many Nader supporters are dedicated to continuing their efforts well beyond election day, participating in the "daily citizenship" Nader calls for. That's the kind of thing that's going to bring about real improvements in this country, NOT voting for the guy who'll do less damage.
If we keep that up (i.e. voting for who'll cause the least damage), we'll eventually end up ruined, but it'll take longer. No thanks! At some point, we must stand up and demand a President who'll do good, not just the least damage. The longer we wait, the more damage we'll have to undo.
Funny that despite the "punative" tax on wealth, it remains popular. Or perhaps I've just not met any of the legion of people who have decided to remain poor in protest of the progressive income tax?
"Bush Gore? That sounds like a snuff film!"
bah
Poopdick.
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do.
NO, NO, NO. This whole argument that says "wealthier people have more to lose, and so should pay more," is outright extortion. Here's the deal: wealthier people make more, but they also spend more. When this money is spent, where does it go? To many companies that employ other people! Someone working in an auto factory might be whining that they're not being paid enough, but were it not for the people that could afford to buy the cars they produce, they'd be making NOTHING. BUPKUS. NADA. ZILCH. I don't agree that anyone should settle for less than they could be EARNING in a position like this, but this is between the company, its employees, and the market in general.
In fact, I could make the same argument in FAVOR of the wealthy - because the wealthy provide more of the economic backbone, they should if nothing else, pay only an EQUAL percentage of their income as anyone else. If someone wants to make more money, the world is their oyster in the U.S. - the only REAL obstacle might be their inability to make sound, educated decisions - but whose problem is that?
A BIG part of the problem, as I see it, is that we, as a society, have become a dependent bunch of WIMPS. We elect presidents today not based on how much they can improve the INFRASTRUCTURE that allows us to do for ourselves (which, in practical terms, means LESS government), but based on how many benefits they will give us each individually (that are paid for with someone ELSE'S money). We are a society enslaved to ourselves, and it's pathetic.
The next time you drive through a nice housing development, know that some of these homes could belong to people making FAR LESS than others living in the same place. Through the wonders of Section VIII housing subsidies, we now have a situation where I, because of my income, might be paying far more (read, "market rate") for the very same reward (home ownership), than someone else, because of THEIR income. Is THIS fair? What ever happened to working FOR the American Dream, as opposed to having it handed to you? If taxation is steering us toward this kind of outright socialism, I'm wholly in favor of reducing the tax burden as much as possible.
well That was a standard reply. He avoided the wacko questions and gave us canned responses.
Nice to see government people are all of the same breed.
seriously, you think he would even touch those fringe questions?? Asteroid defense? The wiccian protection society? encryption? I'll bet that these 3 questions will keep gore/bush from even responding.
We won't be thought of as serious until we quit asking silly questions.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election...
And why is this again?
It really doesn't matter if I vote for Nader, Gore, Bush, or even Scooby because the electoral votes in my region will vote only one way, often against the public (or at least mine) stance. We can't truly expect our votes to count until the electoral college is dismantled.
-BThe President's duties are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
Finkployd
Everyone keeps harping on this "right to abortion" and even "constitutional right to abortion". Do you guys have a different constitution than I do? Can you kindly point out where it is stated that a woman has a right to do anything to her body? Does this mean that prostitution and drug use is ok?
Finkployd
Nader is your typical idealistic third party candidate. He has wonderfull goals and ideals, I mean who DOESN'T support cleaner lakes, lower prices, and more government programs to help them. However, when you get right down to it, he has no understanding of economics, forign policy, diplomacy, etc. He has no plans that would actually work, and when you get past his rallying calls, there is no substance to them.
Finkployd
Yes, prostitution is okay. Look at George Bush.
:)
Yeah, that was a mature retort
Hate to burst any bubbles here, but Gore is just as "owned", only by big oil, China, etc.
Finkployd
I thought it was global cooling, did it change again? Would you guys just make up your minds over what I'm supposed to be scared to death is going to happen at some constantly-moving-forward date.
Finkployd
if you want to be taken seriously, then remove the portions of your cause that are murdering terrorists - then maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.
So the wackos who shoot at forest loggers completly invalidate the enviornmental movement for you? How about the uni-bomber, does he make you ignore the liberal movement?
Are you under the impression that there are no wackos who share YOUR beliefs?
Finkployd
It's like dealing with the IRA - if an inch is given to the peaceful groups after the terrorists bomb somethign, there is no way the terrorists won't feel they are effective - which just re-enforces their behavior.
Therefore, the only way to have reasonable peace talks is for the anti-choice side to force the radical wing of their movement to a standstill.
And no - you are absolutely wrong, there are high profile people (Like Pat Robertson) who have said things like - well, it's wrong - but they deserved it - not exactly a condemnation.
so stop the killing, then we will talk.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Uh...no. You can make anything legal (or illegal) in the US by changing the Constitution. Unconstitutional means "against the Constitution", so if it's changed in the Constitution you gan't do a damned thing about it (except maybe pick up your gun and rebel).
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
This is utter nonsense. Nader doesn't have a chance because he doesn't get any press or media coverage! The fact is, most Americans don't research their decision on who to vote for, they go by what they've seen of the candidates on TV, and in the newspaper (although mostly on TV). Well, was Nader allowed into the debates? NO. Hell, even though he had a ticket, he wasn't allowed to sit as an audience member. Nader's rallies often get 10,000+ people...while Bush/Gore rallies rarely, if ever, get even close to that number...yet there are no reporters at Nader's rallies, but most of the audience at a Bush/Gore rally is media.
You could replace all the occurences of Nader in the last paragraph with any other 3rd party candidate, and it'd work the same. NO 3rd party has a chance right now (and they never will if things stay the way they are unless some billionaire decides to fund the campaign).
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
So then that thing called the Constitution...you know, the thing that starts with "We the People"...you don't like that either...cause you didn't help write that...and it decided what laws "we" got...so I guess that was just another quest for power too? After all, a (relatively) small group of people wrote it.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
For example, I give you a tax cut to get a college degree, you get the degree, get a higher paying job, and pay more taxes.
This is why we are developing surpluses -- you help people get better jobs and the tax revenue goes up. You provide high tech companies with a larger trained workforce and they make more money and tax revenue goes up.
The Bush proposal on the other hand, spreads out the tax cuts so evenly that there isn't enough of it in any one place to do any good.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
The Supreme Court argument is the main argument of the "hold your nose and vote" constituency. But you can cut it both ways.
There is not going to be a major balance-of-power shift. Each of the justices can hold on for 4 more years, whoever is in power. Look at Thurgood Marshall - he retired about 6 weeks before he died. Believe me, there are a lot of interested parties who would turn these people into cyborgs rather than let them die...
If so many are not US citizens, do you have a favorite? Is this whole process sickening to you? I am wondering what your thoughts are on the candiadates, and if you were a US citizen, how you would vote.
I plan on voting for John Hagelin and the Natural Law party candidates where possible. Why doesn't the voting allow for some sort of "Other" choice?
sorry, but my vote has to go to maxim magazine's endorced candidate Andrij!!!!
andrij for president!
-Jae
I've never seen anyone on slashdot, or heard anyone I know in real life say they'd vote for Bush. Everywhere I look I find the opinion that I have: Bush is an idiot, and the republican agenda is ridiculous. But, Bush is doing very well in polls, and has quite a good percentage even in this /. poll. So I was just wondering, who is voting Bush, and why?
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
10% of the population isn't gay you fucking werido, unless they are all congregated in 1 small 10% region of the country i have never heard of..
I dont know a single homo personally IRL, and i've known hundreds of people, now statistically thats pretty goddamn improbable dipfuck.
Second of all what the fuck is it with that cocksucker gore and the rest of them, what the fuck should old people have a godgiven right to sit on their asses and do nothing for ?? Considering most of the fuckers are christians--they'll be able to sit a billion^billion years+ in heaven on their asses, so what the fuck. they can fuck themselves
and by the way i hate bush too
VOTE HARRY BROWNE, http://www.lp.org , http://www.harrybrowne.org
a leech ? uhmm ok dipfuck i think there is a
little bit of difference here, first off
it shouldn't concern her as 'leeching' her
resources unless she is fucking STARVING to death.
and in goddamn america with all these FAT FUCKING
CRACK WHORES that is far cry from the case.
AND ITS JUST A BIT hypocritical for a mother to be allowed to prevent a baby SHE IS ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for (aside from rape) from leeching off her, when EVER AMERICAN IS COERCIVELY FORCED to let the fucking elderly, fucking poor white and black trash, and corporations to leech off of us via the income tax and through welfare, corporate welfare etc.. so why the fuck should a woman have such a right to 'prevent the leeching' when no one else in america can kill the irs? EH?? answer that motherfucker
well im into the constitution and all..
but remember these rights were for the
white non-nigger land owner and all that..?
right?
i mean FUCK, i was supposed to fucking pay
taxes when i was 16 and the motherfuckers
didnt even let me vote? well fuck that..
if i am so inferior then why should i be
considered sufficiently competent to fill
out fucking IRS forms? FUCK YOU IRS WHORES
Look I practically worship the band Deicide
(look the word up if you don't know)
I mention satan several times a day and
am the most vehement wicked infidel you
will find slaying christians around these
parts, and still I think
abortion is synonmyous with murder.
so fuck your religion theory bitch,
satan would love to
see you in hell with us
Do you really think that any candidate, especially this close to the election has the opportunity to respond to every question? This is why they have staff! Even congressmen and senators have staff to take care of this stuff for them. Have you ever written your legislatures? Most of the time they don't answer you either, their staff will. It's no surprise at all he didn't answer. Their answers reflect his as good as possible, otherwise he wouldn't have hired them. It's called trust.
What?
wow, I encountered one right here on slashdot.
You, mr anonymous coward, stand for something I abhor. I am an agnostic. Is it your position that I don't have a place in this country? I know your type is big on military spending and "protecting our borders". Well, I happen to work at a prominent defense contractor, doing intelligence work. Do you consider me unfit to contribute to the country like this because of my lack of religious beliefs? Are folks that aren't "god fearin'" inherently lacking in moral character? Organized religion is dangerous in its drive to convert everybody else and control its members.
Get well soon.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
If you think that's the only way to implement it, then you're not very imaginative. Why not just have a standard deduction so that nobody gets taxed on the first $x that they make? Oh wait, we already have that...
If rich uncle additional income doesn't benefit himself or those he chooses -- if the extra money must be shared with everyone -- then why should he bother to become a rich uncle to begin with? What incentive does he have?
Is this just a zero-sum game? Are the world's resources already being used at maximum capacity to support its population? If your outlook is really that hopeless, then don't have kids. Otherwise, people who don't have rich uncles, should look into the idea of becoming rich uncles themselves, without having to tax someone else's wealth.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think I will just move to Canada or the UK or something if Bush gets elected. I fear for my life, the lives of those around me, and the future generation's lives if Bush gets elected. Why? If for no other reason, than for mere environmental issues. I am personally too young to vote, but I can still voice an opinion, and I REALLY HOPE that some of you out there will think about the future before you vote Bush. (I don't really care for the other candidates, so I am not going to advocate another person.)
All I am saying, is don't vote Bush. Please.
My little sad piece of the internet: www.mtndewd
Let me see if I understand your point.
I make more money, therefore the government should take a higher percentage of my money away from me than from someone who makes less money, even though I use the same (or even fewer) government services.
Your argument is that people who are successful and work hard should be penalized. ANY progressive tax scheme penalizes good people.
Nader is a socialist. Gore is a little bit less so. Bush is a little bit less so.
There is only ONE choice in this election that makes any sense for people who actually pay taxes: Vote Libertarian. Vote for the party that wants YOU to make decisions, instead of having decisions made for you by the government, which has shown throughout history that it can't do anything right.
I voted for "Voting is a waste of time."
better than voting for Kodos or Perot.
Lycestra
Browne isn't pro-abortion. He's said on numerous occaisions that he's opposed to abortion.
He just realises that abortion is not an issue that the federal government has any business addressing in any way. That is to say, the federal government should neither support nor repress abortion. That means he'd return the issue to the states, the way it was before Roe v. Wade.
Replace the whole batch and then you can 180 it... replace one and all you get to do is allow congress to pass a law making it illegal (or some form of it).
But not a sereous issue yet...
When the first gose down and we are 2 to go.. then worry... right now other issues are to be considered.
I don't actually exist.
This economic view is called "Reaganomics." We all know where it lead the country: Right into recession. It tends to lead to high inflation because it makes the rich richer, so they have more money to blow on frivolous things. Disproportionate levels of discretionary income is one of the easiest ways to jack up inflation.
.1% of the population controls 99% of the money. Those of us in developed countries have it good.
And remember, North America/Western europe/Australia is better than most countries. We could live in a third world country where
Both Bush and Gore are the same people. Maybe they have differences of opinion in speeches or debates, but let's face it
They have serious differences on heath care, education, gun control, taxes etc etc. How are they "the same people"?
they will do the same thing every president does after they win. And that's do whatever they feel like, past promises be damned.
If Nader becomes president, he will also do whatever he pleases, so there's no point in voting for him, either.
Why is that good? Because it is a 3rd choice, and having more than two choices is a good thing. I, for one, am appalled by the fact that in America, the greatest country in the world, we limit ourselves to only two guys for the leadership of our nation. We force OURSELVES to make a choice simply on who we hate LESS. That's horrible.
You are ignoring the primaries and the Reform Party. On the Democrat side, there was Gore and Bradley, in the Reform Party Pat Buchanan and some other guy who lost thier nomination (was Trump ever actually a canidate?). For the GOP, you had a veritable bonanaza: Bush, McCain, Forbes, Keyes, Bauer.....am I missing anybody?
Including Nader, you have had at least TEN choices, not two. And thats just for the presidential race; governers, represenatives and senators also have primaries where you can pick which canidate you want to represent the party for the office. To say you only have two choices in an election is being nieve.
Q: Nader isn't going to win. He is a wasted vote.
A: If you already plan on NOT voting, take half an hour out of your life (it only happens every 4 years, you can spare it) and vote for Nader.
Its not a wasted vote if you weren't going to vote in the first place (which in itself is a waste). If you want to have an influence on how this country is going to be governed for the next four years, in one of the closest races ever, it most definetly is a wasted vote.
Q: A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
A: Not true really, math-wise. It's just a vote for Nader
True, but its also a vote not for Gore. I wonder how green Nader voters will feel if Bush gets elected and we have an Exxon Valdez in the Alaskan wildlife refuge.
My hope is that one person that reads this will look into the issues and give Nader their vote. If he hits that 5% mark, we can expect to see a 2004 election that is unlike the usual tripe and empty promises we expect from politics.
To become an elected politician (and get reelected) you have to make allies and compromises. This would be true if we have 2 parties, 4 parties or 500 parties. And each and every canidate from those parties could make empty promises just as well as a Democrat or Rebublican.
US Presidents aren't voted for, they're auctioned to the highest bidder these days. They're advertised like breakfast cereal and lack a money-back guarantee like some software I could mention.
:v)
Shame the authors of the US constitution didn't write in a clause for removing an entrenched 2 party system, isn't it?
Vik
Spillover costs, baby, spillover costs...
It's simple to determine what "we" don't like.
What costs me money?
Does alcohol cost me money? Yes, because someone drinks is, their intellect shuts off, they drive somewhere, and Social Security and Medicare pay for the quadriplegic who survives the wreck. Calculate the total costs, divide by the bottles of booze sold, add a few % for overhead, and tax accordingly.
Does air/water pollution cost me money? Does tobacco cost me money? Does gambling cost me money? Does the war on drugs cost me money? And on down the line...if the public pays for the results of an activity, the activity should be taxed.
You're confusing "progressive" with "progressive", sort of like when the mainstream press confuses "hacker" with "hacker." They do that because the terms in question are (at least somewhat) technical terms. They have a specific definition that may differ from the mainstream (ie most popular) definition.
"Progressive" in this case refers to a specific tax structure. As your income goes up, your tax rate goes up. A regressive tax is one in which higher incomes are taxed at a lower rate. A flat tax is one which taxes you at the same rate, regardless of income.
So sales and social security taxes are regressive, income tax is progressive, and I know of no truly flat tax.
The last member of the U.S. Communist Party.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
That's lovely. I imagine you will be voting for GW too.
Oh, wait, silly me, with a reply like that you are most likely too young to vote. Ah, well.
Life sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
- You are not poor.
- You are not sick ( and poor ).
- You are not an asylum seeker,
- You are not black
- You are not gay
- You are not a single mother
- You are not unemployed
- You do not care about the environment
.
- You are not living in the projects.
- You don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself...
(Taken from "ten reasons to vote Tory, but strangely relevant, wouldn't you say?)Life sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
Here's a way for Republicans not to have to bother to vote - if they do everything here, they'll individually achieve what a Republican government would achieve, all without ever having to go to the polling station!
Obviously I am a pinko European, so the above is merely an ill informed leftist rant.
Life sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
Here's a way for Republicans not to have to bother to vote - if they do everything here, they'll individually achieve what a Republican government would achieve, all without ever having to go to the polling station!
- Pour 3 barrels of cyanide into the nearest river, killing everything for 40 miles downstream - no need to worry about pollution, mother earth will take care of that; and anyway, if any pollution is caused by corporations (which is obviously a liberal lie), we can safely let them police themselves. They'll voluntarily take steps to reduce it whatever the cost, won't they?
- Fight to lower the price of gasoline, after all its everyone's god-given right to drive an SUV that gets 5 miles to the gallon - cars that do 25 mpg are for gays, commies and environmentalist wackos.
- Dynamite your nearest family-planning clinic, and make sure that no-one under the age of 21 gets access to birth control - if they got a hold of condoms, my god, that will encourage them to have sex!!
- Initiate prayer at school and at sports events. After all we hardly ever get to pray in our churches, do we?
- In public say you are for medical care for children, and then secretly work against it - fuck-em, it's not as though they work for a living, the little leeches.
- Tell your Grandparents to fuck off and stop whining about prescription costs. If they can't pay them then they should get up off their wrinkly asses and get a job.
- Go out and kick the crap out of homosexuals, after all they have no rights, they are deviants in the eyes of God! The fact that over 10% of the population is gay is a fallacy made up by those damn liberals.
- Donate 50% of your income to the war on drugs. We need to make more anti-drug laws! After all, we now have over 400,000 people in jail for non-violent drug crimes, which is 100,000 more than the whole European prison population for all crime - even though they have 100,000,000 more inhabitants. So we are no.1!!! We proved that prohibition worked for alcohol, we just need to pump a few more billion tax-payers dollars into it and it will work for drugs.
Obviously I am a pinko European, so the above is merely an ill informed leftist rant.Life sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
In fact, only 39% of all Internet users are US-citizens.
So this poll shows either of 3 possibilities (or a combinationsof them), assuming 25% voted "I'm not an US citizen":
- about 75% of all
/.-readers are US-citizens
- about 36% of all
/.-readers have expressed their preference in this poll but aren't actually allowed to vote (not being US-citizens)
- about 46% of all
/.-readers did not participate in this poll not being US-citizens
Ciao,ms
I thank god that I'm not one of your children. would you tell them one morning that you are tired of them leeching off you like a tapeworm and just throw them in the garbage?
human life is not disposable, especially the innocent. for someone who gets on such a tangent about others being so vile, your disgusting view on human life is absolutely horrific.
I thank you again for making me realize why I don't vote for people who think like you.
EOM
and another note- if you arm yourself to kill your own babies, wouldn't it just be better if you shot yourself in the stomach to get rid of them? since that's what you're defending anyway?
EOM
Why reinvent the wheel? While a personal response from Nader would obviously have been preferable, his staff did an acceptable job responding to the majority of questions presented. I just don't see how restating Nader's previously expressed opinions and/or policies in a germane manner is considered "disrespectful."
Politics Sucks! Can we go back to talking tech?
--
InstantCool
If Bush gets elected, I for one will be tempted to do more than just claim to not be an American citizen...
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Clearly Slashdot is censoring Pat Buchanan. I won't vote for him, but I should have the choice to. Slashdot is showing the worst partisan censorship I have ever seen in deliberately not having the Reform Party on the ballot.
I'm voting Bush because he agrees with me on almost every issue, and he is a strong player in the party that agrees with me on almost every issue. The fact that he is an extremely honorable man makes me very comfortable in that choice.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
That makes no sense. Neither the pro-life nor pro-choice movements are religions. Also fundamentalism(sp?) is not a religion. True more people that are pro-life consider themselves religious, but there are also religous people that are a part of the pro-choice movement.
Why do people speak without thinking first?
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
Yes I'm saying free speech is illegal without laws protecting it. For instance, if free speech were "legal" we'd be able to libel against someone or yell 'fire' in a crowded movie. Heck, we'd even be able to lie under oath because it was our right of free speech.
You can have a 'right' guarenteed to you under the constitution, but without laws protecting it, that right is useless.
I believe it was Jefferson Davis who said in a debate with Lincoln that said something to the effect of, 'you can outlaw slavery by not having any laws that protect it' In that day, a person had the right to own a slave, but as Davis pointed out that with out laws protecting slavery, you couldn't have a slave.
I hope this makes sense to everyone besides us 'fucking right-wing nuts' out there. Heck, it makes sense to me and i'm not even a right-wing nut
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
Yes I read it again and it still doesn't really belong here. The person is justifying voting for Nader with the arguement that Bush won't make abortions illegal(which he can't _directly_ do, it would take perhaps 5-10years for that to happen). Which is beside me because the point of voting for Nader is a vote for Bush _never_ came up in the responses posted to the questions. It's just some rant on how abortion will never be made 'illegal' and that could have been said in about 1 line.
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
Mmm... Personal attacks in a discussion. That is a sure sign someone has no idea about what they are discussing. There are many people who feel that abortions are wrong for _other_ reasons besides their religous beliefs.
Second, fundamentalism is _not_ a religion. it is, as defined by merriam-webstser: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
And no matter what your personal views are, many pro-lifer/anti-choice/anti-abortion people are very intelligent.
Finally you can make no comment about my thinking because you don't know me, and from the stucture of your remarks, I doubt you could put them together coherently.
Cheers
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
I blame this on left leaning principals in public education. I have a feeling that the mean age of the \. reader is probably floating around 20 (wild guess here, if I am wrong I apologize and will shut up), meaning that the average reader has yet to truly develop an opinion without the strong influence from public education, not to mention leftover feelings that it's ok for someone (ie. teachers, parents, etc.) to stick their noses in your business.
To paraphrase the truly great Churchill, if you're young and conservative you don't have a heart, but if you're old and liberal, you have no brain. (All right, he was no libertarian, but you get the point)
Sometimes it is good that younger voters are inclined to be more apathetic come election time than the older voters, otherwise my whole paycheck would go to pay for stupid government programs and expanded government authority.
Young voters should wake up and discover that their freedom is being pulled away from them by blue-haired pensioneers and enviromental zealots. If you truly believed in a cause or causes (for me, it's general charity, volunteerism and environmental conservationism), you'd want to see that your money supports those causes in the most efficient way possible. Government programs don't serve causes! They serve a select few individuals (who line their pockets without truly earning it) under the auspices of supporting a cause. Electing an official to support a pet cause of yours will only ultimately hurt that cause. Elected officials of this sort will take money from people (taxes) and give it to bureaucrats and lawyers and whatever is leftover goes to people who might not serve the cause in the best way anyhow. Why shouldn't you take your own money and put it towards a private foundation that you know will get the most bang for your buck. If they misuse your donation, take it to another foundation! With taxation, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE where it goes!
The people that will vote for Nader feel that corporations wield too much power in America today. If you really want to keep corporations from influencing government and pushing you around, eliminate the protections corporations receive beyond normal citizens! Browne would do this! Let the corporations scramble for your consumer dollar without tax rebates from your tax dollars! Let them get sued under civil law without caps and other protections! Browne would work towards that end!
Support Your Cause, Vote Harry Browne
Ahh - and the two maincanidates fit your discription? Oh, wait, I geuss not...well, shucks, looks like Nader is still the best choice... :-)
Bush has demonstrated his lack of knowledge on foriegn afiars multiple times (see "the debates"), and Gore has come out totaly pro-Isreal. Nader seems much more un-baised than Gore and sure as hell has more brains and bargining skills than Bush. Plus, I'd rather have someone who dosn't beleive in war as a solution, eg, "Wage peace not war," which is pretty much Nader's one line foriegn policy.
A sales tax does not tax everyone equally, and is contrary do the concept of equal opportunity, let alone the concept of a flat tax.
A flat tax refers to an income tax that is not graduated -- i.e. everyone (usually above some base income, like triple the poverty line) pays the same percentage of their income in tax. A sales tax does not do this at all, it is a regressive tax, which means that poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. This does not provide "equal opportunity", on the contrary it leaves poor people with less or no money to save or invest, ensuring that they cannot ever escape poverty. (Especially since you'd have to drastically raise sales taxes to make up even a small percentage of the revenue lost by eliminating the income tax. I'm all for smaller government, but you still need some money, or are you for eliminating public works altogether?)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
The problem is that sales taxes are actually regressive, meaning that poor people end up paying a higher percentage of their income than rich people. That's certainly not fair, is it?
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Are you kidding? They buy less stuff on a dollar basis, but they spend much more as a percentage of income.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
We'll be free of this nonsense when the Supreme Court finally comes to its senses and overturns Roe v. Wade turning the issue of abortion policy back to the state legislatures. Then the Supreme Court can actually go back to being the Supreme Court instead of continuing its service as the National Abortion Policy Committee.
The next President will nominate Justices, and will shape the future of the Court, and that will have long-lasting impact of many important matters including voting rights, anti-trust, federalism, search and seizure, establishing free speech protections in electronic media -- the list goes on and on. Do we ever hear a serious discussion about what kind of Supreme Court we want and how it will address these matters? No! Because every time the Supreme Court comes up, we have to retreat to our Pro-Life and Pro-Choice corners and argue about what policies the National Abortion Policy Committee will craft for all of us non-self-governing subjects.
It's time for the Supreme Court to just get out of the abortion policy making business, and go back to being the judicial body it was intended to be.
>Capital gains certainly isn't money from honest
>labor, since it doesn't involve any labor. Right
>now capital gains taxes are much lower than
taxes for other sorts of income, which seems
>quite unfair.
So, a company that does not have a lot of
money decided to entice talented workers
to work for them with stock options - the
stock goes up and those workers get their money...
According to you that involves no labor.
Try again.
-Nick
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
Actually, I'm voting for Cheney. I wanted to vote for Cheney/Lieberman, but I don't think they're offering that combination. Either one of the veep canditates is twice as sharp as both of P guys.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
were that this were actually true...
If we had a fairer government, your poor relatives wouldn't need your money, because they'd have health care, living wages, etc. - PLUS those poor unlucky enough to lack a wealthy relative would ALSO benefit.
Whereas the Republican policy is to use the power of the state to enrich their rich supporters. Great if you're a CEO or major stockholder, not so good for everyone else.
There is no reason a tax cut shouldn't be based on arbitrary contingencies. Everything's arbitrary anyway, so why complain about a specific arbitrary instance, unless, of course, such an instance would bring something negative upon the poster, in which case it would be only logical for the poster to try and convince others that this position is negative by confusing people with lesser intellegence than he, thus garnering other people's opposition to the position he opposes without having presented a valid argument, instead presenting an argument using scare tactics (Calling the Gore proposal behavior modification), lack of relevant information, (Presenting a proposal "similar to Bush's" while providing only a pathetic parody of Gore's), and use of words like "clearly" when there is no argument or evidence presented for that point. Slashdotters call a such a collection of words "FUD".
-Splat
- http://www.michaelmoore.co m/2000_07 _18.html
If you wanna spam everyone you know with this essay, you'll hog less bandwidth by just sending the link.__________
If pollution (for example) is a concern, why not pass laws or regulations that affect polluters (like the very successful-even-the-Green-like it Emissions trading program) instead of trying to twist the tax code to do something that its not very good at doing?
For a counterexample of how this doesn't work very well, look at the luxury taxes that were implemented in (I want to say '94, might have been '96). Hey, we want to tax those who buy yachts and luxary cars. Result: Pretty much the elimination of the entire American yacht industry, elimination of thousands of jobs, and most likely a negative revenue inflow.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
We have the right to say "no" because it's in the majority's best interest to say so
That's a damn slipperly slope you are on there.
You know, its probably in the majorities interest if you had a nice salad for lunch instead of the burger and fries. You'd be healthier, put less of a burden on the medical system, and you know how the green types hate corporate farms. I know... punitive taxes on fast food! And you are looking a little tubby... I know! Tax credits for joggers!
Having said that I agree that people should pay the full cost for some of these infrastructure items, otherwise you are subsudizing living in the burbs. But Nader's ideas are presented more as "tax things I don't like". Good thing he has the proverbial snowball's chance.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
What would you propose to halt urban sprawl?
Zoning laws.
Plus, if someone wants to sell their farmland to a developer, and that developer wants to build houses on it, and people want to pay to live there, who the hell are we to say that they shouldn't have the right to decide where they live?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Most of the flat tax proposals I have seen call for getting rid of the current tax code and having something along the lines of :
.2 (or some other number)
1) What was your gross income
2) Multiply by
3) Send it in (Or have it taken from your paycheck, makes payroll taxes much easier).
In fact, the main complaints people have are that they lose their interest deducations or their house, chartible contributions, etc...
I think that a flat tax like that, combined with an earned income credit for the poor is definitely the way to go. Think of the money saved by trimming the IRS. No more worrying about April 15th. No more of those silly "1,000 credit for owning a alternative fuel based car" type things Gore likes so much...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Yet somehow Microsoft is facing that whole trial thing. Who woulda thunk it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
But.... it'd have to make it through the supreme court (something that's SURE to happen), where it would probably be deemed unconstitutional.
"It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
That's funny, I thought that pro-choice legislation was about giving people a chance to make up their own mind and not letting the government decide for them. That is, letting us (the people) make a very personal decision (emotional and medical) about our own welfare.
>I whole-heartedly believe that the people who >think those who make more should pay a higher >percentage of their income are completely >mathematically illiterate
Those who don't understand progressive taxation are historically illiterate.
Progressive taxation, property taxes, and inheritance taxes were all designed to by the U.S. founding fathers to prevent wealth from accumulting in the hands of a few families (as was common in Europe at the time). Children, grandchildren, etc of those wealthy families would live off of the inherited wealth of thier fathers without ever having to do anything to "earn" a living. They lived a life of luxury and privilage, and eventually began to think of themselves as a different "kind of people" from the masses.
Progressive taxation, property taxes, and inheritence taxes were designed to prevent the formation, or at least the long term continuance, of this kind of aristocracy. Large accumulations of wealth and large estates would be difficult to maintain without continuing to work/invest and earn more money.
It may well be social engineering, but whether you like it or not this country was *founded* on social engineering. The United States has always been a giant social experiment.
>America - the small former colony that refuses to act anything more than a child in its playpen of international affairs.
That may be, but remember... our country can beat up your country any day. Nyah!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'll trade you 1 stockwell day for 1 ralph nader.
I've been trying to point this out again and again here - there was a mighty cry here on /. when Gore was trying to push the Clipper chip through (and he was a big supporter). Did all the people here forget how much they disliked the concept?
How can all the people who were so opposed to Clipper support Gore? What are they thinking!
Vote Green, Vote Libertarian, Vote Rebublican - but don't vote to have your rights thrown away! Imagine if you will a supreme court filled with justices that did not support the right to public cryptography...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"That's a lie. If you consider ALL taxes (federal, state, and local) the highest 20% pays between 50%-60%. Tell me how this is fair?"
Unless you are Ronald Reagan who bragged about paying only one dollar a year in taxes for years (he probably still does). Maybe only bedtime for bonzos is smart enough to not pay taxes....
Unlike most Slashdot polls, *this* one already had a definitive list of possibilities, but some aren't listed. Where are the two Reform party candidates, for example? This is as bad as my local newspaper. :-(
Sorry to disapoint you, but there are reasonable people who believe that abortion is wrong. I wouldn't call myself pro-life, but I will say that I am (for the 1000th time) disgusted with the thoughtlesness with which you have approached the issue.
/. is the right place to do it....it's just WAY too off topic. So, in summary:
;) )
The question of abortion is really REALLY tough, and I think that anybody who hasn't *struggled* with the question hasn't put enough thought into it.
Having said that, and as much as I'd love to have a flamewar with everyone over it, I don't think
1) Everybody take some time and argue with your friends about abortion from both sides of the issue and thoroughly confuse yourself about what is right and wrong.
2) Kill this thread RIGHT NOW (hopefully by moding that post up
Sincerely,
Mike
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
I'm voting for Ralph Nader, and the fundamental reason I'm voting for him is because I'm a Subgenius.
When the revolution comes, poor spellers will be weeding rice paddies with their toes.
-----
-----
"Be kind to your local milkman... you have his eyes." -Mother
Actually I'm going to "throw [my] vote away" by writing in John McCain.
He was the coolest candidate we've had in my memory -IMHO
Dirt doesn't need luck.
When some people are getting stuff for free based on arbitrary legislation, that is bad (on this Nader and I agree). His answer seems to be that there is no way to reverse the trend, we can just penalize people he doesn't like (corporations) to try to offset the trend.
If he wants to end special interests, he should be for that. What he is for is an "Us vs Them" voting issue. No man is a corporation, therefore they all sympathise with the "Us" and can safely demonize "Them"
Don't forget that Unions (or any profession that manages to get itself regulated to keep out competition) is playing the same game that corporations do.
-spred
an aside, my favorite analogy for the current tax system [warning, profane] is that eveyone is getting fscked in the ass, but some poeple are getting reach arounds. Instead of trying to repeal laws that are dicking everyone in the ass, people try to curry favor so that they are one of the few that gets a reach around.
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
why are all posts that are anti-abortion anonymous? do they fear pro-choice people we will send them a bomb? or otherwise attack them? do they fear retribution of the majority?
makes you wonder... what do you fear so much?
your position, BTW, is impossible to defend. pro-choice means you can decide whether you want abortion or not - if you are opposed, don't do it. try to convince people not to do it.
the so-called "pro-life" [highly ironic since people have been killed in the "pro-life" battle] movement wants to impose their will on all others. pro-choice does not.
abortion is a very serious matter. no woman who had one will ever forget it - and i do know a few. just from this personal experience, i would [and will] discourage anyone. but i would never want to take away their right to choose.
This is nothing new. In high school Social Studies I was taught that it's called "Sin Tax". Isn't the tax on cigarrettes something like 66% now? I'm a smoker and am not particularly crazy about the high taxes I have to pay for my "sin", but I understand the reasoning and don't necessarily disagree with it.
-bonzo
Libertarians are not saying that noone should be allowed to help anyone they see fit. But, no person should be REQUIRED to contribute to charities. Should you feel the need/desire to do so, no one will stop you, but do not try to force me to.
I used to feel the same way when I was younger: if I'm successful in working my way up from the bottom rung of the ladder, I have no one to thank but myself, and I don't owe anybody anything for that success. I took no handouts and forged my own way with more than a little blood, sweat and tears.
But then as I got older and gradually evolved into a more socially oriented and less introverted and egocentric person, I began to realize that nothing I have accomplished has been done in a vacuum. Sure I taught myself almost everything I know, but I didn't invent the wheel all by myself. Other people wrote the books and software that I learned from/with. All my ideas are based on other people's ideas that I have internalized and extended and morphed into my own. Those other people in turn based their ideas on still earlier ideas, which were based on still earlier ones. I am a white, male, American, and that simple bit of demographic fortune has provided me with more opportunites than most people on this planet will ever get. As much as I might like to think that "I did it all by myself", this sentiment is patently untrue. I am standing on the shoulders of millions of people that came before me, most of whom enjoyed a considerably less comfortable existence than I.
From where I'm sitting the United States seems to currently be the most prosperous nation in the history of the Earth. Not everyone has shared in that prosperity however, and in my opinion every one of us who has prospered owes a very real debt to the society that provided us with our opportunity. I don't care if the poverty stricken got that way because they are lazier, stupider, less clever or simply unluckier than me. It makes no difference. The instant I was born in this country I got something for nothing, whether I like it or not. It seems the worst kind of hypocrisy and ingratitude to deny those less fortunate a roof over their heads, food in their bellies and a minimal quality of life simply because "they haven't earned it".
It is shameful that anyone in this country should ever die from starvation, exposure or lack of affordable health care. We should take pride in creating a "floor", a lowest standard of living below which no American citizen can ever sink NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. We CAN AFFORD it and we do OWE A DEBT to the society we live in. Callously denying either of these premises is tantamount to spitting in the faces of every individual that made our priviledged status possible.
(Please note: I'm not suggesting that you are young or egocentric or immature, just relaying my own experience and opinions.)
-bonzo
Hi,
;-)
I was quite delighted to see that about 25% of the slashdot-readers are not from the US - maybe its time to start reporting about stuff like CeBit (bigger computer exhibition of the world) although it does not take place in the US
Both parties are almost identical! Most developed countries have a wider range of opinion inside any single political party than the Democrats and Republicans have combined - it's effectively a single party system.
If Gore and Bush both moved to the UK, they would both be ideologically within the range of the Conservative Party. Europeans find descriptions of the Democratic Partys as "the left" either hilarious or scary.
There is no choice. Most US Citizens can see this as pointless, and they don't have the optimism to try voting for a third party. Most US citizens don't vote. Media and business interests stifle what little free thinking remains. Is that a healthy democracy?
Let's face it, a large proportion of the US population only gained legal protection of their basic human rights within just over a generation. Is that a sign of a modern, functioning system?
Weren't some famous Presidents actually members of third parties, long ago? GW, maybe?
If you disapprove of political parties (I do too, by the way) surely more of them is better? The principles of competition apply here, you know. Monopolies and oligopolies can be political too. Variety is essential for a healthy democracy, just like it is for an economy.
And to end this rant, triggered by reading some of the sheer ignorance on this page:
Proportional representation does produce "weaker government". Fascist dictatorships, on the other extreme, produce "strong government". That isn't the issue, surely? Democracy is the issue. "Weak" governments often produce stable, prosperous countries. Germany? Japan, maybe?
If, as you say, it's the ignorant people who _don't_ vote, heaven help the US. It's smart voters are about to elect Bush...
When did human life become so precious in the first place? You make a fine logical deduction, "Whenever that embryo becomes a human being, logically ending that life after that point becomes murder." I support your deduction and will suggest a fine point for separation. An embryo becomes a human being once it is born and is merely an embryo that relies on the host for survival up to that point. That solved the argument. I think I'm going to go get an abortion now.
There is an incredible article from the Economist about voter apathy and how different [it was really hard to keep from capitalizing that] Al Gore and George Bush really are.
If you truly feel that the candidates are Al Bush and George Gore I seriously suggest reading This Story.
Your vote really does mean something, even if you don't like either candidate.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
1. Discount the people who are too young to vote or don't live in the US.
2. Take the people who voted "Jeff" or "Voting is a Waste of Time" and assume they're being funny or not voting because they think either Bush or Gore would make lousy presidents and there's no point voting for someone like Nader or Browne because there's no way they'll win. Split their votes evenly between Nader and Browne.
3. Tally 'em up! You get:
GWB - 3178 | 25.3%
AG - 3451 | 27.5%
RN - 3605 | 28.7%
HB - 2313 | 18.4%
4. Wow! Nader wins! Now take the people who just read this and realised the small guys could win. These people had previously voted for GWB or AG because they thought anything else would be a waste of a vote - slice some votes off GWB and AG and RN wins by even more!
5. Your vote can make a difference. Use it wisely.
(OK so this is pretty much complete bullshit... but interesting nonetheless)
--
Rare Window - free your photos
A cursory examination of the definition of deomcracy reveals that it includes the exercise of power by the public via elected representatives. The US is both a democracy and a republic.
George Bush Jr. is a Domain squatter! Someone send WIPO after him!
sup
Didn't you learn anything from the last George Bush? Remember "Read my lips..."?
sup
uhh... they will in fact drive less. Last time this happened, in the 70's, gas prices were being held low by the gov't, leading to really short supply. When price controls were removed, the market found a price where supply and demand met, and people ended up driving less because they were unwilling/unable to pay the higher prices. People respond to incentives, and there are pretty much always alternatives when the going gets tough.
Just my $.02,
Come to think of it, enough of the political-related threads on /. end up with the same standard (but, I've recently discovered, naive) arguments about how to tax and fund things, this could be worthy of a front-page /. book review -- but by someone who can write better than me!
BTW, taxing companies that pollute to pay for cleaning up the pollution mostly just gives their money to people like landowners; read the book and find out why! (short answer: because (1) nobody owns the air, and (2) people don't mind living with pollution at the price they're paying to live there, or they'd move somewhere else [until prices dropped or everyone had left])
As long as CRAP doesn't get in (Canadian Reform Alliance Party), I'm happy. Dear god, don't let those wackos in... Personally, I'm voting PC (mainly becasue I'm sad to see them go and I am sure the Liberals will cash in again). But dear god, aslong as it's not CRAP.
And maybe the fact that the majority of respondants ar NOT AMERICAN will stop the onslaught of nausiating US political news we've been seeing here for the past _several_ months. It's not like any of your party leaders doesn't inherently suck.
Has there been mention of the Canadian election coming in three weeks? Don't think so! Of course, we only do a month or two of campaigning, as opposed to the year long orgy the Yanks participate in...
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
Because you implied that people who are outraged have no clue that this currently happens. You imply that they are happy with the system as it currently stands, but unhappy with Nader's suggestions.
Some would, some wouldn't.The Libertarian party appears to be the only one that does not condone using the tax system for social engineering. Do you know of another party with the same view of the roll of federal taxes?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Those of us who are truly outraged by this would vote Libertarian.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Wow. I didn't think two parties could possibly be any farther away from each other on the political spectrum than these two.
One wants to solve everything through government control, and the other wants to remove almost all government control.
I can only assume that you're a very complicated individual ;^) Take care!
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
And why do you believe that the rich get richer at your expense? It's not like there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and either you're going to get it or somebody else will. There are thousands upon thousands more people in the U.S. today that there were 200 years ago, and even the people living below the poverty line today have luxuries that were unattainable to the wealthy 200 years ago.
And you know how this happens? Someone has an idea that would make peoples' lives easier/better/safer/etc. He tells a few different rich people about it until one of them also believes it's a good idea. The rich guy funds development, and the idea turns into reality, and everyone's lives become better.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I guess your basic premise of choosing who to insure or help or save or forgive based on some vague idea of responsibility isn't quite sound. OK, too polite: it's pretty stupid.
Who decides where these lines are (smoking == no insurance, smoking with classes == insurance). How about alcohol? Can I still drink? Moderately? OK, define that. Motorcycles kill, can I ride one? How about the helmet, if I do or don't have a helmet will that matter? If something is so stupid that we'll let you die for choosing it shouldn't we outlaw it? When does driving fast become driving recklessly and relieve hospitals from the burden of saving "stupid jerks who did it to themselves"?
Poorly thought out crap like this gives me the willies. The idea that someone can sit in a room and pass judgement on my worst behaviour without knowing me or my past and then decide if I'm worthy of medical care is chilling.
When your kid comes home from school after cutting his hand while on his skateboard, or blowing her knee in extra-curriculars or simply getting in a fight and needing a few stiches I hope the system really takes into account how necessary, safe and actuarially sound these activities are but manages to provide treatment anyway.
Cris E
St Paul, MN
Goverment funded schools are failors. I went to goverment schools and if it wasn't for my parents, I would be dead or in jail.
I don't adgree in totaly getting rid of them, but something should be done. A vachor system would be much better. A free market place will improve it.
Woohoo!! $150 bucks a month!! That's something to depend on!!
Income taxes don't pay for national defense. Never has. Never will. Income taxes pay for goverment programs.
Is this a duty intitled to fedral goverment in the consution?
It's not the role of fedral goverment. It's the states role and the people in the state.
This is really bad.
You expect the goverment to take care of your problem? When was the last time goverment has solved your problems? Goverment has only MADE problems for me and my friends!!
So basicly:
Can't get a job, ask the goverment.
Can't get a house, ask the goverment.
Can't buy food, ask the goverment.
Don't want to take care of your kids, ask the goverment to do for you.
Got any other the problem ask the goverment. And you're says:
Let the goverment take care of you when your old.
Let the goverment enter you life.
Let the goverment read your email.
Let the goverment control you tought.
Let the goverment tell you how to live your life.
People should deal with the own problems and not expect goverment to solve it for them.
Look at the people living off of wellfare. The goverment has sloved all of thier problems. They don't have to work. They don't have to buy food. They don't have to worry about rent. Yeah, goverment help them out a whole bunch!!
No, let the states prevent companies from stepping all over everyone. Companies step over you becuase they have laws that allows them to DO SO!! Guess who put them laws into affect?
Yep. I don't want to my money going to help some gray hair becuase they expected the goverment to slove thier problems and now they live in a rat hole. That's not my problem.
America: land of the free, home of the rich.
MarNuke
For those who are voting for bush or gore, look how much they care about you'; the slashdot readers. They don't have time to write you a message. Harry Browne cares about you. Gore and Bush only care about votes. And your vote don't matter to them.
nuff said.
MarNuke
So far this looks like another in the long lines of "pick the one you think is the lesser evil" elections. From that standpoint you'd have to go with Bush. Gore is just so much worse an option than Bush it's frightnening.
I know a guy who's been voting for Richie Blackmore for decades. I might join him this year.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
My Nader vote won't help Bush, even though I'm in the swing state of Oregon. I have traded my Nader vote for a Gore vote with a friend in a state already won by Bush. Thus Gore gets votes in a swing state where their needed and Nader gets general population votes for federal matching funds. See
http://www.nadertrader.org
and his running mate Neutron-absorbing boron sludge
http://members.aol.com/papacheesy/page26/
---
Inanimate Carbon Rod thanks you for your support. See you in 2004!
Could we post the percentage of /. voters who live in the US regardless of their citizenship?
From the IP address it should be possible to find out.
Sorry, it's not that simple.
I'm form Norway, the land of high taxes.
I'll use two examples. Cigarettes and alcohol. We have very high taxes on both, still the people who smoke are often the poor people and kids who thinks it makes them look cool. The rich can always afford it, but don't smoke any more.
Alcohol taxes gives a strange form of drinking habbit. Most non-rich people cannot afford alcohol on an ordinary day. I mean the one bottle of beer or glass of wine you might like to enjoy while eating dinner. Instead people catch up during the weekends. When norwegians start drinking they don't stop until they're loaded. And this bad alcohol culture has even spread to young kids.
Yesterday I read a report saying that around 10% of kids age 12-13 on a school near were I live get drunk every week!
The high taxes has, instead of causing less drinking, created an unnatural and unhealthy relationship to alcohol.
Another thing with these kinds of taxes is that they can only affect the poorer people. The rich people can always do what they want. This creates a separation of social classes in terms of freedom. The poor people is given a lot of limitations in life-style.
I say, give people freedom and they will use this freedom wisely.
Take away freedom and you will get frustrated people with lowered respect for the society.
...the US Constitution should contain a guarantee of privacy....
(NOTE: Mine is a minority view of the constitution which is not generally accepted by legal professionals, even though I'm obviously right and nobody likes debating me much anyway, especially law professors.)
You're correct to say that the Constitution does not mention any right to privacy, but that doesn't mean the right to privacy isn't there. The framers of the constitution (and especially the bill of rights) were concerned with the protection of rights (such as self-defense and free speech) which pre-existed any concept of government, and did not wish to be put in a position of trying to list every such right they were trying to protect.
The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." IOW, 'We've listed some individual rights here, but it's not an exhaustive list, and if we forgot about any particular right (think "privacy" here) that's no big deal because we meant to include it.' I propose that this nation do one of the following:
1. Repeal the Ninth Amendment (ain't gonna happen, repealing it would require at least briefly paying attention to it, and legal 'professionals' have avoided that for DECADES).
2. (This is the tough one...) Start paying attention to the Ninth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson called a "magnificent generality." Despite the beauty of the wording of the Ninth (or perhaps because of it!) this is very unlikely. In fact, I've been trying for years to start a debate, but those who would support repeal of the Ninth find ignoring it much more convenient than debating me.
It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Supreme
Court justices and other constitutional interpreters have typically
fled from the hard moral judgments called for by the Ninth
Amendment." -- Steven Macedo, _The New Right v. The
Constitution_ p. 7.
Amen. (Professor Macedo is a rare law-professor exception, who shares my broader view of the Ninth and writes good books.) The judgments called for are hard moral judgments with grey areas and lines to draw. Can you have a tax-and-spend drug-war and have a Ninth Amendment? Can you outlaw abortions (early or late-term) and have a Ninth Amendment? Can you outlaw prostitution and have a Ninth Amendment? Can you outlaw gambling and have a Ninth Amendment? Why do most law professors say that the Ninth Amendment isn't important? Is it up to them to deem what is and isn't worth thinking about in the constitution? Don't they sow the seeds of (even more) ignorance in the judiciary by not being honest about the Ninth and why it's there in the first place? (Well, obviously I think they do.)
Now, I look at what I've said above and think, "Voila, slam dunk argument for a Constitutional Ninth Amendment right to privacy -- and I'm not even relying on ten-dollar words like 'penumbra,' I'm using plain, ordinary English!" (Maybe that's what law professors disliked about me...) Anyway, IANAL, and despite my argument above making sense it's not the law of the land in the USA, so use it at your own risk.
JMR
These are my own opinions and have nothing to do with any employer. I am Chairman and CEO of the Ninth Amendment Foundation, which I'll probably someday use to make political trouble...
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
First of all, you are a coward for not putting any identity on your inflammatory and very offensive post. Don't want people here to know how you really feel, eh?
Your stereotyping of union people is very childish and indicative of your ignorance of that type of environment. I was, of course, not implying that skilled professionals do not do real work; perhaps you misconstrued my comment intentionally so that you could post your ridiculous, fantastical comments about how all union workers are lazy. Let me tell you a fun little story about a union called the Teamsters and a place of business called United AG in Omaha, Nebraska. United AG didn't like the Union guys, since they had to shell out enough pay so that they could have cars and houses and MAYBE even some day send their kids (like me) to college. So they began to hire what they called Part Time labor. Part time laborers were not in the union contract. Oh, don't fool yourself into thinking they were different. Part timers worked the same hours (approx. 60 a week) as the full timers; they even worked the same shifts, right along side the full-timers, they just got no insurance and about 5 dollars less pay per hour.
Every time the contract came up, the company managed to weasel in more part timers. During the last five or ten years of AG's operation, not ONE full timer was ever hired again.
My point is that without a union, the company demonstrated conclusively that they would have screwed every worker as much as possible and OUR LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SHIT. So take your union-bashing crap and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!!!!
-Dan Rempe
I know this is an old subject, and you do make some good points, so I won't waste too much more of your time on this, but poor people don't have cars, electricity, i.e everything they possibly need. You are closing your eyes to the fact that actual poor people even exist. That is your only mistake. Everything else you said, though i don't necessarily agree with it, is correct nonetheless.
This battle isn't about any of your issues. I wish it were, but it clearly is not. It is not even about Bush vs. Gore; it is about Corporatism vs. Nader. The two main political parties have set themselves up as the only two choices you have; in actuality giving you only the illusion of a choice. Nader is the real choice; and it baffles me that no one sees it that way. Nader is the only candidate out there who has an anti-corporatist message. Gore's weak attempts to speak against corrupt HMO's during the debates were nothing more than pathetic. These people say nothing reassuring.
For anyone voting for Gore or Bush: click this link to find out what corporations with no federal government regulations are capable of:
http://theawfultruth.com/salbmw
Then, go vote for Nader.
-Dan Rempe
Most products are not manufactured in the United States that we use here, except for domestic farm products, which become more and more corporatized every day. Trust me, I live in Nebraska, and the picture of the average family farmer is not exactly pretty around here. Given that you are obviously a Republican, and that you don't like to give any of your money away, you're probably not willing to support measures which give aid to poor farmers, since I'm sure corporations can do so much better. (Insert sarcasm here).
Free trade is not good for the average worker. What you are saying is a myth. In actuality, there are very few things produced in the US which could not be produced abroad, and the fact that poorer countries have fewer rights than we do makes them easier to exploit as labor. Why hire a bitchy US union type who will demand fair pay and benefits when you can get some kid from Indonesia who's never heard of unions?
Your other point about how everyone should invest their money has also failed. Not everyone owns stock; only the wealthiest own a significant enough portion that they can be successful from it. Investing is NOT creating new jobs, despite what you think, and it is certainly not putting money in anyone else's hands. Government programs like Medicare and Social Security, though far from perfect, are still making better attempts at it than the wealthy would ever do on their own.
Reagan thought this way, and it damn near ruined the country. Trickle-down economics have never once been shown to work for anyone, especially the lower and middle class.
Yeah, let's eliminate the minimum wage. Those honest corporations (like the one where your father cut large portions of the labor, thus putting many out of a job) would be sure to still give their workers what they're worth. After all, they're really being fair to those thousands of workers in foreign countries who work upwards of 80 hours a week and make hardly enough to buy the basic necessities of life. Oh, but they wouldn't do that here! Corporations are good! They've never demonstrated a greedy nature (COUGH!).
I could also make the point that without the labor, the company your father worked for could do NOTHING! Without labor, products do not get produced. period. Don't even talk about prices; if it weren't for those underneath, there would be no product to speak of.
The new economic ideology should be one of stability. Our market favors immense growth; this growth pretty much being defined as the concentration of more and more wealth in the hands of only a few large corporations. This is goal number one of our economy. We should be favoring the idea that success should be measured by stability instead of growth. Growth is, after all, not indefinite.
Letting the wealthy keep more of their money so that they can invest it better is an old idea. What a shock that the man who wrote most prolifically on the subject was multi-billionaire Andrew Carnegie. It makes sense somehow for rich men to advocate more money being held in the hands of the rich. This idea has never worked for our economy. Not even once. Sorry, your theory has been tested and failed already.
It is exactly this "let them eat cake" attitude that led to the French Revolution. It's all about class dissatisfaction.
As for labor making SO much money, coming from a family supported by an unskilled laborer, I can tell you, you're fooling yourself. You can deny it all you want, but what you say is not true. Denying the existence of a vast, poor middle class is not going to make them go away. They're out there. People just have to be willing to open their eyes.
Of course we should tax something that makes people wealthy! It's simple economics! Tap the biggest sources of income/wealth first. What are you going to tax? Food stamps?
You haven't read anything that Nader has said at all. Nader sticks up for the labor class; the class that does all the REAL work in this country and gets paid almost squat for it. Not to mention that due to increased exploitation of cheap foreign labor markets, our laborers are ALL in severe danger of losing their jobs. Just ask my Dad, who worked at the same warehouse for 23 years before he got laid off in an anti-union corporate merger, if he thinks that the labor class is so well-off these days.
The problem with jerks like you is that you don't even try to understand anyone else's problems. You just whine about having to give a few more dollars of your precious wealth away. Thanks a lot.
-Dan Rempe
If you're married and have three kids, are you gonna by a Honda Civic? If you work with someone and have to haul things around, are you gonna by a VW Bug? Probably not...why punish us for getting something that works the best for us? You raise the taxes on gas, then the people taht work for construction companies, etc, have to pay more for gas, which comes out of the companies pocket, then thats passed on to us, and on down the line. You might not think it makes a difference, but I guarantee, you do the math, and you'll be surprised. Also, what happens to poeple like me, who go to work full time and support themselves? I can't be spending $100 a month on gas alone!
We is we the people.
Who do *you* think he meant by we?
suffering from pronoia
And even as the economy skyrockets, with the exception of techies, coders and the like, salaries have not gone up. So the money supply isnt fixed but it still just grows in the pockets of the rich.
>during the first few weeks (and it would be
>really impracticable after).
What? Abortion is legal until the baby is completely out of the mother(in the US). A state (IIRC it was Kansas) attempted to make 'partial-birth' abortions illegal recently but the Supreme Court struct it down. A partial-birth abortion delievers the upperbody of the baby and then uses a vaccumcleaner like device to suck the baby's brain out through its soft spot. Abortions are legal and happen in the second and third trimester, after a spine, a heart, and a brain all exist.
Very few people think that in case of the mother's health in serious danger, or in the first week or two that an abortion is a large ethical crime. However, in case of financial problems, inconvenience, or IMO even if the baby is a product of rape an abortion should not carried out. There is always ADOPTION and the baby should not be punished for "sins of the father."
Did you notice my last paragraph? Just because a company makes more money doesnt mean its employees do. Look at wage growth compared to economic growth over the last 4 years.
1% of the population of the US pays 33% of the taxes. It also has 99% of the money.
If you think this election is all about Pro Choice, then sir, you are sadly mistaken.
Since when do we vote because of ONE particular issue a candidate speaks for. I think this is what make our fellow voters stay home on election day. what ever happened to the environment, corp. welfare, or basic human rights? just to name a few.
if you see this election as narrow as Mr. Moore does, you aren't seeing the picture of what the Democratic/Republican party stands and for that matter, what the Green party stands for either.
now who is trying to scare us.....
FYI.. I'm a democrat if you even care Mr. Moore.
I was playing HL:TFC the other night and I saw a spray paint logo with a picture of Al Gore titled, "Al Gore invented Halflife". I got a laugh out of that.
This is really offensive.
Nader isn't going to improve the system by removing the incentive for people to advance themselves. I can't see how Nader's tax system is anything but an attempt to sucker a bunch of votes from people who can't do math or think long term.
I'm not rich, but I'd consider myself well off. I come from a lower-middle class family; I graduated from high school with less than average grades; I joined the army for the college fund, and when I got out put myself through college (with good grades, this time); I got a degree in computer science and now make a six figure income. How the hell did I rig the system to make myself rich?
I certainly don't have anything against people who made themselves wealthy. At least Bill Gates gained his fortune through good, honest theft and thuggery -- Ralf Nader wants a hand-out.
Well, unless you are only going to buy one share, the change of price of the stock with splits does not matter..
Glad to see that the International candidate is edging out Gore by a couple of votes.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for President! :)
-----
#o#
#o#
O Moo.
I realize that Bush probably didn't write it, but thats not the point.
Part of being a good president is not knowing everything. It is about hiring the right people to advise you about everything, and who collectively know everything. The presidency isn't only about knowledge, it's also about administrative skill.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
From reading Gore's response to the question about encryption, I got the sense that he had no idea what he had been asked. He was just spouting out praise about the current administration, and how wonderful it is, and that he should be allowed to continue it.
Bush on the other hand, (while he probably doesnt know much about encryption either) appeared to at least have done a little bit of research. He talked about some specific instances in which encryption can help, and offered his support in those areas.
I wonder, if asked, if Gore would take credit for the use of strong encryption in the Government?
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
And a casual reading of Moby Dick might well fail to find reference to the White Whale.
Think Different
I am glad to see that we (Slashdot) seemed important enough to the other third party guys to warrant a personal response. I can also understand Nader's position of not wanting to personally answer any more questionnaires, especially this close to Election Day. I am sure that he is a busy man at present. I cannot endorse any person who is going to be *my* employee if he cannot even answer questions which I have asked him. I surely would not get a job if when I was at an interview I told my prospective employer that I was far too busy to answer all his questions... Here is my prepared statement... and umm... Hire me. *grin*
I think the single biggest thing that people forget when dealing with the government of the USA is that these people are OUR employees. They are not granted some right by God to be in office. They are elected by us.
Go out and vote. Please. Vote for Mickey Mouse for all I care... just make your voice heard.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
No.
This is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That's not picking a nit, that's the essential difference here. The notion of rights is that there are some things that a majority of people MUST NOT be able to decide to have the government do. For example, even if 55% of people decide that Christian should be required by law, our Constitution protects the rest of us from conversion by force. That's what (part of) the 1st Amendment is about.
Some things are too important to leave to the whims of the masses.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The consitutional part is key. Technically your point is true - but the mechanism you cite is only how we determine what inalienable rights we actually recognize. Consider the history of the Bill of Rights and how it descends from documents like the Magna Carta. The essence is that there are some places that government , whether the instrument of Divine Right or the instrument of the People, may not intrude.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
But if Nader gets 5%, there will be a bill passed within a month to require 8% for federal funding...
>>The process of democracy in this country encourages everyone to vote. You can be as stupid as a pumpkin and still vote. "Get out the vote" rhetoric only further encourages those who wouldn't vote in the first place to go and do so, adding to the number of people who will vote on things like "how much will it increase my wellfare/social security/income" and "what government programs will it create to help my particular selfish need".
>>
It's a conflict of interest to be able to vote and to receive money from the government at the same time. You end up voting for the money.
What Nader is really saying:
"I am willing to use the coercive power of the state to take some people's money, and give it to others, and I get to decide both parties."
We need to vote _against_ the barbarian leftist hordes who want to plunder and loot this country at gunpoint. But he does have a good non-interventionist foreign policy.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
First: read this and this.
Now: Don't you feel a little silly?
PS: Yes, I'm Pro-choice. I'm also anti-extremist.
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Um, who would get this tax revenue to "end world poverty"? The poor? I doubt it. Although if you want to create barriers to international capital flows, that would do it. Those barriers may have unintended consequences in addition to stability.
But currency trading isn't stock trading at all. Currency trading and currency futures are in a league of their own. Have to be very rich and big to play in that arena. The name Soros comes to mind...
Watching stocks and trading them are two very different things.
"They" may know more than you do, but "they" ultimately have to act on that knowledge, and price, volume and trend tell all. There's enough crumbs at the table to make a good living if you're deft and quick. And that can take quite a while to learn.
If you're one of "them" you're not really a stock trader, but an insider trying to unload onto the speculating public, which are the folks who take the risk the insiders don't want (insiders get nice cold hard cash, and the public gets these little pieces of paper of dubious value).
Market news isn't all it's cracked up to be. By the time news hits the wire, the price pretty much reflects whatever "value" the news had. I don't pay attention to news that much.
I agree with you about the insider shenanigans, and the blind eye of the SEC. But that doesn't require a new trading tax, but the SEC getting off its duff and doing what it's supposed to be doing, which I wish it would do.
Most speculators lose their ass to the market. Speculation is hard, and you have to exert extraordinary self-discipline in order to succeed. Professional traders have often lost 2 or 3 fortunes before finally learning enough to make a living at it. Others have gone sideways for 10 or 20 years, before finally figuring it out.
Those "evil speculators" absorb a lot of risk and chaos. If you eliminate the speculators, that chaos has to go somewhere, and wherever else it goes, I don't think you'll like where it eventually ends up. Keep the chaos on the speculator - he/she actually wants it.
That being said, I think that inexperienced traders are using way too much leverage when trading, and that's the main problem. I'd be in favor of some sort of graduated system, where you're allowed to use more leverage as you gain experience (and manage to survive). Put the mandates on the brokers and let them do the enforcement.
Also on the taxation issue, a progressive tax is unfair and WRONG. It send the wrong message to people. The harder
you work, the more money you make, the more % you will have to pay in taxes. The less you make the less you will
have to pay and if you don't make anything we will give you some for doing nothing. Is this a good message? NO! But
its the one we are sending out everyday with welfare and the like. How are we going to get better as a country if we
punish those who work hard and do well for themselves?
Like driving on public roads, using non-renewable resources (like petroleum) should be seen as a priviledge, not a right.
What any of this has to do with communism - the idea that people who actually work, rather than a small government-backed ruling class, should control economic resources - is beyond me.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Investment would be buying in expection of dividends - remember that old-fashioned idea? From back before stock was something we traded like baseball cards, and with just as much intrinsic value?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Nice.
Source?
> So no one in this country has ever gotten rich because they worked hard?
That seems to be what he's implying, yes. Perhaps, if you disagree, you could provide a counterexample.
working 12-16 hours a day, being on call all the time is perfectly fine if the pay is fine. If the pay isn't fine, then don't work there. If an employer doesn't pay well, they aren't going to get good people. It all works out.
Look, when a small child is raped there is an obvious victim. In abortion, if the fetus is aborted before the scientifically agreed upon determination of life ("brain waves"), there is no victim. On the other hand, if this is outlawed, their *will* be victims. Women will be robbed of their right of control over their own bodies. This is used in many third world countries to oppress women, because they are *not* allowed a choice.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I whole-heartedly believe that the people who think those who make more should pay a higher percentage of their income are completely mathematically illiterate.
First off, any taxation system is going to be somewhat arbitrary; while most (but definitely not all) people would agree that some pooling of citizens' resources is a good idea, opinions on who should contribute what to those resources and how they should be gathered vary wildly. So any statements about whether a system is fair are going to be highly subjective.
One simplistic example (with exaggerated figures plucked out of the air) which could justify a variable tax rate would go something like:
Fred and Jim are neighbours. Both have basic, unavoidable living expenses of $18,000 per year - food, rent, mortgage repayments and so on. Fred earns $25,000 a year and Jim earns $27,000 - not much more. Yet if both are hit by a tax of 20%, Jim's disposable income ($3,600) is nearly double Fred's ($2000). A fairer method, one could argue, would be to apply a fixed-percentage tax to what's left after basic expenses - perhaps 65% in this toy example. That would correspond to Fred paying taxes equivalent to 18.2% on his total income and Jim paying 21.7%.
Of course, this approach doesn't scale well - Bill, who earns $50,000, would say his living expenses are higher than Fred and Jim's because he has to make payments on his new SUV. Fred and Jim might argue that this is a luxury rather than a basic expense - but what are they going to say to Joe who only earns $15,000 and thinks that having a car at all is a luxury?
In other words, I'm not proposing this as a serious, workable system, just as a thought-experiment illustrating one reason why some people might consider varying tax rates fairer. (People who actually know something about economics may now chew it to pieces.)
Cheers,
Mat.
So, he's never mentioned Open Source! Burn him! Must be completely evil!
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
There are few, if any, large corporations that aren't just as evil as Nike and Philip Morris. You can't vote with your dollars, because there's no real choice among corporations, just as you can't vote in the ballot booth, because there's no real choice among political parties.
--
Unregulated speculation, particularly on the global currency markets, makes it impossible for poorer countries to maintain any sort of economic stability. Money floods in, transforming the economic landscape, then floods out just as quickly, leaving devastation in its wake. Hence the currency crisis in Southeast Asia in 1997, which caused widespread poverty. A minuscule tax on currency speculation would provide much-needed stability, and incidentally produce enough revenue to end world poverty. See http://attac.org.
--
I don't poke in yours either. However, you treat another child as if it were infection. Get sterilized if you think a kid would put your life in danger.
Besides, while we are dealing with the law here, a condition where the kid causes an imminent threat falls under self defense, a mitigating circumstance, (not a perfect defense) that would generally cause you to be acquitted.
No matter how the laws change, your life comes first, but only if it is in danger.
Technically you can be convicted of murder if you shoot a person that is charging you once, and they fall to the ground completely disabled (say you hit their knee and they couldn't walk. They were using a bat, so they are disabled) and you walk up and shoot them in the head. That is murder, since you went beyond the realm of self defense.
Anyways, the fetus is declared a person when they have a working brain(IMHO). Their brains begin working from like ~~3-4 months after conception, IIRC. I have no problem with the morning after pill at the moment, but I do have a problem with RU-486 that kills the child and then it gets extracted later, same as an abortion, with the "dirty work" done.
I can't wait until an attempted murder victim sometime gets very little in damages because of "dirty hands" from when they aborted like 10 children because they couldn't spend $5.00 on a pack of rubbers. HA!
------
IANAL, but I know my shit.
-Paul
I decided that a vote for Nader would be the best way to express my views. I know, he's a flake. His economic policies seem to be aimed at turning the U.S. into either India or France, I can't really tell which. He'd make a terrible president. But he's come out in favor of relegalizing cannabis, which for me this year, is the touchstone.
Why not vote for the Libertarian, Browne? Because he's going to get less than 1% of the vote. My protest is louder when I combine my voice with numerous others.
For those of you who would vote for Nader but don't want to help throw your state to Bush, check out the Nader/Gore vote exchange sites.
- Have a picture
"We" the people... "we" don't like pollution (who does.. :P feh)
we dont like the fact that the social diamond is turning back into a pyramid with the richest 2% on top and the poor plebs making up the base of society.. it's nice having the middle class be the fat end of the stick, with less poor and less rich. more fair to the average person.
the tax system he talks about makes plenty of sense to me. I'm sorry that you got all the karma with trollish paranoia.
This may not be the ideal thread to ask this, but since encryption was mentioned, it shouldn't be too offtopic.
IANAL, but my understanding of U.S. law is that any evidence used against you in court must be obtained legally. There are certain laws which allow law enforcement officers to do certain things that ordinary citizens can not, such as search your home when a search warrant has been issued, however law enforcement officers must otherwise obey the law when obtaining evidence. The DMCA outlaws access control circumvention, so if you encrypt your files to prevent law enforcement from accessing them, doesn't the DMCA make the attempted decryption of these files illegal? Is there a section of the DMCA which exempts law enforcement or is there some other law which grants law enforcement officrs the right to violate the DMCA?
When it comes down to it, Ralph's popularity is because people don't know about him. We hear a lot about how terrible Al Gore is or how business has Bush in his pocket. Nadar may not be in anyone's pocket, but the fundamental reason that I'm not voting for him is that I'm not a communist.
There is one existing country that has the same ideas as Nadar: China.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
White House.... new Geek Compound?
There has been a lot of discussion on slashdot lately about progressive taxation. I fail to see why this should be evil, socialist etc.
I live in Denmark, and we have had such a taxation system for generations, and it works very well. I belive the same is the case for the rest of (at least) the scandinavian countries. Notice that we're talking about some of the richest countries in the world.
Any comments from other europeans?
-Raz
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-- Douglas Adams
Voting has almost no effect on the local level and much less on the national.
The elite scum that secretly rule our planet from the comfort of their corporate boardrooms have already decided who will be the "leader" of America. ("Leader" equals "he who will be laughed at".)
We are all powerless to change our society and those who might are often killed. Look what happened to Jesus and then to JFK. Do we have cold fusion-powered cars yet? See, case closed.
The CIA tried to kill Khadafy using a plan they've used before to kill world leaders -- but he wouldn't come to Dallas, TX.
-- Bill Hicks
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
A disappointing answer, sure. But now think about what Gore or Bush might have done in the same situation. (I don't mean the same topic, I mean a topic they had never heard of.) Ask them a question about something they don't know about, and you'll get the classic BS. "Well, what's important is that we build bridges to the future." "What's important is that we protect the freedom to innovate." "We all need to work together."
I'll take an honest "I don't know" over bullcrap any day. In my experience, this applies to most Libertarians as well. They give it to you straight, and that's why they get my votes.
grep -ri 'should work'
The only person I will vote for. Reason being:
He will tell us what we want to know and when you ask him a question he will answer it with a yes or a no and give his opinion, not this "I think" BULLSHIT. Anyway I am not voting and I hope everyone realizes that any goverment is a bad government.
Yeah yeah yeah
Wow, I get to rule your contry AND made slashdot history all on one contentless post. I'm honoured...
Actually I once submitted an "ask slashdot" if there was a bias toward giving high scores to posters in the eastern time zone over the pacific time zone, seeing as how everyone gets to work earlier. Got rejected of course...
Only 25% of the votes were non-american citizens. Last time I checked, 25% was not a majority...
----
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
What you you feel about going to work and live in a country where human rights are constantly trashed? (Mostly because of the shitty money-based legal system, and the roll-and-dice-to-decide death penalty).
(And yeah, this is flamebait, but well, if geeks could do something for that...)
Spoken like a true market neophyte. Capital gains are taxed at less than the rate income is taxed, encouraging people to make money in the stock market rather than working for it. I will soon be in the 31% federal bracket, plus 6.5% Social Security, plus 9.3% state tax bracket. I can pay 31+6.5+9.3=47% of each dollar I earn to the government, or I can pay capital gains taxes of around 20%. Which is the better deal? Am I going to work hard to increase my salary or to increase the returns on my portfolio? That is what Nader is referring to when he says we shouldn't tax things we like.
Walt
I guess I should have been a little more clear. I agree that equity investment is by far more benficial to the economy than any individual person laboring. I'm not a fan of Nader's politics, I was just trying to illustrate the bias in our tax code towards "things we like", although I suppose I should have used a different example, like marraige or owning a house where it's a little more cut and dried.
Walt
I was under the mistaken impression that the electoral college worked a little differently than it actually does. But I'm going to challenge the conventional wisdom on this point by looking at recent history:
1976
53.55% Voter Turnout
1980
52.56%
1984
53.11% Turnout
1988
50.11% Turnout
1992
Clinton: 44,908,254 - 370
Bush: 39,102,343 - 168
Perot: 19,741,065 - 0
(Total for all three: 99.21% of voters)
104,405,155 votes
189,529,000 potential voters
55.09% Turnout
1996
Clinton: 45,590,703 - 379
Dole: 37,816,307 - 159
Perot: 7,866,284 - 0
(97.35% of voters)
96,277,634 votes
196,498,000 potential voters
49.08% Turnout
I think, looking at the numbers here, you've got several million people, easy, who went to the polls specifically to vote for Perot. In 1996, where did those people go? Looks to me like most of 'em stayed home.
If the conventional wisdom is that Perot took votes mostly from Bush in 92, I say pfah... no way. There's eight million votes that stayed away in 1996, and it looks to me like most of those who deserted Perot in 96, yet still voted, voted for another third-party candidate. And I think that will be partially true for Nader/Gore this year... sure, Gore's going to lose some votes to him, and in a race this tight I guess it might actually matter in some places. But I bet we'll see a bump up in turnout this year - I predict somewhere in the 52% range - and I further bet most of that bump goes to third-party candidates.
What mixed up system of marillity? What I'm saying is, flying a confederate flag is blatantly racist. Of course you don't think so because you don't think you're racist. But I'll tell you what, it is disingenuous to say the least to say "I'm not a racist" and then turn around and say the Civil War wasn't about that "PC crap". You are so not getting it. And what does that have to do with liberal/conservative, speaking of stone age stereotypes?
And who are you calling imperialist? Do you know what that word means? I'm not going to stop y'all from making asses of yourselves. I'm calling a spade a spade, as I see it... and what I see is so obviously fucked, making a target of you is every bit as righteous as targeting Scientologists and Holocaust revisionists. It's a totally deserved dope slap, and so far I haven't seen one - not ONE - ounce of common sense, intelligence, or wisdom of any sort that supports hanging a racist, traitorous, loser flag on a state building. And yeah, I've read all the stuff about tariffs and states rights, so spare me the bullshit - you need to come out and say what you really feel and not hide behind bogus rationalizations. That is such a weaselly, punkass maneuver, it's no wonder you feebs go for Bush.
You may notice, by the way, that I am not referring to your precious state flag that incorporates the stars and bars in its design. I'm not so opposed to that design per se. Sure, I think it's lame and stupid, and the people who have such great love for it at that mystateflag.com site are some stone age stereotypes, but it's still not the same thing as flying an actual rebel flag.
Finally, I think I made it clear enough that I think y'all should be free, as states, to decide what flags you want to fly. I've got no interest in forcing you to conform to my world view. However, if you're going to act like dumbass cracker morons, I reserve my right to call you on it. And so far, you haven't exactly done much to change my mind.
Do you have a source for this? I work in the environmental consulting field, and right now I'm working on two of the largest Superfund sites in the West. The people with the biggest problems are, surprise, chemical plants, petroleum and heavy industry.
I suspect the 25% recycling/reprocessing figure could be accurate, but I think that needs to be qualified - I'd wager most of these places are not the romantic green ideals of recycling plants. These aren't where your newspapers and bottles go. These are probably more along the lines of the heavy industrial reprocessing facilities, and that includes a whole spectrum of nasty stuff. One of the PRPs at one of our sites is indeed a heavy scrap metal reprocessor... but their responsibility for the site is very, very, very small in comparison to the neighboring chemical plants - if any, in fact.
WHY I WON'T VOTE FOR BUSH ...
but, uh, anyway, no, if the people of South Carolina want to fly a confederate
flag or swastika or rising sun or Union Jack or whatever on their public
buildings, well, that's their business."
I'm
telling you, if George W. Bush were to say something like that, not only
would I be first in line at the polls to vote for him, I'd paint his portrait
all over my car. I'd name my dog after him. Hell, I'd change MY name to
George W. in honor of him. But he won't, because either he agrees with
the sentiment, which is fucked, or because he's a wuss and he'd
rather dodge the question. Either way -- he's a douchebag.
(Reason No. 43) Apparently, there are people in South Carolina - I won't name names - who think flying the Confederate flag on their state capitol building is some sort of proud testament to their glorious past. OK, fine, to the rest of civilization it's a symbol of the ignorant, aggressive, racist losers of a vicious, unnecessary war... but to each his own. Now, last spring John McCain, Al Gore and Bill Bradley all agreed that the rebel flag was inappropriate and should be removed from the South Carolina capitol building... but not George W. Bush. Dubya felt that flying the Confederate flag was an issue best left for the people of South Carolina to decide on. Well, on one hand, that's a good answer. The federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling the states what flags they can and can't fly on their own buildings. But on the other hand, it is SUCH a pussy answer. If George Bush had said something like this: "Well, I think the federal government has no business getting involved with this issue. It's clearly a matter between the people of South Carolina and their elected state representatives. But I'll tell you what... here's how I really feel about it: Listen, you toothless dumbass backwoods cracker feebs, the Civil War was a HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO, and YOU LOST. Don't you think it's about time you, y'know, let it go? Especially considering that pretty much every person on the planet can agree that slavery probably wasn't such a good idea. You don't see many swastikas over at the Reichstag these days, do ya? You know why that is? It's because they're not particularly proud of having an evil, fucked-up past where they killed and/or enslaved a whole bunch of people. Surprise! What's next on your list, an Andersonville theme park? And another thing, the next time I'm driving around down here and I see a 73 El Camino toolin' around with a 'Nuke the North' bumper sticker, look, I'm running your fuckin' ass off the road with my entire presidential motorcade. Nuke the North. That's pretty funny considering all the ICBM sites there aren't in the South. Like we'd really let a bunch of fuckwits like you at the controls of global thermonuclear destruction. I tell you what - any of 'ya'll' who want to fight the Civil War all over again, you just let me and the Pentagon know the time and place and we'll be more than happy to settle this thing once and for all, alright? Until then, all of you ignorant redneck web-toed David-Duke-votin' sick-motherfuckin' Ned-Beatty-rapin' sons of bitches can just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, because the rest of your species is so embarassed by your existence that the only sign of your pathetic lives we ever want to see again is the footnote in the history books that starts: 'Here's an example of a truly despicable people...'
Alright, in trying to answer my own question I've gone out in search of info on the web. Gosh, there sure is lots of spiffy historical info and blahblah, but I'm having a hard time finding the nitty gritty - like how exactly third-party votes are handled in the electoral college.
As it turns out, at least in this century, yeah, it looks like the electoral college goes like the state popular vote goes. Sorta. I'm under the impression that there have been times when this hasn't necessarily been the case, but I haven't actually checked that out. And anyway, what I'm talking about here is the fact that third-party votes appear to get "lost" in the electoral college. I know on the surface this is due to the winner-take-all scheme, but I'm more curious about how it breaks down within the electoral college itself.
Interestingly, there have been a few recent cases of rogue major-party electors... one guy in 1976 voting for Reagan, and IIRC one or two rogues against Nixon. There certainly seems to be no formal obligation for an elector to vote a certain way (although I bet rogue electors have a hard time getting their phone calls returned afterwards). And I'm not seeing any breakdowns on the electors themselves... how many popular votes does it take to get yourself an elector? How many major-party electors have there been in past elections vs. third-party electors, and how did they all vote? Do third-party electors stick to their guns and vote their party, or do they tend to be more pragmatic and vote the lesser evil, since at that point there wouldn't be any advantage to being a holdout?
Hmmm...
... although it's nice to know that Southerners hate Nazis. Thanks for clearing up that confusion. I don't know what the hell I was thinking.
Wake me when there's a comment here that isn't completely stupid and/or boring.
OK, I found a little info from a few different sources...
1856
Millard Fillmore: Popular: 21%, Electoral: 2%
1912
Taft: Popular: 23%, Electoral: 2%
Roosevelt: Popular: 28%, Electoral: 17%
1948
Truman: 24,105,695 - 303 (popular - electoral)
Dewey: 21,969,170 - 189
J. Strom Thurmond: 1,169,021 - 39
Henry A. Wallace: 1,157,172 - 0
1960
Harry F. Byrd won 15 electoral votes
1968
Wallace: 9,906,473 - 46
1980
Anderson: 5,719,437 - 0
1992
Clinton: 44,908,254 - 370
Bush: 39,102,343 - 168
Perot: 19,741,065 - 0
1996
Clinton: 45,590,703 - 379
Dole: 37,816,307 - 159
Perot: 7,866,284 - 0
That's all I've got so far. It looks like third-party candidates have always had a real disadvantage, and it looks like in the past twenty years that it's gone past being just a disadvantage. One might assume, just by looking at the numbers for 92-96, that a third-party vote counts for fuck-all in the real election.
Another interesting data point: in 1916 in W. Virginia, electors were chosen directly on the ballot. That year 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat won. Apparently, this is a Bad Thing and is described as being the result of voter confusion or fatigue. So these days most states just keep things nice and simple so the po' folk just pick one man or the other, and let the smart people behind the scenes sort things out. Maine and Nebraska, oddly enough, are the exceptions, as they still allow for a few individual electors to be voted upon.
The 19th century had a slew of wacky electoral college antics. These seem to have been perfectly tamed for most of the 20th century, for better and for worse, with the major political parties securing their hammerlock on the system in the past 20 years.
I guess how it works in California, for example, is that whichever major party gets the most popular votes gets to send their hand-picked team of electors to Sacramento to cast their votes... all-or-nothing, it's either going to be Republicans or Democrats. Since electors are chosen by state office-holders, as long as there aren't any third-party office-holders already in the state, there's not even a chance that there will be a third-party elector in any event.
And like was pointed out ad nauseum during Perot's run, even if there came to be a three-way tie in the electoral college (which would be a miracle itself at this point), the election would be decided by the House of Representatives. Good luck with your third-party candidate there.
So the only way any third-party presidential candidate will ever even stand a chance of any kind will be if that third party can gain a substantial foothold in each state government first, and then they better have a similar hold in Congress. Otherwise there's zero-nada-zip-zilch chance, no matter how many popular votes your guy gets. I bet Perot could've kicked Bush's ass in 92 and still scored 0 electoral votes (and that might've happened, BTW, if anyone remembers back that far... if only Perot hadn't gone a little wiggy midway into the campaign).
This seems really unfair at first, but upon relection I think it actually makes sense. I mean, c'mon, seriously... did anyone REALLY want to see Perot get elected in 92, or was it more that the other candidates sucked? Do we actually want to see Browne or Nader or whoever become president?
The system in place now may suck, but it does prevent some unqualified yahoo from riding a popularity wave into office (yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Jesse Ventura) (hey, I don't know squat about Jesse, OK, I'm just using him as an example of what COULD happen - for all I know he's a brilliant governor). Let these guys build up enough local support, let them and their party platforms get battle-tested before they graduate to the most powerful position on the planet. Run for governor first, at least.
All of us third-party fanatics should keep in mind - it's all well and good to support an oddball presidential candidate, but if you're serious about your views you gotta start at the local level. Otherwise, for better and for worse, it is just fun and games, a waste of time. Should you still vote your conscience? I say so. Why not? Your one lousy vote isn't going to swing the presidential election, so I say, go for it.
What's so delightful about this is how people seem to assume that my above rant is somehow pro-liberal... as if there are just two teams, and you're either for one or the other. That's an interesting perspective on reality, and I think I'll have to develop my feelings on that into my next rant...
You know, I'll get back to you on that just as soon as I figure out what the fuck you're talking about.
OK, here's my beef. Upon further reflection.
In '92, the media were all over themselves talking about how Perot could theoretically get enough votes to cause no candidate to get a majority, thus throwing the election to the House where Perot would lose anyway. This was all fine fun and wonky games (and gave a lot of us, I think, the illusion of choice), but what they DIDN'T say is: hey, Perot has no electors, there's not a damn thing he can do in this race, it couldn't possibly ever end up in the House, he's just wasting all of our time.
It's the same today. I don't hear anyone, anywhere talking about the need for greens and libertarians and reformers and all of us fringey types to work on our local elections. No one's saying, hey, wait a minute, until we get more support in our own communities we don't have a shot at the big leagues. All I ever hear is people blathering on about their no-chance vanity candidates (myself included, BTW), but the highest possible office for a third-party, left-field populist candidate is governor. A third-party left-field president isn't just a noble, Quixotic, extreme long-shot, it's an actual IMPOSSIBILITY.
You'd think, at some point, someone somewhere would be bringing this point up.
Man, I was hoping for some flames of quality here, but that barely qualifies as literate. Although "radiating hate" is a nice phrase, and I like the bit about exploding all over. Those were inspired. In a few years, little AC, when you get out of school, you really should think about going to college... I think you've got potential, but it's going to take some work. And try to go to a good school - community college is OK in a pinch, but you'll get more out of a university or state college.
Hugs,
GooseKirk
Actually a lot of us are bothered it seems that a reasonable percentage of you are going to vote for a man who would loose a battle of wits with a pot plant. You're going to give him controll of all those missiles pointed at the rest of the world now why shouldn't we be bothered, after all he makes Regan look bright and that's something I didn't think I'd see soon.
Who are you all kidding? We should all write in our own ballots, Torvalds For President!
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break
You're not going to get that tax break. He's promised the same budget surplus for both a tax cut and social security. Somebody is going to lose out in the end. Also, and I'm not trying to troll here, but Bush doesn't even understand his own policies on where he's going to spend the budget surplus. Gore had to explain it to him during the debates on more than one occasion.
Alan Greenspan has publicly stated that a tax break now would be a disaster because we need to cool the economy. Otherwise, we're heading for serious inflation. So, assuming that Bush decides to skimp social security and give you your tax break, you're not going to be able to buy anything you couldn't before because your money is going to be worth less than it is now.
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
I'm really surprised that people are so obsessed with his ideas about taxation (which I by the way wholeheartedly agree with) and pay almost no attention to his ideas about restructuring the whole political system. The idea of having just TWO parties, especially when they share the same view on almost every single point, strikes me as wholly and utterly non-democratic (as in democracy, not the Democrats). And this system is supposed to be the most democratic in the world? An example for all other countries to follow? No way!
I think that Nader has very good ideas on a lot of issues. You should support him, not the current system with two candidates saying the same things. Why do you think that people don't vote...
there were a lot of people that were in concentration camps, some even managed to escape. since people did escape, does that mean everyone who didn't deserved their fate?
poverty, like a concentration camp, is escapable. poverty, like a concentration camp, is something you want to escape from. yet, you will sympathize with victim's of concentration camps, but not with victims of poverty.
Now I really don't care who wins this Presidental election thing. There are too many different issues to standfor and all the candidates have something good and a lot of things bad.
So as far as I'm concerned registering to vote doesn't mean that I get to have my views represented on election day. It just means that someday I have to decide if someone is guilty or not, while taking off work, getting paid $5 a day!
So Vote Local or don't Register. It's gonna cost you in the end.
When there is not a majority in the electoral college, the House must decide. Sure it's not perfect, but it's something.
It's the _state_ voting policies, in which they determine which electors they send, that could use the work. The all-or-none systems used in what, 47 states, is the problem.
-bugg
Great. Taking a pistol and murdering my neighbor
is also a choice. Does that make it right?
Of course not.
And don't think, not even for a moment, that I'd
hesitate to gun you down in the street, should
you choose to engage in armed insurrection. Not
even for a moment. Murderer.
Would you shut up already?
his comment on how rich people are rich because they've rigged the system shows that he doesn't know much about how the economy works" I'm sure this comment is misworded. Ralph himself is a self-made millionaire, albeit he lives on $25,000 a year and gives away almost all of his income.
Given his position, that ain't a lot of money. Nader is, what, 50-odd years old? I suspect many (if not most) of the readers of Slashdot have high-tech jobs. Assuming you make 70K/year, bank 20K of it someplace reasonable, and step and repeat until you're 50-odd, you'll be worth several million dollars as well. If your stock options ever become worth anything, you may do much better. We can only hope.
j.
Your last two sentences are misspoken. We have been neglecting the entire philosophy that the country was founded on. Go back and examine government history, about the bills that were proposed and those that became laws, especially in the early 1800's. You would be suprised -- for example, James Madison vetoed a public road act that Congress had passed. Madison gave his reason as: Congress does not have the authority to authorize funding for improving public roads according to the constitution. What do we have today? Congress enacting a law that states, "States will set their BAC level's to 0.08 for DWI laws or lose the money for roads and highways that comes from the federal government's coffers (our pockets)." Our country was not founded to have a very powerful strong central (federal) government. Read the constitution and the federalist papers, as well as many of the early supreme court decisions, laws, and bills introduced into Congress. You'll be suprised and enlightened.
Our founding fathers were very wise/intelligent men. They recognized that the gravest danger to any free society was it's own government. Their design was for a mostly static government unable to accomplish much, with the real spending and taxation done at the state government level.
Just my two cents worth,
Look people, voting isn't just a right, it's a civic duty. Anyone here remember what that means? Voting is what differentiates us from a dictatorship. We, the people of the US, and only we, have the power to say what government should and should not be in this country. Remember the Founding Fathers? They gave us this power, and the responsibility that goes along with it. That means the responsibility of voting.
The Founding Fathers set up this country like a corporation, with a President, Vice President, an elected "board of directors" (Congress), articles (the Constitution), bylaws (the US code) and voting shareholders (that would be you). Just like any other corporation, the real power lies in the voters. What happened in this country is that cliques have formed among the voters, and they give themselves names, such as "Democrat" and "Republican", "Green", "Reform", and "Libertarian", "American Independent" and "Natural Law". These cliques pool their voting share to try to get their choice elected.
Not voting for someone just because you think your primary choice has no chance of winning is like saying you're a Democrat when you're really a Libertarian. You're voting for someone other than who you think should be in office. It's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Don't disappoint them.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
So false. Texaco is the best friend Bush has at the moment. And the next moment, and the next...
You strike me as pretty damn smug yourself, bushboy. How's that new glass house coming along?
That's an interesting chain of logic you endorse: those who vote for Nader are electing Bush? I suppose those who are voting for Bush are electing Kodos (or is it Kang? I can never tell those alien cephalopods apart). Yes, yes, I understand the spurious logic that Nader is stealing votes from Gore. I ain't buying it - no one can possibly know how many of Nader's supporters would have simply stayed home if Gush and Bore truly were our only choices. More to the point: anyone who tells you voting your conscience=wasting your vote is a traitor to our country and his own conscience (or consicence). If you vote for the lesser evil, that's exactly what you'll get.
Face it, kiddo - Dubya is half the man his father is, who is half the man Reagan was, who was half the man Barry Goldwater was. I'm a libertarian - Goldwater was too much a hawk for my tastes, but was otherwise the best presidential candidate either major party has produced this century. He was pulverized in '64, though; so I guess all you rock-ribbed Republicans were wasting your votes, since he had no chance to win.
Ph'nglui mgwlanafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgahnagl fhtagn. Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
I find it hard to believe that anyone writing such a self-contradicting statement would ever consider allowing anyone to control even a portion of their own lives.
Understand that charity is a voluntary act. Welfare is not charity (look up the word - our current system fits none of the standard definitions, though I suppose that would depend on the dictionary used).
Your relatives should be given charity when needed, not seen as a 'responsibility'. The fact that you feel my rights are less important than their wants is a sad reflection of our authoritarian society.
I don't even understand your next point. You agree that welfare gives a lot of money to people who don't deserve it, but you'd like to know who doesn't deserve some form of welfare for unfortunate situations? Those receiving welfare were obviously deemed by someone to be in an 'unfortunate situation', else they'd never have qualified in the first place. Apparently you simply want to tinker with the formulae used to determine benefits. What makes you think your standards would be any more effective than the ones we have now? Do you have any concrete proposals in mind, or is this the standard disclaimer used by those who don't wish to appear irresponsible with other people's money?
I find it disgusting how so many people are brimming with Big Rock Candy Mountain ideas on how to spend money that doesn't belong to them.
Ph'nglui mgwlanafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgahnagl fhtagn. Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
Some Guy Named Chris
And evidently, Chris does NOT like anyone to improve themselves, to make more money since he advocates taxing them more, and he also thinks to discourage an activity, you tax it more.
Therefore, it only follows that Chris wants us all to be poor [except for himself I'm sure....]
It's not really as bad as all that. Voting for who'll do the least damage isn't a bug it's a feature of our 2 party system. Unlike many other nations our elected officials have to build a coalition before the general election instead of afterwards. This is a feature! You at least know what comprimises have been made before you cast you ballot. The chance that we get with the two party system to actually vote for someone who may express our views more clearly comes in the primary/caucas/convention process not in November. At the primary it makes more sense to vote for people with different ideas, when you do that then your voice is heard and forwarded on to the party convention in the summer.
Is this process perfect? Hell no! Is it fair that Iowa always gets more say than other states? Hell no! Does this system need a little bit of reform? Shit yeah! Overall is it a workable system that needs a few tweaks? Yes. These are problems that can be dealt with by finding a new way to schedule the primaries.
It also helps this system when you have a real range of canidates. This year the Republicans had a really good spread of canidates and then through the primary/caucas/convention process worked out some comprimises and nominated the rather moderate George W. Bush. The Democrats however, had only two real canidates in the primaries. Both were fairly moderate career politician sorts. As a result the left wing of the party got kind of left out of the process and as a result we're seeing more division between the left and the moderate left than we are seeing between the right and the moderate right. This is why we are talking about Nader today and not about Pat Buchannan who is to the Republicans pretty much what Nader is to the Democrats.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
No, it's not a government service it's a bribe by the government to the company to build in their city so as to generate jobs for the people who would work in the factory/office building/whatever. In fact, if you take a look at it honestly this is a benefit more to the less well to do than the wealthy, as the majority of people in said new facility will be in the former category instead of the latter. If you take a cockeyed view of it you could consider this situation as the city government making a direct contribution to the lower income workers in the new factility by way of the tax break to the company. Instead of the company paying the regular tax they would be paying that same money to the workers in that city in the form of a taxable salary as opposed to the workers in some other city.
You can try to twist it any way you want, but basically I see this as a form of "trickle down" economics in it's best form. The government gives a tax break to the "rich" company and the money trickles down to the workers in the facility. No two ways about it, if that facility was not built in that city then those workers would not be getting any benefit from the tax break. If the government gave the tax break to the existing workers instead of going after new previously unavailable income as an inventive to build the economy then they would be reducing their income (they are generating less tax income from the existing tax base, and the company supposedly wouldn't build in that city so there would be no new tax income to replace the loss), and the workers would benefit minimally. By giving the larger break to the "rich" company the government builds the economy by creating new jobs and in effect increases it's tax income. Remember that the government can't count the tax break to the company as previous income, because the company facility doesn't exist there yet. The only income they have is from their existing citizen employee base and other companies. So the government decides not to increase it's income by not taxing a new facility and gets it's payback by increased employee taxes (because there are more employees and/or the employees make more). How are they increased? Well, the employee base for this new facility probably come from several areas. One would be existing employed taxpayers that choose to leave their existing jobs and take a new job at the new company. The only conceivable outcome of this would be an increase in the employee's salary, and hence increase in the tax income generated. Another source would be workers from another location that is not in the current tax base for the government. These would be completely new sources of tax income for the government, not just a slight increase for workers who "move up" and get higher paying jobs but are already tax payers. Lastly, some of the workers, although probably few, would be current tax payers who are unemployed, and therefore pay no or little taxes. These new employees would be another large source of income, on a per capita basis.
might be worth your consideration if he wrote it himself.
Just imagine, a man, with many influential friends, who makes millions by speculating in the stock market (he obviously rigged the system in his own favor). From what I gather, this is the sort of man Ralph Nader is running against.
Except, this man IS Ralph Nader.
According to the Washington Post, Ralph Nader is a rich man, probably in the top 1% in the US in wealth. He owns stock in companies like Cisco. Do you think he made his money by researching public records, like most ordinary citizens would have to do? That question is for you to answer.
I just thought this was interesting.
By the way, none of the candidates fully represents all my opinions. Not voting is a cop-out. If you don't vote, the politicians most likely will ignore you completely. If you do vote, you are participating in the system and can help make it better. Choose the person who best represents your thoughts and opinions, whether it is George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, or Mickey Mouse, it doesn't matter. Voting is the way people speak in a republic (The US is a republic, not a democracy. Pure democracy would cause more problems than they would solve.). The people you elect become your voice in the government. If you don't speak, how are people going to listen to you?
I don't necessarily agree with killing someone because they are just sucking up resources, but what about the reverse. Should we keep someone even though the quality of life is minimal? That isn't stated exactly the way I want it, but it's close.
Why are we so concerned with extending life to it's absolute max (length), instead of dealing more with the quality of life therein. I personally don't smoke (I've tried it a couple of times and all it did was make my mouth taste bad). But assume someone who smokes loses 5 years of their life. But if the other 50+ years of their life they are much happier because they could have a cigarette, isn't the overall "quality" of the life better? The argument could be extended to a lot of things.
If a person is in pain and doesn't want to live anymore, why should we force them? Why not help them out [Doctor assisted suicide] so that they can go without pain, with some dignity, whatever...
I realize that your argument wasn't exactly against this, but it is something I feel and wanted to get said.
I believe it was stated that pregnancy could be viewed either way. Some would look forward to it, some would not.
-Vel
>take an enormous risk that most people are not willing to. That's called the spirit of capitalism, people.
I thought that's called gamble?
To my eyes, the spirit of capitalism is "produce something and sell it".
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
So you would only believe him, if he was a poor preacher in sandals?
And just because he acts like the system demands, he can't be serious about dislikeing and changing the system?
Furthermore, is voting a popularity contest?
"I vote for him because he is so nice to everyone"
I personally don't give much about the person itself, (as I don't _really_ know them anyway) I vote for ideals one person represents.
(IANA US-Citizen)
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Some people have problems with certain aspects of capitalism. E.g. 10% of the people owns 95% of the wealth. The very same money some children lack for food, clothes and education. Not speaking of adults and other countries.
And now don't tell me, if they'd work hard they could earn their share. How could they without any proper education?
>who have no understanding of work, the economy and wealth
Capitalism and socialism aren't opposite.
Socialism and communism aren't the same.
Capitalistic societies have collapsed, too.
(Germany, 1935 comes to mind. All communist countries have been capitalistic).
Just because someone criticises capitalism, one doesn't have to be a communist.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
It's not due to the lack of law on free speech -- it's because of the elastic clause, really.
That little bit ensures that the Federal Government has the power to pass laws that are necessary and proper. This, traditionally, has been interpreted to mean that "reasonable" restrictions upon the rights granted by the Amendments are permissible; for instance, perjury is prohibited as it's impossible to have a meaningful judicial system without such a prohibition. On the other hand, they can't, oh, just up and bar civillians from insulting the President, as the Supreme Court looks rather carefully at content-conscious restrictions on the Amendments -- it's easier to ban overly large signs on roadsides, than it is to ban specifically Klan signs on roadsides...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
problem is people get stuck in one of two paradigms: supply side and demand side. demand side was what we had before reagan/carter era tax cuts. lead to high inflation and high unemployment. however as has been pointed out taxes are necessary to maintain the economy. the argument for a flat tax is that somebody working 40 hours a week for $20/hour knows exactly what the benefits of his working overtime are. this encourages him to work harder. the benefits of lower taxes overall are that 1)the private sector is always more efficient/productive than government 2) by infusing the economy with more money (including some that could be called rich) there is more capital available to fund start ups and further innovation, continuing growth. the problem with this argument is something best illustrated by what i call the dotcom fiasco. a large amount of capital was poured into a new 'technology'. all these new dotcoms after the very first wave of true innovators (ie yahoo and amazon, no matter how much you hate their legal policies) contributed absolutely nil to the overall productivity of the economy. when the country is awash in capital, the tendency isn't to encourage innovation by responsible companies that have the best chance to succeed, but to through it at anything that seems new. this is why at this point in time large tax cuts would not help the economy (although i favor a flat tax to eliminate the irs, saving money, and make peoples lives easier). also without an inheritance tax you risk the possibility of the formation of a landed gentry, something that early american politicians feared more than anything else (considering britain's situation..). also while republicans give credit to reagan for the economic growth, the fact is that it's the technology that is the main driving factor, and this technology was created through the military. however defense companies today can't keep up with industry, because of the slowness of government, and lose true(younger) innovators to the telecom industry (the next jack kelbe won't work for a contractor). therefore the government should reduce the national debt (but not eliminate it, considering the rate is only 6.3%), privatize 90% of military operations, reduce times to get security clearance (currently 6 months to 1 year), and massivly re-invest in universities to provide the next big wave of technology (nanotech will revolutionize the commercial technology by 2050). my research actually indicates al gore has a better understanding of supply side economics than bush. remember george senior did not actually go along with the majority of reagan's policies that were aimed at helping the ailing economy, there is no reason to assume that jr will just because he is a republican. of course i'm voting 3rd party anyway, to make sure that there is a voice out there trying to keep republicrats honest
people are voting for bush because they think he is honest and has more integrity. why not vote for nader for the same reasons?
That's just brilliant. Higher tax on gas. Therefore, those of us who would love to be able to buy newer, fuel-efficient cars are ensured never to be able to, because we spend so damn much on gas. I know it'd probably be great to be like you, Mr. Iconoclast, who can afford a new car and be part of the status quo while adopting a nick that says you vehemently oppose it, but a lot of us are stuck with older cars. Same thing with cigarettes. Hey, you're addicted to nicotine. Well, now you're addicted to nicotine and less able to afford treatment for your medical problem because we're sucking more money out of your pocket in taxes. I was actually going to vote for Ralph Nader until I read about how he wants to tax things he doesn't like. These are taxes that unfairly target portions of the populations (ie smokers, and I know, we have such a reprehensible tax in California) based on their circumstances. I also think taxes such as this hit poor people harder than rich people, though I couldn't back it up by anything other than what I observe about the few rich people I know being able to afford newer cars and treatment for their smoking problems. Pollution is a seperate issue and is a behavior that can be fined and regulated. The activity of businesses and the activity of individuals are seperate issues. The attempt to combine the two, I think, is deliberate social engineering.
Ya, with the internet and the relatation of laws. The people doing the margin buying were middle or possiblly lower class people. Why would people with alot of money already need to borrow to buy stock? From my understanding of it, 'credit' was a relitivly new thing, and people bought alot on credit, including stocks. So your average joe was buying stocks on margin, and of course there was a little dip, and all the average joes got scared (as well asl the wealthy)...but by the time your average joe got worried, the wealthy had already pulled out.
Well, there you go, the problem is you're living in OH! :) I did not know that. Well thats something to talk to your state about then.
As far as the electoral college goes. I dont think we should ever get rid of it. It is supposed to be the buffer between all the stupid people and policy makers. yes everyone would love to abolish income tax, but you know what, things would get pretty bad if we did.
Now, does the college need to be cleaned up? Perhaps. I'm sure corruptin has spread there too, but abolished? And leave our fate to the mass of idiots that surround (and greatly outnumber) us? No thank you!
PS - please do not confuse intellignce and wisdom. People may know more 'stuff', but that doesn't mean they can apply it wisely.
I'd say everyone working on Wall Street doesn't produce anything directly.
:) A mutual fund is not a bad idea, but trying to play the game? They simply don't have the time and experince necessary to do it well enough to gain more then they are losing. Most of these investers never see their little piece of the pie; they just lose money.
As far as the little peons that can invest. I'd say thats a very bad idea. These day traders are losing far more then they are winning. Might as well throw your money out the window, or go gambling
The dotcoms shouldn't have even appeared in the market. I thik that was due to some geeks thinking they knew a company no one else did and watned to get in on it. Now they've probably lost the money.
Really? Is that why the common (stupid) people buy anything they're told to, even if its a stupid purchase. Case in point, the popularity of SUVs. You'd think with something taking 30 gallons to operate people would stop buying them with gas at 1.70/gallon (like here in NY for example). Nope, people keep on buying b/c its the current fad. Not to meantion that fact that alot of people that own them a) never, ever go off road, b) really have no use for that much space. Read Far. 451, and i think you'll see thats probably how most people vote. If not, thats where we are heading.
No, the market only makes rich peopl richer. Most of the new traders are in the upper middle class; they really don't need to advance like people futher down do.
But that person himself is NOT producing anything.
Food and clothing are already tax excempt. Notice that candy does not count as food.
Which is why i believe it was purposfuly made harder for ordanary people to trade (day traders). Those curbs were put up just after the great depression to prevent another crash by people not knowing what they are doing losing alot of money, nad of paniccing, believing fud, etc. They corrected a mistake which caused the great depression. Why they would want to risk it again is beyond me. no one seems to learn from the past...
By your definition, there is absolutely no way to make money.
Not true, you could get off your ass and get a real job.
Perhaps thats how it is now. But the way it was designed to work was the electoral college was supposed to be made up of very educated people. That way if everyone did vote for a pres. that was all for nuking, the electorates could change the vote. But they were supposed to only do this if it would mean disaster for the country.
Ralph Nader scares me. He says he is for the little guy, but his actions show him to be the most hypocritical and totalitarian candidate I've ever seen.
... within a monastery or within a union."
"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." -- Dave Barry
"He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for one, hope that he will never ride into the White House." -- David Sanford, Nader's former editor, 1976
Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional partisan issues.
Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words, by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking.
The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom down the hall. He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest to his organizations.
This election he had to admit spending more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.)
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades: you can't have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
I got these things from http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
Wedged government is good government. If somehow we can keep the Government from starting any new big expensive programs, or screwing around with the tax code in major ways, the current revenue surplus will likely continue, and be automatically applied to reducing the deficit.
Keeping the legeslative and executive branches in different parties won't work 100%, but it will likely work better than having them aligned - complete control by either party scares me, frankly.
For me, Gore in the White House and a Republican Congress is slightly preferrable to Bush and a Democratic Congress, primarly because of the Supreme Court.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
>It's not murder when I amputate a gangrene foot from my body
So a fetus (child, bundle of cells) is part of your body, but a diseased part of your body.
>it's not murder when I extricate a tapeworm from my body
Or is a fetus (child, bundle of cells) an invading organism, a parasite?
A fetus (child, bundle of cells), if left on its own inside your body, will not cause you to decay, or speed up the spread of disease.
A fetus (child, bundle of cells), does not exist off your body as a parasite does. A better analogy would be "There's a tapeworm in this hamberger. If you eat this hamberger, the tapeworm will enter your system, where it will stay for 9 months, make you fat, and eventually exit your system as a new creature." You chose to eat that hamberger, you chose to ingest the tapeworm.
So why is it the tapeworm's fault? You knew this was going to happen. You did it of your own free will. You chose to put it inside of you.
Riddle me this: if left on its own, what will happen to the fetus (child, bundle of cells)?
It will become a new human being.
And what do we call it when someone ends the life of a human being?
Murder.
But, since you're willing to murder a fetus (child, bundle of cells) - a thing that YOU CHOSE to have inside of you, a side effect that YOU KNEW was going to happen - I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd be willing to KILL for your right to MURDER.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
No doubt. We should all stop and think about where our tax dollars go.
> Point two: Against abortion? Don't have one.
Hmm....same logic could be applied to anything that is outlawed.
Don't think theft is right? Don't steal!
Don't think murder is right? Don't kill!
The question comes down to whether you are infringing on the unborn child's rights? I would say you are. If you want to argue that abortion is acceptable, please argue that you are not infringing on this beings rights, not that it should be a matter of choice to do so.
A fetus is a small (i.e. less than fully grown/developed) person (i.e. organism with the full complement of human chromosomes) who will, unhindered, grow into a big person. Sounds like a baby to me. Sounds like my daughter.
Some folks contend that a fetus is just a collection of cells. Unlike the collection of cells that I gather swiping a q-tip inside my cheek, however, a fetus can and will grow into a person unless forcibly prevented from doing so.
What the supreme court determined in Roe v. Wade was that an unborn child has no constitutional protections, having not been specifically mentioned in that document.
Hopefully, like it did for women and non-caucasian people over the last century and a half, the court will one day realize that children in utero are not property but are indeed people and deserve the same protection and rights as any other person - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Damn. There goes all my karma.
how secure is /. these days... how long ago was the hack??? are our votes tied to the user database at all???
Wheeeee
Of course Gore and Bush are not a perfect representative for you or me. Who would be? No one could possibley fit that role (unless it was one of us, in which case the other would be disappointed). 40-some-odd percent of this country does vote in presidential elections. Most people who don't vote are either ignorant or lazy. Indeed, some are just disenchanted. Would more gridlock enchant them? I do believe in spirited debate. A voice is diferent from a power. Every American doesn't need a power seat in Washington. If the founding fathers felt that was wise, they would have created a pure democracy, as opposed to a representative democracy. I don't approve of political parties for the same reason George Washington disapproved of them. But, we have them, like it or not. I say, keep it to two!
Someone you trust is one of us.
Abortion is not 'doing what you will with your own mind and body'.
Abortion is killing another. Do you consider any given cell in a fetus to belong to 'you'? If so, when does it stop belonging to 'you'? At birth? When does a human being gain the rights of such? What is the difference between a baby in the womb and a baby on the hospital bed? Or is it okay to kill newborns also? Then, is it okay to kill young children? Adolescents? Adults? Seniors?
I suggest you think just a little bit harder before being a goddamn troll.
Most people don't vote because of apathy, not on principal.
I agree that the public as a whole is getting screwed, but I don't think it's because any one particular party or person is being malicious. It just happens. It happens when you have a large system such as the political process in this country (and any other country), and it's unavoidable. You'll never be able to find a human society where someone doesn't get screwed.
--
The shareholder is always right.
--
The shareholder is always right.
--
The shareholder is always right.
It's inappropriate because it goes beyond the rights granted by ownership of the air. It controls the use of metal and plastic that the car companies own, rather than the use of the air which the public owns.
And how is your policy more enforceable and less expensive? Pollution tests already take place, and people already have to register their cars in order to get license plates -- this simply adds another step to the process. And, it generates revenue via the fees charged. It can use that revenue to pay for the pollution testers, and spend the rest in other ways.
If the Public which owns the air decides it wants to charge poor people less for its use, well it can do that if it wants. That'll probably lessen the pollution prevention, it all depends on where priorities lie.
The point is, environmental protection needs to be limited to what the government is justified in protecting. And the government only has the right to use force to protect what it owns.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
But there's two big problems I have with Nader. The first is that he's with the Green Party. Let's examine a few Green Party ideals, all on display at their website.
"We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must have agricultural practices that replenish the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems."
How will a political party go about accomplishing this? By LAW. By FORCE. Laws telling you and your business what resources you can use and how you can use them. The amount of authority over property the Green Party proposes here was rivaled only during the height of communism.
"Social Justice", "Decentralization (of wealth)" and "Non-violence".
Anyone looking at the history of socialism, and the very nature of taxation, knows that no government program designed to promote "Social Justice" and the decentralization (== redistribution) of wealth can do so in a non-violent way.
The fact is, the Green Party's commitment to an economy-by-government-fiat makes tax-and-spend Republicrats look like anarchists.
The second problem I have, is that I see Nader's attempts at getting corporations out of government to be entirely wronghanded. The question that must be asked is, "Why do corporations influence government?" The obvious answer is, because it's profitable for them to do so. And the reason why it's profitable for them to do so is because our current government exerts an incredible amount of unconstitutional authority over the way people run their businesses. The corporation that doesn't lobby Congress, that doesn't contribute to Al Gore's political campaign, that doesn't offer a compromise of accepting a subsidy in exchange for a regulation, the company that doesn't do all those things Nader doesn't want them to do -- that company gets regulated into the ground by the EPA, the FDA, and a million other bureaucracies.
And guess who passes those laws, and creates those bureaucracies? Anti-corporatists just like Nader!
I like Nader's stance on the War on Drugs, and he makes some very good points on intellectual property. But the only way we're going to have a government free from corporate influence is to have a government that refuses to use its power of violence to benefit OR harm corporations.
And I'll bet you can guess which presidential candidate wants that kind of government.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Although I indicated that I'm voting for Harry Browne, the more accurate response for me is that voting doesn't matter. Due to our winner-take-all system, I live in a state where my vote doesn't matter. Because of the conservative leanings, Dubya is nearly guaranteed to win all six of the electoral votes of Kansas. Much like Democrats in Texas, Republicans in Massachusetts or third-party voters of any state, my vote will be overwhelmed by opposition.
The only voters in the country whose votes matter (in a sense, because all votes really do matter) are the ones in large swing states like California and Florida, because a 50.00000000000000001% win in those states swing large electoral blocks behind candidates (a win in California garners you over 1/6 of the 270 electoral votes needed. All this from just one state!)
It's theorized that in this election, one candidate may win the popular vote while another wins the electoral vote and may call the whole system into question. If we were to go to a popular vote, the votes of small states would be even more marginalized. Even if a candidate were to sweep somewhere like Kansas, 3.5 million votes is quickly drowned out in massive amounts of votes from large states like Cal, Tex, NY, and Fl.
The ones who really get fscked are the citizens of US territories like Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. They get to vote in the primary, but since they don't have electoral votes, even if they were to vote it wouldn't matter.
Liebe, Livre, Libre.
-----
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Is that what the "Jeff" option was for?
If not, then I'm gonna do a write-in vote for Hemos.
- Jonathan
Find out more about your Libertarian Party!
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Damn, buddy. You must go through ripple and hookers like nobody's business. That, or you don't work full time, and you think that they're saying no one can earn more than ten times the minimum wage PER HOUR - which means if you won the lottery, you'd get $51.50, too, I assume. "Thank you so much for saving my baby! I'd love to give you $1000, and at this rate, it will only take me a few days!" I think they mean a minimum yearly wage. Or maybe you're right, and they're total morons. I'm sure that's it.
Of course, you're also assuming that they would do this WITHOUT implementing the $12.50 MINIMUM wage in the same platform you reference.
There are intelligent things to say about a maximum wage. You have said none of them. In fact, by your argument I would say that the MINIMUM wage should be very nearly $50/hour, since apparently that's what it takes to keep food in the cupboard these days.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
"They have serious differences on heath care, education, gun control, taxes etc etc. How are they 'the same people'?"
Their differences on many issues, such as Heath bar care, are differences of degree, not differences of intent. They are both in favor of minor tweaks to the current status quo. Yes, there are certainly differences, but most states have more differences between their two Senators (even if both are from the same party) on major issues than can be found between Bush and Gore.
An excellent indicator of this is the amount of quibbling over numbers they have done. If they actually had differences over kind, and not amount, numbers would rarely come into it.
Tell me this - is either of them opposed to education, health care, or gun control? (You'll have to think carefully about the last one - if we elect Bush, will he actually support free, unlicensed access to ALL weapons? If I want to vote for a candidate who will speak up for my right, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, to own and operate a 6" modern cannon, who do I vote for?) Is either of them opposed to free and normal trade relations with China?
Can you name one issue that they are actually far enough apart on that if the line moved two feet to the left or right, they would both be on the same side?
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
for the correction.
I really don't know all there is to know about the whole firestone tire thing, I was just using it as an example.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Let's say that someone driving the other way on the road has Firestone tires on his truck. It just so happens that a tire on his truck comes apart right before we pass, causing his truck to swerve head-on right into me, flattening me in my Volvo. Of course I'm not dead, yet, I get to enjoy dying a long aganozing death at the hospital after spending 5 hours trapped inside my crushed car.
Now I'm dead, and *I* didn't even buy the fucking tires on that damn truck! Dammit, I think those corporate officers at Ford and Firestone who knew about the problems but didn't tell anyone should be held responsible, but, that'll never happen with your attitude. It's not all about Nike shoes and Starbucks latte.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If you are interested in personal liberty and freedom, please check out:
http://www.lp.org
Nuff said.
Thank you
Gee, if he had gone on the mention DeCSS I might start thinking that Ralph Nader was Signal11 or something. But really, it's interesting to note that these responses are taken from previous statements by Nader. And here he's been talking about open source all along. The corporate petting-boys of Bush and Gore probably don't even know free software exists. It's just too bad there wasn't a response to the question about encryption.
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Ralph Nader's progressive tax isn't aimed at "rich" people who make even $250,000 a year. His tax on the "rich" is aimed at corporate CEOs and the like who make $50 million a year on the backs of their workers. A case in point heard Nader spoke of a one of his super rallies: MSNBC was deciding where to locate its offices, New York or New Jersey. A bidding war ensued to have this high-profile company locate in either state. It ended up choosing Jersey. Why? Because New Jersey said to Microsoft and General Electric, We'll take the state taxes your workers pay, and then give them back to your corporations. And that was just one of the corporate subsidies. As for taxing the wealthy, consider this from votenader.org: The financial wealth of the top 1 percent of households exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent. These are not the wealthy who worked hard for their six figures and are living a comfortable lifestyle. These wealthy people are so astoundingly rich based on the work of others and on corporate welfare.
Yout all are bound to do a better job than The Shrub...
Monty
I know you're trying to be flip, but I gotta ask - you ever wonder where the poisonous chemicals inside air conditioners and refrigerators go?
that Nader was a contender, but unfortunately given the electoral college, only Gore and Bushy are. Given the choice become a hazy amti-internet nebulican or a conservative neo-libertarian, I think that any semi-conscious person must choose Gore. Tipper, while cute, it *way* too conservative, and Bush (is he even married, other than to the bottle?) scares even reactionary cubo-intellectuals.
-a.e.mossberg
In Florida, Bush has run ads saying he will implement MANDATORY INTERNET CONTENT FILTERS to protect our families.
-a.e.mossberg
if the price is beyond what you can buy (such as berkshire hathaway), buy the minimum # of shares you can buy. buy 5 shares. buy 10 shares.
and 40% of the gains that someone walks away with from the stock market goes to the capital gains tax.
Clearly you haven't been hit while stopped at a red light.
Or a stop sign for that matter.
In fact, that reminds me of a specific type of car's gas tank that would explode upon impact from the rear. Pinto or something.
Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
http://www.donarmstrong.com
City governments will give a company a tax break if they expand into their city rather than a competing one.
Is that not a government service?
Remember, I'm using the term pretty loosely. The rich and their corporations recieve many government services. That's my point.
Why is it that this gets modded flaimbait and the one below it gets modded up? This person explained their POV cleanly, and OK he bolded the words "baby murder" once, and did a little "fuzzy math" on the statistics (which he admitted to immediately after), but the one below is full of profanity and compares the taking of a live to the removal of an infected body part (which saves a life, by the way) and is modded up as insightful. Soudns to me like both have mis-statement, but one is at least admitting it. I think the political bias of slashbots is being shown here.
For the record, I'm pro-choice... I believe you make your choice when you put yourself at risk for pregnancy. After that you should take responsibility for your actions. Naturally, if the mother's life is at risk, there's a choice that has to be made and I won't fault anyone for choosing the life of the mother. Of course, there is the rape issue too, and I'm not 100% either way on this one. I'd hate to add to an already horrible situation, but I'd also hate to condone murder.
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
Of course the Rebuplicans talk about the courts, too. Both of the mainstream parties use the topic of the Supreme Court for political football (to borrow a phrase from another poster).
Thing is, no matter who is president, they can't just appoint whomever they want. The opposing party will be able tie up the confirmations, even if they are the minority in Congress. The president will have to appoint either moderates or "stealth" candidates who usually do not turn out the way they were expected to in the first place.
Free Hans!
I'm more than a bit dissapointed to see the absence of Jello Biafra from this list. He is in the running, afterall. Take a look at the Green Party's web site for full details. He's merely not campaigning, mainly cause he doesn't have the time. And if there's anyone that'll take care of the world's idiocy problems, it's him.
For more information see:
http://www.alternativetentacles.com/
And yes, Jello is supporting Nader, but I still think Jello himself should be given an equal share of the ballot.
-Mat
You comment is probably a little better suited to the phrase "Nader's campaign, summarized for a simple mind". Nader does not blame only corporations. He blames the people as well. And if you had an open mind enough to actually listen to him, rather than what the media says about him, you'd understand this. Nader doesn't support the idea of hating the corporate system, he merely stresses the idea that people do indeed have more power than corporations, were that power properly exercised.
If you are interested in 3rd party candidates Harry Browne is it. LIBERTARIANS CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOM.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
Poor people don't buy as much stuff as rich people do, and so they don't pay as much sales tax.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
A flat tax would require your personal information, allow the IRS to pursue you for their money, and would still be evaded by the one out of siz people in the country.
A sales tax would be payed based on the goods you purchase. Not food, but cars, tobacco, electronics, etc. Things that are not essential to life. No personal information would be gathered, the retailers who already have to collect local taxes would simply collect a little more. Even a 20% tax would be less than we pay in income tax now, companies at every level have to pay for accounting teams to handle the taxes.
In other words a sales tax is NOT a flat tax.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Then what did you just do?! You don't have to vote /for/ anyone, but it's good to get your voice heard actively instead of passively
No, it just means a large portion of the /. readers who are interested in this poll aren't in the US.
I don't think the polls have any information in them whatsoever. On any poll with an interesting question, the statistics will be skewed by scripts and multiple voting.
For example, I was just working at site different from my usual workplace, and I popped up netscape on a different machine to check slashdot real quick -- I threw in a second vote (different from my first, but oh well) while I was at it. Given the machines I have access to in some scriptable way (rsh), I could vote about a hundred times. And that doesn't even get into the people who keep multiple accounts for the purpose of trolling/modding themselves up.
But it matters even less than the real election.
Asking one roommate to pay the rent for everyone in the house is NOT fair. Stop pretending it is. It's practical, but not fair. Exactly like taxing income based on wealth.
Go back to your mental exercise. If 99 people out of a 100 voted the last one dead for no good reason, that would not be considered fair. Democracy is the best practical form of government that anyone can come up with - it's not the holy grail, though. Democracy is a pretty crappy form of government which has several serious pitfalls. Democracy, as implemented in the US is an even crappier form of government with interest groups, lobbying, electoral colleges, pandering to vote banks, etc. Decisions made by the government, even though in theory they are the will of the people are not sacred to me. A tax is not voluntary if 99 people vote to tax the hundredth. That's called bullying. Democracy is simply institutionalized bullying.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Vote for who you want to vote for. Don't pretend there is a conspiracy by corporations to tell you who to vote for. Corporations are simply collections of people who decide to do things as a unit. Stop smoking that pot and learn to think beyond what Uncle Ralph tells you is happening.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Take a deep breath, count to ten, and read the question. You cannot vote in this election if you are not a US Citizen. The question is not, who do you want to win, or even who do you think will win. It is who will you vote for.
The idea (as someone suggested) is that there is a huge unseen cost that isn't covered anywhere. With smoking it's the hospital care, lost work, whatever. With gas it's the cost of maintaining the roads and pollution (which I don't think is really covered in fuel costs). etc. etc. gid-foo
Great, I don't feel like paying for lung care treatment for habitual smokers. Or people involved in car accidents to get any medical treatment. I mean, obviously I support their ability to get treatment I just don't want my taxes to pay for it. I don't drive and will stay the hell away from roads in the future. Fuck it, I don't want a penny of my tax money (which is substantial at this point) to go towards roads, only mass transportation systems. I don't want any of my money towards tax breaks for churches either. They should pay both property taxes and taxes on income collected during services rendered(such as mass).
Wow, I like your tax system. I don't have to support the meat industry, the military. And I want my tax dollars to fund abortions and porn in school. Excellent. Now we can all get what we want.
-Andy
Actually, Roe v. Wade declared that all state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional, since they violated a woman's right to an abortion. Legalizing abortions doesn't take a congressional act. Making them illegal would require
In general, something isn't illegal unless a statute or regulation says it's illegal.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
One point; the Declaration of Independence is *not* law. I respect your opinion on abortion, but please keep in mind that the Declaration is orthogonal to this debate. Sure, you may take its words as gospel, but Supreme Court justices do not.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
do0d man, that was a rockin story... I kinda like to see what would happne... I'm gonna start telling all my friends to vote for a tie!
JDW
hey, I just wanted to note that my previous post was #1701 .... yay! I'm the enterprise!
First you complain that he doesn't list anyone. We is the public. Duh.
I don't think he's telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't like. I think he's proposing extra taxation for things that the majority of Americans don't like.
(Not that I agree with this strategy, of course.)
I'm a two-issue voter, but being male, I doubt I'll ever need an abortion, so I compromise my principles on that issue.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I honestly think that the press publicity over his DUI might turn some 'undecided' voters who have a similar charge in their past to vote for Bush, but is unluckly to convince anybody who was going to vote for him to decide against Bush.
He just won the drinker's votes. Not a small bloc. DUI laws are getting out of hand. I have one beer and I'm afraid to drive- not that I'm impaired, just that they cops are overly agressive in making DUI arrests, and the state overly agressive in prosecuting people.
Yes, Bush _was_ DUI in the distant past, but now he does not drink at all. What does that say about his morals?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
This argument is old and tired, and I believe the basic problem is that one group - let's call them Bandies - believe that each person should contribute as much as possible to what the Bandies believe is the greater good of society, while the other group - I'll call them Indies - believe that each person is morally responsible for .
The Bandies see a successful person's resources as having been gained either 1) because of the support structure of the community or 2) from the combined resources of the rest of the community. The moral obligation for every successful person then, say the Bandies, is to return to the community whatever level of resources are held that are greater than the median - or at least a significant portion thereof - so that the community as a whole will benefit and grow.
The Indies, rather, believe that each person is responsible for their own life. Each person should live their life in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the right of each other person to live their life the way they choose.
A Spreader believes an Indie is selfish and detrimental to society, while an Indie sees Bandies as oppressive and irresponsible. They cannot persuade each other by simple merit of their points-of-view, because their positions are skew: they are neither parallel nor intersecting.
As for how this relates to taxes, it should be easy to see why the two groups would take such a different view. Each group's beliefs describe the strength of humanity as living in a different aspect: Bandies' have it in community; Indies' have it in each person. Therefore, a Bandie would believe that those with the greatest resources (I hesitate to use the term "Top [or bottom] x%," because I don't believe a measure of someone's wealth places them above or below any other) should contribute a larger portion of their earnings. An Indie, on the other hand, would say that each person's should be proportionally the same so that each person would share equal responsibility.
I have avoided using more common terms such as "socialist," "communist," "capitalist," etc., because almost all of us - including myself - attach feelings to these words that make it difficult to approach objectively the subjects related to them.
Having spent all that wind - and hoping that I have come across, at least to this point, as being objective - I will say that I am in the "Indie" camp so that I don't have to keep arguing both sides. :)
I pay taxes because I believe the government exists to defend my home and my rights against anyone who would presume to take them away. I do not believe that I should be legally obligated to be generous to whatever the majority - or the representatives thereof - decide is imperative at the time. If I have a moral disagreement or a religious belief against a course of action, money that I have earned should not go to fund that action. So rather than trying to decide which programs match what the majority consider "the greatest good," let the people decide for themselves and fund them on their own. People will do so; goodwill is part of what is good about being a human being.
I have more that I could say, but I've gone on just about long enough. Let me sum up by saying that each person should have an equal part in both the benefits and the responsibilty of running the country. That means each of us contributes the same amount, not more for some and less for others.
I'm voting for Harry Browne. You should check him out.
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---
Santa tells me you're bad. That makes you good in my book.
Besides, no one is in trouble of losing to foreign jobs if you allow free trade. USA also has stuff that China, for instance, would love to buy. By meddling with it, you keep yourself at the bottom.
I'm not at all against our laborers. They are very necessary. However, I'm against meddling with their economies and keeping them down, which is all that will really happen when you limit trade and growth.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
In no way am I wealthy. However, you are right, we have a duty to society - to SPEND and invest our money. That way, jobs can be created and money flow is kept high. Giving it to the government for absurd reasons is not anyone's duty. It's a mistake.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
I love how Nader wants to punish those of us who have succeeded, and reward those who have not. It all makes sense to me. I work hard and have to basically give money to one who doesn't. Thanks a lot.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
You're wrong. The fault is not that a 3rd party is running (and making a strong showing), the problem is the voting system itself. We need Instant Runoff Voting to avoid the "spoiler" effect.
"Your vote is the currency of your virtue." You're supposed to vote on principle, not politics. If everyone voted this way there wouldn't be a problem, but as soon as one person starts voting politics, everyone else feels compelled to in order to keep out the less desirable outcome. "If you don't vote for what you believe, you won't get what you want."
Quotes above from Howard Phillips.
Constitutionally Correct
Uh, US constitution does not decide what is democracy, it's just a collection of laws. Laws not is use anywhere but in the US. Democracy is just that: direct chance for people to decide what happens. If they want tyranny for the next four years, be it. As long as they are able to change the rule later, it is democracy.
Go read your political theory basics (I mean something little more than your high school bull, go check the local Uni library or something).
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Just that. Majority vote decides in democracy. But you knew that, didn't you? :-)
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Alright, that is a debatable, but the point you're making is good. Though, in effect you know what these representatives are going to vote for before you vote them in power. And to make the point again, US constitution is not the source to get the definition of democracy. Theory of politics is a science far older than that (see the Greeks or Magna Charta, for examples).
If, for some reason, the popular majority wants to plow down poor people's houses because "we don't like them" (i.e., they're ugly), that is not sufficient; we recognize all people equally.
And if majority wants to keep slaves, you do so until the majority decides otherwise? Sorry, history is not on the side of your argument.
If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
True. That's why it would have been even more important to get all the candidates, eg. Nader, in the TV debates for more questioning. And that's not enough, democracy means you have to get involved and seek actively for the answers in order to be able to make enlightened decisions. Even if you're only choosing a representative for yourself. That's where the low vote turnout in modern democracies (like the US and Finland likewise, although we are not even near you in that department, yet) worries me.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
This in itself is good enough reason to vote Nader. The economics taught in schools/universities etc. have always been mostly just repeating the fiscal mantra of the prevailing system. To really change the course into something better, you have to do something unconventional and new.
And IMHO, Nader's economics sound pretty reasonal anyway.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Get your terminology right: it's socialist bull, not communist.
And even though I work hard and earn a good money, I find it very reasonal and agreeable bull, but YMMV, etc.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
And now the majority of you think capitalism and unlimited corporate freedom is right. Still very much wrong, but yeah, you eventually might be moving to right direction (a socially responsible society), but very slowly indeed.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
And if it weren't that we already elected an even more perfect president in Finland this year, I'd welcome Nader here as well.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Bollocks. It's called democracy. In such systems people vote for representatives amongst them, and those chosen to be in power do have the mandate from the people to rule and pass laws according to their campaign agenda.
So, if Nader in his campaign says he'd introduce new taxes on harmful things (by his own standards) should he win, everyone knows it before the voting takes place. And if he still gets the majority of the votes, then so be it - majority of the people has seen it right to let him pass those laws. The minority (including you, Tonto) can only grudge and wait for the next elections to try to change the situation. That, my friend, is how democracy works.
Seems nothing like tyranny to me.
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Yeah, I guess most of the Native Americans were killed by small pox and stuff. Plus they're not really human so it's not like they really count.(sarcasm)
What will really make me puke is seeing another "Free Tibet" sticker on some idiot's car or bike. Notice how nobody says anything about 'freeing' America and giving it back to its many Nations.
Don't complain about lack of options- You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
Bullshit, complain a fucking whole lot!!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
So I'll vote for Gore in Florida on behalf of my Texan swapmate, and he'll vote for Nader in Texas on my behalf. It's not Single Transferable Vote, but it's the best system available.
You can do this too.
Find a friend you can trust who usually votes against your candidate, and agree among yourselves that you will both vote for your favorite third-party candidates. It's that simple.
Would the rest of you do a better job at ruling our country? ;)
---
If We Just Quit Voting - Will They All Go Away?
---
...and it's not murder when I extricate a tapeworm from my body.
When you extricate a tapeworm from your body, you kill the tapeworm. When you abort a baby, you're killing the baby. Killing babies is murder.
---
Come on! Nader blames every single problem on Earth from Columbine to Cuba on "big business" and "scary corporation". Only an idiot would believe someone who points fingers at business for every single obscure inconvenience. Nader is using big business as an easy "finger-pointer" such as other politicians have used video games for. And when he screws up in office? Will it be his faults or will he simply put every mistake he has ever made and say it was a corporation's fault.
poop.
Presumably the parent company who bought the land and planned the buildout would be taxed. Some or all of that cost would probably get passed on to the person who buys the house, encouraging people to buy houses that don't contribute to urban sprawl, or houses that aren't built on wetlands, or whatever was being taxed.
Polluters get taxed? Who? Me and my car which is the only option available to me based upon size, use and price? Or me, because I drive a car and there is no mass transportation that works for my needs? Or GM/Chrysler/Ford/etc for only providing internal combustion engine transportation? Is location a factor here? In many Northeast burgs, there is a variety of train, bus, and other mass transportation that the folks in Montana simply don't have. Who gets penalized?
These are all good questions. Personally, I would say that it would make the most sense to tax gas. Thus everyone gets taxed proportionally to the amount that they pollute. This encourages people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, or drive less, which is exactly what we want.
The emissions trading program is good, and is actually very similar to taxing pollution, except that companies are essentially paid to not pollute rather than having to pay to pollute. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.) I think having companies pay is better. Also, contrary to what you say, I think taxation would be very good at solving this problem, and furthermore it can solve more general problems than just pollution. As a computer programmer, I like things that can solve more general problems. :-)
For a counterexample of how this doesn't work very well, look at the luxury taxes that were implemented in (I want to say '94, might have been '96). Hey, we want to tax those who buy yachts and luxary cars. Result: Pretty much the elimination of the entire American yacht industry, elimination of thousands of jobs, and most likely a negative revenue inflow.
That's not a counterexample. A luxury yacht is not a bad thing: its production and sale does not negatively affect anyone in society. Thus luxury taxes are unrelated to the issue of taxing things that are bad for society.
I don't have a problem with a flat income-tax rate, of, say 12%... as long as FICA and FUTA taxes (including employer contributions) apply to every dollar earned (including stock options), instead of having the present arbitrary cutoff.
Bingo! We can halve (or better) the FICA and FUTA rates, and Social Security would instantly be fully-funded!
or "how much of an unneeded taxcut will i get so i can fufil my own particular selfish need"
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
not that i soley constitue a general opinion, but here is what gives. Bush is the *most* evil candiate. Gore isn't a whole lot better, but fear bush. If you are concerned with civil liberties, then republicans, as a general rule, are not your friends.
my recommendation. If you live in a state that is a toss up, or even close, vote for gore, not nader (as much as it pains me to say that.) If you are in a state that is a clear bush victory, then vote for nader (getting 5+ percent of the popular vote will help establish the green party as a major player - federal matching funds, automatic inclusion on ballots in certain states, etc... having a strong "watchdog" party will be good for democracy overall"
to people who aren't inteding to vote: please, go vote for Ralph Nader -- it's like voting none of the above... Who knows, Jesse Ventura won Minnesota by being what Micheal Moore calls the "fuck you vote".
4 years of Bush will probably bring us back to recession and an even greater sepeation of weath, but we can boot him in 2004. the real problem is the *4* justices he will appoint to the supreme court
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
heh, gore is chinas bitch
Probably the best reason to vote for Nader is if you wanted the economy to collapse. For example, if you were unhappy with your job, you could vote for him, wait for the economy to collapse and for you to be laid off. Otherwise, there is no reason to vote for him.
Maybe I was hallucinating, but it seems to me that there was this multimillionaire from Texas, big ears, yappy voice, actually did well enough in the polls to get into the debates was a serious third party candidate in both of the last 2 elections, which to my way of thinking, constitutes recent memory.
I also think John Anderson ran in recent memory (was it 1980), but maybe I'm old. I'll be 31 soon.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
Frankly, there are many more issues more important to a lot of people than abortion. I, for one, am sick to death of it and don't care anymore one way or another. While I'd like to see someone like Harry Browne become president and remove the Federal Government totally from people's private lives, Gore is the antithesis of this with his locked boxes and affirmative action. Gore will be VERY BAD for this country, ESPECIALLY if the Democrats take control of Congress. That would just be plain reckless.If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to ensure that only liberal decisions are made in the supreme court, that's your business, but don't expect everyone to run crying to Al Gore to save them for the same reasons. Scare tactics are liberals favorite tools, and are rarely grounded in rational thought...if people aren't suckered by the fright, they will see that. I'm voting for Bush.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
after he's had 20 beers. Not a US citizen, think all president candidates are artificial people anyway.
Bizar technology?
The notion of rights is that there are some things that a majority of people MUST NOT be able to decide to have the government do. For example, even if 55% of people decide that Christian should be required by law, our stitution protects the rest of us from conversion by force.
Well actually you would only need about 5000 supporters to make that happen. (2/3) of the Congress would have to support an amendment, about 300 people, then a simply majority in 75% of the states, requiring apporximately 5000 state legislators give or take a few and boom those rights described in the first amendment are no more. Not to pick nits or anything...
apparently you don't either don't live in the United States or you don't smoke and you don't drive.
If you did then you would know that we do this already...
Bush and Gore aren't going to change it either.
I used to laugh at the idea that Al Gore could ever be president.
Then the republicans nominated Bush and I realised that it could happen.
What a pityfull next four years this is going to be.
Vote Libertarian if it clearly is in a state Bush will win, otherwise vote Bush.
Huh? If you're a Libertarian in a state that Gore will win, why vote Bush? If you're in MA or CA, for example, Gore will just as surely win whether you vote for Bush or Browne. Hell, even in a so-called swing state, your one vote isn't going to make a difference. Vote Browne!
because like on this ballot, cowboy neal was not an option...
The Constitution clearly states in Article VIII that every citizen shall not be denied the right to choose to kill their offspring.
<sarcasm mode=off>
Hey, here's a hint to all the pro-choicers: Why don't you make a choice BEFORE you have sex?
(Answer: That would require self-control, of which I have none. I am unable to control my behavior because I am a slave to the animalistic instincts of my evolutionary ancestors. Please put me in a zoo.)
It is NOT her body!
It is NOT her body!
How many times do we have to say it??
The issue of abortion is about a *NEW* and *SEPARATE* life. It is about the rights of the person being aborted.
Which weighs more heavily:
a "surgical procedure" (infantectomy) VS. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Unquestionably, the writers of the constitution would have chosen the latter, as these rights are the basis of the country's founding -- just read the Declaration of Independence. I don't think that they would have argued the finer points of what constitutes a "citizen". These rights were deemed "inalienable" and "endowed by our Creator" (i.e., not subject to human laws).
But when does a person become conscious? In a recent court case, an "expert" (sorry for lack of details, can't remember) testified that a fetus is not really alive until it is conscious. Then, he went on to say that a baby may not become conscious until 12 weeks after birth!!! Therefore, it should be OK to "abort" your child up to 12 weeks after s/he is born!
Nezalhualixtlan, once we allow the killing of unborn babies, it is a very slippery slope to new-born babies, physically deformed or mentally disabled toddlers, sick or frail elderly folks (Kevorkian-style), etc. Most pro-abortion people are not as rational as yourself and will take it further and further. Atheists, satanists, and other people of dangerous belief systems are not bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man. In general, they live self-centered lifestyles and do only what best serves themselves, the rights of others be damned.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be. I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly). How far will the trend have gone by then? We must stop it now.
A fetus is more than cells. The electrical current of life flows across its brain's synapses, signifying the beginning of the maturing process of the brain's development. This is a prerequisite of consciousness and intellect, and it creates a huge chasm of difference between a fetus and a mere mass of cells or tissue.
Most importantly, a fetus has a soul. Look up the Soul element on the periodic table of elements. Not there, eh? If it's not an element, it must be a compound. What is the chemical formula of a soul? Other options: it exists in another dimension, it exists in a parallel universe, it is supernatural. The answer is not really the point. However...
Clearly, a fetus is more than cells. S/he is a living, breathing human being who is entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights have far greater importance than a woman's alleged right to choose to have an infantectomy.
Every pregnant woman SHOULD BE DENIED the right to choose whether or not to dispose of her children. If she didn't want children, she should have exercised her right to choose one of the well-known effective, legal, and safe ways to prevent pregnancy.
Abortion is a brutal, morally indefensible practice. It is reminiscent of the abhorrent acts of the Nazis. With tens of millions of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade, it's like our own home-grown, legal holocaust.
The period of time in which our laws supported slavery was the first deep, shameful scar upon American history. With legalized abortion, we are amidst the second. History will judge us harshly.
The fact is it really don't make much of a difference if the pres is pro-choice or pro-life. I'm very much a pro-life person but I also understand the ramifications of making abortions illegal, I think anyone smart enough to make it to the Supreme Court is smart enough to figure that one out too. Its the lesser of two evils.
we really need a candidate that hates big business but also has character.... no candidates like that this time around, probably never will be.
Never knock on Death's door:
The Anti-Blog
more than 80% of all wealth generated by the stock market has gone to the wealthiest 10% of the population. They make much of it through speculation,
That scheme does not work in the long run. If there were a recipe to consistently beat the market, the people using it would quickly suck up all the money. Speculation is gambling. There will be some rich people who make a lot of money off of it, and some rich people who lose those shirts over it. Most people come out about even. Of course you usually only hear about the people who make it big.
It is true that there are some special forms of investment (real estate, corporate raiding) that you have to be rich to try. But beating the market on these is also risky. Otherwise all rich people would do it.
Rich people get about the same percentage yield that you or I can get with a few thousand in a growth fund. The difference is that they have more money to start with. But then they pay a larger percentage in taxes as well
Holy shit -- a genuine C. S. Lewis Republican! Rock on!!
He suggested we tax speculation, not investment. Although speculators are often subject to the stupidity tax and there's no reason to further pursue the issue.
In a democracy, the definition of murder, manslaughter, medical care, legitimate, illegitimate, you name it, is in the hands of the people.
Even if this was the case in a democracy, the US is not a democracy. It's a republic. People vote for local matters and representitives, not the definition of murder.
Ibag
Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.
If an institution is hacked, does this mean that the government will go after the institution because their security wasn't sufficient? Besides, if republicans aren't for big government and beuracracies, what are they going to do to enforce this? If they don't enforce it, its merely talk to sway the masses...
Ibag
[21:46:52] bwulf asks: Sometimes i feel Slashdot is very US-centric. Will there be more international stories? [21:47:07] We actually tried to do that a little more, which didn't work out too well. [21:47:09] Slashdot is quite US centric. the VAST majority of our readers are in the US. Hummm looks like their's as much non-US citizens ;)
While I sympathize with your abhorence of complex tax codes, which do in fact make it simpler to conceal who pays what, the flat tax is a bad idea. A flat rate tax structure is simply too regressive to be socially just. Note that I use the words "socially just" because any taxation system _DOES_ involve social justice and value judgements, contrary to what you may have been indoctrinated into believing.
As for the type of micromanagement you allude to, people have become so imbued with the idea I don't think it can be engineered out of society immediately. It can be exposed, however, which is really the only area in which the flat tax really shines.
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
I would like to support those people who feel that voting is a waste of time. Some people do not feel motivated enough to go out and vote, some people just think politics are stupid, and some feel their vote doesn't make a difference. I think we should encourage these beliefs, because it makes those of us who do vote count more.
In the last presidential election only about half the population voted, so I consider that my vote counted for about 2 people. If we can further reduce the number of people who vote, my vote could count for 10 or 15 people. Eventually if voter apathy grew very large, I could just write myself in as an elector, and vote for 500,000 people.
So if you haven't made up your mind yet, or you feel like you're being guited into voting, stay away from the polls. You'd just be inserting a random factor into the election. Let those of us who can actually see the obvious differences in the candidates make the decision. You'll be better off for it.
Idol Star Astronomer
I know of no way to resolve this dilemma
I know how you can resolve it. Vote for Nader.
Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.
Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).
Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.
When asked who their second choice was, Perot voters went only 51-49% for Bush.
Contrary to the myth put out by Republicans on this subject, Perot did not affect the final outcome one iota.
However, Nader voters list Gore as their second choice by a whopping 61-15% margin.
-----------------------------------
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Actually, taxes on regular fuel and taxes on desiel fuel are not always the same (at least in my state). They can tax regular people without increasing the price of goods.
If you're curious, I do not support gas taxes to fund anything but highway construction.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
"I don't care if the man sometimes can't speak straight. "
Its hard to talk with a septum burned out from sniffing coke.
The questions they chose not to answer as the ones they did.
"First, we kill the lawyers"
Shakespear
"Then, we kill any politicians still left."
Me
It is truly sad that Bush can pull ahead [of Gore] in a poll on a site where people supposedly respect things like morality, intelligence, and selflessness. A vote for Gore is a vote against Stupid.
Let's say I'm 18 years old and a 2 pack a day smoker (I'm not and I'm not). A pack of cigarettes costs about $4 (this varies). Over half of that is taxes. Let's say I smoke for 30 years before I need medical assistance for my life-threatening lung cancer.
30 * 365 * 2 * $2 = $43800 (in today's dollars). Is this enough to treat me? I don't really know, I'm not a doctor ;0 . But I'm guessing that it doesn't really matter one iota, because:
- Many people smoke and quit without ever incurring smoking related health costs
- Many people smoke for years and die in car accidents, die fighting for their country, or die in some other non-smoking related way
- Many smokers die abruptly of heart related illnesses or otherwise don't use anywhere near $43000 in healt expenses
- The money smokers pay for their habits is not used directly to pay for smoking related illnesses. Most of this money goes into general funds at the federal, state, and local level. This is a sin tax - pure and simple. The taxes get approved because smokers are addicts and will put up with it, and smokers are a frowned upon (but sizeable) minority.
- Most smokers are covered by some insurance plans. Many of those plans have higher premiums for smokers, so they pay again for their addiction/habit.
In summary, you pay very little, and probably nothing for smoking related health care costs. So quit your whining, beottchH-dog, over and out!
XML causes global warming.
regardless of who "owns" the fetus, the mother has the right to prevent it from leeching her own bodies resources. you'd probably have no problem, morally, with picking a leech off of your skin. you'd never say "its the leches right to be there". while a fetus forming and a leech eating may not be the exact same thing, it's the sameprinciple. if a woman doesn't want a baby in her it is her right to remove it. if people are so concerned with saving lives, what they need to do is design a machine to support a fetus until it is fully formed, and not try to force a woman to let another body leech off of her against her will.
Why on earth would you vote for Gore? This is the guy who wants to take away access to public lands, and take away guns. I've spent a great deal of my life wandering public lands (and the rest in front of a computer) and would hate to lose such a wonderful resource.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Obviously, you are not a native of Texas.. While I may not enjoy the climate, most of the people are nice, the government seems to function well, and the education is quite adequate. I especially like the low costs of the colleges down here.
I have been in the third world, and I can very honestly say that Texas does not resemble it in the least. You, who have probably never stepped from behind your monitor, should probably consider a little moderation in your outbursts, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
As for a vote for Nader being a vote for Bush, if you take a careful look at the electoral college system, consider the fact that most of Americans are going to sheepishly vote for Bush or Gore, you may come to understand that voting for Nader, now, gives us a better chance in the future of having a candidate and a party worth getting up in arms about..
That being said, if I, or many other Nader supporters, really thought their vote would reduce Gore's chances of attaining office, I am rather sure we would vote for Gore. I am not particularly eager to see the right wing get their fists on the throat of the Supreme Court.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Well said.
Don't listen to those boys. They haven't a fucking clue.
He wants to "tax things we don't like." Clearly capital gains are included. I suspect his argument would be that the stock market is about corporate power, and he dislikes the influence of corporations in public policy and in national activities.
This was raised in a context of progressive taxes, in which the concept is that the more you earn, the higher your tax rate. So your point about the wealth the stock market created is the same one he would make in favor of his taxes.
Politics are funny.
so you can vote in /. polls, but not in actual elections?
chumps.
On the contrary, taxes have been used like this for years. How else do you explain high gas taxes in some states, high tobacco taxes, the taxes that you unknowing pay at casinos and bars (because they're figured into prices already). I see nothing wrong with "discouraging" certain immoral/unethical/unpleasant (such as pollution, porn, or whatever) activities. You CANNOT just criminalize activities that you do not like. That's absurd and would lead to a very unhappy public. And as far as "who decides" ? Set up a committee, vote on it, set up a committee and vote on it.. there's several options on making it reasonable.
Pornography and nudity are two separate things. It's a shame some people cannot tell the difference. And as I alluded to, These issues can always be voted on.
DN0
Ian Thompson Virtualis Systems, INC. LLL (LinuxLover4Life)
You should vote for the person you WANT to win, not for the person you believe WILL win.
Actually, I think a very large problem is people basically voting against someone; a person may support Browne but will vote for Bush just to keep Gore out of office. Unfortunately, this also perpetuates the two party system.
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
Your analogies will never persuade anyone to your viewpoint because people that don't share your views will never understand your analogies. The determining factor as to whether or not abortion is murder is whether or not you believe that a fetus is a person. It has nothing to do with you having the right to determine what happens to your body.
The two examples you gave (the foot and the tapeworm) obviously do not classify as murder because neither a foot nor a tapeworm are a person and therefore cannot be murdered.
On the other side of the coin, take siamese twins as an extreme example. If there were two siamese twins (twin A and twin B) that were joined at the hip, most people would agree that twin A and twin B are two seperate people. I'll go out on a limb here and say it would be classified as murder if twin A killed twin B. In this case, it is obvious that these are two seperate people although they are physically joined.
No reasonable person would say that you do not have a choice about what to do with your body. The issue is whether or not the fetus inside you really classifies as part of you (the foot), a non-human being (the tapeworm), or another person that happens to temporarily share part of a body with you (the siamese twins). If that fetus is a person, then YES, abortion is murder. If that fetus is just a part of your body or not a human, then NO, abortion is not murder.
It really has nothing to do with your right to choose what happens to your body.
Just my $.02.
--
Who decides that the fetus is an actual threat to you? You are not allowed to shoot and kill just anyone because you think they might be going to make an attempt to kill you. So, in the case of a fetus, what evidence do you have that this fetus is a real, immediate threat to your life, not just a potential one.
All people are potential threats to your life, do you have a right to kill them all and justify it with "self-defense"?
--
"Since all reasonable women agree that abortion is a proper solution to unwanted pregnancy, there is no legal controversy."
Who decides if a woman (or group of women with a similar belief) is reasonable?
--
If something is proven to be harmful on a large scale, shouldn't someone do something about it?
If something is proven to be beneficial on a large scale, shouldn't someone encourage it?
How can an individual realistically influence any of the above without government?
What tools are available to the government? Would you rather have a tax or a law?
Incidently, states that have a low standard of living are generally conservative, whereas states with a high standard of living are generally liberal. Look it up if you doubt me.
Also, you should notice that he said "we don't like", not "I don't like". The context I get out of this is "we as a country", not "we as in me".
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush.
It's because he doesn't stand a chance that it's even more important that you vote for Browne, not Bush.
I can't begin to tell you how slimy it makes me feel having voted for Clinton twice. Sure, he won, sure he was 'better' than Bush senior or Dole, but you know who I envy? The 19% who voted for Perot. Because their vote counted. It made something happen in Washington.
Vote your hopes, not your fears.
--
My other computer is your IIS server.
I don't want to sound like a flame, because this certainly isn't meant to be one.
I guess that I really don't agree with your putting conservation ahead of favoring human life. After all, Genesis 1:27 does say that we're made in God's image, so who are we to destroy that?
Going on with creation also has the command from God in Genesis 1:28a, "Be fruitful and increase in number." Supporting abortion doesn't seem to support this command from God.
One could also argue the point that our human bodies are temples of God as 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 states. Who are we to destroy these temples?
I guess that from my point of view, I believe that human life is way more important than natural conservation will ever be (unless without conservation humans would die, which doesn't seem to be imminent here). As such, I choose G.W. Bush because he aligns himself with this ideal also.
Just some food for thought.
Kyle Johnson
"We've upped our standards, now up yours!"
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
So no one in this country has ever gotten rich because they worked hard?
What a bunch of communist bull.
Actually, taxes have been used to effectively criminalize activities, and the entire drug war started that way. I read an interesting piece regarding the history of marijuana laws in this country, and you'd be shocked at some of the actual things said in courtrooms which led to the prohibition of marijuana. More pertinent though, you'll see how taxes were used to 'criminalize' drugs.
Prohibition Article
Personally, I think that no candidate out there is going to match anyones views entirely. Nader, however, has fought for individual rights for a long time, and I think that in four years in the big chair (which won't happen during this election), the changes that he would put into place would be those that tend towards individual rights, and shrinking corporate influence in politics. These are good things, in my humble opinion. I'm outraged at the idea that the police can physically bar a presidential candidate from being on the same college campus that the largest political media event for the presidency is being held on. Now that's not even to mention being barred from the debates themselves, but illegally being barred from a side-event that he held a ticket for.. and there's no riots? There's no uproar? We are a placid generation, perfectly content to think we are a golden nation, yet able to criticise other countries for doing less then this to their '3rd-party candidates'.
As for 'we', well our government has been founded on a big ol' happy "we the people". It may have meant 'we the white male land-owning people' at the time, but we like to think that it did intend to include all of us. I don't feel like it does right now. Neither do quite a few people. If 'we' meant all of us, then there'd be a few changes in the way the country works.
Finally, and most importantly, we would feel like there was no such thing as a 'wasted vote'.
Our system currently is not designed this way. There are a few candidates out there who would like to change that. I feel that Nader is one of those. God, there are so many *voters* out there that don't know who Ralph Nader is, that I'm afraid to mention the slew of other candidates for the highest political office in our country.
hope you dig my nub.
-rev
Fair? yes I can see how "TARGETED" tax cuts are fair, this is resonable logic, after all I shouldn't have a tax cut because I don't live in a 500 yard radius of the proxmity of the rare knatcatchter, right? Funny that a large majority of the middle class $40,000 to $50,000 a year don't need those tax cuts, correct? I mean the wealthy do obviously, because who else can afford to spend $30,000 plus on an electric car that currently in San Diego cost more to charge than filling a gas tank, of course this is fair. You got to love idiot logic, why don't you read some of Al Gore's Targeted tax cuts(www.algore.com) many of these breaks are for people who can afford to spend extra money on such items as solar power, etc. Do you really think someone who makes $20,000 is going to buy an electric car, solar power, etc? I would have to say no, because they cost so much, yet Al Gore's tax breaks are for the people who can AFFORD this, amazing no? Makes you wonder where his tax breaks are really going to. Read a book, learn economics, then say Al Gore's tax cut is Fair. I know you weren't trying to argue that George Bush is going to try and micromanage peoples lives more than Al Gore. If you really are for less micromanagement then that argument is shot. Bush is for corporate welfare. Ok give me some proof I fail to see any evidence that supports your argument, maybe a website and don't send me one that is obviously against him. you don't need to act to reality, your stuipidty will take care of that for you.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
lol, wow why don't you explain. Your evidence is "hes ohhh sooo much more an evil candiate than that other man. Ohh hes so bad." lol If you are voting for any of the two major canidates vote bush and this is why: 1.) He wants less govt which is always good 2.) He is for a tax cut across the board period, none of this "Targeted" Tax cut nonsense. 3.) Why don't you read the two replys from Gore and Bush on encryption, yes I can see how Gore is for less restriction. 4.) if you want economic liberties he is your definite choice, his tax and econcomic plans put less restriction on socitey and he wants to privatize social security, allowing you to control a portion of your own money. 5.) Civil liberties? you got to be joking neither of these candiates will protect those, in fact the only candiate I can think of that will is a Libertarian. Vote Libertarian if it clearly is in a state Bush will win, otherwise vote Bush. 4 years of Gore will result in the soicalization of medicine(telling you were you have to go to see a doctor, now tell me how thats not infringement on civil liberties?), a greater seperation of wealth, and definetely a recession, plus the end of social security because his current plan is completely a debacle in which he wants to right IOU's on top of payments, more debt anyone? did I mention he wants to expand the gov't more than Clinton, thats right a bigger more inefficient govt (yes it is inefficient our current education dept. can't even account for 800 million dollars and don't even get me started on the others) Luckily if he does win we can boot him in 2004, the real problem is that we have too many individuals who believe they know whats right for everyone else instead of letting them use their own brain.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
You get to decide which HMO you belong to, if you do not, quit your job, and go somewhere else, it annoys me more that people try to say that in a capitalist society you are forced to stay where you are working, you have a choice to leave in socialized medicine you do NOT. You are told which doctor to see if you do not like it too bad. It annoys me more than anything that people do not think this out. Don't believe me check out Canadas health care system. in Socialized medicine doctors are not elected officals, they are part of the bureaucrat, when is the last time you have been allowed to vote out part of our bureaucracy? The answer is never, it is in general a lifelong position that is filled till someone dies, I believe you are confused. As for the problem with HMO's and lawsuits this is easily fixed by changing legislation not by socializing medicine as for empty rhetoric I really suggest looking at what you just wrote.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Is anyone's original attention to be bad at what they do? Of course not that still doesn't mean they should be doing it. Hi I am Stuctual Engineer I suck at what I do and you may die from being in one of my building but my intentions are pure.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
I am not going to argue with you back and forth upon this issue because I think you hit the true nature of what socialized medicine stands for in your last comment I believe that all people deserve adequate health coverage. What right do you have to place your values on me? Excuse me? how am I keeping you from giving adequate health care to everyone. Does my belief force you not to donate money or start an organization that offers free health care? Of course it does not. Your belief however imposes upon me, it would force me to take part in something that I do not believe should be forced upon people. I don't believe I should have to pay for healthcare for everyone without my consent. Is there an option under socialized medicine not to include me? Of course their is not. This is the major difference between my beliefs and yours, yours impose your values upon me, mine do not on you. Next time I suggest you rethink when you say someone is imposing their values on you, for in this case that is a lie.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
I was gone for a while ok heres some info. for you before you go vote. Yes pro-Bush sites source their information, I bet you want an example, sure no problem (http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html) It souces every quote that Al Gore has said that makes absoultely no sense or issues which show how bad a president he would make, here are a little examples: The Clinton/GORE Administration is proposing to cut Medicare reimbursements for anti-cancer drugs that are administered in doctors' offices, the bottom line is if GWB and The New York Times hadn't called this on them, then my best friend, who has Leukimia, would of lost his payments for treatments. His parents work three jobs and can barley afford the co-payments as it stands now. So the question stands, are you going to vote for someone who is trying to take away treatement for Cancer patients? Sources: New York Times (www.nytimes.com do a search on archives and http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/8%2B7%2B00.htm) I would give the source for NY Times but they want to charge $2.50 for the article. -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
by the way heres some really intelligent quotes from Gore:
$35 dollars a week can buy a lot of Diet Cokes
In his 2000 convention acceptance speech, Gore said the Bush tax cut would save the average family 62 cents a week ("enough for a diet coke"). He later clarified it and said 62 cents a day. The average family would save $1500, or five dollars a day, which is 35 dollars a week.
$100,000 worth of new lab equipment means overcrowding!
In the October 3, 2000 Presidential debate, Gore said he'd received a letter from the father of a 15-year-old Sarasota High School student. "Her science class was supposed to be for 24 students," Gore said the man told him. "She is the 36th student in that classroom," Gore related, and he said the father sent him a picture of the girl in her class. "They can't squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during class," Gore told the audience. Gore used the illustration to drive home the point that he wants the federal government "to make improvement of our school the number one priority." However, Daniel Kennedy, Principal of Sarasota High School complained that Gore had exaggerated the overcrowding. "We have a brand-new campus. It's like a college. It's one of the top schools in the nation," he stated. The school is well under capacity and has plenty of space and desks. If Kailey didn't have a desk the first few days of school, he said, it was because $100,000 of new science equipment was sitting in boxes and taking up space on opening day, and there were plenty of lab stools to sit on.
(Sources: New York Post 10/05/00 "Al Can't Keep His Stories Straight"
Washington Post, 10/05/00)
Collecting cans for prescription drug benefits!
During the October 3, 2000 Presidential debate, Gore mentioned 79-year-old Winifred Skinner, who has become the campaign's mascot for his Medicare prescription-drug program. "In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans," Gore said. "She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order to attend here tonight." However, Skinner doesn't need to collect cans for her medication. Her son, Earl King, who formerly owned his own business and now lives on an 80-acre ranch and describes his lifestyle as "comfortable," has offered repeatedly to help her make ends meet. She continually declines his offers. In addition, the Winnebago Gore referred to, as well as the gas, was paid for by the Gore campaign. Five campaign workers accompanied Skinner, a longtime Democrat and former union organizer.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again"
Washington Post, October 5, 2000, page A20)
I was there with James Lee Witt...oh, wait....
In the Presidential debate on October 3, 2000, Governor George W. Bush gave credit to the Federal Emergency Management Service (FEMA) for their work in Texas during fires and floods in Parker County. Vice President Al Gore said he had traveled to see the damage with FEMA director James Lee Witt, "I was down there when the fires broke up." Carl Cameron, of Fox News first reported that Gore had not, in fact, been to Texas with Witt to look at the damage in Parker County. Gore WAS in Texas, not not to help FEMA -- A Federal News Service schedule showed that he was at a fundraiser. FEMA officials said Witt never went to Texas to deal with the 1998 fires.
"If James Lee was there before or after, then you know, I got that wrong then," Gore said on ABC's Morning America on October 4, 2000.
(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again")
I was part of those discussions! Really!
At a Sept. 22 press conference, Gore stated "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 -- two years before Al Gore became a congressman
(Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)
A dog's health care costs less than my mother-in-law's!
Vice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told seniors in Florida last month that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh. "That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break" he stated. Gore's mother-in-law does pay more for her medication, but the generic brand of the drug, which 85% of Americans now use as a cheaper alternative, costs half as much, or one and a half times what it costs for the pooch - not three times. In addition, given the complexities of the marketplace, and the steps people take to get a better deal, it can work the other way around: Pets "pretending" to be humans. The Gore campaign also admitted that it lifted those costs not from his family's bills, but from a House Democratic study, and that Gore misused even those numbers: They represent the manufacturer's price to wholesalers, not the retail price of the brand-name product.
Drug costs often cost more for humans, though, because they are more heavily regulated. Jeff Trewhett, the spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America, said the higher costs for the human version of patented drugs is justified because the research, development, and approval costs can surpass $500 million per drug. But once the drug is approved for humans, the cost to test and approve it for animals is minimal, he said. Interestingly enough, Gore is proposing more regulations on on top of what we have now. Our food also costs 3 times as much as the dog's... will Gore say that we have to pretend to be dogs to get affordable food?
(Source: "Gore misstates facts in drug-cost pitch" Boston Globe, 9/18/2000 )
Dairy Farm Expert in a Day
Milwaukee, WI - "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
(Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Washington Post, June 14, 2000)
Hey! I am an expert in hospital administration in NJ, and the hotel industry in several states - having spent more than one night there!
As for the Internet I am one of the first to defend the fact that Gore had a important role in the internet, he however did not "take the initiative in creating it." As he was quoted saying in an interview, and don't bother sourcing salon I read it and all it proves is what I just said. As for your comments about Bush, see above and insert Gore, after all he is the canidate who plans "targeted" tax cuts, and is against privatized s.s. both which are completely opposite of your brillant ending paragraph.
The question is, doesn't a Al Gore in office worry you? It sure does me.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Gotta Love this funny you didn't mention the CEO's press release on the subject: http://www.rand.org/hot/texas.html It states that Texas has achieved higher scores than other states and that Texas needs work but still nationally is one of the highest. A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal of education. Where would you expect to read such a paper? Do you think it would be better if it were written by people who were not experts on education? Would you have a lawyer examine a medical procedure because the medical establishment is too biased??? I would expect it to be written by people who are experts but not currently teaching. The question that I asked you and never got an answer was; do you expect teachers to support programs that make them accountable for their actions, thus if they fail, they are fired? You take a single quote from the introduction, misunderstand it, then present it as evidence that the whole article is worthless??? Let me point you to the relevant portion in the report so you at least know what that portion of the intro was referring to... You accuse me of misrepresenting a fact, yet sadly this is what you did to me, I suggest opening your eyes and read what I said but since I am afraid you won't I will have to comment on this, first the quote I pulled was the major evidence used in the intro. hence " To help answer this question, it is necessary to look at other evidence of student learning in Texas, to see whether the apparent gains on TAAS since its introduction in 1991 are reflected in any other indicators of student learning in Texas. I now summarize evidence from the SAT college admissions test..." Hence his evidence of whether TAAS is a real indicator of academic improvement is directly supported by looking at the SAT scores, thus my response is accurate and reflects the failed logic in the beginning of the article. This is probabley why you don't understand my point because I don't think you understand the basis for his argument, I can only suggets you re-read the introduction. I agree about vouchers besides the 'accountable' part. First this is federal money being spent, the gov't has every right to know whether it is being well spent or wasted. This kind of logic is currently why the department of Education cannot indicate where 800 million dollars has gone. Making 'accountable' allows for the gov't to decide whether a voucher school is living up to the standards that have been applied to public schools but rarly enforced. Raw data? Again I reference my previous post, I can get you data for anything that you want to be for or against, the question is whether the data can be 'accountable'? Yes you are wasting my time, you gave no and I repeat NO evidence that was not bias, I however gave you links that are and still prove my point, i.e. the education link which is against Bush's education policy but acknowledges that his state has made gains in education.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Ok lets go through the evidence you gave: first this link: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001024/pl/bush_e ducation_dc_1.html
Funny that this contradicts the original RAND report, ohh I mean THE OFFICIAL Report, that said in his state he was tied first only to North Carolina in education improvement, this site however notes this and still is against much of the policies of Bush:
http://whyfiles.org/116testing/3.html
Ok now lets go to the next URL:
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
Ok first after reading the article it seemed like a very strong paper, ohhh wait it is written in the journals of eductaion, now why would teachers be against Bush holding them accountable, hmmm lets think about that one really long, ok I am done. Second lets just look at some of the evidence or arguments made in the article, "SAT-Math scores have deteriorated relative to students nationally." Now let me ask you if more students take a test, particularly students of lower economic ranges do you believe that test scores on average would increase or decrease? The answer is obvious and shows part of the failed logic in the article, moving right along.
The Url from Harvard is missing funny though that a professor from Harvard did a study saying vouchers improve African American education, link sure no problem:
http://www.courierpress.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?20000 8/28+school082800_elect2000.html+2000082 8
Next link:
http://www.libertyhaven.com/noneoftheabove/sports/ nfloffers.shtml
Ok this is about a professional football team, it has one line which states That GWB is for corporate welfare and yet no proof, besides "George W. Bush signed legislation allowing localities after voter approval" Yet this was voter approved, I hope you have better evidence than this.
Link:
http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2000/00march/wh eat.html
this is a great article till you find out who it is owned and written by: Essential Information, hmmm who founded this lets just take a looksey, ohh its Ralph Nadar, WHAT! I am shocked that a magazine by Ralph Nadar would be against Bush, noooooo! Link to evidence sure here you go:
http://www.essential.org/EI.html
I hope that you actually gave me evidence that was unbias or this is pathetic I could give you evidence from thousands of biased sources trying to prove anything I want, I am looking for good unbiased evidence here, not Ralph Nadar or as in the case of people for socialized medicine, links that take me to Canadas Health Net, of course they are going to be for it, ok moving right along.
Link:
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/10/chen ey/index.html and
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/25/o il/index.html
Ok these are by Salon hmmm again who are they for in the presdiential elections? Why don't you go check out a real site like www.voter.com and learn true evidence, by the way stop wasting my time, I really don't care if Dick Cheney got his money from the Gov't big deal, Why don't you look at Gore and Clinton if you want to see things they have used the Government for.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
If the job market is tight, and/or your skills aren't in high demand at the time, you can't leave. And anyway, my point was that even if you switch HMOs, their goals are all the same (profit) and create the same problems (bad health care). That is social b.s. you can always leave your place of work, economcially you may choose to stay but you are not forced to stay. Secondly HMO's provide bad healthcare? Funny I can see my doctor tommorrow if I want to, can you do that in Canada or Britain? (http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8903oldh.html) Relatively speaking yes if you have a cold, however if you wish to see a specialist you will have to wait weeks. Something that currently doesn't happen in the United States. But elected officials live in fear of being voted out of office, and so are loathe to piss off too many voters. If somebody dies because of substandard care, their relatives are going to be pissed... Doctors in Socialized medicine are not 'elected officals.' If you are implying that elected officals would pressure doctors to preform better, then I suggest we think this through a.) Big deal in a buercrats eye, which is what a doctor would end up being. The elected offical would be gone in four years so if they put pressure upon the doctor all he has to say is that he is working on it then after four years when the elected offical is voted out due to pissed off voters you start the cycle over again or b.) pressure from elected offcials seems to be working real well in our public education currently. The universal healthcare proposition that was voted down a few years ago in California would have created a new elected position in charge of health care The point of this is...it would have created more government ohhh yay! More inefficiency great. And anyway, under what definition are HMOs not bureaucracies? Now that was a dumb statement your previous arguements were based upon the fact that HMO's want to maximize profit,i.e. like buisnesses. Yes I can see how HMO's thus could also be the same as a bureaucracy. You say that HMO's replace a buisness model that paid for lawsuits, now you get to the real problem, HMO's replace the older form of health insurance partly because of ridiculous lawsuits such as coffee being too hot. This can be fixed by placing in the law the ability to sue HMO's, under circumstances that fault is proven. However again you do not create socialized medicine. The question that you should be asking is what right do you have to place your values on me?
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
I hope you are right about Gore winning California. I want to vote Nader, also, but personally, I'm pretty convinced that Bush will carry California. I live in a conservative county, Ventura, so this may color my projection... I guess we'll find out tomorrow, won't we? There has GOT to be a better way to grow a viable third party. Anybody have any ideas?
See, if you need proof, http://www.votenader.org /is sues/agriculture_letter.html He thinks falling prices for commodities is a bad thing! Hello? Who does he think buys these things? This is a trend that's been going on for hundreds of years. Does he know that around 1900, a family typically spent over half its income on food?
because he is the first one on your poll list. :)
-- George
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" as well. Does that mean that everyone in favor of keeping murder illegal (and I'm not talking abortion either) is religiously motivated?
I'm about as unreligious as you get, and I sortof flop back and forth on the issue. The religious community is against it because they see abortion as murder, and murder being wrong. But guess what? They're hardly alone in that!
The right to choose is a women's choice. Stop trying to take it away from her. Get your hands off my body.
Blah blah blah HANDS OFF MY BODY! blah blah blah. This is the problem. The issue here is whether a woman should be allowed to kill her unborn child or not. There are a fair number of rational arguments for and against, yet every time someone tries to rationally discuss this, some abortion rights "protester" starts foaming at the mouth and screaming "GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF MY BODY!" Just like the anti-abortion protesters will scream "BABY KILLERS!!" The anti-abortion side gets misty eyed and starts whining, "But.. the children!" while the pro-abortion side tries to pretend it's not about death but about "choice," trying to distract from the real issues at work. Let's admit it, both sides are equally good as producing zealots, and to pretend that the pro-abortion side isn't full of that kind as well as the anti-abortion side is rediculous. Abortion is one of those topics where almost no one wants to be sane and where the volume of the voice is more important than the arguement.
(Bitter? Me? No...)
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
The rich certainly require more the defense systems more than the poor, and generally require it at a greater rate than is proportional to income. If you're poor, you don't have nearly as much to lose. Most of your money goes into consumables (food and rent), rather than assets like property or savings or investments. There's far less to lose.
I'm under no illusions that the issue really lies in the states, but the president has a significant role in the issue:
How a candidate thinks about life issues tells a great deal about his character.
--
Not so. Stock options are considered income and taxed at the appropiate tax bracket for your yearly income.
It is great that Slashdot is Multi-Country, we get a good broad base of info and opinions.
Mark
RMIT IT Test Lab Engineer
Mark RMIT IT Test Lab Engineer http://www.geekzone.com.au/~msnell
oooh, thats like making me rub my hairy nuttsack until it bleeds, and if a pastor in south carolina claimed it was good to do so, the government wouldbe jealous they couldnt rub my hairy nuttsack, or would pretend they thought of it, therefore, there taking about 58 percent of the blood to rub nuttsacks.
Dont let school get in the way of your education
Dont let school get in the way of your education
~Noah~
I've seen some really dumb moderation before, but this takes the cake. How the fuck could anyone consider my original post a troll? It was reasoned, honest, and polite. Disagree with me as you wish but don't call me a troll.
I guess some Naderite was frightened of the truth and decided the only answer was to mod me down so people browsing at +1 couldn't see me. Moderators, please mod me back to one.
So true. Nader is the best friend Bush has at the moment. For Christ's sake, Republicans are even paying for Nader's ads!
I hope those of you that are "voting your consicence" enjoy that fleeting feeling of smug superiority. It might even last a day or two. Then you're realize that through your own retarded actions you've just elected a man who is the antithesis of everything you believe in.
The rest of us are going to have to pay for your conscience. So will the air, water, and soil. Quite a legacy for the so-called "Green Party".
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Just as a general response to the people who are saying "pollution tax" will never work: It won't work on you personally, because you have souls, and behave according to them. It has a good chance to work on corporations, since they have money at their "souls", and behave according to it. Sure, I'm willing to spend $20 for a $5 bottle of liquor, when mouthwash has just as much ethanol, because my actions are not purely economic. But if you make pollution economically impractical, companies will do what is economically practical.
In Germany, there is a law, whereby any company selling a product is charged, in advance, by the government, the cost of its future disposal. The government is not "micromanaging" anything, it's simply refusing to provide a free service to these companies. Because that's what free garbage disposal is, a subsidy of companies that produce waste, with the cost borne evenly by those that are and those that aren't wasteful.
When this was introduced, corps were screaming blue murder, it was going to cripple the German economy, blah blah. Now, taking a look around German supermarkets, you hardly ever see peacock-tail type packaging. (I mean those packages so common in N. America, where the product is tiny, but the box is huge to take up shelf space - basically a big box of air ) You also don't see much of the sort of thing where two plastic bags of chips are packed inside a cardboard box, which is in turn wrapped in plastic.
So, it can work, so there.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
You wouldn't happen to have any statistics on what happens to their rates of single victim shootings, would you? Or on what proportion of overall shootings is represented by multiple victim shootings both in states with and without such laws?
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Also, IIRC, to be a 'recognized' pacifist, you had to be able to quote the pacifist philosophers that had influenced your pacifism. In other words, they weren't looking for the dedicated pacifists, so much as the well-read ones. That's why Muhammad Ali went to jail for his pacifism - his justification famously started "No Viet Cong ever called me nigger.", not "After extensive reading of Tolstoy, Hegel, and (insert big names in philosophy from the 60's and 70's)..."
Personally, I can see how it would take as much courage to dodge the draft by leaving the country as it would to go fight when you're called up. Leaving the country, you were basically giving up the right to see your family, your friends, your home forever.
Incidentally, when was amnesty granted to draft dodgers who escaped to other countries? (It was granted, right? )
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Day scares me; he seems to honestly, earnestly believe in just about everything I hold abhorrent. I think that to the bottom of his soul he is a good man who wants to do things I consider evil.
Chretien, on the other hand, just disgusts me. I consider him not to have a soul at all. I don't think he believes in anything - he might as well be a publicly traded corporation for all the principle he shows.
If I voted for the party I liked, it would be the NDP - not that I think McDonough would make a great PM, but there's no chance of that this year. I do think that having NDPers in opposition could inject some conscience into the whole process, though. Oh, and in response to the above posting - I think about as much of the BC NDP as you do, but I think the Saskatchewan NDP are great. The federal ones, I put somewhere in between.
So, I'm in the terible position of having to worry about weakening the Liberals - come one, the Chretien Liberals! Under a different leader, it might not be so bad, but this guy shows his contempt for democracy every time he opens his mouth.
I guess I'm just waiting for the day they introduce None Of The Above legislation in Canada
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
I would believe him if he walked his talk. Haven't you been exposed to the Nader mystique? He pretends to live on $25,000 per year, live in a spartan apartment, live the spartan lifestyle. Makes me want to puke.
And just because he acts like the system demands, he can't be serious about dislikeing and changing the system?
If he were his own man, he would live like HE demands, instead of being a phoney victim of the 'system'.
I personally don't give much about the person itself, (as I don't _really_ know them anyway) I vote for ideals one person represents.
He is just a sock puppet. The American Green party is not GREEN. It is a collection of saggy-bottomed left-behinds from the New Left (1960's) but which is now the Old Left. They have no environmental policy beyond 'taxing polluters' or 'stopping suburban sprawl'. They refuse to get specific, they don't have the creativity to address overpopulation, the real environmental problem.
Their stated platform is as nebulous as it is vacuous. They are skating along on the good reputation of the Euro Greens.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
He owns shares in a mutual fund that has Occidental Petroleum, among many others. Nader is a phoney.
He says he wants to tax the rich, but he'd never tax himself!
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Nader has amassed a large personal fortune ($3.8 million) through funds siphoned from his personal collection of 'non-profits' and invested in real estate and the stock market.
HOW NADER PROFITS WHILE HE PREACHES
Did you know that Ralph Nader has a financial interest in Dick Cheney's success and has financial ties to Enron, one of George W. Bush's major campaign contributors?
While Nader attacks corporations such as Halliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, Ford, Phillip-Morris, Pfizer, MacDonalds, and Occidental as being harmful to mankind, he makes investment profits off of all of these and more.
What's the point, you ask?
If corporate contributions corrupt candidates, can't corporate investments corrupt candidates?
get more here
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
And said so in a typically vague amnner. Nader is not really much of an environmentalist, and only buzz-words his way through the issue.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
DISCLAIMER: If you aren't American and don't have anything to say that would contribute to the discussion, please don't say anything at all.
So you have to be either American or have something useful to say. That explains a lot of comments you read about non-US topics.
Censorship on Slashdot
No (...)
And for the rest of your comment you are proving that I got you right from the beginning. Thank you for that.
What irritates me is that you apparently regard useless comments from Americans as high as useful comments from foreigners. Why?
Censorship on Slashdot
Your correct there is no corporate conspiracy, or any bull like that. It just seems to me that there is a bit of a conflict of interests when politician's campaigns are bank rolled by the corporations and then once elected these politicians go and coincidentally pass laws providing these corporations with corporate welfare and tax cuts. Now don't get me wrong I don't have anything against big corporations (in fact I work for one of the biggest in the world), its just a question of what the country would better benefit from. Not giving a giant company a tax break isn't gonna make them go bankrupt. And think of all the good that tax money could do: improve education, end child poverty, universal health care, the list goes on. I don't pretend to know everything and I'm always looking to learn, so if you know exactly how corporate welfare helps the country better then new schools and better health care would please fill me in.
If you tax something, you discourage it--so what will a "progressive" taxation scheme discourage? Working. (Too bad MS has so corrupted the I-word, or I'd use it here, too.)
It's not just the conditions, it's how many people there are who can do the job (i.e. you forgot the supply part of supply and demand). Lots of people can pick strawberrys [sic], or flip burgers.
I don't know about individuals, but consider this: when I was a child, one would see WB cartoons such as one I recall featuring a mouse that happened into a large building that was a production line for various processed foods--I recall that in one segment he stumbled into a vat of "pickling solution" and emerged intoxicated, after which we got to see him stagger down the conveyor belt barely missing knives that sliced the pickles for canning. At night, one could see the Jackie Gleason Show, in which Gleason would do a sketch as "Joe the Bartender," whose regular customer was one "Crazy" Guggenheimer, a punch-drunk if not actually drunken person. That was also the era of Sheb Wooley's alter ego, "Ben Colder," who blundered drunkenly through parodies of popular C&W songs of the time, and Foster Brooks's unshaven drunk character on one of Bill Cosby's variety shows.
Would anyone dare to show such characters on TV nowadays? Hell, no! Why not? Is there a law against portraying alcoholics or the brain-damaged as figures to be made fun of? Not that I'm aware of. What's changed is the average opinion of people; it's not funny any more. It's just sad, and anyone who does laugh at it is liable to get ostracized. No government action necessary.
Cheers
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
destruction of environment... you mean like gore playing favoritism like he did with the paper plant. Or with racial enequality. equality means equal, not set up to be superior. The "level playing field" argument is weak, outdated, and has proven to do more harm (i.e. cause more strife, polarize people more, and degrade everyone) not to mention it makes people think that minorities are genetically inferior and unable to perform their job like anyone else can. Affirmative action and related programs are invented and supported by people that are more interested in the process than the cause. Coming from someone who only sees diversity as just that, diverse backgrounds (often rather interesting) I really can't fathom why people won't just drop it. Everytime someone forces the issue down my throat, or says I am racist because I don't support racial and bigotted favoritism, it only hurts. It does nothing to help the situation. Anyone else that hears it, then looks at the over emotional person in a negative light. On the other hand, if you work around people that hire by competence it rubs off on you. Affirmative action is like communism, it sounds real rosy on paper "level playing field and everyone gets 'their share'", yet in practice it is proven to do more harm than good. Many Universities have grudgingly admitted that in areas of non-affirmative action, racial tensions are much lower, profits higher, and attitudes more positive. When you control your neighbors, they tend to like neither you or your ideals. Educate them, and show a good example, and they will see the superiority of your ideals on their own. Again, this is about what works best, period
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Wow, I unwittingly made a multi-function analogy. Too bad your version is probably a better one than mine...
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
The EC acts a buffer for disparites in the population sizes of the states, making each state closer to equal in 'size' for the purpose of electing a prez. Think of it like the World Series or the NBA playoffs, as opposed to the NFL playoffs. When you've got a best of seven series like the NBA/World Series (where the teams play until one team has won 4 games) you're more likely to get the actually better team, as opposed to the lucky team, such as the Titans beating the Bills last year on the last play of the game. If the election was on a pure popular majority, you could just say 'No taxes for Texas, Cali, New Yawk, Florida, screw the rest of the country!' and win. This is obviously an exaggeration, but you get the picture.
People say that their votes don't matter now because the only way one vote makes a difference is if your candidate loses your state by one vote, but in a pure popular vote election, they would only matter if your candidate loses by one vote out of the whole country. A popular vote election would actually dilute the importance of voting, not increase it.
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Nader is an Arab-American "radical" who would like to form a left-wing third party in the United States.
He would also like to cut all US funds to Israel...
If Ralph Nader were in the UK rather than the US, he would probably be a far left Labour supporter, missing those heady days of the seventies when there were food shortages and power outages in London and violent revolution seemed an almost attainable dream.
"with bags of chips and pints of beer
We'll keep the red flag flying here"
The whole point of the stock market is that it allows companies to raise capital cheaper than taking out a loan from a bank and allows investors to get (potentially) higher returns. A tax would impair both.
It is hard to believe that intelligent people like Nader come up with such ideas.
Okay, so how do you feel about parking tickets? You park in a fire lane, you get fined. Gasp! How dare the government engage in such micromanagement and infringe on my right to park. So maybe that's a little over-the-top, but in general I think people agree that parking in fire lanes is a detriment to the public good, and those individuals engagine in such activities should be penalized. I know what your going to say: it's not the same thing. Parking in a fire lane is illegal, whereas using gasoline (and polluting the environment, for example) is legal but taxed. But I ask you: IS it really different? How is making something illegal in our society and fining the offender different than taxing something which offends society? It's a fine point.
Darn it... now I've got myself thinking. You're not suppose to park in a firelane, ever. Laws are not meant to be broken. You ARE allowed to use gasoline to drive your car for as long as you pay the tax on it. It's like a law that you pay to bend instead of break.
So do you want things to be black and white (legal/illegal) or grey (sin-taxes). When I started this post, I was going to disagree with you. But now... down with sintaxes!
After all, we tax sales... does that mean we dislike commerce?
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Lewis's idea really isn't too far off base. I would almost rather have puppet Bush in power being controlled by intelligent people instead of having Al Gore in power, telling everybody what to do and thinking that he knows best.
Amazing magic tricks
If you think the person making $100K+ per year driving the Lincoln Navigator really cares about an extra 15 cents per gallon you are kidding yourself.
Amazing magic tricks
Those who vote for Nader, whatever state they may be in do not elect Bush, the entire nation elects Bush. If Gore loses, it is not the fault of Ralph Nader, or of his supporters, it is his fault, 100%, for not convincing the votes he can serve them better. It is sort of sad that Gore can barely keep up with a idiotic, poorly spoken, convicted drunk-driver from Texas.
- Dave
People need to stop worrying about "Strategic voting" and vote for who best represents their ideas. Don't worry about the statistical ramifications of voting for your candidate.
- Dave
Sure it does! Otherwise you wouldn't be coming to our US web sites all the time. You'd have this kind of pseudointellectual redundant yammering on your own servers. Go start www.slashmoose.ca or something.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
www.asktimmy.com
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
Gotta love it:
(Score:5, Flamebait)
I'm tempted to take a screenshot lest it never happens again. Though with the current bout of political coverage, it's been happening quite a bit.
Note:
Who is he to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like?
The President, duly elected by the people. If you don't like what he says, don't vote for him. Some of us do, and thank you for thinking about our freedom and all, but it's an acceptable compromise in our view.
--
Can we write in Linus Torvalds for President instead?
Nope. Non-native born citizens can not, under any circumstances, be President. Welp, one circumstance, but I don't think that Linus is over 200 years old.
--
> it [smoking] hurts no one else
Actually it does. It hurts the taxpayer by costing the government who pay for many smokers' additional medical costs. And then there's a little thing called passive smoking...
I don't object to your right to smoke, but I do think that you should to some degree repay others what it costs them when you chose to do so.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
But then, I'm not completely happy with the way things are going regarding rights in the UK either. Especially if the current Tories were ever to get in, in which case capital punishment could well be back on the cards here as well. And that would be a fucking mess. Plus there's the whole Anne Widdecombe drugs stance...
In particular I got spooked by an article that suggested that a Republican govt in the US would strengthen the Tory hand here. I don't like Labour much, but they're a damn sight better than anything further right would be.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
> Debunking #1: Since smokers tend to die prematurely, they save the government billions of
... second-hand smoke ... has not been conclusively proven to cause cancer or any other disease. (Provide a link with information from an objective and credible source that proves a positive causal relationship, and I will withdraw this debunking.)
> dollars on reduced medical costs.
This is almost certainly a troll. Still, it had better be answered since it raises some fundamental misconceptions. Smokers do not only die early, they also suffer declining health from an earlier age that can cause serious depreciations in productivity and quality of life. They will probably spend just as much time or more in hospital as a non-smoker who lives 5 years longer. Also cancer therapy is particularly expensive, and cancer treatment can last for years (trust me, it killed my father, a non-smoker).
> Debunking #2:
Fair enough - although I'm surprised that you seriously doubt the reality of passive smoking. You'll find several documents on the following page that will give you the US EPA's position:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/
It tallies quite closely with my own.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
There is a large difference between a higher tax on gasoline and a higher tax on cigarettes. Inefficient engines destroy the world which we all live in. Cigarette smoke destroys me. I choose to destroy my lungs. I am a competent individual and as such I have the right to do what I please as long as it hurts no one else or infringes upon their right to do what they please. Don't put the two in the same equation they're totally different problems.
First, people who make a tenth what you do have to spend a vastly larger percentage of their income on things like food, transportation, rent, etc.... So they have much less disposable income than you do. A flat tax on disposable income would be fair. But the only way to implement this is a higher tax percentage for higher incomes.
Second, you think your family should get aid just because they happen to have a rich uncle? What about the people that don't have a rich uncle? I guess they get to live below the poverty line too bad for them?
Third, the point of government isn't to push the economy as far as possible as fast as possible. There's the whole life, liberty, property, happiness, etc... thing too! That all people deserve, not just those that make more than 60, 70, 80 grand a year.
I won't disagree with you about Bush. Would you really not vote for Gore based solely on his stance on the Middle East? I think that we can agree that in the general case (not looking at any particular examples like the Middle East where you might disagree with him) that Gore is going to be by far the best choice as far as foreign relations go.
they have a fundamental right to the use of "their" host.
So is it illegal to kill a tapeworm?
More seriously, why do they have a fundamental right to use of "their" host? You say that they do, but you don't explain why this is a fundamental right.
Ahh - and the two maincanidates fit your discription? Oh, wait, I geuss not...well, shucks, looks like Nader is still the best choice... :-)
Soooo.... Let me see. War in the Middle East. You want Ralph Nader going in and trying to talk to Arafat and Barak? What if there were a real foreign crisis involving the US (say that problems with Russia flare up)? Would you want Nader in there trying to keep the peace and calm down a bad situation?
..."For your basic premise that if wealth was redistributed it mean the "same amount of money in the system" -- that idea is all fine and good, except for the tricky little thing known as inflation. Lets suppose everyone doubles their income tomorrow. Shortly thereafter, you will notice that the price for a loaf of bread goes from 1.25 to 2.50. The end result is that everyone makes more money - but things just cost more. New Boss = Old Boss. "
If we look at the system today, there is an ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The middle class is shrinking and many of them have both spouses working or one spouse working multiple jobs just to have a decent living. What's wrong with this picture? Certainly the trend started to worsen back in the Regan era, where he wanted to bring "Elegance" back to the White House and break the influence of the unions. Throw in a few decades of MBA's objectifying the economy to the point where we don't look at what people are having to do to live good lives. This economy has been hard on the majority of the population with the multiple jobs and very good for a very few. Those few control the money that feeds the political parties and benefits from large government projects. There is a new spirit out there to objectify people as "human resources" and to "outsource" as a method of reducing benefits. "Shareholder Equity" is now the new God of business, not what the business does (banking, insurance, manufacturing).
There is a difference between what works in the economy, which numbers you look at to say, "we are doing a good job" and a country that has people that are benefiting from the work they do. Investing is renting money (with a variable and possibly negative return), should this be held as more valuable than the house that is built by the construction worker. Those who make their living renting money and are swimming in riches but have no other contribution to society, show that there is at least one area of this free market system that lacks enough competition to make that process efficient.
One of the precepts of the free market system is that it will limit profit through competition. Any time you have a situation where there are exorbitant profits, then someone else gets into the market and siphons that off some of it balancing and making the system efficient. When you look at the growing stratification of society we see that this free market concept in not working for the society as a whole. I contend that it should and those that support the free market ideas should welcome the competition. Anything else is hypocritical.
Please remember that the system is dynamic but there is one truth to it. At the bottom of that chain are the hundreds of millions of people that actually produce a product, or a service. That is what the rest is based on and is merely a tuning and apportioning of the value of that work. The difference is who gets the value for the work done. Right now it is biased towards the rich getting richer indirectly off that basic work. This is not a situation that can last for too much longer without backlash, or renewed Union organization (which used to be the control on that imbalance). Milk's value is undervalued to the point where farmers are pouring it out because they can't make a living at its current price. The dynamics of the system don't always work, they don't always match the value and the cost, and those imbalances can only last a short time before something gives.
I agree that having someone else re-apportion wealth, i.e. government is maybe a bad way to do it but I think it needs to be done to have a healthy country and a healthy economy. We need healthy, educated, motivated people to keep the system going. It is short sighted to ignore this stratification if your own wealth is due to a viable workforce.
It gets down to what I think has been lost, starting with the Regan era, that "Enlightened self interest" is being replaced with short sighted short term "Self Interest". That's the basic problem. The imbalance stems from this and something has to bring it into balance. The voters will at some point, sooner or later, decide that the system is not doing it itself and it will take steps to see that it is done. My only fear is that the next Supreme Court justices to be chosen will prolong the agony for many decades to come. That is the real choice and why even though I might otherwise vote my conscience, the stakes are too high not to play the political game and bet on the horse that is going to get you closer to your goal rather than, years of pain, waiting for another chance. My vote will be as much against a candidate/party and its goals as for a principle or a candidate.
a real poll? on slashdot? here's to this being a regular occurance...
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
know that you copied their article word for word and printed it here?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
vote for nader, get destroyed by giant asteroids. oh hell's yeah.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Taxes are still for revenue generation, tolls are still for recovering costs of use of public facilities, and we're not paying to clean up other people's messes (when they made enough money making them to cover these costs) with our taxes (nor are we living in the filth they make).
Living in a poor environment has shortened my life (given me asthma), and interfered with my pursuit of happiness (these are my rights, no?) so somebody damn well better do something about it.
Indeed. And what is Mr. Nader's net worth? And he made his money riding on the coat tail of corporate America, playing the boy who cried wolf. The Corvair, by the way, was perfectly safe, at any speed.
This is appeal to envy. That sort of statement appeals to those who don't have money, so of course those who do have money must have cheated to get it. Hogwash. There are a lot of Mexicans here in Houston, Texas that disprove that. Third generation Mexican families shopping for Gucci at the Galleria. Despite all of Mr. Nader's class warfare nonsense, America is still one of the very few countries in the world where you can go far, if you're willing to work hard. My grandparents were dirt farmers. My father worked in a car carpet plant the past 20 years. I went to college, work for UUNET now, and make as much as my father and mother combined. Keep your envy talk for the lazy. And keep your hands off my money, Mr. Nader.
Progressive taxation, he says. How much more "progressive" can we get before this country experiences massive capital flight? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 40% of the population pays 90% of the taxes. Of that top 40%, the top 5% pay 60% of ALL income taxes. Thats not very damn progressive. Thats downright tyrannical. They threw British tea in Boston Harbor for far less. Its all well and good, talking about soaking the rich, until you or your children face the prospect of being rich. Then lobbying Congress to protect your hard earned property becomes "rigging the system." I'm voting for Bush.
Derek Long
delong@ev1.net
Quite an amusing story, but the major problem is that there are 435 members of the House of Representatives - an odd number. It is impossible for them to tie.
And just to note, if the senate (100 members) ties, as with all senate ties, the VP (Gore) casts the deciding vote.
-- Fester
-- Fester
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
In California or New York, Yes vote for Nader. I live in Oregon. And Bush will win this state. This state will be Republican for the first time in as long as I can remember. Ugh. And that's because we've got almost 10% going for Nader. Or is it 15? Either way, it's too much. We're a swing state, and even though we only have 7 electoral votes in an election this close it could all come down to just those 7. How sad.
Don't jump to conclusions. Nader's answers to Slashdot were not custom created to appeal to this forum. The answers above are all taken from Nader's platform and from interviews he's given elsewhere, especially Here. This stuff is what the man beleives and stands for. He has nothing to gain by pandering to a fringe website, even one that gets the traffic that slashdot gets. Compare this to Gore, who advertised his "Open Source" web site, and Bush, who has no high-tech policy at all as far as I can tell.
Respectfuly,
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
The answers posted above were gleaned from Nader's interviews and platform. He didn't reply to Slashdot personally. The blank questions are issues he hasn't addressed directly.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
I can certainly agree that it is wrong to penalize people for earning money, and if that is indeed how you look at a progressive system of taxation, I understand your frustration. But...
Progressive taxation (and it shouldn't be onerous - not even Bill Gates should have to pay more than 50% of his income in income taxes) is designed so that those who benefit most from this wonderful nation's opportunities, as reflected by their increased economic prosperity, are those who pay a bit more in taxes, because they can better afford a slightly higher rate.
You can look at it as paying for the privilege of living in the US: everyone is getting what they are paying for. Those who have little or no money aren't paying much, those who are doing better pay a bit more, and those who do really well pay a bit more still. It's not perfect, but it approaches fairness.
Someone smart enough to talk about this. Thank you for your words. Truly.
n t;sleep
--
Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;fsck;more;yes;umou
Spell check, spell check, spell check
Who's Ralph Neder?
Well, with Nader doing so well, wouldn't that be "They're all idiots..."?
humm if I recall, Reagan had one of the largest percentage of the popular vote ever BOTH times he was elected to the Presidency. Hate him or not, Reagan was supported by the people in a way that Clinton/Gore would have loved.
What about Mr. Teddy Kennedy? He's actually killed a lady drunk driving and gets elected everytime he's up for election.
Reminds me of the NRA bumpersticker I see around here sometimes.
"My GUN has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's CAR."
Well, he's better than Gore on the drug war, IP misuse, and some other issues. But he says nothing about encryption, and his comment on how rich people are rich because they've rigged the system shows that he doesn't know much about how the economy works. Not that rich people don't try to rig the system, and sometimes even succeed, but they usually do so AFTER they get rich. See, e.g., the MPAA and RIAA.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
And people who believe in a different God, you would really deny citizenship? You'd really make this nation a theocracy to rival any intolerance in the Middle East? Funny, I'd always hoped that what happened to Afghanistan couldn't happen here.
While I disagree with Wiley pretty often, I have to say that that is one funny cartoon, and true.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I agree personalized responses would have been nicer, and I'm not sure using excerpts from earlier essays and interviews was a good move, he is on a pretty busy speaking tour that doesn't give him a lot of time for things like this.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Yeah, earlier posts had gotten me pretty pissed off by that point, so my sarcasmometer was a little out of whack. But I'm better now :)
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
There's no air conditioner big enough to filter the entire atmosphere. Do you never get out of your house? Or do you wear a gas mask every time you step outdoors?
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Sure, you can always leave your job and have no health care at all.
I haven't heard any complaints about the health care system from any Canadians I know. However, almost all of the Americans I know personally with full-time jobs complain about dealing with their HMOs.
Admittedly, these aren't hard numbers. Then again, your link didn't have any either.
Doctors aren't the problem in health care for the most part. There are already laws against malpractice, which exist in both privatized and universal systems (There is some evidence, however, that doctors who are invested in their HMO are less likely to reccommend expensive procedures, even when there isn't a cheaper alternative). The problem is who is paying the doctors, and paying for treatments. Because of the emphasis on minimizing overhead, HMOs never want to pay for expensive treatments even when they're necessary.
Depends on where you live. Some districts have very good public schools. Others don't. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a town that supports its public school system.
Why do you assume that it would be more inefficient than private HMOs? It wouldn't take any more people to run.
And how are wanting to maximize profit and being a bueaucracy mutually exclusive? Have you ever worked for a large corporation?
Leaving aside the validity of that particular case, it's a pointless example because that woman sued McDonald's, not her healthcare provider.
At least we agree on something, apparently.
I believe that all people deserve adequate health coverage. What right do you have to place your values on me?
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
No, he's saying that there are business processes that don't cause sickness and death. Maybe you should look into them.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I mean, where was Pat Paulsen? I've voted Paulsen in every race since "Laugh In" was on primetime. And what happened to Alfred E. Newman? The Jewish guy for VP is a good look-alike, though. Sort of an elderly "what-me-worry" look without the gap in the incisors. OK, not that big a gap anyway. Look, if you're gonna have a poll, then at least give us some realistic alternatives to Gore and Bush, not the same lame "Hemos" or some other slashdotter crap time after time.
This is probably worst choice in prez candidates I've seen in my half-century of living. No, not what's on your poll; its what's gonna be on my November ballot that's really disgusting and revolting. Yucch.
An interesting sidenote. The Missouri Governor who perished in a plane crash last week has zoomed ahead in the polls since his death. It was a neck-and-neck race, but since his passing, he's garnered an astounding eight-point lead over his opponent in that state. I'm beginning to like Missouri more and more....
I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.
Some of us /. readers are environmentally conscious, we don't want our forests and lakes and rivers distroyed by the government or businesses.
A vote for Nader does not = a vote for Bush
A vote for Harry Browne = a vote for Gore HA
Your pain is funny
Hi Nezalhualixtlan,
What I'm trying to say though, is that the value of human life seems to be less and less every day. We may be part of nature, but I believe that a human being is far more valuable than any other animal. Where is the line drawn? When do we know when it has enough brain activity? And really, what doctor is going to care? I cannot see a doctor refusing a woman an abortion and giving his reason as, "well, there's borderline brain activity, so I can't do it." The "goodness of humanity" just won't go along with that. The line will just be pushed more and more. Its almost as if the question is, "when does an embryo suddenly become a baby?"
Abortion is mainly a convenience these days. Sure there are the cases of rape and incest, but let's be honest: a majority of the times abortion is used is because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Sally had sex with Billy. Now Sally's pregnant, but she doesn't want her parents to know. What's the solution? A quick and easy abortion. Never mind the fact that the psychological and physical risks/affects on a woman who goes through with an abortion should be enough to make it illegal. So many people tout the "new methods" which are so quick and easy that it is a one day thing. The reality of the matter is that a majority of abortion clinics do not have these "new methods."
One thing that really made me think a while back was a cartoon I saw. A man was looking up into the sky and asking God, "God, why do you ignore us? Why haven't you sent someone to cure AIDS? Why haven't you sent someone to solve world hunger? Why haven't you sent us a great leader to fix this world?" God answered, "I did, but you aborted them."
I know it is a blatent statement of my opinion, but it has to make you think. Out of the hundreds of thousands of babies that have been aborted, how much potential was wasted?
If people would act decently, and accept responsibility for their own actions (and please don't point out rape and incest in this comment. I am not including them in this statement), I think this would be a lot easier of an issue to deal with.
Regards,
Dave
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
Well then, it sure is nice to know that we were all parasites, leeching off of our mother's physical resources, so many years ago.
Its also nice to see that we can go ahead and slaughter early human life (YES, I said human life), and it is such a big deal if someone accidentally breaks an eagle's egg. What has society come to when we elevate the importance of an eagle's egg to a position higher than that of forming human life.
Kind of reminds me of a bumper sticker a while back "Be a hero, save a whale / Save a baby, go to jail."
So go ahead...say "It's my body, I'll do what I want." What if your mother had said that, and flushed your leeching parasite self out of her body? After all, it isn't human until it is outside of the body.
Where and when did we decide that, anyway? Where do we draw the line? It seems like it keeps getting pushed back further and further, all in the name of convenience. Is human life at conception? At six weeks? At seven months? Heck, let's just say that it isn't human until it is outside in the cold, harsh world.
Just a thought.
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
It's a little disappointing that he didn't personally reply to all the questions. Also, with the three third party candidates having responded and still no response from the Democrats or Republicans, one wonders if they're ever going to respond. If they had any clue about Slashdot they'd be wise to do so, considering they can reach several hundred thousand voters at least!
Vote Republican--the lesser of three evils.
If one more person comes up to me and says: "Vote for Nader! Stick it to the man!" I'm going to flip. I'm going to lose it, completely, and scream loud enough to break windows for 5 blocks. Argh!
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
I agree with you. Totally.
But haven't you learned yet that the only group that it is acceptable to discriminate and insult anymore is the rich? Especially if they are white and male - then they get to be responsible for everything! And if you are a rich white male hacker, well, might as well report to the interment camp willingly before the truck comes to take you there.
As much as we say we've broken down the barriers of discrimination and we are moving towards an enlightened age, it seems like there is a set amount of hate in the United States and it always has to be pointed somewhere. The Galactic President in his leaky hut in the middle of nowhere on a planet in the middle of nowhere has a "wheel of animosity". He spins it, and a new minority gets to be the kicking boy for the new generation.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Unfortunately, the biggest beneficiaries of a economic system that the Libertarian Party envisions would be corporations and the rich, who would continue to become richer at the expense of all else.
Capitalism is working now, the way it is (for corporations.) Why would you want to extend the balance of power even MORE in the way of the well-to-do?
well the really funny part is that few free-market zealots realize that it is Government control and interference that keeps corporate leaders from being bankrupted every time they make a boo boo. Not to mention strung up by the angry masses affected by corporate misdeeds.
"you have to admit that they seem to care a whole lot more about the rights and freedoms of individuals."
....EXCEPT when it comes to the freedom to do what you will with your own mind and body......
Hint for the confused:
Drugs, abortion, prayer in schools, art, etc...
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue.
....
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
But whatever will we do if Nader wins & we're stuck with a Magna Cum Laude Harvard Grad in the whitehouse? Boy would that make me wish bush or gore had won.
digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
Hrm. Gore voted to add Thomas & Scalia as justices when he was a tennessee governor. But voting for him now is the right thing to do?
digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
(a) The economy is not a static system.
(b) Inflation.
With regard to (a) you're are assuming that the economy is akin to a pie - that it can (and should) be divided and given to those who have less - This idea is a fable that is brought on because we are used to thinking about money as a concrete thing as opposed to an abstract thing. The ideology that supports a redistribution of wealth usually does so on this basis. It infers that because someone is a millionaire -- THEN they are taking money from YOU.
This is patently absurd. Wealth is created. The economy is NOT a pie -- it is a fluid system. Last year the US GDP was ~ $3.9 Trillion. 20 years ago it was much less. And conversely, 10 years ago Russia's GDP was significantly higher than it is now. Economies expand and contract with the relative economic health of the underlying society. There is no "pre-set" amount of money out there that needs to be divided. Money is NOT a natural resource.... it is more like source code. Just because you write more in no way limits the amount of code that I can write??
For your basic premise that if wealth was redistributed it mean the "same amount of money in the system" -- that idea is all fine and good, except for the tricky little thing known as inflation. Lets suppose everyone doubles their income tommorrow. Shortly thereafter, you will notice that the price for a loaf of bread goes from 1.25 to 2.50. The end result is that everyone makes more money - but things just cost more. New Boss = Old Boss.
Of course, we could try what the USSR tried. They tried to operate their economy pretending like inflation didn't exist. They were selling bread from their government factories that cost them more then they could charge. And you see how well this worked......
-DM
I pretty much agree...something needs to be done about the current tax code. I have always touted a flat tax rate or a national sales tax.
I think a national sales tax is the only truly fair tax system -- the more you consume, the more you pay. Of course, I would advocate exempting necssary food items, just like we do now.
Here is an interesting link to a Cato Institute study on this subject. One of the things they mention about a national sales tax is that it would actually cause a rise in the savings rate in this country (which is dismally low now).
The Economic Impact of Replacing Federal Income Taxes with a Sales Tax
Other links on this page deal with more taxation issues. Something that strikes me as amazing is this link which explains that in 1990, the top 1% of all taxpayers payed over 25% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% payed over 44%. And the top 50% of all taxpayers payed over 94% of all federal income taxes. Meaning that the bottom 50% of all taxpayers (over half of the country, since many people do not pay any income tax) only paid around 6% of all federal income taxes. I may be strange, but I find that highly disturbing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for society taking care of the less fortunate, but I don't care to subscribe to such a Robin Hood-esque strategy.
As a side note, I think the Estate (Inheritance/Death) Tax is a travesty. Only in our current ass-backwards system could we ever tax someone for dying.
---
Severian -- "I am the meaning of this sentence."
The Libertarian Party actually is working on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue; the Libertarians would be the majority party if all their Congressional candidates were to win. There are more Libertarian office holders than any other minor party, mostly local offices.
One of the reasons for running a candidate for President is visibility. There is the hope that a sufficiently active and attractive Presidential candidate may increase the vote for local candidates with a better chance of winning.
A large enough vote for a Presidential candidate in many states can also relieve that candidate's party of some quite burdensome petitioning requirements to get candidates for state and local offices on the ballot for the next election. (If you're not a Demopublican, many states make it quite difficult to get on the ballot.)
"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated"
You are saying that you would vote for someone who is a fool over someone who would study the facts. Interesting.
Do you know any US history? The portentious Good and malicious Evil never sleep. The robber barrons of the early 20th century never ended their conquest for riches, at the expense of the masses, until the trust-busting of Theodore Roosevelt and other presidents.
On a different note: People who argue against socialism and communism always say that humans are naturally greedy. And as a result, the two economic systems will always fail. Now you are saying that greed can be satiated. But how can this be if greed is an innate human quality?
IMHO, those who "torment us for our own good" and the "robber barrons" are equally evil.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
Right...
The market will fix all social ills...
The market will prevent drug companies from selling untested or unsafe drugs...
The market will prevent food companies from selling potentially dangerous food...
The market will fix all the problems with HMO's and other insurance agencies...
The market will fix the undue influence of corporate money on legislation...
The market will fix the massive disparity in education spending between a rich town and a poor town...
Right... (ala Austin Powers)
Maybe the market will fix these problems, but it will always be after-the-fact.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
Before you applaud Bush for his respect and care for rights and freedoms, you should probably talk to the two men in Texas who were fined for engaging in PRIVATE consentual sex. Texas has the most Republican government (at the state level) than any other state in the US. One wonders how quickly those so-called freedoms and rights you talk about would go out the window if the Religious Right or the Big Business decided that you really shouldn't be allowed to have them. I think that as long as we continue tolerating any restriction of basic human rights to people of any group, that we will never be able to look positively at the future. Bush will protect the rights that he believes you should have.
You can't name a single company in Nader's portfolio to prove your point.
Nader is, far more than either Gore or Bush, a man of the highest ethical caliber. To insinuate that Nader, who has fought for over 35 years to hold corporations accountable for the evil that they do, would compromise his principles to make a buck, is nothing short of insulting and slanderous.
Do you know what Nader did with the first million he got? He founded the Public Citizen group. Do you know how he got that that first million? He won a lawsuit against General Motors, who tried to discredit his reputation with a prostitute after he published the damning auto-industry critique, Unsafe At Any Speed.
Gore is the evil of 2 lessers!"I will not be pushed, stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered! My life is my own." - The Prisoner
0x0000
"The Internet is made of cats."
As it happens they are ok. They're just illegal.
I'm afraid I really don't see taxing the more successful members of society at a higher rate than everyone else particularly "progressive". Is it completely inconceivable that some people who make a lot of money did so through hard work and creative ideas? If so, don't you think they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours? As to the argument that the rich enjoy more benefits than the rest of us, I'll concede it's possible, but then DAMN IT, at least some of them EARNED IT!
http://www.nadertrader.com it was working ok yesterday. NA-DER NA-DER!!!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Bah...until my vote for Prez actually counts as a vote for him/her I'm out of this game.
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
Point two: Against abortion? Don't have one.
Point three: Abortion is rarely used as a form of birth control. Do the actions of a small minority justify the elimination of the practice altogether? I've also noticed that a lot of people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control. The "Just say no" method doesn't work AT ALL.
Point four: I think that if you're a real pro-lifer, then you'll gladly volunteer to support these unwanted children. What Janeane Garofalo calls "The Buddy System".
-----------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
Some of the hard-edged "Christian" folks who believe that the REAL best government that we could have would be a theocracy. In fact, they point to the theocracy in Iran and say "That's the way to do it, they just have the wrong religion." If you doubt me, checkout Shadow Gov- ---------
-----------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
The benefit the government has to charity organizations is stability: the government will, barring any major revolution, still be here fifty years down the line. A private charity might very easily still be with us then, but there's little assurance of that.
;-))
The International Red Cross has been in operation for well over a century. The international Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting movements have been around since 1910 and 1912, respectively. Churches and church organizations of nearly every religion and denomination out there sponsor charities on both local and global scales, and I think most of those religions, both majority and minority ones, are likely to be around for a good long while.
The life of a non-profit charity is usually not determined by market pressures. There's no 'bottom line' to meet, no shareholders to make Big Bucks for. The life of a charity is determined by two things: The need for that charity, and the ability of that charity to meet that need. For some reason, there are always people who are willing to give there time, their efforts, their very lives to help out complete strangers. This isn't strict market economy. Different philosophers have given different answers as to what it is. It's one of the more noble aspects of human nature, if you ask me.
If there's no more need, miracle of miracles, then I hope you wouldn't complain about the sponsors of that charity moving on to other business. If that charity doesn't fulfill its purpose, someone else will hopefully start a charity which can. And if a limitation in resources means you can't start such a charity in your county or city, perhaps your county or city doesn't really need that charity. The government would force those benefits down your throat whether you need them or not. Or, perhaps resources simply need to be freed from elsewhere. Such as those unneeded, unwanted benefits the government is 'giving' you. In this way, I'd say the federal government is much -less- responsive to needs than local groups.
I know that as long as there are people going hungry in my home county, there will be local organizations collecting canned goods throughout the year, and giving those goods -directly- to those who need it. Government welfare can never be as efficient as long as there are bureaucrats to skim off the top.
If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two.
Just how does Microsoft compete with, say, the Red Cross? (And I don't think 'Microsoft sucks blood, while the Red Cross just takes donations' works as an answer.
And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice.
If you're fatally ill, and you haven't the means to pay for it yourself, you're not 'in' the market system in the first place. You're relying on Society to help you out. Therefore, you have to rely on the options given to you by Society. Now, would you rather rely on the options given to you by people who are doing this of their own goodwill, people who feel a moral obligation to give you the best options possible, people who spend their lives seeing the people whose lives they save... or would you rather rely on the options that filter through the red tape?
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Whatever you have the gov't do, it will do it poorly and inefficiently. -- Ross Perot
This is not a direct quote but close to what Perot said Thursday night on CNN Larry King Live. He backs up Bush for the sole reason that he does not want Gore "I invented the wheel" to screw up the economy and send the military where we don't want them to go.
Perot is a business man and understands the economy better than any of us regular people. He just doesn't want Gore to fuck up what Greenspan and former-prez G. Bush did. Clington could NOT do anything to fuck up the economy becuase the Republican Congress kept him in place.
And I agree with Perot on that point... Gore is not a suitable president for US. And problems will pop up if the Houses have a Democratic majority and Gore is elected.
Now this doesn't mean I want Bush for President either. I think Perot thinks he could talk to his "Daddy" to sway his decisions.
I don't know who I am voting for.. maybe Browne or Donald Duck but it's not for the two party system!
I wanna see some changes, and maybe some destruction.
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
No, if you actually read the disclaimer, it states "If you aren't American and don't have anything to say that would contribute to the discussion, please don't say anything at all."
The action, "please don't say anything at all" applies to the individuals that meat the following requirements as stated in the disclaimer:
1) You are not American
2) You intend to say something that would NOT contribute to the discussion
So, basically, it applies to you, since you aren't American (vranx.de) and demonstrated that you didn't intend on contributing to the conversation.
Next time actually read before you get all pissy.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard all these arguments before. I agree: Communism sucks. What you've failed to convince me of is that a progressive tax equals communism. Obviously, too steep a progressive tax is just about the same thing. But if you establish a maximum-- say, no one, regardless of income, ever pays more than 50% combined income tax between state and federal-- you've still got plenty of motivation. That's the current situation, as a matter of fact: combined income tax doesn't go much over 50%, and people still feel motivated to make obscene amounts of money. If you think the current tax structure is preventing people from working hard to make a pile of money, you're not paying much attention.
Until we get smart and implement a flat tax, people are just going to engage in whatever sort of financial misdirection they can to avoid paying taxes.
This is a common misconception put forward as rhetoric by the tiny coalition for a flat tax. As a matter of fact, the whole movement for a flat tax is a rhetoric-driven, dumbed down, "politics for people who can't do math" proposition. I agree that the current tax code is far too complex. But in practice it's really no tougher to implement a graduated income tax than a flat one. Flat tax: declare income, pay x%. Graduated: declare income, pay (some lookup table)%. The problem currently is there are a million deductions, conditions on how you got the money, who you give money to, how many kids you have, how long you've been in your current income bracket, etc. etc. etc. It's a big fucking mess, and Bush, Gore, and Nader all haven't said they're going to do anything to simplify it. They'll all give bullshit targeted cuts to specific groups and fuck up the system even more.
You mean like cigarettes? Good thing we don't do that already!
This is what's great about philosophers: they follow reasonable-sounding statements through to absurdities, and fail to question the results. How else could you end up with, "the best candidate to vote for is the most foolish and malicious one"?
I have been following Mr. Nader, reading his writings and listening to his speaches since the publication of "Unsafe at Any Speed" back in 1965. I'm no spring chicken.
I've also read the Green Party platform.
I know EXACTLY what Mr. Nadar meant by it and that only makes it scarier.
Wake up call!
If you don't like the candidate who are running and choose not to vote, you are as directly responsible for putting the winner into the White House as if you did vote. Especially if you don't like who wins. Difference? You do not have the right to complain.
You did not take a role in the governmental process. Your vote is more than your voice, it is a permission slip to gripe. If you vote, and your choice of candidate doesn't win, it isn't your fault. You tried in the way you can to effect change, and now you can complain about anything that goes wrong because you can say "I told you so."
I'm not going to try to convince you to vote for any particular candidate. That is wrong. Pure and simple. You have to make up your own mind. You have to take a stance and stick to it. You have to make the effort.
Don't like the political system that gives you an option on what happens? Move. Pack up all your belongings and move to Hungary, where socialism still exists. Oh, wait... you don't want to move because you like the economy? You like making more in a day than most people world wide make in a month, or a year? You like the idea that if you don't like your country's leader you can remove him from office without having to kill him?
The thing that bothers me the most about the apathetic, lazy BS-artists who complain about the American political system, is that they forget that this country was not created by guns. Almost every other country on Earth was created by violence, especially those who were around before the 19th century. The United States split from England by use of violence, yes, and it was a very narrow victory. But then, we put down the guns and the brains took over. 55 men came together and drafted the first complete written governmental organization civilized man had ever known. They didn't trust a single leader, so they incorporated checks and balances in the legislature and judiciary. They didn't know everything, especially the future, so they wrote in the ability to change the governmental policies in the future without overthrowing the government. And most importantly to this discussion, they didn't want military leaders to by default take over the leadership of the country, nor megalomaniacal fanatics with "mandates from heaven" to do so either. So they empowered the people with the power of the vote.
There is a catch to all of this though. YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK. Complaining about a broken system but not voting is useless and hypocritical. The system is broken because people don't vote. Want the system to work again? Vote.
You have three days.
----------
----------
I'm sick and tired of being responsible for the preservation of the universe and its outlying suburbs.
It was the majority of those who voted.
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Interesting, does that mean the majority of Slashdot readers are from the rest of the world?? Why do you reject most of the non US stories then Slashdot ? :)
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Who loses here?
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Editor's note: Apparently, the source of this story was due to go public this week via publisher Larry Flynt, but found out that Flynt was planning to make a tabloid sale, and changed her mind. Like George W. Bush's intervention in commuting the sentence of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, this is a story that is circulating in the press packs, but that few people want to touch at the eleventh hour of the 2000 U.S. presidential election.
p erate+Measures:+George+W%2E+Bush+%26+A bort ion
In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a woman named Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner). Miss Lowman became pregnant by the virile George W. and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very illegal! Not to mention that George W. is running as a pro life candidate for the presidency.
The unnamed source of this story, was a friend of Robin Lowman's and the girlfriend of the man who arranged the abortion. His name is Robert Carl Chandler. Mr. Chandler is a Bush friend and supporter from way back and he made the arrangements for Miss Lowman's abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston, TX (now the Bayou City Medical Center). The source of the story overheard the telephone call by Mr. Chandler to arrange the abortion and she visited Robin Lowman at the Twelve Oaks Hospital after the procedure.
The source meanwhile, is afraid of coming forward, saying that she was threatened by Mr. Robert Chandler and by another Bush friend and supporter named Jim Bath. Mr. Jim Bath has longstanding intelligence connections, and played a role in the BCCI scandal. Robin Lowman (now Garner) is married to Jerry Lee Garner who is an FBI agent.
So, that's the story: an illegal back room abortion arranged by the Republican party Presidential candidate who is running on a pro-life ticket.
http://www.disinfo.com/disinfo?p=file&title=Des
More? Go to www.bushwatch.com
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Well, if one more person comes up to me and says: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", I'm going to flip. If I don't like or support Gore enough to vote for him, why should it possibly scare me that he might lose?
Care about freedom?
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Federal taxation was introduced in the Civil War (in the US) to pay the immense costs of the battles and new-tech guns.
It was put in permanently in 1916 to stop opiate use. (The government required a drug license to sell heroin, morphine, and other opiates, and they were loathe to give them; thanks to this, prisons held great numbers of doctors who were otherwise quite good folks.)
Now, the tax is a government crutch to pay the ridiculous costs of the military. (No less than half the national debt is due to military spending. It looks smaller on government pie charts because they include social security expenses in the chart; it shouldn't be there because the social security funds are separate from general revenues. Take it out and re-evaluate, and you see we spend about half our taxes on both current and past military expenditures.)
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Slashdot claims to be "outside the system" but they refuse to acknowledge John Hagelin of the Natural Law party!? Vote for physics! Vote for Natural Law! Other candidates defy physics and other natural laws in a manner most greivous. Mr. Gore is made of wood, yet stands and moves as a person, clearly defying Natural Law. Bush is both a clone of his father and Mr. Gore, clearly defying Natural Law. Harry Browne ... Well ok he doesn't defy physics but anyway, Ralph Nader decreed the Chevelle "Unsafe At Any Speed," certainly no matter unsafe a car is, it would be safe a 0mph, a SPEED.
ALL OTHER CANDIDATES ARE EDUCATED STUPID.
VOTE NATURAL LAW
http://www.timecube.com
Kinda like a dog with seven pupils in its eyes... Kinda like a madness that refuses to subside...
I'm of the opinion that progressive taxes are not at all fair.  In fact, I'm against income taxes in general and specifically progressive taxation for the following reasons:
Your money is taken from you slowly before you ever see it.  And if you choose to keep it all until April 15th and pay then, you are smacked with a "witholding penalty".  Excuse me?
It's a violation of my privacy for the government to know where my money comes from.
Progressive taxes allow the government to divide and conquer by pitting one group of taxpayers against another.
I live in California where the cost of living is high. So my income that is considered "upper class" to much of the country is considered "middle class" out here.  It's always a revalation every April that I'm upper class.
The IRS is a hideous organization with too much power.  You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
The current tax code is too difficult for anybody to understand.
I'm a firm believer in a sales tax?  Why?
ALL income is eventually consumed.  You can't get any more fair than that.
I have more control over how much I pay in taxes and when I pay them.
Much more privacy.  The government does not know how much I am paying or where my income is coming from.
It's much more difficult to evade paying taxes.
No more IRS. 
Of course if a national sales tax is ever implemented, it will be done in a fucked up way.  But I'd take that over our current income tax system ANY day.
I disagree.  Why?  All income is eventually spent.  What you are disagreeing with is that "poor" people pay their taxes on items for living and "rich" people will pay their taxes from items for living and yachts.  A sales tax that doesn't care about your "income" is the only "fair" tax there can be.  Nobody is exempt and nobody gets a special exception.
Your statement is not quite correct.  They (the poor) spend much more -- on basic necessities -- as a percentage of income.
So what?  Do you think that a graduated income tax will *ever* make things fair?  It will never happen.  Just look at the people at the very bottom of a tax bracket compared to those at the top of the tax bracket below them.  The people in the upper bracket will have less net income.  Yeah, that's fair.
Having the government use the tax code to "redistribute" wealth is a dismal failure and it continues to be in the name of punishing the rich to help the poor.  I'm middle class and I'm certainly not bitter about the rich getting a tax cut.  Hell, I'd like to be rich one day too and thank goodness I have the same opportunity as anybody else in this country (be them rich, poor, black, white or orange) to get there. 
We're not all equal.  But we all should have equal opportunity.  Likewise, we should all be taxed equally.  The progressive income tax does not do this.  A *simple* sales tax does.
Where did the discussion of a flat tax come in? :-)
And I believe, a sales tax does tax everybody equally.  As I stated in my previous message, all income is eventually consumed.  That means rich and poor will eventually be taxed alike.  Will poor people pay more on taxes for necessities.  You bet.  What of it?  Poor people now spend most of their money on necessities.  Don't tax food then I guess.
(Especially since you'd have to drastically raise sales taxes to make up even a small percentage of the revenue lost by eliminating the income tax. I'm all for smaller government, but you still need some money, or are you for eliminating public works altogether?)
What do you consider drastic?  According to the Cato Institute, it'd initially be a 15 percent sales tax that would decline over time.  See the info here.  As for eliminating all public works, no, I don't agree with that notion but I am for eliminating some of them.
After submission of my vote here's what I saw:
Interesting ..... only **about** 7% of the people understand the US political
system (i.e. Voting **Is** A Waste Of Time in the US 3278 / 7%) and
it seems that the numbers don't have to add up to 100 in a percentile distibution
anymore. The first part comes as no surprise to me, but I didn't get a memo on
the new-new-math. It was probably an addendum to the Eubonics memo ;}
If you put "Conspiracy theories" aside - an act of choosing to be ignorant, which is in itself quite foolish - both choices are absurd compromises. If you thought there were more than two choices you **really** don't get it, and should study the details of the electoral process specifically with regard to the electoral college. If you don't have time to do this, then at least consider that Ralph Nader was **barred** from the Massachussetts debates!!! Now **that's** today's American democracy in action!!!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are making the rather backwater assumption that anything I do to generate personal wealth is detrimental to society. Hate to break it to you, but it just ain't so...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
This election I'm kinda leaning towards voting for 'The Father of the Internet,' Al Gore. More as a vote against George Bush, than for Al.
:-)
During the last election, I used the write-in option, the ballot (Wisconsin) had at least a dozen choices. Anyway, my write-in vote was 'none of the above'
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
Obviously you're not one of the ones in the highest tax brackets. If anything, the wealthy are less in need of the services of the government, and thus get even LESS for their tax money.
My other first post is car post.
A sales tax would basically be a "flat tax".
My other first post is car post.
It's incentive. It's better for society for the wealthy to invest their money than it is for them to stuff it in a matress.
My other first post is car post.
Amen!
If Gore wanted a bigger lead on Bush, he should have recognized that the Libertarian Party exists. If Browne were to get some publicity, he would surely divide the Conservative vote among the Republicans and the Libertarians.
Since my vote seems to count more than most of your votes, (I'm in a swing state), I regret not being able to vote for Browne. Realistically, a vote for Browne would be virtually the same as not voting at all. Should I vote for the person I believe in, while knowing he's gonna lose?
Nadar is probably the most intelligent canidate, though I disagree with almost all of his policies. I'd love to see him reach his goal of getting enough voters to get his 14 Million Federal Campaign Dollars. It could very well happen. Like "Ficas", Nadar is often considered the "Fuck-You" vote. Should I vote for Nadar to Shake up this Fucked up political system?
Bush is probably the trump card in my deck. I don't like him as much as Browne, but feel obligated to vote for him to keep Gore out of office. Should I vote for Bush to keep Gore out?
Gore is A little difficult to categorize. How much do we really know about The Vice Prez? Apparently he was really good about keeping his mouth shut regarding the issue of Monica's Mouth Open. Yet Ironicly, almost every time I see him on the news, he's just told another Giant whopper of a lie. I never thought I'd say it, but he appears more corrupt than Clinton himself! Clinton certainly did have the midas touch. Just look at all of the scandals that should have stopped him. Will Gore inherit this same midas touch? Should I vote for Gore just because somebody else in his same political party seemed to have a little good luck?
What lousy choices.
I wish that a Ficus Tree or some professional wrestler was running for President.
Is it true that shortly before he was diagnosed with cancer he was intending to run for presid ?ent but he became too ill to seriously campaign
;)
Someone must know the full story, and more importantly HAD he run would he be have gained much support from those voters who can see beyond the two party system ?
Offtopic I know but its still politics, so almost fair game
Theres the option I'm Not A US Citizen
Now what is that supposed to mean ?
Is slashdot implying non-US citizens aren't interested in who gets elected over the pond, or is it supposed to me 'Hey tick this because you can't vote' ?.
Because lets face although the policies that will be implemented by Gore Or Bush will not differ much (ignore the rhetoric for a moment), they still have the potential to have a massive impact on world affairs. Yeah in an ideal world Nader would get elected, but we all know it won't happen.
In an ideal world there should have been the option I'm Not A US Citizen, but given the chance I would vote because lets face America still runs the show like it or not...so wouldn't we all like a say ?
Well here in the UK the EEC and the US have more real influence on out affairs than our government. But our blinkered population doesn't understand.
Just my little rant, for once hopefully being on topic (ish), if not I'm sorry OK...
Who needs to vote for the Democrats or Republicans anyway, why don't we form a Toga Party.
Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!
(With apologies to the makers of Animal House)
From what I understand of stock market speculation, it has numerous negative side effects. First of all, it artificially inflates our economy. It can be nice for a while and magically create wealth, but it really can't last forever. As we have learned from what happened with the western land specuation during the 'Era of Good Feelings', the stock market speculation during the 'Roaring 20s', and numerous other examples throughout our history, the bottom will fall out eventually. Usually, when it bottoms out, it won't just settle at its actual worth, but it will fall below and cause a serious recession/depression. This is obviously a negative side effect and there is actually a chance that it could happen soon. The market right now is already inflated by speculation and recently, the trend has been slowly downward. If it can adjust itself slowly this way, then all should work out fairly smoothly. But when speculators crowd the marked, the results are unpredictable and dangerous.
Also, Speculation can harm businesses. With speculation, it is not uncommon to see a particular stock triple its value suddenly and lose it all by the end of the week. This kind of constant aggrivation leaves businesses with no sense of their actual worth and of their financial situation. When businesses are fooled by this manipulation of the market, it can cause bankruptcy or at least heavy financial losses. If an economy is to be stable, growth or decline must happen gradually, not overnight. Again, the results of speculation can be disastrous.
Obviously, people become speculators for the money. If it becomes harder to profit from it, then it will become less common, the market will be an accurate representation of the American economy, and the economy will behave more predictably and midly. One way to curb the speculation is to tax it. Higher taxes mean smaller returns which then means less incentive. Who knows, people may just turn back to long-term investment (something far less harmful) if short-term speculation becomes less profitable. That is probably Nader's motivation behind taxing the speculation. He's thinking long-term economic health is more important than unmaintainable short-term rapid growth.
I think it is important to note that although Nader sees the side effects of speculation bad, he doesn't neccessarily want to eliminate it altogether. Without risk, after all, not much progress can be made. Also, speculation can create an economic stimulant to begin real economic growth when the time is right. However, this is not the time. Also, it is important to point out that the majority of speculators actually lose money, while only a few strike it rich. The temporary prosperity it creates generally isn't for the average speculator, but for businesses and high-profile speculators.
Trying is the first step toward failure. - Homer Simpson
> In other words, if I want to smoke, and I'm not bothering anyone, why should I be taxed for it more
> than any other consumer good?
>
> Because you're sitting next to me, and you're giving ME cancer.
But that's not true. I can't smoke in my office. I can't smoke in a restaurant. I can't smoke in planes, trains, buses or taxis. I can't smoke at the cinema. I can't smoke at the theatre. I'm damned sure if I went to your house and started to smoke, you'd ask me to leave if you dislike smoke. So where, exactly, am I sitting next to you?
Don't get me wrong - I support your right not to breath other people's smoke - but if I want to give myself cancer in the comfort of my own home, what business is it of yours?
--
obscurity.
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde.
The definition of "Liberal" today is "Democratic Socialism," where the federal government has most of the economic power. The old-line liberals of the past (Hubert Humphrey, Jack Kennedy, and the like) are spinning in their graves over what their Democratic Pary has become in the last 20 years.
While Clinton and Gore are a bit more conservative than previous Democratic nominees for president (Dukakis or Mondale, for example), they still believe that power must be concentrated in Washington and they know what's best for us.
Today's Libertarians are more like the classic liberals of the '50s than the Democrats are. Unfortunately they tend toward wanting the total elimination of government (aka Anarchy) rather than just enough government to do the job, especially the Libertarians in the western states.
-------------
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Remember Dick Nixon?
------------------
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
That's cool. I don't expect many to agree with my suggestion.
But I got to comment on your aside about your tax dollars being used to fund Federal Matching Funds.
It is true that they are funded out of federal tax dollars, and whether or not there should be federal taxes or a federal government for that matter really are interesting issues, but neither here nor there in the context of a federal election. Rather, those would be issues for a constitutiona l convention or perhaps some other forum advocating change.
But anyways, as to the notion that they would be your tax dollars being used to fund candidates, you might have missed the little box on your 1040 where you can designate that an amount of your tax dollars is to be used to fund the Presidential Matching Funds.
Presidential Matching Funds only come out of an amount of money in the federal budget each year equal to the amount of money designated on 1040s of individual taxpayers for use for Presidential Matching Funds. It's called the Presidential Elections Campaign Fund.So in that sense, it wouldn't be your money used to fund these folks.
EdUp dat ed latest polls
EdBut it is the individual elector's constitutional right to vote for whomever they they wish (subject to the Constitution's limitations on who can be president and vice president).
The last time it happened was in 1988, when an elector, as a protest against the electoral college system, cast her presidential electoral vote for Lloyd Bentsen, and her vice-presidential electoral vote for Michael Dukakis.
It is not frequent, but it does happen.
Ed
Article II, Sec 1 of the Constitution lays out the apportionment of electors:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The District of Columbia gets Electors, too, because of the passage of the Twenty-Third Amendment:The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
The Electoral College operates according to the Twelfth Amendment:
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--
EdThe clever 1040 scheme for budgeting the matching funds is one example of very very few where our legislators have delegated the budgeting power back to us. (The only parallel in the budget I can think of are where farmers get to vote on how much to tax themselves to fund subsidy programs.)
I do happen to agree with much of what you're saying. For various reasons, however, I think Nader espouses a point of view that is worthy of inclusion and support in the national discourse, though I personally agree with not a whole lot of the specific policy proposals the man is going around promoting. It doesn't matter though, in the short term, as he will never be elected. But that is not the point.
Comprendé?
Ed
Wohooo! I have 3 percent of the vote! Vote for me!
Only those who dream can grasp reality.
Gore winning means Bush LOSING.
If Bush wins, say bye, bye to our freedoms.
You think Beaucracy is bad... wait till bush has his way!
America seems to have roughly three or four political positions.
1. Conservatives: I think they are whimpy libretarians, who perhaps realize that government is at least partialy needed to keep our rights from being trampled. Or perhaps they feel exactly the oposite. Less government may mean more freedom, but why do conservatives push restrictive laws? The point is that my money is mine, and the government has no right in the huge amount it takes from me. ---- Greed, plain and simple. Granted, the government may not be as thrifty as it could be, so there is room for improvement.
2. Liberals: Government can be useful to its people. If big business is infringing upon our rights, do something. Either with laws, organize(unions), whatever. Take an active involvement in whats happening.
3. Apathetic: These people are growing and growing all the time. There is nothing we can do, I can't change government. As long as there is MTV, movies and Britney Spears who cares. --- This is a sure sign of a growing sickness faceing America, probably the sign of a dramatic change coming in the future. (Revolution, Dictatorship, or possible Anarchy)
4. I choose Anarchy, but I'll vote Nader, :)
Only 7% think voting is a waste of time? This surprises me. At the grand old age of 32 ;) I have never voted and can't see how I am worse off than the people who do. It's not like I pay any more for my food, petrol or beer than anyone else and that's what two-thirds of my income goes on. It's interesting that politicians say that they would rather you vote for their opposition than not vote at all. Then they would have to face up to the fact that good musicians, authors and other public icons influence our lives more than they do.
Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
Hey it's not your body...it's your babies body...you're killing the baby. It has a beating heart, and yet it has no rights? You're the one who chose to sleep around, so learn some responsibility. Your rights stop where another's begins. If you're too stupid to use birth control, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. It really annoys me to see people trivializing infantcide.
//m
You're being just stupid. A human's rights begin when he/she is born? So that means it is OK to kill a baby the day before its due? That seems to be what you're saying.
//m
Hey guess what...we're not on a desert island. A woman can get the resources she needs to sustain a baby until birth. There is no reason anymore for an aborting except A) rape B) birth defects C) convenience/lack of responsibility
//m
This argument is just plain flawed...you're trying to stereotype a whole group of people. Do you think every democrat is the same, or every muslim, or every christian, or every school teacher, or every postman? There are wacko extremists in *every* group of people...thats just plain fact. But that doesn't negate the overall purpoe of any such group.
//m
Check out this site that is trying to match up Nader and Gore voters! 5% of the popular vote for Ralph Nader. 4 years in the White House for Al Gore. We can have it all with WinWin! United, we can protect the environment, the Supreme Court, and working families from a Bush presidency--and promote the visibility of Ralph Nader's platform. Visit our web site at winwincampaign.org and see how you can vote effectively in this election.
check out winwincampaign.org
What kind of politician is he? You have to have an answer for everything. You can't abstain. Just one more reason not to vote for this guy, he doesn't even bother to answer the questions asked of him. Every answer he gave sounds like it came out of their campaign pamphlet and they didn't really spend any time on this reply.
Well, seeing as we wouldn't have to worry too much about revolt, what with living in another country and all, we could start with some gun control laws. ;)
I hafta ask... why do alot of us vote someone who's sorta what we want over someone who stands for most of what we want, just b/c we know the latter doesn't have a chance? Yes, the vote is rigged, but it's only gonna get worse if we vote for half-baked candidates. We "appear" to be supporting these candidates in full force to the rest of the world. When they count your ballot, there is no checkbox for "kinda want him"... it's black or white. This is not an attack on anyone, I'm simply asking?
"The fact no one understands you doesn't make you an artist. But we love your new '99 models." -7Ball
How could anyone not vote for the man who created the internet?
Let us not forget the famous Trudeau Salute.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
I myself was looking to Paul Martin to lead the party.
But who else do you vote for.
I am still pissed off @ the PC's for NAFTA and Lyin Brian. The Torys will never get another vote from me.
The NDP listens to the Unions WAY to much.
I do not trust Mr Day Or COR.... Religion should be kept out of Canadain Politics.
So that leaves the Marxest/Lennist party of Canada....Yea right
The Green party.....Clueless about every thing Except the enviorment.
So I guess I am voting Liberal (again)
What ever happened to the Rhino Party. Free Beer and war with Bulgaria..... Got my vote.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
Progressive Taxation sounds great.... until the masses (with all the electoral votes and make less than you) decide that you should be on the heavily taxed. This is a slippery slope. Perhaps George Bush is doing the right thing.
The main thing we'll have to suffer through is the wealth of terrible humor which inevitably ensue from his complete lack of skill with the English language. He may be intelligent, I don't know, but I really don't want some guy who says such stupid shit at every turn as a model for the rest of the world to gauge American's collective intelligence.
So you see, Lone Star, that Gore will always triumph over Bush, because Bush is dumb.
They might have made a virtue of necessity with some of their production.
But compare the environmental damage in the former East Germany with that in the "evil capitalist industrialist" West Germany and you'll have a pretty compelling argument against the green credentials of the reds.
All of politics is about saying one thing and doing the other.
And the Peace Loving Environmentalists of the Workers Paradises (where tiny elites bled the masses white while waging indiscriminate wars and laying waste to their environments) are a fine case in point.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Without taxing, we wouldn't have public schools; Without public schools, the bullies from school couldn't have beaten you up; And if that hadn't happened, then you wouldn't have run to your room to detatch yourself from society, and you wouldn't have become the wonderful lonely geek that you have become. Aren't you greatlful for that? I am... I realize how stupid I could have been, if it weren't for those bullies who picked on me all throughtout my pre-college schooling career.
What is in a name?
The reason Microsoft and any other company got away with not paying any taxes is because of our convoluted, huge, and impossible to understand tax system. Do you have any idea just how many lines there are in the United States tax code? Of course there's going to be loopholes that allow this kind of stuff. And of course the companies with big $ to hire lawyers are going to find them. It's the way of life.
If you want to change all that, we need to start clean with a brand new tax code. I can make it nice and simple for you: Everyone pays y% on their income. Every company pays x% on their profits. There. Problem solved, big companies pay there share, and a fair system is implemented.
As for all the comments on using taxes to punish behavior, I understand China has a working communism - move over there, that should fit your idea of a good government. If something isn't bad enough that we can criminalize it, how the hell can you justify taxing it as a way of prevention? It seems like the long way around to get to the same thing, to me.
And what about giving selective tax breaks? Who the heck are you to tell me whether I'm deserving of a tax break or not? Somebody told my father that he wasn't worthy, and now he's working awfully hard to put his 3 oldest children through college, since we don't qualify for most scholarships or loans, and since he had to pay mucho dollars in taxes thanks to his small business.
Government is there to protect the minority from the majority as well as the majority from the minority. I am willing to pay my fair share of taxes to see that I have roads to drive on, Police to keep me safe from criminals, and an army to keep me safe from foreign tyrants. And I can accept that if I make $100,000 when I leave Purdue, I should pay more of it than someone who's struggling to survive at Mickey D's. However, I do not accept being punished for making more money, which is how I see progressively (there's a misnomer!) higher taxes.
I've got a lot more to say on the subject, but I'll end my rant here. Please try to remember, though, that rich people are people too, and don't deserve to get ragged on just because they earned a lot of money - last time I checked, that was the American Dream....
Would someone please find the stupid gene and fix it???
Lance McGrath
www.lancemcgrath.com
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." --Thomas Jefferson
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one." --Abraham Lincoln
In the interest of full disclosure, I'll start by saying I sent an e-mail message to Ralph Nader on Friday urging him to answer Slashdot's questions. Maybe his responding was of his own accord, but I like to think that my message (along with others perhaps) helped influence his decision. At a time when the two major parties have received staggering amounts of soft and PAC money, I'm excited to support a grassroots campaign that not only has eschewed all such temptations, but that has as its central focus a vision of true democracy in the United States.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader because he wants a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people. Needless to say, our government today is a far cry from that ideal. With representatives in Congress voting to please whoever gives them the biggest contribution, we desperately need campaign finance reform. When the tax burden has been slowly shifted from the wealthy to ordinary citizens, it is time to give our tax code a hard look. When our civil liberties are increasingly being violated (such as Ralph's illegal exclusion from even attending two of the debates), it is time to fight for our constitutional rights.
If you listen to any of Ralph Nader's speeches, you are likely to hear him say, "If you don't get turned on to politics, politics is going to turn on you." As someone who has attended rallies for him in Madison, WI and Boston, MA (where I now live), I can attest to the excitement and enthusiasm of the huge crowds he is drawing. At a time when a full half of registered voters don't even bother to show up at the polls, this man has been inspiring people across the country, showing them what true democracy feels like.
It is a tribute to his campaign that they have reached so many people despite his exclusion from participating in the debates (even though a majority of Americans wanted him there) and the virtual media blackout he has had to endure. Only recently have Gore and Bush even commented on Nader's candidacy. It is truly an uphill battle getting your message out in a system with so many obstacles to thwart legitimate third parties. Perhaps the Nader campaign will take solace in the words of another who struggled against incomprehensible odds:
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win
--Gandhi
No, Nader won't win the election. But the momentum that he has built will fuel the fight for democracy for a long time to come.
Nope - when the House decides a President, they leave it to the 50 states all with one vote. House members don't vote for it, so you can still tie.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
A brief overview of the system of our Democracy....
It's late in the evening on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. The word is in: Bush has won the popular vote, but it's clear that Gore has won the Electoral College.
Or has he?
The news runs over Reuters and is quickly picked up by the networks: the electorate looks like it's 269-269. A dead tie.
Quickly, Bush- and Goreheads move to persuade electors. But in December, the numbers are still the same: a dead tie.
The House of Representatives starts working on the Presidential election. Each state casts their single vote. The results are in: 25 states for Gore, 25 states for Bush.
Nobody's giving in.
Meanwhile, the Senate is arguing over who will be Vice President. Although the Democrats gained some seats in the Senate, its still Republican controlled. The Senate agrees: Cheney is their man for the Vice-Presidency.
The House is still bitterly arguing over the Presidency. It becomes clear they won't be able to make a decision.
Cheney is made President of the country until a new election can be held in the interim, a year later.
Cheney suffers his third heart attack and dies, however. The Secretary of State takes over the Presidency -- but he's a fat man, and he also has a heart attack.
Next up? Strom Thurman becomes President. He is 93 years old. He dies.
Anarchy. A breakdown of American government. Third party leaders move in and try to seize control of the White House. Foreign countries, catching us in our weakest moment, try to attack us.
Microsoft is burned to the ground, millions die, and Slashdot is taken offline, as our communications network is destroyed by the North Koreans and China.
The restof the world suffers an incredible Depression; God descends upon the earth and burns the wicked.
Let's get voter registration up, ok?
:-)
Chris
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Well, I may be wrong, but I would say that a more important right would be wether or not I would like to live in a capitalist, democratic society. It seems to be taken as a given.
Um, you can move.... there's many other countries besides the United States... try Canada, where all the other fucking retards hang out.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Who's got better advisors?
Who's got better values?
and i think bush clearly beats gore on both of those, and I'm not convinced that nader, although i personally have nothing against the man, beats bush on either...sure bush is an idiot, but he'll have the most intelligent cabinet ever assembled (Cheney's brilliant, nobody can dispute that), and he's got the morals and ethics that the white house hasn't seen in 8 years.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Okay, vote pro-life. In another 10 years, when global populations hit the 10 or 15 billion mark Better hope you're upper middle class or upper class...
Taking a life is a horrible decision, I don't think I could ever have an abortion. But I also would not put myself in a position where I needed to have one.
However, if I was raped, I would get down on my knees and thank God for every one of those pro-choice government workers out there who gave me the ability to take control of my body back from that rapist.
I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Freedom is the ability to chose for your self...last time I looked this was supposed to be a free country.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
On one of the other bulliten boards I'm on someone mentioned an interesting idea. It appears that there is a site Nader Trader where, if you want to vote for Nader but realise that he hasn't really got a chance in your state but Gore has, you can trade your Nader vote with a Gore voter in a state where Bush is a sure thing. Basically you agree to vote Gore and they agree to vote Nader so the total number of votes each gets remains the same but Gore votes are cast where they have the greatest effect on the final outcome.
Could be useful, assuming you prefer Gore to Bush.
Personally I live in the UK, however I figure with the 'joined-up-ness' of Western economics and culture the result of the US presidential elections will probably affect me. My preference leans to Gore.
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
The gall of this person posting several good points as an AC! I nearly missed it.
True. What, do you think your average third-world peasant is in much of a position to corrupt the government?
Oh, there's no conspiracy - it's just that corporations are able to do things that normal people would find unconscionable, cause no person has to take full responsiblilty. Of course they don't want you to vote for Nader; Nader's got it in for them.
The problem with putting these things into the tax code is that they get confused with the revenue generating function, which cannot be neutral, and with political social engineering, which never is. Better to have a separate system of externality taxes.
By the way, given the screaming about the War on Drugs on Slashdot, it is interesting to note that asset forfeiture is an good example of just this sort of internalization of external costs.
I don't consider it a person, either. But you know what makes me uncomfortable with abortion? If you talk to a women who wants to have a child, she does consider it a child. So if you consider it a woman's choice, it's ethically problematic that women get to decide on the basis of how they feel at that moment whether someone is a person or not, and whether they get to live or not. It is analgous to the situation in antebellum America: Some white people considered blacks to be people, and some did not, and each was able to treat blacks according to their own belief. Not a good system.
Something to think about, anyway.
Why? if we can establish a permanent Green party, I'll benefit two ways: (1) all my Green friends will be happy which will make me happy, and (2) the Democrats will never win another election, which will make me happier :)
You seem to be referring to marginal tax rates. If you are, you are leaving out nonlinearity in the form of income exemptions. The way the current system works, the first $5000 or so is exempt from all tax. This (possibly with some tweaking) is the system that you are proposing: taxes just on disposable income, income above the "needs" level.
the point of government isn't to push the economy as far as possible as fast as possible.
You're right it's not, but it really should be. Poor people today live longer and better lives than rich people did 100 years ago (in the form of healthcare, healthy food, heat, air conditioning, automobiles, and even entertainment like TV, radio, movies, etc.) I feel that pushing the economy forward as fast as possible today, even at the expense of some poor people today, would be the best thing for more poor people in the long run.
I guess my overarching point is that "your side" usually accuses "my side" of "not caring". I think we care just as much, or more, but are trying to be smarter about it.
And, yes, you are advocating that abortion be made illegal. Stop trying to hide it.
No, I'm not. I'm actually in favor of legal abortion, at least on the earlier end of pregnancy. I'm just honest enough to admit that I'm in favor of legalized infanticide. So there, oh vacuous one.
No, the abortion question is about the women's dominion over her own body. Period.
We regulate all other medical treatment. When it was thought that breast implants were harmful, the (oh so coincidentally politically incorrect) procedure was made illegal. Nobody said, "hey, this is about women controlling their own bodies." That's cause you feminists are a bunch of liars. Of course you want to define it the way you did, because then you don't need to face the truth: A woman who wants a child and gets pregnant already thinks of it as a person, naming it, planning, making booties, etc., and grieving if she miscarries. What society doesn't want to admit is that very same woman would murder the little one if it is inconvenient for her "lifestyle". What I advocate for is the view that humans are brutal. Fags like you want to paper it over and pretend it's about "choice" or "liberty". It's not. It's about disposing of people when they are inconvenient.
That's right, the land where ordinary people are free to pass laws that they think are reasonable. That's the real freedom of choice that Roe v. Wade denied. It's inevitable: we'll get it back, and Pro Choice will win.
These features are the essence of the great American experiment with democracy, the oldest such experiment on this planet. The founders thought they needed and used a justification based on Natural Law (from a Creator), but modern thinking has mostly abandoned that view. Today, very few people defends the Bill of Rights on the basis of Natural Law as you are suggesting. But, I hasten to add, those who do, are much more likely to include within its sweep, rights for the unborn.
you completely made that statistic up. You wish it were true because it fits a sexist stereotype you hold of men, but it is simply not true. It is false, and probably because of different sexist stereotypes. Men care less about children than women do, and because men want sex, mostly they are in favor of free availability of abortion for practical reasons.
In any case, Roe v. Wade represented a change enacted by fewer than 9 old men, and on a whim.
Courts sometimes intervene to remove children from the homes of their parents. Are you against child abuse law? Isn't it intervening and making personal decisions about people's welfare?
On the abortion topic, in everybody's favorite "extreme" case, should exceptions to abortion laws be made to save the life of the mother? What mother would ever sacrifice her child to save herself? Quit hiding behind fuzzy emotional slogans, they are unconvincing. In a like manner, I was not attempting to convince you of anything with my phrase that you quoted; I was just making fun of a ridiculous pro-abortion slogan.
where's my flaw? The People should regulate SUVs like they regulate all motor vehicles. Nobody except wacky extremists has a problem with regulating motor vehicles. The flaw in your logic, BTW, is not that I think people should enact any particular law, but they they should be allowed to enact the laws they'd like to.
Want to make a newborn miserable too?
people who are born and alive rarely wish that they were dead. When they do, it is entirely uncorrelated with their prenatal "wantedness". So, are these newborns miserable? no, though a case could be made that dead fetuses are strictly more miserable. I'm not, BTW, advocating that abortion be made illegal. I'm advocating that your arguments in favor of abortion are empty.
Go ahead, restrict the rights of women and their future.
It's true, abortion restrictions do restrict the rights of women, just like all laws restrict somebody. But the abortion question is about the unborn, not the parents.
Well, if you really are worried that your vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, http://www.nadertrader.com has a solution. If you live in a swing state, want to vote for Nader but are worried it might put Bush into office - contact a friend in a Republican-heavy zone who was planning to vote for Gore. Trade - they vote for Nader, and you vote for Gore. This way, since Nader isn't going to win any elections (be honest, folks - it's not going to happen) he still gets his vote and Gore gets a leg up in a contested zone. wcbn.org - freeform in a world of noise
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
>First of all, the "body" inside the womb is the combination and product of two humans. Without the support of at least one of them, that "body" will most certainly die.
And without support, a newborn infant will most certainly die. What is your point?
>.. There is nothing un-natural about death or selected killing (even indiscriminant killing).
Does it follow that anything which is natural(like killing) is moral? No, I do not think it does.
>The question becomes what is best for the species, the individual, the particular organ... Or fetus.
Would it be "best for the species" to kill any elderly person who is no longer contributing to society, but just sucking up resources? How about chronic mental patients?
Bitch about the electoral college all you want, but the reason why Harry Browne or Nader or some other lunatic won't win is very simple.
Nobody will vote for them. These people doing good on Slashdot polls has no bearing on reality.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Depends on the vote. Voting for US Pres is a waste of time since whoever wins will be bought and paid for by someone you didn't vote for, once they're in. Voting to say how you feel about things is fine.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I _like_ Bush because he is pro life (other than the executions thing, but Gore supports executions too). Abortion is just killing an innocent human life. If you think otherwise, you should probably reflect on your own belief system. Is believing a lie worth it if it is more convienient and/or popular? People who are "Pro Choice" should not suppor abortion. Afterall, everytime an abortion occurs, a baby loses a whole lifetime of future choices. A person who truley believed in choice would support things like school vouchers and individual investment of some of their social security taxes. Why is this even important at all? I would say that a baby is a defenceless human being. And opposing abortion is really supporting individual human rights, most specifically the right to live,(which takes precedence over another person's right to convience). Vote Life. Vote Choice. Vote Bush.
G Neric is right in one sense. There is nothing in the constitution outlawing murder. That kind of thing is regulated by both state and, for certain specific types, by federal law.
Is it really fair that 5 ppl can decide that abortion is a right? I'm mean sure it can be convenient for deadbeat guys who want to take advantage of a girl but who don't want to settle down and raise a child or even pay child support. But that "right" comes at the cost of a human life.
People who are really "Pro Choice" shouldn't be supporting death, instead they should be supporting things like school vouchers.
Well then, why don't we just tax everyone 100%? Then the economy, according to your logic, will never go bad.
A simple example: assume there are 100 people in a state and that if only Bush and Gore were running, 51 would vote for Gore and 49 for Bush. In most states, electoral votes are done in a winner-take-all format (the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska), so Gore would get all of our ficticious state's electoral votes. Enter Nader--since most of Nader's supporters are liberal and most liberals would vote for Gore over Bush, if Nader then gets 3 Gore supporters to switch, voila! 3 votes for Nader, 49 for Bush and 48 for Gore. Bush wins that state's electoral votes and Nader 'stole' enough votes to give the state to Bush--even though he won zero electoral votes. And since this is a close election, the importance of Nader getting would-be Gore supporters' votes is magnified.
Who did Perot steal votes from?
To answer your other question, Perot's supporters were a pretty motley crew, but AFAIK the consensus is that he 'stole' mostly from the Bush/Quayle ticket more than the Clinton/Gore one.
They are also the people that control the news that you see/hear/read. Do you believe that CNN/NYT etc give impartial news coverage?
Most people base their vote on what they have heard through the media, so corporations do tend to tell people who to vote for.
After the last election in the UK, "Britain's Most Popular Newspaper"(sic), the Sun, proudly shouted about the influence that it had in the election - "It's the Sun wot won it" was their headline the next day.
Corporations are simply collections of people who decide to do things as a unit. No. They are collectives. A corporation tends to be an organisation that is told what to do as a unit by the directors, usually acting for the good of their shareholders.
I say, Ralph Nader, you are a totalitarian elitist in support of socialism
Huh?
totalitarian
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed
socialism
A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
Totalitarianism is the exact opposite of socialism - the control by an elite vs control by everyone.
Don't get fooled into believing that the Stalinist policital system in the USSR bore any relationship to real socialism, any more than the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a model democratic country.
Well, at least some of us don't vote because of apathy and on principle.
....
I never really appreciated politics in any situation (office politics, schoolroom politics, real-life politics (how's that for an oxymoron?)), but as I watched the 'big-time' elections I realized that the people really don't have any say at all in who gets into office. The primaries aren't 'really' primaries. The people don't get to choose who the candidates are going to be for the two big parties, that choice is made long before it is 'put to the vote' in the 'primaries'. I understand it didn't used to be this way, that people in any state could actually have a say in what candidate they wanted to represent their party even if they were a part of the big two. But not now. And if you support a third party candidate you are constantly told, over and over again, "If you vote for your candidate you just as well vote for the most evil of the two big candidates." (Which in this case is Bush. People know that if you are voting for a third party candidate (and don't get me started on how sick it is that we have to call the other six or seven candidates 'third party'), you would fear having Bush in office so much that you would rather swallow your pride and vote in Gore than face 4 years of Bush's maniacle bullshit.) So we are worn down and told that we don't have a choice, which, sadly enough, is basically true. We don't have a choice. We either vote for the lesser of the two evils, or we are 'wasting our vote' or worse, 'just as well be supporting the other guy'.
So we get pissed off at how innefectual it all seems. We can't make a difference. We can't have our voice heard. And we are treated like absolute scum because we don't have millions of dollars to throw in the right direction. We need to be 'protected' from what used to be considered rights. We shouldn't have the right to speak out against something, we shouldn't have the right to speak out for something (unless the 'moral majority' supports it), and we most certainly should just sit and chew our cud like a contented cow when we are told that they are going to remove another of our rights to 'protect the children'. And what can we do about this? We can either do nothing (and be told we are even more evil than before), or we can go vote for the candidate of the big two that will take away the least amount of rights.
The apathy is for a reason, and the reason is based on principle. So the two are tied together completely. It pisses me off to no end that no matter what I do I will be told I am an idiot and I have no right to complain. I have no right to complain if I don't vote (I have never understood this). And I have even less of a right to complain if I do vote (even if I didn't vote for the winner) because then I am supporting what has become a corrupt and evil system. It isn't about 'who will do right?, it is about 'who can pay the most for TV time?' or 'who can bullshit the best?' or
What happened to the days when people were elected based on qualifications? I don't really think this whole 'president' thing was thought of as being a chance for the most elite of the elite to get patted on the back (as it has turned into), but was supposed to be a chance to put a common man into control of the country so that the common man could have his views looked after properly. But instead, we now have life-long politicians that are hand fed money from the moment they are born deciding our fate for us, taking away rights, stealing our money, and telling us what evil, naughty, terrible people we are for saying that we should want to protect our 'rights'! Why the hell do we need to protect our rights? After all, if we wanted rights, we would have money so we could buy them!
Fuck the system, then promptly run to the hospital and get tested for every STD known to mankind. I'll be you'd be suprised what would turn up. Seriously though, this is just a bunch of crap. The shit they shuffle around every four years means nothing. It means absolutely zero. What is happening in America is going to keep happening. It will continue to be a slow and steady progression into a protected country, where we are so protected that we won't even have the right to stand up in public for fear we might block someone's view and make them feel bad. God bless America! A perfect sentiment, considering that God (or at least the 'Christian' concept of God) isn't any more real than the 'protection' that the government is trying to propogate in its constant trampling of our rights. What a joke.
Bite my yammer.
True enough, but at least some places don't go out of their way to try and distract you with a light show while they sneak up behind you. I'd much rather they just walk up, throw you over a table and get it over with. This pussyfooting around and 'I feel your pain' bullshit is making me sick. Oh well. That's what America is all about.
Bite my yammer.
Soon we inuit (read canadians) will have to vote as well, so I think a poll should be set up for us. a)Liberal b)Conservative c)Alliance Or not, 13526 people voted that they were not Americans, and that is more people than we have up here, so they probably wouldn't care about my poll either. ----- Is that noise in my head, or music? -----
His comment And, second, we should tax things we don't like.
My Comments I am wondering who gets to decide what things are like and not liked? The problem is that someone somewhere will "like" what is being taxed and think that the tax is unfair. Let us say that we legalize Prostitution (cheers from the slashdot crowd), and we tax it. While most people (booo, hisss) would approve of such a tax, who is to say that it should or shouldn't be taxed? Green Party 'progressives'.
Who is to say that oneday, these wacko Greens won't end up taxing the crap out of Linux Distros, because some wacky lawyer from M$ says that, "Linux is bad and we don't like it."
I say, Ralph Nader, you are a totalitarian elitist in support of socialism.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My mistake. I left out "with legitimate funding." Perot was a one-shot deal and a total anomoly. How many worthwhile candidates do you know who could even being to compete with the budget of the 2 big boys?
IE if Nader gets 5%, we have a decent 3rd party that gets some MAJOR federal funding for 2004. Definately a step in the right direction.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
"an you name one issue that they are actually far enough apart on that if the line moved two feet to the left or right, they would both be on the same side?"
------------------------------
Of course he will likely reply "Abortion," so I'll just talk about that right now. My girlfriend has made abortion rights the key issue. Personally I think it is a waste to sway your vote on one issue.
Some say that if Bush is elected, that he will fight to overturn Roe vs Wade and will make abortion illegal in the nation.
That's a load of BS. If he does reverse the decision using Supreme Court nominations (IF that works), it will just revert back to the states. And there is no way that more than a handful of states will "ban" abortion. It just won't happen in a nation of free speech and freedom such as the USA.
Bush will say things, Gore will say things. And when one of them wins, they will laugh and do whatever they feel like. There is little difference between the two of them in word or deed.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
My net pay: $48,000
Your net pay: $72,000
You can still live a hell of a lot better on your 72 grand than I can on my 48.
I think the flat tax is one of the stupidest economic ideas anyone ever devised. But maybe that's just me.
(sigh)
My main complaint is this:
Some Rich Bugger
Income: 250,000
Tax : 50,000
Net : 200,000
Me
Income: 60,000
Tax : 12,000
Net : 48,000
SRB can live a lot easier on his 200k net than I can on my 48k. And no, I don't suggest that we tax the SRB until he ends up making the same as I do, but even if he payed an extra 15%, he's a lot better off than I am.
However, I think that it is appropriate to use this tactic in some situations. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that capitalism is based on a consumer-supplier relationship, and because of this, certain factors of society are ignored. One of the most important factors being ignored is the environment. If companies have no monetary reason to lessen the amount they pollute our air, they aren't going to do it! And don't you think they should pay revenue for taking away from the habitability of our earth? I think so.
Capitalism is a great economic theory, as our history demonstrates pretty well, but it isn't the best social theory, so it needs to be curbed by government in ways that keep it from getting out of control. Capitalism as a tenet tends to think fairly short-term, and though it leads to many smart decisions/actions, it does not as often lead to wise ones.
-winter fantom
Only 8% for my man Harry?---I guess you guys are only for your individual rights until the t-shirt comes off ehh? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed, but I am....
I'm honestly boggled. How can any reader of /. vote for that anti-tech green-shirt Nader?
The man reportedly refuses to become computer literate.
Is this the guy who you think can be a leader in the 21st century?
Plus, he and his party want to tax you back in the stone age, all while claiming to be attacking "the rich" and "the big corporations". Want a clue? When he says "the rich" HE MEANS YOU
If you really want to rein in corporations, then rein in the government power they use to boss us around.
Vote Small Government.
Vote Libertarian
Vote Harry Browne.
Oh, wait - I wouldn't be the one to pick the things we don't like? Suddenly that doesn't sound so good.
ps: I know I am agreeing with the post I am replying to.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with.
Hmm, let me see if I understand this. The rich use their influence to tip the scales in their favor. And because they are favored, they got rich. So with their new-found riches, they tip the scales in their favor so they can be rich....
Do you like Japanese imports?
Ha! My concept of the 'flat tax'- not per head, percent - is that every dollar that you get this year - no matter how it is spent - is taxed. So if you get capital gains, taxed. 'Bonus pay' used for taking classes, taxed. Money earned at a garage sale - taxed. So if it were 10%, a a CEO making 100mil pays 10mil and Joe Q Public at (say) 50k pays a whole lot less! And it doesn't matter if the CEO got that money as stock, cash/check, or by selling his Bev. Hills mansion.
Do you like Japanese imports?
I believe voting is a waste of time. I am also a hypocrite in that I will still vote.
But, it doesn't matter who you vote for. Either a Democrat or a Republican will get in office. And all they will do is bog down politics, and get nothing done.
We need to get new blood into government, and have them change things. The new blood, and new political parties will get things done.
Troy Davidson
"If I could wave my magic wand. I'd make everything alright."
I'm truly disturbed to see that a large portion of the Slashdotters that responded to this poll were so apathetic as to not be American citizens. Most distressing!
-- dR.fuZZo
Oooh, you're stepping on slippery ground there. :) The fact is, society is *filled* with double standards regarding what we can and can't do to our bodies. No, apparently drug use is wrong. BUT, alcohol abuse is fine and dandy. Hmm... both mind-altering chemicals... possible abuse in both cases... alcohol == good, drugs == bad! Similarly, prostitution is bad... but sleeping around for free is fine! I could go on (smoking, for example), but the main point I'm trying to make is that talking about the rights a woman has to control over her body are not nearly as cut and dried as you think. And if you want to start talking about the rights of the baby, the same above examples (drugs, alcohol, smoking) still apply...
Note that many of these taxes are justifiable, and I think that we should tax them appropriately for what they cost the taxpayers.
Tax on cigarettes? Fine, smoking has been linked to lung cancer, heart disease, and other ailments. These are all expensive to treat, and yes we pay for those treatments.
Tax on alcohol? Of course - how many lives are lost per year to alcohol-related accidents? We have to pay for the emergency services that respond to an accident, the damage caused by the vehicles, preventative measures, etc.
Tax for pollution? At some point, we're going to have to clean up this mess we've made. Taxing for pollution has two benefits. The first is that, if the tax is high enough, polluters will find it more economically beneficial not to pollute. The second is of course that we can use the revenue generated in the meantime to help pay for the cleanup.
Not only a message, but also, depending on how many votes they get, they get a certain amount more funding the next year. That's reason enough to vote for who you like.
- Justin
What scared me is the comment about "lets tax things we don't like." Fuck you and what you don't like!!! I thought liberalism was about not telling people what to think? Leftist hypocrite motherfucker...
I think Bush has more of a brain than this guy (or at least his supporters). Unfortunately, Bush actually has a chance...
/bluesninja
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
I've heard of a place called "America" in which the people decide, mainly by voting for representatives whose opinions they agree with.
Question: Do I believe that someone just asked this question to a presidential candidate? Do I believe that it got moderated up?
but, if voting changed anything they would make it illegal, sorry, but that is really the way I feel.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
Chretien should have stepped down and let Roy Romanow take over leadership of the Liberal party. I'd be a *lot* happer with that than Mr. Chretien. I'd be voting for someone other than Chretien if it wasn't for Stockwell Day and the Alliance.
The Liberal party had better spend the next four years looking for Jean's replacement, or we're screwed in the next one.
I have lived in Germany, Britain and the states, and I can tell you it DOES work. Look at the kind of cars that are on the streets in the US. And it's not just people who drive their old Maverick doing 10 miles/gallon cause they can't afford a new car, no, even the new cars sold are mainly SUVs and the like, the bigger the engine the better. If you look around Europe people drive smaller cars, and even if you buy a BMW or Audi or whatever, they are more fuel efficient than most American cars, because it's what people ask for when they buy a car. How many car adverts in the US emphesize how little gas the car takes? In Germany almost all of them do these days! (my last car used 6 l/100km or approx. 40 miles/gallon(?) )
And for the economic effects. All the scare mondgering comes from people assuming that the government just eats up the money. Just because fuel tax is raised, doesn't mean the state needs more money! Lower the income tax, scrap VAT on essential things like food/clothing, on educational things like books, maybe scrap VAT alltogether?
One long term benefit from making people drive more fuel efficient cars is the lesser dependence on oil, as highlighted by recent shortages. What happens to the american economy if oil prices seriously skyrocket? people can't live without oil at the moment, so if the supply gets shorter there is nothing to stop the price going to 100$ / barrel. Surely an economy that only uses half the oil is much better off in this sort of scenario.
The last point I want to make in this admittedly way too long post is that fuel prices as well as any other prices are just a question of what you are used to. In Germany you pay just over 2 DM / liter at the moment, that's about 3.50 $/gallon I believe, and everyone says, maybe 10% less would be ok, but this is too much, in England they say the same about 4 $ a gallon, and in the US they say the same about 1 $ a gallon (sorry, numbers are order of magnitude estimates only, but you get the idea).
Anyway, enough rambling, I say tax finite resources, tax pollution, tax waste production, in return don't tax labour (income tax) and food/clothing (VAT). You say that's government interference? so what? having 40% income tax is government interference, cause it makes labour expensive!!
Of course abortion wasn't mentioned in the Bible - in those days people would have had the sense to call it what it is - murder! And as for the environment - I'm all for saving it too but not as a priority over fighting for human life. After all, what good is a clean environment if there's no humans left to enjoy it. Vote Bush! ps - thanks for throwing your vote away :)
...where's the option to choose CowboyNeal when you want one?
I'm too young to vote...
I'm not a US citizen...
I think voting is a waste of time.
THEREFORE, THE POLL NEEDS TO USE A MULTIPLE SELECTION TYPE Of THING...
------------------------
------------------------
Is your sig file boring?
I find it interesting to see that the /. community is vexed by Gore and Bush ignoring them. If you wonder why,take a look at the boards: about half the posters agree that they'll DEFINITELY vote Browne (or Nader- we all know their ideals are JUST SO CLOSE!) for reasons unknown to themselves (granted, a few have reasons for voting that way, but the majority just don't like the major parties and don't care if Bozo the clown wins- so long as he's pro-tech!). Sorry, but if you don't agree read the comments a little more closely. The other half, meanwhile, either does not want to vote or isn't registered. So while Bush and Gore are fighting for control of large states and for the undecided voters, do you really think they'll divert valuable resources from their campaigns to answer people who, statistically, vote as often as tin cans do? Sadly, unless this changes- or unless people step back and start being just a little more undecided- of course most campaigns will ignore them!
Why is it that so many people continually urge others to "Vote Nader in close states"? This seems to be a recurring trend, which is why I'm just making this a new thread altogether, but... Let's say you do want to vote Nader, because a) you know what his campaign stands for and b) you like the liberal influence in his campaign. Now, let's say you and a few hundred people of like mind on /. live on the same state, and you do vote Nader, instead of the closest ideologically with a shot at winning, Gore (Trolls, please hold your fire about the 1-party system.) But wait! Bush, who you despise, wins your state by a slim margin because you and a few hundred buddies voted Nader instead of Gore! Oops! Now repeat this across a few other states and all you have is the candidate whose ideals are FARTHER from your ideals than how you voted. Which is fine by Bush, of course. So just consider that before you do go and pull the lever and remember that at least in theory this applies to the Bush campaign just as much as it threatens Gore.
Doesn't anyone else think that "a taste of Bush" is misleading ? =)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Yes, the persecution of the rich by the poor has reached shocking levels in today's society.
Those poor, with their big houses and flash cars, and all those friends in high places...
err, hang on...
NO MORE GENERALIZATIONS. I've been going to the International Socialist Organization meetings in my town for a while(a lot of socialists like nader more than the socialist party candidate), and a lot of minorites and the repressed do support Nader, not just 'rich white college kids'. He's the candidate for everyone opposed to globalization and coporate control of every aspect of our daily lives. And if you think that rich white college kids are the only ones opposed to globalization then you've been reading the corporate press too much!
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
A bit of "Obvious" humor/enlightenment before you vote based on who's promising you the best tax cuts. http://www2.uclick.com/client/zzz/nq/2000/10/22/ (Thanks go to Wiley of Non Sequitur, one of the few great comic satirists out there.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
(Sorry about the double post, I hit Submit instead of preview.)
A bit of "Obvious" humor/enlightenment before you vote based on who's promising you the best tax cuts. http://www2.uclick.com/client/z zz/ nq/2000/10/22/ (Thanks go to Wiley of Non Sequitur, one of the few great comic satirists out there.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Both bush and gore have lied extensively. I'd rather see Clinton back again to tell you the truth.. Bill Bradley could have brought it home simply and easily if he hadn't dropped out That's all I've got to say
See you space cowboy...
Pollution should be cleaned up.. but a higher tax on fuel will mean a massive recession. I dealt with it in the early 90's and don't want to go through that again! Or.. maybe I'll get a deisel engine for my 97 Silverado and run the truck on used cooking oil from restraunts. A Cold fusion reactor to generate electricty for my house since you can't be 100% dependant on solar energy in New England. And perhaps a solaluminescent reactor. We need to start spending more time researcing alternative energy!
Dew knot trussed you're spell checker two fined awl miss steaks.
"...your future, make it a reality, all you have to do is fight for me"
Interesting that if you add Browne's, Nader's, and other's votes together you see that they easily surpass the corporate candidate's positions.
If everyone bands together, we might just have a chance. Just remember to never watch TV and never watch/read/listen to any political ads. As an advertising designer, I know that there are some amazing things you can do with the minds of people.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
About time someone put it all in words instead of loosely spoken statements.
And to add my 0.02, those who say "A vote for the other party is a wasted vote" are friggin jerks.
Those who come to me and have the audacity to TELL ME or any other person those same words are the ones corrupting the system.
Stop flying the flag of Democracy and tell me my vote is wasted. You blew it. It's a Democracy!!!! I have a right to vote. Don't go telling me I'm wrong for picking the candidate of choice.
There's a fine line between standing on a soapbox telling your side of the story (like the person who posted the parent to this reply did) and telling me to my face that my vote is WRONG!!
Those who do the latter should be stripped of their voting priviledges for life for trying to upset such a free system. That should kill about 80% of the republican vote right there and about 60% of the democratic vote.
The "produce" a service which allows people (bigtime and smalltime investors alike) to invest their money in all sorts of companies and other vehicles. The demand for their services is such that they can be paid a very high fee for performing this service. Like I said in my original post, they may not be the ones actually hammering the nail, but they do have a part to play in building the house.
As far as the little peons that can invest. I'd say thats a very bad idea.
The only way that you're not in the game at some level is if you keep your money stashed under the bed, spend it all, or invest in some sort of collectible that does not have value in terms of production (like stamps or artwork).
Money you keep in a bank account is being used in a similar manner as money you put into stocks, except that the bank handles all the transactions, assumes most of the risks, and takes most of the profit. If you're ok with missing out on most of the gains, fine -- investing in stocks isn't for everyone, and you'd be much better off not playing the game at all than playing the game without knowing the rules.
However, those that wish to learn the rules (regardless of how much they want to invest) and are willing to trade some security for higher returns have the opportunity to do so. With a little bit of research (spend an evening reading The Motley Fool or any other good financial site instead of watching TV) you can learn how to earn several times the rate of a savings account without taking too much additional risk.
Also note that taking on "a mutual fund" can be just as bad as any day trading. A mutual fund just means that you pay someone else to invest your money for you; they don't necessarily know where to put it to get the best results. On average, any given mutual fund will perform worse than the market as a whole.
As for the dotcoms... the "geeks" your refer to are probably the ones who are still making money off the dotcoms, if they were the ones who got in early in the game, before the rest of the general populace started driving up the share prices.
But let's say that we have a hotshot millionare who can afford to live off his dividends and play golf all day. He most likely has the bulk of his money tied up in stocks, which in one way or another were given to the company to get its operations rolling. That company can then hire people that DO produce things. There's no way that company could do so otherwise. You need cash to buy equipment and cover expenses (such as salaries) until you can sell enough product to pay the bills. It's not easy either... most businesses fold because they don't become profitable before exhausting their initial investment. Case in point: all the failed dotcoms that you read about these days.
So, even though our investor doesn't lift a finger, his money is helping some company to exist & produce. Sounds like an easy job, until you realize that that investor stands a fairly decent chance of seeing some (or all) of that money disappear. His only hope is that the company (which he probably has some hand in managing, see the first paragraph) does well enough that they make a profit, and either pay some of that profit to him (as a dividend) or keep it and use it to make more money in the future (retained earnings) and pay a higher dividend later.
Also note that you don't have to be a hotshot golf-playing millionare to make money off investments. A lot of us peons (who do the actual production) have money in some form of investment, be it stocks or a simple bank account. The Internet (through cheap & easy access to information, and tight competition between discount stock brokers) has made small-time investing totally viable. There's no reason why you can't have your own (albiet relatively tiny) piece of the pie.
I was just trying to illustrate the bias in our tax code towards "things we like"... I agree with you here... the concept of a "sin tax" is a little asinine to me... but remember that the country is run by politicians (who's job is to make popular decisions) and not economists (whose job is to make as much money as possible).
Capital gains are taxed at less than the rate income is taxed...
That's true only if you hold the stock for less than a year. Sell it before a year is up (which, although IANABroker, is probably what most stock "speculators" are doing) and you pay full rates on it.
Am I going to work hard to increase my salary or to increase the returns on my portfolio?
Just because you're making your money from stock doesn't mean you're not doing anything productive. While your cash is tied up in stock, the company is using that money to finance their operations, buy capital equipment, etc. Without your money, most businesses could not operate with the efficiency that they do today -- or afford to hire you, for that matter.
I could not agree with You more on a purely social level. And if we lived ina perfect world, You could be right. Problem is that we DON'T live in a perfect world. And what drives me, doesn't drive you. And as You point out Yourself; If people have money, they don't just spend them (otherwise they wouldn't be rich, now would they ?) This is why higher income (or for that matter even accumulation of wealth) are or should be taxed. Because if You have a little money wou will spend it, thus providing the society with much needed revenue and trade. Farmers grow crops, industry builds goods, gvt. holds comitees etc.
But when people have a LOT of money they start acting "asocially". They don't actually SPEND their money. They just pay off their house, and do't buy a new one, They SAVE money. Now ISN'T THAT unfair ?
Not in my book. But then again I don't know what You americans are actually complaining about. You live in a country where You CAN live off $6000 a year. In a country where that $10.000 income is taxed at a measly 15%. A country where the EXTREMELY high incomes are taxed as low as 40%. A country where You can drive a SUV, and pay less than $2 per gallon of gas.
In most "western" countries around the world I SERIOUSLY doubt You could live off $6000 a year (I tried it and it didn't work for me, BECAUSE I had to pay tax off that $6000). In a lot of coutries You pay a LOT more in taxes off that last dollar earned (I now pay 68%, and I don't even earn $100.000 a year). Additionally, I believe that the US might possibly be the ONLY country in the world (No I haven't checked) where You pay less than $4 for a gallon of gas.
I know i Shouldn't even CARE about the presidency, as I'm not american, but my point is that on many levels, the US is not that different from the rest of the world, and neither is it's people.
The American president isn't going to be YOUR president, he's going to be the AMERICAN president. So Shouldn't he be elected on what's best for America, not what's best for You ?
He might not be, same as all the pollution that everyone agrees that "someone" should take care of. But if everyone cared, then there would BE no economic intrest that stopped the effort. Just like there'd BE no economic intrest in seeing someone else elected, rather than the one who's best for the country as a whole.
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
Can't you see? From the results of this very poll, if people would just vote Their Truth, rather than on fears of a worse evil, their canidate could actually win! Look at the results of this very poll: Nader is only 5% behind! Only 5%! Certianly more then 5% of Gore voters would be willing to vote Nader if they didn't fear the election of Bush. And to Bush supporters, I say, what are you thinking!!! You want smaller government? Less taxes? More local control? Bush won't give You these things! He'll give in to Big Business, taking it from you! That's a campaign promise you can count on! Wise up people. Look at the facts. Look at the history. What have these two parties and their candidates really accomplished in the last 30 years? How great is the USA these days? Once upon a time we went to the moon. Once we established equal rights for race and gender. Once we strengthened the rights of our workers to unionize. Now...now it seems everything is for sale, our land, our dreams, our lives. Shameful. I can see the sign now: "Land of the free. Home of the Brave." Stamped with the bid red label: "Sold Out".
:T:R:A:N:S:
Hum! I wonder if you propel a vehicle using a vote/anti-vote reaction...
If an anti-vote hits a vote, do they both cancel each other out releasing massive amounts of politicians?
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
I recognize your concerns regarding the degredation of the value of life. But I want to address a couple of things you brought up.
In the case of 'what doctor is going to care?': The answer is that I think we should pass law that draws the line at brain activity and awareness. I can not agree that abortion should be illegal in all cases, or even from conception to the point the embryo develops brain activity. The question IS (at least to me) 'when does an embryo become a baby?' - and the answer that I have come to is that when that embryo has grown enough that it may be conscious, that is when it is a baby. Maybe others will come to a different conclusion, but that is the one that makes sense to me.
As far as the issue of taking responsibility for your actions: Abortion is taking responsibility, and it requires making a difficult decision. You mention the psychological and physical risks that go along with abortion, but facing that and still deciding to do it is making a difficult choice. It is taking responsibility in my opinion, it isn't just the easy way out as so many anti-abortion people would like to have others believe. I know you don't maybe agree with on this, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine - but think the reality of the situation is that most women who choose abortion make an informed, yet difficult decision.
As for the cartoon, I've never seen it, but I would counter with: How many potential killers, rapists, and otherwise bad people have been aborted and thus we've avoided the pain they might have brought? We'll never know, but you are right, we might be wasting some real potential.
As for other points, I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, there are far better more efficient ways to do that, which pose much less risk to the woman involved. I would be wary of entirely taking away the ability to so however.
I think there are other issues to be considered as well though. Global population is rising, very quickly. I don't advocate abortion to be used to keep the population down, but what I think some people fail to realize is that over-population can be a real problem. As such, every abortion, while being made in an informed and responsible way, is only helping by not contributing to this problem. Its at least another point that I'd like to bring up, because its one not many people seem to talk about.
The last thing on my list: 'act decently' and 'accept responsibility' are very subjective things. Objectively, these things aren't well defined. Some people define 'decent' by religious law, some by social law, some by what is best for them personally, some by what is best for society at large, some for a higher moral purpose. There are some things I think are detrimental to society that some mainstream authorities would say is 'good' or 'acceptable' behavior. There are alternately some things that I think are 'good' that some authorities would like to make people believe are detrimental to society. There are many tough questions we need to answer, and we all need to answer them together. Abortion is one of them. I don't know that we have the answer yet, but I've given the issue a great deal of thought, and have found the answer that at least seems acceptable to me.
Regards, John
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
I happen to take a little offense at your vast generalization here, especially in the context of lumping atheists with satanists. My personal beliefs have swung between atheism and agnosticism for a very long time now, yet I am still the rational minded person that I am. Most other atheists I know are the same way, they are atheist because they ARE so rational. I find it a little sad you think it such a threatening, 'dangerous belief system'. As for 'not being bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man', how do you come up with that? I and most other atheist/agnostics I know (I can not speak for the satanists), have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man because it is in the best interest of society to do so. Many religious people I know only do it out of fear of punishment, or for the value of reward after death... Somehow the later reasoning seems less pure to me. And as far as the religioius being bound to have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man, if we look through history, most of the major atrocities of human against human have been in the name of religion. So much human bloodshed and pain, because of religious intolerance, and people still think the atheists are more 'dangerous'. As far as I'm concerned, dogmatic atheism is as useless as dogmatic religiousness. Tolerance is one of the highest moral values, and the sooner we all learn it, the sooner life might begin to get better.
Insofar as taking it further and further, unfortunately both sides of the issue wish to do the same. There is the perception amongst the anti-abortionists that those in favor would like to make it legal always. There is the perception amongst most pro-abortionists that those opposed want to take it away entirely. The middle ground seems the right road to me morally, and worth the fight to keep either extremist side from taking.
I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly).
You can raise your children any way you see fit. I am only 23, but I am confident that when I raise my children they will have the common sense and capability of rational judgement I'd like to think I posess. I also like to think I am capable of taking care of myself. I don't belief my children should have to take care of me when I'm older, and so there won't be any 'inconvenience', because I will take responsibility for myself. Your fears of this 'trend' seem quite unfounded, and lacking in base to me. You mentioned Dr. Kevorkian and the frail elderly folks. Why should those frail elderly folks not have the right to choose a dignified death, instead of a painful degrading one, if that is their own desire? No one is going to force the sick to be put to death, its simply a matter of giving them the option to do so if they want to do it.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be.
I caution you to be wary of the path that the anti-abortionists are going down. Try to imagine a world where you lack of the ability to exercise any personal freedom, a world the framers of the U.S. Constitution tried to insure we wouldn't fall back into. Those that would wish to strip the freedoms of others away have their final destination down that path.
-Nez
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
Yup, so the answer is, let her do what she wants with her own body, and take out the one that is separate from her. Once its not living inside her anymore, its free to live or die on its own. That it will die is of course inevitable today, but that's the nature of the thing.
While the fetus is inside the woman, its basically a parasite living off her body: I don't see pro-lifers out whining about people getting rid of tapeworms, or taking anti-biotics to kill off millions of bacteria or wart removal. The point is this, most people don't care or even feel bad about killing things that aren't conscious. Everyone eats, even vegans, and inevitably you consume life, its a matter of whether you want to consume conscious life or not. If an embryo at its early stages of development is aborted, it isn't conscious, it can't be if it doesnt even have the neural pathways to be so, so why should you feel bad for it? It wouldn't ever have known. Of course you can argue on grounds of some kind of 'spiritual' entity inside the cells, but then I never understood why people defined spirit entering the cells at conception, rather than when it grows to acheive consciousness, which would at least make more sense. A fetus in later development can have its neural pathways connected, and may be concious inside the womb, at that point, it should be protected.
An aborted embryo with no experience of consciousness is as ridiculous to get upset over as a sperm or egg cell that never becomes an embryo. You want rights for embryo's you might as well get rights for sperm and eggs and make it illegal for a woman to menstruate without gettting pregnant, and make nocturnal seminal emissions in men or any ejaculation that doesn't get a woman pregnant illegal as well. Thats how ridiculous that is.
Abortion is a sticky issue only due to when the decision to choose is acceptable. If you ejaculate or menstruate without giving the egg and sperm a chance to come together and grow into another human, you are making a choice then and there to terminate a potential human, same as with abortion. I personally think the acceptable time to choose is before the potential person gains consciousnes, but then that's just my opinion. Take it for what its worth...
-Nez
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
"Well then, it sure is nice to know that we were all parasites, leeching off of our mother's physical resources, so many years ago."
We all were, it has nothing to do with how 'nice' it is to know. If you only bother to learn things that are 'nice' to know, you'll go through life quite ignorant. Of course some people out there still are leeching off their parents resources.
"What has society come to when we elevate the importance of an eagle's egg to a position higher than that of forming human life."
Its come to the point that we finally realize out arrogance, realize that we ARE a part of nature, not above it.
"So go ahead...say "It's my body, I'll do what I want." What if your mother had said that, and flushed your leeching parasite self out of her body? After all, it isn't human until it is outside of the body."
Then I wouldn't be here and I'd have never known, nor cared what this was all about.
"Where and when did we decide that, anyway? Where do we draw the line? It seems like it keeps getting pushed back further and further, all in the name of convenience. Is human life at conception? At six weeks? At seven months? Heck, let's just say that it isn't human until it is outside in the cold, harsh world."
Well if you read my earlier post I advocate calling it human life when it develops enough of a neural network to have brain activity, and protecting it after that point. After the fetus is possibly conscious or aware inside the womb, I don't think it a good idea to have it legal to abort it. Drawing the line at conception however I think ridiculous, as you arent hurting anything that would know - IF you abort before the embryo has developed consciousness.
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
I can't agree with you on this point. There are so many risks between conception and birth, that the zygote/embryo is still only a potential. Perhaps its a difference on how we define 'human being' but for me, a small clump of cells that is an embryo is little different than the sperm or egg that went into creating it, and FAR different than the fully functional organism it can grow into.
2. More importantly, brainwaves are measurable about 6 weeks after conception. The baby can react to stimuli at 3-6 weeks I believe (been a while since I studied it). That might give some leeway for EXTREMELY early abortions, but you wait at all and you're killing someone with feelings.
As for these points, they are well taken, but I'd like to see, if you can point me in the right direction, some evidence for this. The brain waves being measurable after that short a time is the one Im particularly interested in.
The other thing I would caution is that reaction to stimuli doesnt necesitate consciousness, although the brain activity would be a good argument for it. A venus fly trap can respond to physical stimuli, most plants can respond to solar stimulus, a dead frogs leg can respond to electrical stimulus... I know these may seem callous examples, but reaction to stimuli isn't what I would consider the defining characteristic.
I do agree that waiting too long before deciding to have an abortion, and you would be killing someone with feelings, and so at that point they should be illegal. But for the time until that point, it should remain the choice of the potential parents.
-Nez
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
that's some funny stuff
Information wants Coq
I fit into 2 of those categories:
- I am to young to vote
- I am not a US citizen
Well, let's find out...
;-)
Ralph Neder
11913 Gard Ave
Norwalk, CA 90650-7942
(562)863-0635
Do you Yahoo?
Why don't I have the right to do whatever I want to someone else's body? I mean, if I want to kill another man on the streets, whose business is that but mine? If I choose to beat you up and take your money, why is that illegal?
---------------------------
The preceding has obviously been sarcastic. If pro-choice people want to sell me on abortion, they are going to have to do a lot better than the "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body" argument. The fact is, it's not her body, it's her baby's body. Don't say I'm wrong because I know that they use that little knife to chop somebody up, and it's not the mother. If a woman did that to her baby after it's out of her stomach, she would be put in jail.
In closing, I do NOT think that making abortions legal would solve anything. But making them moral in my mind would take QUITE an argument (one that I obviously haven't heard yet).
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
and yes, I'm probably only messing with you since you can't find me.
no I dont think it should be illegal
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
1. You don't care.
2. You're too lazy to find out about the candidates.
3. You never questioned the things your parents told you.
4. You never question anything.
5. You watch too much TV and are influenced easily.
6. You have no identity.
7. You have no original thought process.
8. You're really in to "politics" instead of "government". (there's a difference)
9. You're blind to the corruption of partisan politics.
10. You have learned about the candidates and chosen to vote for each one individually and they all happened to be from the same party. (the only logical reason to bubble the straight ticket)
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
repubs are fond of citing the fact that the richest ten percent pay 33% of the taxes .. well ya know what? they own *90%* of the wealth, so by my calculations they're actually paying significantly less, proportionally, than poor people. sheesh.
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
He also was a horrible actor
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
CAN WE REMEMBER REAGAN PLEASE!
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
The poor also spend money, which also creates jobs.
Republican corporate welfare is more bogus, than the democrats playing mommy and daddy.
And for the idiot Liber-whatevers, compare this to 100 years ago with no/minimal public education.
Now tell me that public education sux
BTW, I have been to both public and private schools and learned a little something about the education system:
Education is only what the student makes of it.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
It's fair because the rich have an obligation to feed money back into the system to keep it healthy, so that others can get rich after them. Why the rich? They can afford it. And they benefited the most from the system in the first place! They should take care of it.
The poor can't afford to do this because most of their money goes towards eating and shelter. They don't have much to spare. Putting more of the burden on them would be like punishing them for others success! (The poor help the rich get rich... we all participate in the economic system. The rich don't get rich in a vacuum...)
It's about feeding money back into the system to keep the system healthy and fertile.
I wish people would start thinking about their simplistic and naive parroting. After all, if the system falls apart, who has the most to lose?
OK, check this link out.
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
Its got *sources* linked so you can verify it for yourself.
Now, have you ever seen a pro-bush site link their sources? No. Then we would have known that Gore never said he invented the internet. Bush doesn't trust you enough to give you accurate information. Bush doesn't trust you to make an informed decision for yourself: he doesn't disclose the full truth. He wants you to make an *uninformed* decision.
Doesn't this worry you?
I know you weren't trying to argue that George Bush is going to try and micromanage peoples lives more than Al Gore. If you really are for less micromanagement then that argument is shot.
h _education_dc_1.html
o nferences/testing98/drafts/mcneil_valenzue la.html
t s/nfloffers.shtml
/ wheat.html
h eney/index.html
5 /oil/index.html
Not more or less, just more insidious. He wants to tinker with the education system in ways that are just plain stupid and irresponsible:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001024/pl/bus
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/c
Bush is for corporate welfare. Ok give me some proof I fail to see any evidence that supports your argument, maybe a website and don't send me one that is obviously against him.
While in Texas he signed a corporate welfare bill...
http://www.libertyhaven.com/noneoftheabove/spor
http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2000/00march
Plus, check out what Dick Cheney did when he left government:
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/10/c
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/2
Sure, these articles might be considered 'anti' Bush/Cheney, but the facts are still there. Feel free to check them out for yourself.
first this link:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001024/pl/bus
Funny that this contradicts the original RAND report, ohh I mean THE OFFICIAL Report, that said in his state he was tied first only to North Carolina in education improvement...
Not quite. What Rand says: http://www.rand.org/hot/Press/texas.scores.html
Regarding the next link:
Ok first after reading the article it seemed like a very strong paper, ohhh wait it is written in the journals of eductaion...
A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal of education. Where would you expect to read such a paper? Do you think it would be better if it were written by people who were not experts on education? Would you have a lawyer examine a medical procedure because the medical establishment is too biased???
Second lets just look at some of the evidence or arguments made in the article, "SAT-Math scores have deteriorated relative to students nationally." Now let me ask you if more students take a test, particularly students of lower economic ranges do you believe that test scores on average would increase or decrease? The answer is obvious and shows part of the failed logic in the article
You take a single quote from the introduction, misunderstand it, then present it as evidence that the whole article is worthless??? Let me point you to the relevant portion in the report so you at least know what that portion of the intro was referring to...
Regarding the Harvard link, check it again.
Regarding vouchers, I'm all for vouchers as long as the Feds don't hamstring the voucher schools by making them 'accountable', as GWB puts it. Do you know what that means? Micro-management of schools from washington.
I am looking for good unbiased evidence here...
All three of the education links qualify. Plus, there's lots of raw data in these other articles, data that can be checked. That's why I posted them. Don't you think they raise some serious questions?
I really don't care if Dick Cheney got his money from the Gov't big deal...
You asked for evidence that Bush/Cheney were pro corporate welfare. I give it to you and now I'm "wasting" your time?
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes.
I guess you like to keep things simple...
Gore is 'targeting' his tax cuts because he doesn't feel the country can afford across-the-board tax cuts. Not because he likes some people more than others. Sheesh. In addition, tax cuts run the risk of increasing inflation. Gore is preventing this by using his tax cuts to help encourage personal savings.
So he is targeting the people who actually NEED tax cuts while preventing inflation at the same time. He is being frugal, but fair.
It's funny how Bush manages to paint Gore like an elitest when Bush has a record of favouring the wealthy at the expense of the poor!
It turns out that Bush only brings his 'principles' into play when they are convenient. For example, Bush wants to micromanage every school room, from teacher paychecks to student report cards, using a criteria that doesn't make any sense, and is not backed up by educational research. Nor is it backed up by his Texas record. Quite the opposite. If you think this is minor, imagine the masses of stupid people voting in a couple decades. This is a real threat to liberty!
And he IS for micromanaging the economy. He talks about 'shaping the economic environment' much the same way Bill Clinton does. What do you think that means???
He's also for corporate welfare. This amounts to using businesses as a funnel, diverting public funds into the pockets of the RIGHT PEOPLE. I would call it corruption, EXCEPT THAT IT'S LEGAL!
Bush doesn't need to react to reality; his principals tell him what to do.
The simple fact of the matter is that outright criminalization of something seldom works as intended because it effectively pushes the problem off of the map. As a control measure, its just not as effective because its too large in its scope. A better solution is to approach the problem more systematically: keep a lid on the more negative aspects that would arise from criminalization but make it clear that the offending behavior is not strictly sanctioned.
It's the same argument employed against the RIAA in relation to the Napster trial: illegal sharing of music is less likely to occur if the music is more easily obtainable in the first place. Or, more basically, if its easier and safer to follow the law than to circumvent it, then you follow the law and avoid the consequences of not doing so. If you make pollution of the environment completely illegal, what's going to be more likely: industrial corporations suddenly either go out of business or otherwise completely overhaul their current method of operation, or simply find ways to avoid following the law? It's a fine line to walk, but the best way of combatting problems such as this is basically through trial and error: the current system doesn't work, so the best solution is to methodically go along and see what will and keep searching for the best solution until it ceases to work as intended, or indeed makes the situation worse. That's why sudden, drastic changes, such as the illegalization of alcohol, tend to create such dramatic problems.
And the fallacy of the Libertarian view of rights is that it creates a false dichotomy. Everything I do, in some way or another, infringes the rights of someone else. In general, this is indeed an academic argument (if I'm exercising my right to stand here, I'm infringing your right to stand here... but who really cares?). But when you increase the proportions, the stakes involved also increase. There is no simple division (or arguably any division at all) between private and public affairs, and creating a system which presupposes its existance fails to answer the problems we face in a considerably more complex world.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
The government, even a bloated bureacratic government, is more responsive to the people by virtue of a republican method than modern corporations are. If Microsoft never again made money from another version of Windows or Word or whatever, they wouldn't fold for another decade or two. They've built themselves enough of an insurance system from two decades or overwhelming success that ensures that they don't need to adapt their practices to please their public for some time. There's little accountability. And competition doesn't work as it should either: in a world of finite resources, just because I don't like company A, B, or C's model doesn't mean I can start an effective company D to fit how I think business should be done.
What this means in a system where the market drives public services like healthcare or social security, or whatever is the exact "lesser of two evils" nonsense you rightfully disdain in the current political landscape: if I need medical care, but don't like the options of obtaining it for whatever reason, I have little recourse. I could hang on and hope that things improve, but there's no reason to believe they will. And if I don't choose any of the options, then I effectively fall out of the market system in the first place and lose all voice. A Libertarian view of the market and its relation to the government is, at its very core, a "lesser of two evils" system. I don't like the idea of submitting to that kind of thing in politics, and I like it even less in a capitalist marketplace.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
If I saw a person living on the street, unable to pay for his or her next meal, I would feel nothing but dirty worrying about my "right" to keep the salary I earned, in part, because the government helped create a maintain a stable, rights-oriented society. Most of the money you earn is earned, in large part, because the government helped create an environment in which you could do so. Paid for the roads you drive to work on, paid for the security from theft you rely on, and paid for all the sundry things people like to ignore but are nonetheless vital to our everyday lives. A good chunk of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and no amount of greedy, indignant, over-the-top capitalist posturing will change that. Libertarians hold a highly contradictory view of the government: on one hand, they aknowledge that the government is not part of a market-driven system, on the other, they accuse the government of wanton greed. The government has a responsibility to everyone , not just you, not just the wealthy or priveledged, or whoever, including the lower and unluckier aspects of society. It is the responsibility of said government to ensure that everyone's rights are fulfilled as best as can be done, and if you submit to the government's protection of your rights, you need also submit to the government's protection of the rights of others. If you don't like the system, then stop using the benefits the government allows for you to have and see how long these ideals remain.
Not to say that there aren't problems, but a responsive democratic system can deal with these. The "tinkering with the formulae" that you disdain is exactly what a representative system of government should do. If something doesn't work, then new solutions should be pursued, and these solutions should be firmly grounded in the will of the people. Some rights should always remain sacrosanct, but some of the things which the Libertarian model portray as fundamental rights do a great disservice to the concept itself.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
The government needs a certain amount of tax-based income to continue to function, I'm sure we can agree. If the government is in good financial shape, it can afford to make exceptions to the general rule and give certain individuals and groups a tax break. In that sense, a tax break is very much a government service. But its a weird argument brought on by a poor definition of terms I expect is more likely....
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Certainly, I have no problems with charity organizations as a concept, but, in general, I don't see their existance as a argument against government welfare because I still see this hated bueracratic system as more responsive to the will of the people than any private organization. In any case, I think coexistance is probably the best idea all around.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Yes. Some people do require a pickup truck or an SUV for how they live or work.
But there are sooo many people that own these things just because they can afford one.
My girlfriend's father owns a pickup truck just cause he likes the idea of it. The number of times they actually need a pickup truck is so irrelevant to purchasing one is pathetic. I personally would purchase the most fuel efficient car possible with my income and that suits my needs.
Like how many people need an SUV? Majority of the time they don't. And you pay for the convienence of having one with your money and the environment.
I'm going to stop this post cause I do take things like this personally and i'm getting pissed.
If you mean Jeff as in Jeff K........ well dangnammit hes got my vote!!!
admit defeat, live in decline, be the victim of our own design
It says that Nader hasn't previously made a statement about encryption, so his staff (who prepared the responses) weren't able to quote him on it.
I think that all of these responses are just recycled quotes (I know some of them are, I've seen them elsewhere). Which is fine with me, they still reflect his positions... although a few didn't seem to really answer the questions at hand.
homosexual? fred was a pimp. he let scooby, shaggy and velma do all the investigating work while he got it on with daphne in the back of the mystery machine! anywayz, it was the 70's, and no child is going to get the references... what 6 year old would attribute shaggy's constant munchies to smoking pot? isn't this a little off topic? :)
~star
The reason for taxing the stock market has little to do with corporate power. It's more that a tax on the stock market (one fourth of one percent is all he's suggesting...which is nearly statistically insignificant compared to the 2% brokerage fee and is definitely insignificant compared to the price of the stock) because it will raise a lot of money for the government. And Ralph doesn't want that money for the unweildy Democrat- and Republican-run government; he wants it for a new, progressive, helpful government that will provide universal healthcare and education. The politicians don't need this right now because they don't need money for such programs, all they want to do is talk about programs like that and how nice it would be to have that, but how impossible it is. Then, they raise their salaries and raise the defense budget. This comment is probably wasted because you don't seem to either favor or go against the progressive tax. Nevertheless, the comment shall go up.
-------------------------------------
best slash sites:infantililsm.org
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
Well... let's take a look at history to see what that's all about:
When the tax on everything you made over 200k was 98%, what happened?
Well, say an actor, (wink, wink) made 200k on a movie one year. And then, they wanted him to do another.
Why would he? Yet, if he doesn't make that blockbuster, the lighting guys have no job, the camermen have no job, etc. etc. It doesn't just affect that one rich actor. In fact, it makes no difference to that one guy because he already has a lot of money. But that choice that the government has encouraged him into affects the people that it's trying to help!!
God I HATE nader for this!!!!
Taxing stock investment is already overburdensome.
If we follow his thinking, I should be able to get
MAJOR money back if i take losses then!
I love how this is coming from a guy who has
250k invested in the "evil" market himself!!!
Basically he wants to shut us all off from becoming
rich.
I know, lets make it a progressive tax based
on your NET worth. The more your total net worth,
the higher the tax rate on your gains......
so joe blow with no net worth can make stock gains
tax free. this would allow the small investor the
chance to have a nest egg.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
If you look at Ralph's record, you will see that his stance on first amendment issues is pretty strong. It was a very specific question, so unsurprising that there was no answer, but you can bet he would have been in support of rights for everyone, including minority religions.
Nader does not accept soft money or corporate donations. He is the only candidate actually practicing his campaign finance reform platform. So he doesn't need to reject Amazon's donations specifically; he is not in thrall to special interests of any form. Thus, he can actually do his best to serve the people.
FYI, since these are all drawn from previous statements, he cannot be pandering to Slashdot. These are his real issues and beliefs; look at his website, here. Nader does not pander to anybody; he is extremely popular in Oregon and Washington, yet has spoken out against physician assisted suicide laws, which are fairly popular among his voter base. He has spoken out against the US policy of favoring Israel over Palestine, although his running mate is Jewish. Look at his record, and you will see that here is a person you can really trust. He only says what he means, and is not worried about alienating voters (although he could use every voter he could get). A politician in the best sense.
Ceci n'est pas un post
More frightening are prisons actually run by private corporations. There is huge potential for fraud, abuse, and violation of the intent of the prison system, as well as little evidence that these corporations actually save money; most evidence shows that they cost more money through various hidden costs. Texas I believe, along with California, are leaders in this field. Read The Nation article carefully before making any more uninformed posts. As you can see, corporations actually do benefit from the production of more prisons.
Ceci n'est pas un post
This progressive method does not harm corporations directly, but stops helping those who are harming the commons. Currently, the gov't subsidizes the "bad" kind of fuels, and does not give enough incentives to develop new sources of power for automobiles. He has more information at his website
Ceci n'est pas un post
As hard as it is to believe, part of the problem with the big business of that era was the fact that the government would break strikes, killing unions, and the government put up huge-ass tariffs, eliminating foreign compeitition.
Not too terribly often but when they did break strikes it was usually only in exceedingly important sectors of the ecconomy of the day (like coal) or when they were pressured by some really influential people (John D. Rockefeller had federal troops fire on a camp of striking miners and killed ~23 of them).
The entire way of life we lead as citizens is one that has been created by the government preventing shit like Standard Oil and dead rat carcasses in our meat and the like. People who tell you otherwise are usually full of it.
I will concede that tarifs were major issues but that was because of the inate need to generally precent recession and depression which had historical ways of comming on from foreign sources (research 1820's New England for example).
Respond to s
Ok this is the second time I have seen this the first being on subdimension on their politics forum about who will vote for whom.
People who don't vote *may* have this kind of reasoning about how they should act but that is like comparing prisoneers being in jail because they wanted to act like Henry David Thoreau and defy an unjust government. Simply put most people don't vote because they might have to leave their couch and stop watching "The $treet" or drink beer and get stoned.
Face facts people like Nader are far too extreme for the majority of Americans and really don't have any moderate views. People who want to get rid of government really should look at what laize-faire type tactics got us in the years 1880-1920 or so and then tell me that less government is a good thing.
If anyone can tell me why all the BS that companies and the like did to America and the absolutely bad social problems that resulted were good for the average Joe and his family I'll give you a cookie (choclate chip).
Respond to s
I never have had that happen to me but then again not many people I know ever randomly approach people on the street and query them about political choices.
Respond to s
The electoral college dosn't change votes for anyone they are just a symbolic step to prevent mob rule. Basically they will vote for whomever gets the most votes in the state. There has only been one case of a faithless elector and that was during the era of good feelings in 1820 when the elector didn't vote for the winning president saying that only George Washington should have won completely.
Respond to s
Genius!
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
I do hope that Bush appoints some conservatives for they are solely needed.
They make sure you are not one. You have that choice now.
Fuck that.
Germans wanted quality of life for themselves. It just happened to involve enslaving half of the Europe.
What the fuck is wrong with that ?
he didn't say stop all pollution, he said tax it to discourage it.
probably making... what? $14k/yr. end sarcasm
give it a break. no one except the republicans are swallowing this line of BS reasoning. THE RICH DO NOT NEED A TAX BREAK. its the poor who need the tax break.
i will never vote for a tax break for the rich (of which i consider myself one) until some equilibrium is restored. the wealth in this country is absurdly out of balance and it is interfering with democracy.
and bush and gore make their arguments in an "oh so pointed" manner? the amount of rhetoric from the major parties completely eclipses anything nader has ever approached.
nader has a vision for our future. bush and gore have visions of their own futures.
And as much as it would be nice to see a 3rd party get some funds, this is EXACTLY what's wrong with campain finance today.
Ok, so they get their 5%. They get their funds. Maybe they do really well, and now we have 3 powerful parties instead of 2. How about the others? Libertarians? Socialists? Etc. Now they're locked out, and the cycle repeats.
How about NONE of them get funds. And no soft money. Done.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Shouldn't that figure read 0%?
I just liked his name :)- -----------------
---------------------------------------------
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
You know you've hit the big time when Colin Powell visits your site. ;)
Wonder if he uses Linux as well...
Do NOT forget to vote tomorrow. Do NOT skip voting and give some tired old excuse as to why you didn't do so. Do NOT wait until the last minute. Do NOT pass go. Do NOT collect $200. Get out and VOTE!
Write in Mickey Mouse if you have to, but VOTE!
Look, I don't care about your piddly little excuses. Giving up your right to vote is a disservice to this country, it dishonors those who gave their LIVES so YOU would even have the right to vote, and it undermines your very essence as an American. America is a democracy and YOU are a citizen of that democracy. So VOTE!
In my eyes, choosing NOT to vote is akin to treason. It would be selfish of someone given such a powerful gift as voting and for them to sit around and reap it's many benefits only to purposely avoid it when the opportunity comes.
If November 7, 2000 comes and goes and you chose not to vote, you better not even breathe a complaint about anything regarding your city, state, or this country for the next four years. You gave up your right to complain when you gave up your right to vote.
'Nuff said,
-Travis
How on earth is comment #9 "Redundant"? Around here any comment under #20 means their wasn't any comments posted yet when that one was posted.
Even if you don't like what this misguided person is saying, you should still follow the moderation guidelines.
Please bid on this Karmann Ghia! Please pleas
George Bush did not answer any one of those questions himself. Al Gore may actually have, although even that is unlikely. I have heard both talk about the Internet & WWW and they barely have a grasp of it. Gore understands the big concepts, although he's surprisingly unknowledgeable about the specifics (i.e. encryption). Bush admitted he barely knows how to check e-mail.
Before anyone says I'm gullible for thinking Gore responded, my belief is based on his interest in Internet-related issues and that he writes his own speeches most of the time.
It makes absolutely no sense to tax speculation in the stock market. The speculators are making money simply because they are willing to take an enormous risk that most people are not willing to. That's called the spirit of capitalism, people. Take that risk-return incentive away, and the drive to invest in the economy collapses. Nader's position betrays both ignorance of basic economics and a deep-seated class jealousy.
Open up the two-party system: PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION This is absolutely foolhardy. How many times do slashdotters need to be reminded that the two-party system is a GOOD THING? Proportional representation allows any radical able to muster a modicum of support into the government. Think abou t what this really means for a second. Along with your Greens and Libertarians, you would also allow Neo-Nazis, Aryan Nations, and a whole boatload of other psychopaths into Congress. While the idea might seem good at the present, it would eventually lead to a breakdown of order and stability in the government. Witness the Israeli government. Barak is being forced to ally himself with the radical fundamentalist Likud party just to stay in power, and that gives these minority viewpoints enormous power disproportionate to their support. Do we really want this situation in the U.S.? I think not! We have chosen stability over the right of minority viewpoints to force their ideas on the majority, and we have made a wise choice.
Check out http://yesmoke.com/. A pack of ciggies costs $1 to mail order from Switzerland. In America, that pack would go between $3-$5. That's $2-$4 in tax - how much more would you like to tax it?
So if the taxes don't make people smoke less, if they only create a black market, what are you gonna do? Raise the taxes again? Put them in jail?
Not only am I not an american, but by the number of votes that say "I'm not an American Citizen" (21% when I voted) I think it obvious that most of the \. readers aren't either, and don't care about the american Elections.
Oxymoron: Microsoft Works
I'm voting for a new generation, though I'm torn between
www.cups.org
or
www.lpng.org
(though the good old leftist favorite www.lpr.org is nice, too)
right! just the same way people will drive less if they raise the gas prices!
uhh. nevermind.
Slashdot Cruiser!
...can't finish this right now. My dick's on fire.
Replace "Pollution" there with "Cigarettes" (changing to plural)
Fine. Ciggarettes are a problem. Criminalize them. Impose huge financial penalties to those who violate the law. Use that for cleanup.
Riiiight. As DeCSS and drugs have shown us, criminalization only drives the problem underground (or, for corporations, gives them more incentive to hide pollution problems). We can't ban cigarettes for fear of a nationwide revolt, but we _can_ tax them in reparation for their detrimental effects on others (e.g. secondhand smoke).
That's certainly true in MY case - I REALLY don't want Gore to win. I don't trust him one bit. Therefore I'm voting for Bush. He may not be the brightest bulb, but at least he isn't phony like Gore.
I think I'll vote for Bugs Bunny. I live in a state with only six electoral votes so my vote doesn't really count.
I think Bugs would make a great president; look at all the times he foiled Yosemite Sam and various other thugs. Bugs is one smart cookie.
"Keep the world supplied with carrots: Vote Bunny!"
[ ]
Interesting tidbit about Superfund sites: 25% of them are former recycling/reprocessing centers.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Nader has definitely given patents and copyrights deep thought. I wish the other candidates had at least a fraction of the understanding Nader demonstrates.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
When we put a person in jail, we are attempting to engineer their behavior out of our society.
Social engineering is a fact of civilization and we all support it. We only disagree on the details of its execution.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Actually I'm right
My other sig is extremely clever...
Maybe I'm just not clued into what Ralph Nader is thinking. He may cost Gore the election, his response to this scenario is that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican party. Which is like saying there's no difference between James Watt and Bruce Babbit or Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. I think part of the problem is that Nader appeals to a lot of younger voters who may not remeber how bad a job the Republicans did the last time they had the White House (more than tripled the National Debt).
A lot of attention has been paid to the economy in this election. An important principle of economics is "opportunity cost." The opportunity cost of voting for the liberal Ralph Nader is that the conservative George W. Bush could win the presidency. It's not worth it!
My other sig is extremely clever...
A Republic is a form of government where power lies with a group of people rather than with one person. Democracy is a form of government where power is equaly shared amongst all citizens. They are not mutually incompatable, in fact all democracies are republics although not all republics are democracys (oligarchy, plutocracy, sovietism, technocracy, etc.).
The United States of America is a representative democratic republic.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
-- Funny how workers in southeast asian can't afford the sneakers they make, then. Would you consider southeast asians to have the same rights and privlages as the typical early 20th century american? America is about opportunity. Opportunity requires responsiblity. If you have no opportunity to be responsible then you are really up the creek. We can choose to be sucessful. Its not easy. But it is possible! Is it possible in south asia? I personaly don't know. Please enlighten.. This point isn't going to be popular around here but: Rob all the rich to pay all the poor and who will you rob when there aren't anymore rich people? ASK THE USSR yours,
Bush: Gore says he invented the internet, so why does every internet address have a 'W' in front of it!
bah
Nah. Last I checked, the rest of the world doesn't get a vote in the electoral college.
:->
Whaddaya know... the system actually did something right for once!
Oh yeah, vote Gore for Christ's sake!
--hongpong.com
There was a solution on how you can make your vote really count. voteswap2000.com. However, they took this site down down because it could be construed as brokering votes.
So I suggest that people remove themselves to the IRC channels and discuss this with their friends in other states.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Sure, some people should be richer than others. You need some incentives, and you deserve it. It's not impossible (although more difficult) to move up in financial class. But the proletariat ARE needed for their contributions. And they deserve many things to be equal. Lawyers, medical care, housing (to an extent), and heating should not depend on social status. I know this isn't as bad as it was for some in the say 1920s, but people deserve such things. A hardworking factory worker should have those things available.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. What it does is say "You two big guys should have worked harder for my vote." Those votes which are "thrown away" are votes wanted by both candidates. The candidate who loses no doubt would have liked to have seen those "thrown away" votes. That in itself makes your vote worth something. That loser candidate should have worked harder to grab your vote.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
According to current poll results, if Slashdot was the Electoral College then our next president would be "I'm not a U.S. Citizen". Obviously, Slashdot readers are not representative of the general voting public (consider Bush/Gore ratios and check our Nader's showing). Is that good or bad?
I'm scared of world leaders who think locally and act globally.
#2 is pretty bad too:
2) Minority Religions... by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
No Reply
No reply??? OK, Ralph doesn't know jack about crypto - that's fine, although given the fact that this is a real issue, he should learn. But this champion of the opressed has no opinion on minority religions??
Gee, I was a little annoyed when George Bush v1.0 declared that I wasn't a citizen since I don't believe in God. You can bet I'm not voting for Ralph, as much as his opinions on IP make me want to. OT, nader's ideas about IP seem like an open-sourcer's dream - it sounds like he (or staff) wrote them up just for our entertainment. No one else will care what he thinks about IP -what's he going to do, stop getting contributions from Amazon? This is like Gore campaigning in front of minority groups or Bush to the religious right - he's preaching to the choir, after making sure he knows what the choir wants to hear.
I would like to respectfully submit that you, sir, are not, and have never been, an habitual smoker. Perhaps you have never in fact had an addiction. The fact of the matter is, smokers are one of the most captive markets there is. I smoke a pack or more a day, every day, and it's not because I enjoy smoking so much. I really only enjoy two or three of those cigarettes. The rest of them I smoke because I *need* them. Or, ok, I won't die without them, but I will sure as hell feel like shit. There's a good reason why so few people ever manage to quit smoking, despite the fact that we *all* know just how bad it is for us.
And no matter how high the prices go, we will keep paying, until you raise the prices so high that we don't have the money. And I don't mean until we have to give something else up, like food (I can't tell you how many meals I've skipped because I needed a pack of smokes), but until we can literally not come up with the cash. And then we will beg, and we will steal (I've stopped complete strangers on the street to ask for cigarettes).
Smokers aren't going to smoke less because cigarettes cost more - you'll just end up spreading the costs around bty what else we can't afford.
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Where's the cowboyneal option? I guess that would be a write-in but there wasn't a write-in form box.
I'm surprised that a whopping 15% of the slashdotters intend to vote for Nader. I decided I'd never vote for him, because he (ok, someone in his campaign staff) actually spammed Usenet some weeks ago with their propaganda. Or did Nader submit a formal "I'm sorry, the responsible has been sacked" announcement?
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
But don't think that it's "the right thing to do" or feel like a martyr because some people have doubts.... I would say your children would be ashamed of you, but I guess that's not really a problem for you.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Voting is a method best used to minimize damage. Its harder to manage with only two choices, but you shouldn't waste your vote on who you WANT to win if that person has no CHANCE to win. Instead, vote for the person out of the pool of possible winners that will cause the least damage.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
It's the PARTY I don't want coming anywhere near politics ever again. Nader, while completely baseless in all his financial claims, at least isn't stupid enough to pen his name to tripe like 100% tax rates
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
That way, more money can be allocated to lesser income groups such that they can have a better chance at higher success to. Personally, I would enjoy reduced taxes - I am in school right now and I'd be nice to funnel all of my money into getting my loans paid off afterwards, rather than filling part of the role of someone who's currently lavishing in success.
Now, if I ever become successful to the point where money is no longer a serious issue, I'd be more than happy to do my share. I'd owe it to the society.
If Quebec separates, Canada gets to keep Montreal. Quebec gets Toronto.
Thats some funny shite. I love it.
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
ok.. linus torvalds is from finland.. and this site is mostly about linux.. slashdot is US-centric how? and PS.. thats not even a word!!!!!
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
Funny. I though the article was about Nader. Silly me...
Seriously. When i think about all the different groups of people who went through so much to be allowed to vote (women, african americans), and about all of the other coutries around the world where people will probably never have the right to vote- and i can't imagine being selfish enough to waste your right... i'm sorry, i know alot of people don't see it that way, and it's not that i don't see some of your points, but still...
Supposedly the 'pill' is what 98% effective? And condoms are 99% effective? Hell, add those two up and you have 197% protection No way ! they don't add, you have to multiply the complements, to get the complement of the combination. This gives 100%-(2% * 1%)=99.98% By the way, let the woman choose, a tumor is a living entity too IMNSHO
Encrypted reply?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
true
Yep, it's a free country indeed. I think murder should be legal too... not that I'd ever want to kill anybody, but I don't think anybody's right to do so should be repressed... ('Cause only commies would take away our freedoms like that, the barbarians!)
(This is sarchasm. My point, hopefully, is clearly made.)
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
No, it is not. It is based on your conception of what a 'human' is, and wether an embryon should be considered as human. And this, my friend, is *not* biological at all. It is ethic or religious, but definitely not biological.
That's right, and you and most "pro-choicers" take the cowardly route of refusing to make an ethical or religious decision on this issue. Whenever that embryo becomes a human being, logically ending that life after that point becomes murder.
What doesn't make any sense at all is each woman determining the personhood of her unborn child on a case by case basis. How can an unborn person at a certain stage of development be a baby in one womb and an unborn person in the same state of development be a "fetus" in another womb? It's like allowing slave owners to decide on a case by case basis which slaves count as human beings and which don't ("If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves").
I thought this kind of archaic thinking was disapearing. Looks it gets a +3 Insightfull on slashdot. Sad.
As with most liberals, your definition of "insightful" is "someone who agrees with me".
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
When did human life become so precious in the first place?
Would you continue to hold that opinion if someone had the legal right to end your life?
I support your deduction and will suggest a fine point for separation. An embryo becomes a human being once it is born and is merely an embryo that relies on the host for survival up to that point.
So anyone who relies on others for survival can have their life terminated at any time by those on whom they rely? Does that include those who receive food and housing from the government who would starve otherwise? Does that mean that infants already born can have their lives terminated by their parents? These are cases of human beings relying on others for survival.
I wonder why most pro-choice politicians don't spell out their position as clearly as you do? I find your opinion utterly reprehensible, but at least you're logically consistent.
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Bob and Larry from VeggieTales
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R
great comedy company.
But you poor yanks are going to have to suffer. I guess suffering through four years of Bush is the price to pay for a real Democracy. (Not just a two party system). Suck it up and vote Nader!
----- "Computers will never catch on, why don't you go outside and play!"
When I first read that Nader had No Reply over the issue of asteriods crashing into the earth I was really worried. But after I thought about it for awhile I relized there is nothing to worry about because all we need to do to stop an asteriod is slap a drilling team in a spaceship with minimum training and no experince and we'll all be fine.
Hello, I would like to think that the /. people are the smartest of the lot but by looking at this poll I can see that your on the end of the idiot spectrum.
Go find a read a copy of the Constitution, no where does it say that G'ment is to give you anything cept the right to be free live fail or succeed it doesn't care cause this country was founded on the belief that people should take care of themselves as adults should.
No where is the a right to reitre and draw $800 a month month from the G'ment the only job Federal g'ment is spose to have is to protect to country from invasion and keep the people safe.
If you want a g'ment that is big enough to cure all your problems MOVE get the F*** OUT!!!! go get
cause thats not what this country is although with Communists like Gore, Clinton, FDR and others we have a BIG F'ing socialist G'ment that you are afraid of.
People have fought and died and had balls big enough to speak their minds and fight for what they believe and what is right. They didn't fight so that a HUGE G'ment would take care of you, you are the only one that can take care of you. Your the only one that knows what is good for your family.
WTF do you think you need G'ment to take your hand walk you to work, feed you. I know why your an idiot and to lazy to work.
True people that love their country would vote Libertarian and stand up for the Constition and no it is not a living document that changes day by day, that is why the Founding Fathers left the Federalist papers so the intent would always be clear, they was very carful with the wording so that it couldn't be twisted into something it is not.
Its time to stand and vote and get the SOB's outta the White house congress and replace the supreme court with people of honor and get the USA back to the point where people actually know what freedom is.
When I kill someone who's causing an imminent threat to me, it's not murder: it's self-defense, which is a 'perfect' defense to murder (as distinguished from an excuse, such as duress). Even if the person killed is a whole human beyond all question. And why does the law declare it not to be murder? Because of the assailant's relationship to me.
It's the same with the fetus (and even more so, since the fetus is a potential person and not an actual person). The fetus is causing an imminent threat to my life, and it is my right to remove that threat at whatever cost. You have the right to defend your home from burglars, and I have the right to defend my womb from foreign agents who would suck my life force for their own benefit.
The fact that it's even open for debate is a sad commentary on the objectification of women by contemporary society. I do NOT go poking around in your ass, peer at your prostate, and proclaim: "Aha, here is an inviolable part of men's bodies that they have no sovereign dominion over!" You shall not do the same with my body.
-- Anne Marie
Also, Bush's whole web site is like that. Gore's is a bunch of wash about what he intends to do, fix, etc. Bush's is filled with actual plans.
I don't care if the man sometimes can't speak straight. (Besides, how many really smart people do you know that can't communicate?) He can choose a good cabinet and good advisors, and they do their homework. I'd rather vote for Bush's cabinet than for Gore.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Dude, I'd vote for Nader in a heartbeat, planned on it. But, Gore vs. Bush is too close. Even California, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon are now leaning Bush.
If I had the choice between Gore and Bush, I'd choose Gore. With those Supreme Court appointments, I feel more comfortable with Gore.
Obviously Nader is not going to win the election. That is not what this is all about. Nader is seeking to capture 5% of the popular.
I live in a swing state (like most states are). Therefore, my vote counts for either Bush or Gore. When given the choice of the two, I'd rather have Gore. I'm not going to vote for Nader if it means Bush winning the election.
Agreed, Gore and Bush are very similar. But, between the two --- I am more comfortable with Gore.
Here is a quote from our good friend Al. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Hmm,, a little bit _CONTRADICTORY_ perhaps?? oh well....
> get a vote in the electoral college.
Last I checked, 99.9999% of voting age American citizens don't get a vote in the elctoral college either.
Bullshit.
First, the law does not recognize you as having the right to do what you want with your body. It is illegal for you to put unapproved substances in your body. It is illegal for you to sell your organs. It is illegal for you to sell sexual services. It is illegal for you to refuse your services if drafted. (And for what it's worth, I agree that those laws are wrong.)
Second, after the point of viability, controlling your body does not justify killing the fetus. It can be extracted and you can regain dominion over your body without killing it.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
I find this 'let's-tax-the-rich-so-that-we-can-give-more-to-th e-poor' trend a bit disturbing. Allow me to explain why.
I came to the United States about ten years ago. I was 15 at the time, and wasn't particularly fond of the idea of leaving all my friends behind, etc. My parents came here with hopes for a better life. My father was a electrician, had been working at a large company in Europe for about 20 years, but he felt he had a better oportunity here. My mother was a daycare teacher, and thought that coming here would be good for me and my siblings.
We had some seriously rough times in the beginning. My father started out working at a recycling facility picking garbage, because it was the only job he could find, since he could not get in a union. My mother became a housekeeper, because all the certifications required to work in daycare were too lenghty and costed money we didn't have. We never had any kind of government help, be it welfare or anything else. We worked hard, plain and simple.
I went to college, worked 70+ hours/week to pay for my own tuition, since I was not a member of a 'minority' (I'm white) and I didn't qualify for federal aid (or so they said).
Now, several years later, I make 6 figures. I have my own house, a couple of cars, my parents are doing a lot better, and my siblings are also rather well off. We didn't take hand-me-downs from anyone, we got no subsidies, no help, no nothing. We couldn't get anything, and we never took anything from anyone.
Now, explain to me.... if we could do it, why can't someone that was born here and has all kinds of oportunities do much better than me? Why should I be taxed more because I make more when the people that can't do it feel they have the right to be at the same level as me? This may sound pretty bad, but if I am better than others, I deserve to do better than them. Sorry, but having some asshole with political ambitions suggest that I should get taxed more than what I already am to support some unwashed welfare-leeching gang of hoodlums is not my idea of fairness. Have any of these so-called 'candidates' given their money away to the people that are 'in more need' than them?
Sorry. I believe that anyone can achieve anything, provided they have the will and the desire to do so. I am living proof of that. If someone feels they have the right to do as good as others without any effort simply because they 'should' needs a good beating and a reality check.
Read any of Ayn Rand's books. Many of you may not agree with her views, but she had the right idea.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Bull right back at ya. A lot of the time, the apathy arises from 'Republicrats' -- the "majority" -- telling a voter who chooses an indie/third party candidate that he or she is "throwing away his or her vote". Personally, I get so sick of hearing that ridiculous statement that I could spit nails. I know from experience that many voters feel the same. Also, people shouldn't vote for Nader to "stick it to the man"; they should vote because he is the best candidate. Many of us are young, and we are the present/future. Don't vote for some Dumbo because his tie is perty, vote for him because you believe he will do the damn job right! We live in the Internet age;go to the damn website and look at the issues. (Amen haha)
When faced with a problem, many web developers say "I know, I'll use JavaScript!".
Now they have two problems.
Ok, for a group that loves to talk about intellectual property as much as this group, there are far too many who have no understanding of work, the economy and wealth.
Just because you don't weld a fender doesn't mean you don't contribute to productivity. The guy who designs the fender gets paid a lot more than the guy who welds it on because his contribution is worth a lot more to the company. The guy who put together the design team gets paid even more, because he is even more valuable to the company.
Just because I write custom code for a small company instead of digging ditches doesn't mean I am not building wealth. And no, what you are worth as a PERSON is not directly related to how much money you are paid. However, what you are worth to the company is directly related to what you are paid. So yes, a baseball player is worth more than a school teacher in that context, because he generates more revenue for the company than his salary. That's what we call capitalism. And if you still think that socialism/communism is the right way to organize a society, there are a couple of countries left that haven't collapsed under that insane form of government, and I'm sure they'd be happy to have your contributions as a citizen.
From each candidate what he can, to each candidate the vote he needs!
Presidential candidates of the world unite!
as a matter of fact, the U.S. economy is not the strongest one, though at the moment is it the largest single economy. however, it is largely build and run on credit, which means it only works as long as fresh cash flows in. In the past two years the Eurozone has invested more fresh cash into the US economy than the combines US economy has generated in turn-over. If the the US economy was a NADAQ listed company, then Clinton, Summers, etc. would be under investigation for Chapter 11 evasion. That much to that. The fact that the Dollar rules literally is mainly due to the fact that all major world commodities are traded in US dollars. That has nothing to do with strength or trust, it's just convenient. They picked the US dollar after WW2 and stuck to it - for convinience. They could have also picked the Polish Zloty, the Thai Baht or chewing gums, put picked the $. So, sorry, despite the hey' world we got a lack of culture but you are required to assimilate attitude, the US has only three distinct advantages: 1-- people from all over the world go there and take their investions with them, draining the brains out of other countries 2-- anyone that has a workable idea [or one that sounds like it] and seems to know slightly more than the rest of the place about something gets plenty of cash to give it a shot 3-- the US public is blissfully ignorant of the fact that the US is very much Corporate Europe's mercenary [after all, Europe needed Kuwait's oil... and Germany sold more arms to the Middle East than anyone else after the conflict]. So, to sum up, neither the American people, nor the lobby groups really 'make' politics in the U.S. The Fed and Media hype do. The Fed shut up, the media went nuts - the dotcom boom was born. European and Middle Eastern cash flowed and sustained the boom. Europeans and Middle eastern investors made a major killing, grabbed the profit and used it to buy a few more major chunks of the U.S. economy - the media said, that's it - presto: the downturn. In Pecunia Veritas
....he is pro-life. Now since when has abortion been an issue that is vital to the interests of the world at large? I don't know, but this is what many people have told me about why they are voting for Gore. Now, call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't people vote because they think someone's platform is open-minded and progressive, instead of picking out a few stupid valence issues and voting on those. Oh wait, that's right, we're in American Democracy, we only vote on appearance and stupid issues....sorry.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
WARNING: Humor that requires thought. Moderate with care.
/*Insert boring sig here*/
Felt DAMN good!
Finally I find someone else who sees another of our major issues: the majority's vote doesn't win an election. Dismantle the electoral college. Lots of things can change then, but one very important thing: no more news stories of "Bush is in XX state today to sway the swing votes in his direction." Candidates don't just travel the country to spread what they believe in. They go to states where they don't get enough votes and spew their rhetoric over and over again. Do you know that most of the time they repeat the same exact speach hundreds of times? The concept of the electoral college is completely against our democracy.
Developers: We can use your help.
Two:
Three:Four:
I am not writing to judge others or their actions. Forgiveness is ever present. I am just trying to let others know that there are alternatives. Finally, I don't think it should be such a political issue. It IS by it's nature a moral issue. Let's get it out of politics, and leave it in the hospitals, and with individuals.
sane_one@wowmail.com
What will be the value of your life in the end, the glorious end.
Peace.
What will be the value of your life in the end, the glorious end.
A tumor will never be able to Think.
A tumor will never know it is a tumor.
A tumor doesn't have a vascular system.
Who's DNA are you made of? Your DNA is unique to you.
Besides, I never said a woman didn't have a choice, she has two: The right one, and the wrong one. Also, I don't think she should be imprisoned or tried for making the wrong decision.
Thanks for the math, at any rate:-)
Peace be with you.
What will be the value of your life in the end, the glorious end.
Shift in-to tur-bo! go....tur...bo! Power Ranger's Turbo!
I also am sickened by the US process of election, and as soon as my robot army is fully functional, changes may occur. Until then, we must rely upon the (our?) current system. Ive never have been a strong supporter of the "majority," although Im glad that others share my apathy. Its kind of like a cult, or religion that we belong to. However, any time the "majority" is used within an argumentative premise, I am immediately angered. So bite me Michael Moore, Im voting on Tuesday.
Right.
:)
Speaking of all the election hype, I feel compelled to throw in my $0.02 on the upcoming elections for us neighbors in Canada..
Since I'm generally (by choice) uninformed about American politics, I only take interest in the subject purely for entertainment value.
Equally entertaining is that of Canadian politics, which from my personal observation, us Canadians take more of a humouristic look..
The next Federal Election is Nov 27, 2000, and our candidates have given us a few more boxes on the ballot to check (or spoil)
So, for those Slashdotters interested, here's some nifty links I've come across for some more comic relief
Elections Canada
Some Logos
Parties
Liberal Party
PC Party
NDP
Canadian Alliance
Marijuana Party
Bloc Quebecois
Government of Canada
Here, here. I agree.
Kets use an example I know about, Eastman Kodak. This is a very very large company, worth millions and millions. However, I'm willing to bet they pay very few taxes? Why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY!!! You can't evaluate a company on its assets, rather, you must view its productivity. Taxing Kodak would only cause the company to lose more money, and with less availible capital, layoff more workers, each worker laid off now not contributuing part of his income in taxes, thereby decreaesing overall revenue. Taxing industry at higher rates doesn't help us any. It hurts those companies which are making money, lowers their profit thresholds, and therefore, all though the tax percent is higher, the gross revenue generated in much lower.
The "surplus" is a lie propagated by the Democrats and the Republicans; there is no surplus. Currently, the social security system takes in more than it pays out. The politicians put this money into the general budget and say "Look Bubba, we have some extra money to spend!"
That being said, I agree with your assessment of tax fairness. The thing that really frightens me about Gore and other Democrats is that they keep saying that Bush's plan "spends" money on tax cuts. Giving money back to the people who paid it isn't an expense. If I give my brother $5 to buy an ice cream cone that costs $1.50, giving me back the $3.50 in change isn't spending it.
Where's Pat? I want a pro-gun, pro-life, pro flat-tax, pro-throw-the-switch-on-convicted-murderers, pro small-federal-government candidate that will get in office and kick some ass. Third parties are the cornerstone of democracy. All we need to do is get rid of the electoral college and we might have a half-decent system!
I live in the UK and this country is sufferring from global warming. One year of almost constant rain, hurricanes, flooding, transport almost at a standstill. I agree that there should be a tax on the polluters, but not indiscrimately. Here we have a very high tax on fuel, to encourage people to use a public transport system that is expensive, unreliable, unavailable in most areas, and downright dangerous because everything is now owned by giant commercial conglomerates that have put profits above safety, causing a number of rail disasters due to poor maintenance. Most people in Britain drive small, efficient cars. Only the wealthiest can afford to drive a gas guzzler that would be called a compact car in the US.
Tax the companies that cause most of the pollution, certainly. They can reduce share dividends slightly in order to pay for more eco-friendly solutions. But don't tax ordinary people who need transportation to survive. Maybe it would be a good idea to ban all automobiles over 2 litres engine capacity, with tax breaks for under 1,2 litres (cc).
Why voting for GORE is like using a MICROSOFT operating system.
Gore: increases government spending
MS: increases use of cpu, ram, disk:
Gore: puts the surplus to work
MS: fills any surplus space on your hard disk
Gore: military?
MS: security?
Gore: invented the internet
MS: invented operating systems and graphical user interfaces
Gore: knows better than you how to run your life
MS: knows better than you how to run your computer
Allan Keyes all the way!
If you do not vote do not complain about the outcome you have no right.
PRESS RELEASE
31-Oct-2000
Former Vice-President Dan Quayle was today hired by Andover.net to provide spellchecking services to the popular tech news site Slashdot.org.
In his first proofreading action, Quayle mistakenly spelled Ralph Nader's last name "Neder". Jon Katz is currently hard at work analyzing if this is a Republican conspiracy.
~jef
No, it just means a large portion of /. readers aren't in the US. While you are probably right that only a minority will vote, it just doesn't follow from a large turnout of non-citizens in a /. poll.
/.ers who CAN vote in the US, most of us WILL vote. I'm far less optimistic about the rest of the country.
Looking at the fact that, as of this writing, even Nader beats out "Voting is a waste of time", I can at least hope that of the
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Just because I thought it would be interesting to try, I decided to keep track of some of the variables in this poll. I only tracked five of the possibilities, so this could be off, but I think it shows that Bush supporters are linking to this site and having their supporters tip the poll.
Some snapshots since the poll went up:
1667 total votes (excluding too young, waste of time, not citizen)
27% (457) for Bush
31% (520) for Gore
23% (389) for Nader
12% (213) for Browne
5% (88) for Jeff (none of the above, undecided?)
---
8024 total
27% (2206) for Bush
31% (2503) for Gore
24% (1888) for Nader
13% (1021) for Browne
5% (406) for Jeff
---
12654 total
28% (3595) for Bush
31% (3880) for Gore
23% (2969) for Nader
12% (1537) for Browne
5% (653) for Jeff
---
24048 total
29% (7023) for Bush
31% (7346) for Gore
23% (5441) for Nader
12% (2932) for Browne
5% (1306) for Jeff
---
38270 total
31% (11993) for Bush
30% (11563) for Gore
22% (8359) for Nader
12% (4474) for Browne
5% (1881) for Jeff
Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe the early polls that are not likely influenced by ballot-stuffers. Since things began, Nader went up one point, back down a point, and has appeared to go down one more point. Gore has only gone down by one point. Browne broke 13% at one point, but then came back down. Jeff (which I'm taking to mean undecided or other) has remained steady. If we attempt to adjust for ballot-stuffing on the part of Bush, some interesting values may come up. I wouldn't be surprised if supporters of any of the other candidates have moved numbers around as well..
--
Yes he can. But, he was in Chicago this morning, in Madison by midday, in Milwaukee this afternoon. Tomorrow noon he is in Seattle, and in Denver at night, to depart for LA for the next day.
What is he doing all over the country? Talking to people, and answering questions. If you go to one of his events you might be able to ask him your question. Nobody will screen you or anything-- you can just go up to the mic and ask him.
I went to one of his events last week, so I saw this first hand.
Browne is great at rousing the converts (and getting their cash) but his message is way, way too radical for the masses. He has also been consistently less than truthful, and part of a clique that has lead the national party down a failing path.
I desperately want the L party to succeed and become a major player. In fact, in 1996 I ran my wife's campaign for a state level office and we were in the top 5 nationwide in Libertarian vote-getters that year. But Browne and his lot are poison to the party, and I hope their failure acts as a reverse mandate, bringing about change in the party leadership.
--
What mother would ever sacrifice her child to save herself?
Er, I think in the majority of these cases, when the mother dies, so does her unborn child. So the question might be better worded as: What mother would refuse to allow the doctor to save her life?
Besides, even if the child can be saved, it will be born motherless (perhaps even parentless if the father is dead/gone). Certainly we already have plenly of orphans in the world (just ask around in the Balkans). Besides, as cold as it sounds, the mother can have another child later after recovering from having to sacrafice her unborn child to save herself.
Finally, isn't it a sin to commit suicide? Isn't this what the mother does when she doesn't get an abortion when the growing child will kill both of them?
Gak, I can't believe I replied on this thread!
I read the internet for the articles.
While I agree that Nader would most likely not actually win an election, I do think that if given a fair chance he would pull in closer to 10-20% of the vote, rather than the 4-5% he's polling now. Things such as shutting him out of debates, the media ignoring his rallies (which are often bigger than Bush's or Gore's), and his refusal to take soft money donations do hurt him significantly.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Except that it's not pro-choice legislation that's the issue - that wouldn't pass in the first place. It's pro-life legislation that did pass with a majority vote but was then struck down by the Supreme Court.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The fact of the matter is that government enforcement of property rights benefits those who have more property, more than it benefits those who do not have property. Which is as it should be, since the whole goal is to increase the wealth of the nation, and the wealth of the nation is increased by people increasing the amount wealth (property) that they own and/or produce. So yes, the wealthy *DO* benefit more from government. If armed thugs took all my property, I'd shrug and buy a new futon and laptop and be back up and running the next day. If armed thugs seized the Microsoft campus, billions of dollars of wealth would disappear.
TO summarize:
Government protection of property benefits the wealthy more than it benefits the poor.
Thus the wealthy should pay a percentage of their property to the government as proper recompense for that fact, since yes, they ARE receiving more services there than the poor receive.
Simple, eh?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I don't think we need to tax "sprawl", but I do think it's reasonable to expect people to pay their fair share of the road to their front door. My area of town has had paved roads for over 70 years. Why should I pay to widen the road to Yuppie Hideaway Grande Mesa Estates? I'm not ever going there (I don't associate with people who would buy a Ford Valdez). Let the freeloading scum pay for their own bleepin' roads!
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The very wealthy aren't under-represented. They're the ones getting the tax breaks meant just for them. The merely well-off (like the coder making $90-120) are the ones who're getting taken for a ride and don't have the access to do anything about it.
There's not just "rich" and "poor" -- there's strata inbetween, some of which are quite important.
Oh, btw -- I'm voting for Browne.
If the bank didn't have the rich guy's money to lend to the poor guy, then the bank would either not make the loan available or charge higher interest.
And unless the poor guy gets the loan to buy the car, the other poor guy who works for the dealership and is trying to get a raise is out of luck.
If the interest is a Bad Thing, that's fine -- the poor guy has the ability not to take the loan. Are you saying it's better he never gets the chance in the first place? He might need the car to drive to a new job.
So the poor guy is making more money because the company he's working for is making money selling things to other poor guys who've taken loans out made possible by rich guys investing their money... see also people hired thanks to business loans, etc.
No, my relatives are not my responsability. They are their own responsabilities.
You are not my responsability, however much you would like to make it so. Nor is anyone else.
If you fuck up your life, I have no responsability to give you a loan. If you're starving, that's your own damn fault -- and I mean it, it is.
I don't deserve your money, and you sure as hell don't deserve mine. Money is EARNED, and it is only by this right that one may become rich and maintain his personal honor.
My father came from a family of ten, living off a single living wage. He worked his way through college and became a succesful manager. One of my best friends is a corporate lawyer from a family of immigrants, the first person in his family to ever go to college. A month ago I sold my old computer to a fellow from Burma -- the first such machine he's ever owned. Since then he's stayed up nights teaching himself Python and Java. My point? A determined individual can make his way in this world starting from nothing. I hope that five years from now that man makes twice what I do; he deserves it.
The people who work for their money -- who go out there and bust their butts -- are the people who make this country succesful. Those who expect that they'll be GIVEN anything unearned are those who have nothing and deserve every bit. As for those who inherit wealth -- sorry, I don't like it either, but what can one do without infringing on men's freedoms to spend as they see fit?
The man who starves on the street because he was unable to hold a job, because he refused to learn a trade, because he dropped out of high school to goof off, gets no sympathy from me. He deserves none.
You may call this heartless and cruel. You're absolutely right. Hovever, a society would be far healthier after 200 years of cruelty -- simple Darwinism shows this out.
Anything a man earns -- anything he has because someone agreed to give it to him, because he gave them something else of value in exchange -- he deserves. Anything which does not meet this standard he does not. Do you see anything wrong with this?
I went through college without ever taking out a government loan, though it meant riding my bike across town to buy powdered milk. If you're too lazy to do that -- if you want to have my cash to live your lifestyle -- fuck you. If you can't produce anything worthwhile and so can't get a job -- well fuck you then too. If you've made commitments you can't fulfill -- had a family before finding means to support them -- then that's your own damn mistake, and if there's no safety net people will be a little more careful before making it, no?
And one last thing. If you want to contest this, you do it on my terms. Don't tell me that I'm heartless and cruel -- I know I am, and I think everyone needs to be moreso. Tell me why your society is better, and remember one last thing:
I come from a tiny oilfield town. I saw people dependant on welfare, people who tried to take rather than earning not only as a stopgap but as a lifestyle, families who bore more children just to have more welfare benefits. Not just a few of them, a lot of them. Worse than making these people dependant, it made them soft. They lost their drive, their will -- the very thing that motivates those who truly work hard. Knowing that there's a safety net there reduces motivation to produce, and it's in this production that all good lies.
Charity is evil and wrong. It promotes the welfare of the undeserving. My morality lies in producing -- doing good -- and being rewarded for it. Reward without production is wrong; production without reward is every bit as much so.
Now tell me why I'm wrong.
There's a simple solution.
If the prevailing wage isn't enough in your area to feed you, then MOVE. The companies where you live will either start paying more to retain workers, or go out of business in favor of those that can pay enough to keep people present.
As for scholarships, they're given in return for a service -- increasing the available labor pool in your field. If they were given simply out of the goodness of the giver's heart, that's when I'd call it wrong. I've recieved grant money which helped out during my education, but worked for it (doing some research into secure physical tokens to replace credit cards, helping a prof w/ a neural network program, etc). I also chose a university in an area with a very low cost of living (Chico, CA, US).
And btw, I understand volunteerism. I've spent a large number of hours assisting the library back in that little oilfield town. I didn't do this out of the goodness of my heart; I did it because they were providing a service to me, and I wished that this service continue to be available (even with folks helping out, they've been forced to cut back their hours severely). And btw, while I hold that those who work make the country successful, I don't claim that volunteers are without benefit. I *do* claim that we'd be better off having both no volunteers and no people who take unfair advantage of charity than being in our current state today.
I may have an advantage in terms of training and education -- but that doesn't give me the ability to get any job I like.
When I decide to laze off and watch Law & Order in the evenings, my friend Gun (who bought my junker -- a machine most folks would throw away -- to teach hemself to program) is staying up all night learning Python -- or maybe he's on to C now. If you claim that I've still got some unfair disadvantage which will give me the job we both want -- nuh-uh. Two years from now, I honestly expect him to not only be a better programmer than I, but to be able to prove that to the satisfaction of any employer.
Now, would I (as the kid from the rich family with the education) put that much time into my work? Not really. Would I be willing to give up my evenings and sleep only in what would otherwise be my free time? Nope.
Is Gun more deserving of a good job than me? Yes. Will he get it? Yes. The system works.
The question, then, is this: If I were born to a poorer family, would I turn out like Gun, and so earn the position I enjoy today? Quite possibly not. Is it fair that Duff-born-to-a-sorta-rich-family turns into a fairly succesful guy while Duff-born-to-a-poor-family doesn't? Not really. But if Duff-born-to-a-poor-family were half as driven and resourceful as Gun (or Emmanuel Campos, another friend of mine who did the bootstraps thing), then he'd not only be deserving of his current position, but he'd make it.
So the only real question is the mediocre people. The really good people make it no matter what. The really lazy folks lose it even if they're born with it. So what of the folks in the middle? Simply put, they have the ability to turn themselves into the really good people. All Gun needed to start his way on to becoming a programmer was $200 and some friends willing to loan him books. Any average joe from a poor family -- given that he has the ability to read and think critically -- can do the same. But what makes the good people different from the mediocre people? Simply put, drive. Will. And if some mediocre guy can't put together the drive to pull himself up (because he's content with his lot or is simply unwilling to work hard), leave him there.
People are -- as a basic right -- entitled to be free. I think we can all agree that making people work for their freedom is wrong.
People are not entitled to be rich. Can you really see anything wrong with making people work for their money?
After all, people have to have something to work towards; this work ethic is what makes them succesful and society productive. Giving everyone a middle-class life (were it possible) and having an upper-class life as the goal achieved by those of extrordinary productivity doesn't work for a lot of people -- myself included; I'd far rather make $40K, work few hours and live in a small town than make $90K and sleep in my cube.
As I read it, he's simply making the (entirely valid) point that trying to force an economy to play the way you like it Just Doesn't Work.
Redistribution of wealth is bad. Forcing a minimum wage (with the expectation that it will improve poor people's buying power) is bad.
And to chew a bit more on the meat of his point...
Okay. I'm some rich guy. I can do one of two things with my money. I can save it, or I can spend it.
If I invest my money in a bank, and the bank loans it out to some poor guy trying to buy a car, and the dealer spends it on his employees and on the purchase of the car, and the car company spends it on their employees, labor, and also part on making some other rich guy richer (who will then either save it, starting the same cycle as my money did, or spend it and stimulate the economy just as much), then EVERYBODY WINS.
The rich guys win, the guy buying the car wins, the dealer's employees win, the car company's employees and suppliers win. All because of some rich guy who decided to put his money in a bank. Do you really think you'd rather have the government take this money and throw it at some defense project, or building a dam because some senator agreed to support a bill in return, or otherwise doing something much more specious in nature?
It's because of this that the money supply isn't fixed. Because I have more money sitting in a bank doesn't mean you can't afford that car -- rather, it means that you have an easier time getting the loan, that your employer can better afford to give you a raise, etc. Stop thinking of money in terms of "the more he has, the less I have". Realize that greed and selfishness -- which you're never going to get rid of -- can be directed towards the common good, and that this is the only way to overcome their destructive effects.
Some of us actually believe that people's actions have effects, which these people are then responsible. We believe that these effects -- or the lack thereof -- are due to the decisions causing the actions. In short, we believe in personal responsability.
I have no responsability to you.
You have no responsability to me.
The responsability of government is to enforce contracts and prevent people from harming one another. Nothing more -- not even to prevent people from harming themselves.
The government's place is not to do whatever tinkering is needed to make society work, but rather to keep its hands of and let society do its thing.
I do not claim that the federal government is greedy; just that it tries to do too much, including things which could be more efficiently done at the state level.
As for government protection of rights, I have no right to be wealthy. I have the right to pursue wealth. Nor have I any right to food or shelter -- but I have a right to gain them through my work.
As for not using government benefits, I don't. I rode my bike across town to buy powdered milk from Food4Less in college rather than take government loans. In the time between when I was kicked out of my apartment and when I found a new place to stay, I lived with -- and played the piano for -- an elderly woman who appreciated my company rather than turning to the government-funded homeless shelters. I still have my ideals -- indeed, they're made stronger by the certain knowledge that a dedicated individual, even in hard times, can and should survive without government handouts.
This is a solid argument for a true flat tax. The cost of government services which benefit all citizens equally should be divided by the number of citizens, and each one should be required to pay that amount. If one considers only the legitimate constitutional tasks of the federal government, I would estimate that amount at about $1200 a year (about 240 billion divided by 200 million Americans 16 or older), which is less than or equal to what any working citizen currently pays in federal taxes (consider: the (unconstitutional) minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, which is about 10,000 a year. Social security + medicare cost 7.45% - times 2 because the "employer contribution" really comes out of employee pay - which is $1490. 15% tax on 10,000-745-7,200=$203. The total tax is thus approximately $1693. So even a minimum wage worker would find himself paying less in taxes than he already does.) Of course, this type of plan only works if the federal government is restricted to its constitutional roles, and does not engage in income redistribution as it currently does (illegally).
What about services that do not benefit everyone equally? Use taxes are clearly the answer. Project the amount of expected use and the expected cost of maintaining or providing the service, divide (2) by (1), and charge users that amount per use of the service. The obvious example is toll roads. If it costs (warning: complete fabrication) $10,000 per lane-mile to maintain a freeway for 1 year, and you have 100,000 miles of 4-lane freeway, the total cost of maintenance will probably be about $4 billion. If you expect that Americans will drive 100 billion freeway miles a year, then clearly you should charge about $.04 per mile. Setting up silent full-speed electronic toll-booths every exit or two with prepaid untraceable toll markers would allow for privacy, excellent cost analysis and data collection, and of course, recovery of costs in proportion to use. In this way, you also avoid unfairly charging non-drivers directly for freeway use. Of course, they will still pay indirectly for their use of goods and services transported by road. This type of system provides maximum fairness by allowing consumers to decide for themselves how best to use government services, and at the same time gives government officials a good indication of what level of services are needed - if relatively less revenue is collected, the demand for that service is low. If more revenue is collected, that signals a need for expansion - and, conveniently enough, also provides the necessary funding for that expansion. The free market works, if we let it.
All of the same arguments apply at the state level. In this vision of government, most services are provided (or not) by the states. This gives citizens in different geographical areas with different needs the ability to choose and pay for as much or as little government as they need, as well as to decide who should pay for it. For example, citizens of Nevada might prefer a small, weak government providing few services and collecting few taxes, with the tax load placed mainly on visiting tourists. Citizens of Oregon, however, might prefer a larger, Nader-style government, monitoring and taxing a wide array of activites, and actively seeking to redistribute income. These two styles of government are very different, but there is no reason both groups of citizens ought not be permitted to enjoy their desired forms of government. This is why the federal system was devised in the first place, so that each state might have great freedom to compete for the finest citizens. That system is a joke today. States have virtually no rights to levy taxes nor to choose the size and scope of their governments, because the federal tax burden is so great that states cannot tax their citizens adequately to provide services, and states whose citizens do not want large governments are nevertheless compelled to pay for them. The system is broken, and I doubt it will be fixed without violence. One can only hope that the many men and women who buy the freedom of the next generations with their lives will be better remembered by their decendents than we remember those who created the system we abuse today.
I find it hard to believe that someone writing such a cold statement would ever consider the slightest of giving to charity.
Understand that charity is not for your well-being, but others, as it seems you have this confused.
Your relatives should be a responsibility to take care of, not 'charity'. The fact that you feel that others who didn't step on the right combination of stones or have the right parents in teh right law firm when they were born should be denied medical attention because they 'may not deserve' the entitlement is a sad reflection of our selfish society.
I would really like to know who 'doesn't deserve' some form of welfare system for unfortnate situations. I want reform of our system, I agree that welfare does give a lot of money to people who don't deserve it, but that is not a good reason to throw it away.
I find it hilarious how so many people think that so many other people 'don't deserve' things, when in reality probably at least 30-40% of them are talking about each other.
...is a vote for civil war.
--
Incorrect. This is a Republic, assuming you're talking about the U.S.
I would be more judicious in your use of the term "moron."
--
Votes are cast in seceret. I know who I'm voteing for (Howard Phillups, though I might go to browne at that last minute)
Lets assume for the sake of discussion I'm voting for Bush. I can still sign up as a nader supporer, and promise to vote for Gore in my state (which is contested). Then I go to the polls, seceretly vote for Bush, yet tell everyone I voted for Gore. Nobody knows that I got two votes for bush in, one in my state, and one as a vote for nader giving a possibility that Bush could win anouther state that previously he had no chance in.
Chrismas is a pagan celibration of [The shortest day of the year]. It has, and never has had anything to do with Jesus, other then a few hipacrats in various churches who were unwilling to give up their old beliefs after admiting christianity is the right religion.
To this day many perpetuate the myth that Jesus was born in december (we don't know when, but december is very unlikey), in order to continue their old celebration under a new name. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. You could die the fur of a skunk, but it would still be a skunk. Christians do not celebrate christmas, pseudo christians celebrate christmas.
I can't be the only one who is going to vote for someone not listed. While normally I agree that you can't cover all options, they could have at least had an option "Someone else". Sure those like me amount to only a small amount, but you can't count on use as either Nader or Browne voters if we vote.
OTOH, you are rihgt, everyone's vote counts, if they use it. My canidate won't win, but his goal never was to win, it always was to send a message to his former party that they are not representing him, and the more who vote for him the stronger that message is.
Admittedly these don't cover certain questions. But I don't think that necessarily implies he simply doesn't care about them.
Maybe you were just being crudely sarcastic... is there going to be a crisis on the middle east and Nader goes "well, it's not what I'm all about so I won't deal with it" or "well, it doesn't have to do with giving people a tax cut, so it must not be worth my time"?
I can imagine Bush saying this, but Nader seems to be serious and thorough about nearly everything he does (to a fault, even). And his parents are from Lebanon, so he's unlikely to apathetic on the Middle East.
I'd love to know where you came up with those numbers. Care to provide a reference? Also, it would be quite beneficial to know much of the money in the country that 1% controls. That would have a direct impact on how much you can tax various segments of the public. As another poster pointed out, once some small portion of the population controls a very large percentage of the wealth, the tax system is in trouble due to thinking such as yours.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are.
It doesn't necessarily mean that, but that doesn't mean it's not true a lot more often than not. Between corporate welfare and lobbying and the destruction that is done in the name of capitalism, I think there were plenty of people stepped on for the majority of the incredibly rich to get that way.
The judicial system is quite often very unfair to those with little money, and beneficial to those with a lot of money. I don't see the rich doing anything to change that. They know they have a lot of advantages over others. Kinda sick to see them bitch and moan about paying a few percent in taxes.
The trend is well established. The rich are getting richer. This keeps up and we'll be no different than any of the third world countries we bomb every so often where there is a tiny ruling class that controls 90+% of the wealth.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This argument reminds me of the middle east peace talks.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Turns out Ford underinflated the tires at the factory by almost 50% of the Firestone recommended PSI (20 vs. 35). Non-Firestone tires haven't fixed the issue unless they are properly inflated, and those same Firestone tires have no issues on other vehicles when inflated to the correct pressure.
Just a bit of a correction.
--
Ben Kosse
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Holding a stock for 2 days is a long-term commitment compared to 1 day.
It used to be that holding a stock for 30 years was considered a long-term commitment. Now they're allowed to speculate on it for a mere 12 months.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The robber baron's cuelty may sometimes sleep?
Ask Gates when he's going to sleep. He's already the richest man in the world, no sign of nodding off yet.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Pollution is for people who can't afford air conditioning to worry about.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Abortion doesn't matter.
In 50 years, when global warming really takes hold, it won't matter who was aborted and who wasn't. All that will matter is air conditioning, and a place to plug it in.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
People who are voting for Nader aren't voting for THIS election, they're worried about the next election.
We realize that THIS election is already a complete waste of time.
You think either Bush OR Gore will do diddly squat for the environment? Look at BOTH of their records. I personally believe that even if Nader were elected, we'd have such an intransigent congress, that he wouldn't get anything done either. In other words, environmentally, we're doomed.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes, the rich use roads, and defense systems, and many other Government services more than the poor.
For example, Joe Streetperson; will it impact his life significantly if we go to war in Iraq to keep oil below $30/bbl.? Joe Streetperson doesn't have a car, or a heater, does not consume electricity.
Or will it benefit George Oildaddy and his overseas investments and resources?
Will it be a tremendous burden on Joe Streetperson if the street he's sleeping on has an extra pothole or two? Or will it benefit George Oildaddy if that shiny new interstate were constructed so his company's trucks can keep haulin' product?
Does it benefit Joe Streetperson if the president works hard to negotiate an international agreement that allows copyright holders to hold those copyrights for eternity? Or does it make life easier for George Oildaddy so he doesn't have to work anymore to keep his Ferrari collection maintained?
How fair is it when Joe Streetperson gets swept up and drafted (or economically pressured) into the military to fight a war to protect George Oildaddy's interests overseas? George Oildaddy's all for that kind of thing, except when he scammed his way into the Air National Guard using his family contacts so he didn't have to go to 'nam. Yes, Al Gore didn't see combat either, but at least he signed up and went overseas.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
come on, Bush isn't so bad. Once you get over the taste. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What is "honest labor"?
Anyone who makes less than $100,000/yr.
Who is taxed for sprawl?
Ultimately, the homeowner, because the developer, builder, or officials would view any tax as a cost of doing business, and pass it on to the customer, just like any other cost.
Who is taxed for pollution?
Again, YOU. Tax the manufacturers, and they simply pass on that cost to you. Why are SUV's so popular? Because they are exempt from this tax, and are therefore, dollar-for-horsepower, cheaper than your typical muscle car, which is socked with the gas-guzzler tax. The SUV is exempt through the commercial trucking loophole.
There is NO way that you can take a real estate developer, or car manufacturer, and force them to manipulate their books so that they actually pay these taxes. What can you do, tell them what they can charge for cars based on the cost? Dictate how much executives make (which is probably where the lion's share of corporate profits go)?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Personally, I'm 100% convinced that successful traders don't "figure it out".
I've watched stocks. I've carefully monitored news, earnings reports, economic reports, and I've seen some stocks, in some cases, fluctuate significantly without rhyme or reason. Even my own company's stock behaves this way. Often I'll see huge jumps or dips, not knowing why. I'm informed. Well informed. Then, a day or so later, I'll hear some scuttlebutt about sales figures or a strategic partnership. Clearly, someone better informed than I is selling or buying huge chunks of stock based on this information. Someone better informed than I, and I am considered an "insider", therefore, under legal limits not to trade my company's stock - especially within the blackout periods (where I see this activity happening most frequently), someone "outside" of the definition, not in possession of material information, has made decisions on buying and selling, and made huge amounts of money based on this - yet those lucky bastards, they guessed that the stock would go up or down.
Either that, or insider trading is hugely widespread, and unenforced.
These people aren't speculating, they're breaking the law and getting away with it. The SEC is a joke. And so is the notion that those poor, poor stock speculators are taking so much risk.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Taxing pollution won't stop pollution. It will just make it so that small businesses can't afford to pollute, while large businesses will weigh the cost of staying clean versus the fine, and pass either on to the consumer.
Pollution should be a criminal offense, and the people who make the decisions to pollute should go to jail and get buttfucked.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
One man's pollution is another man's "business process".
You're saying you'd paralize the economy and let big brother run my business?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
>Because the US charges a lot more when you don't live in the US. Also, having a corporation outside the US would increase tarriffs.
To elaborate - there is effectively no such thing as a tax haven for US citizens - US citizens have to pay US taxes even if they are not resident in the US - I think the US is the only major country to do this.
One country benefiting from this is Ireland (which has low income taxes.) Many wealthy US citizens of Irish descent are claiming Irish citizenship, renouncing their US citizenship and retiring to Ireland - taking their money with them.
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Huh? Don't we build roads we do like and not those we don't like? Don't we bomb counries we don't like and not those we do? Don't we criminalize things we don't like and not those we do? What counry are you living in?
No Reply....
That say something.......
The nearest community college? 40 miles. The nearest real college? 55 miles. To slap such communities with a $5/gallon gas tax would totally destroy them (they're already in trouble).
On the other hand, it would probably be good for communities such as Hampton Roads (the cities of Hampton, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Newport News, Virginia Beach, (and so forth) Virginia, that are all right together) where I live now: it would force them to develop infrastructure allowing people not to drive. I won't even talk about how much good it would do in Northern Virginia. Suffice it to say that I go up there every other week to my employer (UUNet) and when I leave it takes me two hours to go 30 miles because the traffic is so bad.
So what's the plan? Scale the tax to the size of the urban area. CALL it a pollution tax, and scale it to the pollution content of the air. That way, rural areas would hardly get hit at all, and the urban areas (who cause most of smog anyway because a car sitting in traffic has the lowest theoretically possible gas mileag: 0 miles/gallon) would get nailed.
Sounds fair to me.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Do you not see a problem with that?
My main point is that *none* of the candidates advocate a Christian position. They all suck -- so we should pick the one who sucks least.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
The issue is this: if the Green party candidate gets 5%, then they get matching funds. Since they are not, for the most part, built on an ego like United We Stand was, they might actually become viable.
Besides, what good is saving the unborn children if they're going to get killed by the drinking water?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Of course, if you don't mind giving up the artificially low food prices created by USDA subsidies, then we could pass on the real expense of growing food to you and farmers could actually make some money.
But don't be surprised if food becomes one of your single biggest expenses, like it is for many Europeans.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
If you look at our current tax structure, taking into account sales/property/income/excise taxes, we tax the poor, not the rich. In Washington state, the poorest 20% of the population pays 17% of their income in ALL taxes (federal, state, local). The highest 20% pays 3%.
That's a lie. If you consider ALL taxes (federal, state, and local) the highest 20% pays between 50%-60%. Tell me how this is fair?
----------
Hrmmm? And the Republicans aren't doing this? It's hard to listen to a George W. speech (or Buchanan for that matter) without them harping about "judges legislating from the bench." (ie, making decisions that they disagree with) The Supreme Court seems equally exploited by both sides.
Agreed.
The "stock market" (selling shares) was initially designed to fund long sea voyages. The investors would help with the big up-front chunk of cash necessary to buy and stock a boat and hire a crew. Their reward was a cut of the profits made on whatever the ship brought home. Everyone benefits. Great system.
Using the same analogy, speculation is then taking advantage of this system by buying a share of the voyage, not because you want the return, but because you think its value will go up and you can turn around and resell it. Speculation adds absolutely nothing to the equation.
I look at it this way: If the legitimate market is usenet, then speculation is $$$$MAKE$$$$MONEY$$$$FAST!!$$$$
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Ah, yes, and we should censor things we don't like. The problem with both of these, Ralph, is that who is the "we" that gets to decide what is taxed heavier, or what is censored? Should porn be taxed heavily? After all, many believes it degrades man's view of women. Should we impose a hefty Internet usage tax? After all, we all know that whole Columbine thing was due, in large part, to the Internet. Personally, I'd like to put a tax on people like you, Ralph, people who think it is their business to restrict the freedoms of others.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
If any country in the world rigged the electoral and debate system to lock out all except two centrist candidates, we'd slap embargos on them and call the election fraudulent.
As much as I like Nader and Brown dislike Buchanan, a country THIS BIG can afford to put more people on the stage to hear what they have to say. When the primary elections were so fragmented, Gore and Bush did not mind 4 way debates, but once past that stage they rig the main election to parties that got 25% of the vote in last election (jesus why not be more obvious and make it 49%??)
If this really WERE two candidates, I might vote for the lesser evil of Gore, but there's Nader and Browne to consier. If Green or Libertarian party only got ~5% last time, maybe I can help them to get 6%.
If the 2 party system won't reform itself from within, somehow, someway it will be reformed from without.
A government for the people, by the people... sounds pretty radical today doesn't it?
And if Gore loses because of Nader, tough shit -- you should remember who your friends are.
---
That means that for the first time since well...as far back as my memory goes, we will have a SERIOUS 3rd-party candidate in the running.
---
Your memory needs improving. Ross Perot - whatever you think of his politics - did pretty well. He didn't win, but he was definitely a non-trivial candidate.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
Unlike the collection of cells that I gather swiping a q-tip inside my cheek, however, a fetus can and will grow into a person unless forcibly prevented from doing so.
---
Interesting metric. Where does it stop?
The same could be said about semen. Is a man who 'pulls out' or uses a condom committing mass genocide of millions of potential humans?
How about a woman who has the gall to have a period every month? That was a potential human being as well.
The debate, when you get down to it, is when does a human become a human...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
That's not a counterexample. A luxury yacht is not a bad thing: its production and sale does not negatively affect anyone in society. Thus luxury taxes are unrelated to the issue of taxing things that are bad for society.
---
Neither is being rich. In many ways, it benefits society. And simply being rich does not mean that said rich-person stepped on a lot of people to get where they are. And yet, we have a completely unfair progressive tax system. Why?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
But the flat tax doesn't really change anything about those.
---
Sure it does. The tax system will be fair when it is either abolished (yeah, I'm a libertarian at heart), or comes down to this:
1. Enter earnings here: ____
2. Times above number by 15% (or whatever)
3. Pay that much.
And that's it. Make it so ridiculously simple that anyone and everyone can find out how much they owe, and pay it. It would be nearly rock solid, so loopholes are impossible to come by. Everyone saves money on accountants, and we can damn near get rid of the IRS (saving us all money).
Of course, this all assumes that such a flat tax would come with some serious cutting down of the tax system. Unless we can get rid of the loopholes, though, it by definition wouldn't be fair (just like our current system).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Which gives him two choices:
... Not only his family, but those who may not even deserve the entitlement.
1 - Contribute to the well being of his family members directly, making sure that they get the full benefit of the money he provides.
...or...
2 - Give his money to the government, which takes most of it, and hands out the leftover scraps to the rest
I think I know how best to spend my money in charity - better than the government, which is bloated, slow, and hardly a model of ethical behavior.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Why bother?
The whole exercise seems futile for a third party, except perhaps to secure federal funding for the next go-round. (Not that the money is a panacea; the Reform Party has been effectively killed off despite having a war-chest.) So.. why not concentrate on Congress instead?
Yes, you'd have the same "throw your vote away" criticism in a congressional race, but let's face it: the legislature is where power really resides in an official sense. Sure, the Prez can use a "bully pulpit" and propose legislation, but in the end, Congressmen are the ones who do the work.
And who knows? We may actually have enough parties in Congress someday to require a coalition government -- which by default would represent the desires of the nation more closely than our "winner take most" legislative process.
So why aren't third parties concentrating on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue instead?
--
"O Lord, grant me the courage to change the things I can,
".sig,
Sorry, but voting requirements contradict this.
---
seumas.com
Voting is a waste of time: People have voted for it. The sweet irony.
On a different note, I may not be an official US citizen, but the US, if not somehwat tongue-in-cheek, claims to be the "leader of the free world". I'm a citizen of the free world (Canada). Why is it that I do not get to vote for our new leader?
Woz
However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die?
My take on it is this: if they haven't gone out of their way to put themselves in harms way, then I see no problem with the government helping those who can't afford insurance with their medical bills. It seems like the humane thing to do.
However, if some individual decides that he's going to intentionally risk his life (say, by choosing to start smoking cigarettes), then society should NOT be paying for his medical expenses, regardless of his ability to pay or lack thereof. If that person has so little regard for their own life and well-being that they were willing to risk it all for some reason (be it a buzz, or whatever), why the hell should we hold his life in any higher regard than he does? And why should we pay to save him from his own recklessness?
Should we spend 2 million dollars on an exotic treatment of lung cancer for man that in 75 years old, when we know the chance of it working is only 1 in 10 and even then his odds of surviving the next 6 months is slim? Or a similar amount on a crack baby that has no chance of surving the next 6 months? Probably not. On the other hand, there are cases where we can save a person's life at a "reasonable" cost of, say, 100k. If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
I'd rather spend the 2 million dollars to save a 75-year old who is a victim of misfortune, or a crack baby who is suffering through no fault of its own, than to spend a single dollar on some jerk who did it to themselves and now wants everyone else to pay the piper.
Don't get me wrong - I realize people make mistakes. And in the case where they realize this, and are willing to work to fix their mistakes (say, by enrolling in a quit-smoking program), I'm more than willing for us to help that person out with the program. But for those who simply aren't willing to take those steps, I think it'd be a waste of resources to pay their medical expenses, and better spent on people who realize the value of life.
Of course it's been going on for years. That doesn't make it right.
You mentioned porn being an unethical/unpleasent activity. What happens when someone desides that Philip Greenspun is a pornographer because of these photos (which I definately consider art) in the photo.net gallery? Don't give me the line that nobody would consider those porn. I know people who would be livid at them.
This isn't about vice. It isn't about taxation. It isn't even about the redistribution of wealth. It's about personal liberty... the freedom to be soverign of myself. The right to make decisions, and yes, even mistakes without coersion from the majority.
Liberty comes with a cost: responsibility. If a behaviour has a detrious effect on the commons, then that behaviour should be criminalized. The issue of drunken driving has come up as a reason to tax alcohol. But, drunk driving is already a crime, with fairly stiff penalties for violators as well as restitution provisions. Those who chose to violate that law should bear the full weight and responsibility of their actions, and not have their recklessness subsidised by those who chose to consume alcohol within the law.
The notion of spreading the responsibility for the criminal behaviour of some to those guiltless of crimes against the rights of others is an attempt to avoid direct consequences, and dilute accountability, of an individual act among everyone else.
When I destroy private or common property, I am violating the rights of others and that should be criminal. When I make a personal choice which doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, that should be a private decision not regulated or influenced by social engineers. But until I cross that line, I should be free to chose my own path, and responsible for my own missteps along the way.
From what I can see, Nader is about taking choice away from the rich autocracy and returning it to ordinary people.
Nader is about taking choice away from everybody and keeping it to himself.
The asshole wants to outlaw Doom, for Pete's sake.
-
No way!!! If we vote for Nader than all those famous Hollywood movie stars will have wasted their time and money campaigning long and hard for Vice-president Gore. If Americans vote their conscience and vote for Nader, then all of the hard work that Rob Reiner has contributed and all that cash will have been for nought.
Meathead deserves better than that!
Besides, we need Gore around to allow China into the WTO. Let him finish the work that he began as Bill Clinton's sidekick. We need strong, hardworking democrats in office to achieve the plan our corporate caretakers have in store for us.
A vote for Gore is a vote for yet another 4 years of Corporate goodwill. A vote for Gore is a vote for normal trade relations with one of the world's most egregious abusers of human rights, but at least Bush isn't in office, right?
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
There is a practical reason for the current law. In the event of a draft, people will look for ways to avoid being drafted, including a sudden attack of pacifism. That is why there were draft boards during the Vietnam War. They were supposed to separate the real conscientious objectors from the draft dodgers. The problem was that the children of the upper and middle classes dodged the draft by getting educational exemptions. They were a lot of people in college, grad school and divinity school for the main purpose of avoiding the draft.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Geez moderators, is this post really *informative* and worthy of being moderated up to a 3?
His intention might be to disincentivize "speculation", but it's right to question his intent, his methods, and the potentially devastating end result. That's exactly what I did. His merely arguing that we need to "disincentivize speculation" does not mean that any action that appears to address it should be done (much like many other issues). They are less than 15% of the market and that's with the broadest of definitions, not necessarily your "true" day trader. As I pointed out, day trading simply doesn't pay off. To be more exact, according to NASD 70% of public traders will not only lose, but will almost certainly lose everything they invest. Virtually no one wins, certainly not the amateurs (the professionals have a significant advantage on them). The problem will almost certainly largely correct itself. Those who don't are totally irrational, and an additional transaction cost is unlikely to dissuade them. In addition, most of the volatility isn't coming from traders that constantly churn, but rather from so-called investors that lack staying power and fundamental understanding of the markets. People like your next door neighboor that buy into some DotCom because he's told it's the next big thing. Since his plan isn't to churn, taxing trades isn't going to dissuade him. In other words, I question the very need. Second, while this problem may disappear, there are a number of well established, legitimate, and valuable functions on the market that will get hit by taxing transactions; even established mutual funds would feel the pinch. Tell me, what percentage exactly is high enough to dissuade a day trader, but not hurt a fund? 1%? 2%? I think most investors would feel that. To make a long story short, it's a bad idea.
I've heard Nader talk about this issue a number of times. He's perfectly serious, trust me. I, also, doubt Nader has the ability to poke fun at himself, he takes himself far too seriously for that.
First, let me be clear, I couldn't disagree more with Nader's proposals here. To the extent that the system is being used as a stick and carrot approach to shape things that "we" (obviously always suspect) like or dislike, I disagree; however, not everything is quite so simple. As long as our government is in the business of providing medical care for people who fall sick, I think it's fair that the people who put themselves at disproportionate risk of costing the system SHOULD be taxed. That, in my opinion, is far more fair than saying that everyone should have to pay a significant amount of taxes so a slice of our population can enjoy it. I certainly realize this can be used in other areas, but I think that's only proper. In my opinion, to be consistent, you must either be one or the other. If you're against any government "behavior" taxes, then you should also be against the government having to pay for those costs and be willing to accept the costs of that decision (i.e., not having government pay for critical lung surgery). But if you want the government to pay for the associated medical costs, then you should also be willing to accept the fact that each time you purchase cigs it has a negative expected value that can be computed with reasonable accuracy. The tax may not be exact, but it'd place far more of the costs on those who create them.
Though I disagree with the extent of your view, I can respect it because you appear to be consistent. However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die? I'm not trying to critize you or anything, but I do question many people's resolve. Certainly there are times when the answer comes easily but others are not nearly so simple. Should we spend 2 million dollars on an exotic treatment of lung cancer for man that in 75 years old, when we know the chance of it working is only 1 in 10 and even then his odds of surviving the next 6 months is slim? Or a similar amount on a crack baby that has no chance of surving the next 6 months? Probably not. On the other hand, there are cases where we can save a person's life at a "reasonable" cost of, say, 100k. If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
Sounds great if we lived in a black and white world where it was as simple as that. However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution. We can't just say 'end polution' without having massive ramafications to the worlds economy (something most single issue candidates like Nader fail to understand).
So naturally, there has to be middle ground, and while it's great to have ideals like fighting polution, you also have to understand that millions of people's livelyhood and our very way of life produce polution. Do we just say 'fuck em' or do we handle this while looking at all the issues interrelated.
That and the question of does government fund abortion? I personally disagree with the procedure and do not want my money to pay for some moron who doesn't understand the concept to a condom to take the easy way out. Don't get me wrong, I support your right to have it done, I just don't feel like paying for it. Do you use tax dollers for this because YOU (or anyone else) see nothing wrong with it, even though I and many others do?
Finkployd
Yeah, I personally hate having decisions. I really prefer to have someone (like the government) decide how to spend my money who I should support.
Finkployd
Lets look at that 'new tax'. The DEMOCRAT controlled congress created it, all Bush did was sign it. I say they both get blame for raising taxes, and bush certainly got his for breaking his promises (he got beat by Bill)
Having said that, where is the middle class tax cut Bill promised in '92? Or is it only bad when Republicians break promises?
Finkployd
Ummm, right, like we should listen to fascist abortion terrorists like the people on your side of this issue.
I never recall any news of Pro-Choice activists bombing anti-choice buildings, or pulling guns on doctors who are performing LEGAL procedures.
if you want to be taken seriously, then remove the portions of your cause that are murdering terrorists - then maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Because you implied that people who are outraged have no clue that this currently happens. You imply that they are happy with the system as it currently stands, but unhappy with Nader's suggestions.
[shrug] Obviously I can't speak for these specific people, but yes, I've run into a lot of people who are "happy with" (though "oblivious to" seems to be more often correct) the system as it currently stands and oh-so-outraged at some of what Nader suggests.
]] Those of us who are truly outraged by this would vote Libertarian.
] Some would, some wouldn't.
The Libertarian party appears to be the only one that does not condone using the tax system for social engineering. Do you know of another party with the same view of the roll of federal taxes?
I know of people for whom the decision about who to vote for is not that cut-and-dried. Me, for instance. I've voted Libertarian in the past. No doubt I will again in the future. This year, for various reasons, I'm voting for Nader.
[grin] You've been living too long in a country where the two "major parties" are portrayed as much farther apart than they are. So it makes other parties look really far apart. Granted, the Libs and the Greens do have major differences, but I actually think there are some important similarities.
One wants to solve everything through government control, and the other wants to remove almost all government control.
I think that's oversimplifying both points of view.
I can only assume that you're a very complicated individual ;^) Take care!
Your assumption, in this case, is correct. [grin] It's a complicated universe.
I love how outraged some people act about this. Hello? This already happens, in effect. The people in charge now give tax breaks for things they do like, which mostly end up as the various types of corporate welfare, and mostly line the pockets of those who then complain about any attempt to tax their "hard-earned" profits.
Nope, I made no such assumption. I haven't the faintest idea why you would think so.
Those of us who are truly outraged by this would vote Libertarian.
Some would, some wouldn't.
Well, the fact is, if you ask the average American what Ralph Nader stands for, they'll have no idea. Hell, if you ask the average American what the difference between Al Gore and George Bush is in terms of policy, most of them will probably have no idea. I never said that I think Nader has a chance to win a national election...but he didn't even get the chance to express his views to the general public, because the only political thing that most people watch are the debates.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
The depression happened because too much of the wealth was in the hands of too few. The crash didn't scare people from buying everyday necessities; it stopped large investors from buying the latest toys. Unfortunately, their great wealth meant that many jobs were dedicated to those toys--those workers lost their jobs, couldn't buy even the basics, and so it spiraled downwards.
Another way of putting it: "It was not that the surplus products of industrialized society were not wanted, but rather that those whose needs were not satiated could not afford more, whereas the wealthy were satiated by spending only a small portion of their income." ... "The U.S. economy was also reliant upon luxury spending and investment from the rich to stay afloat during the 1920's. The significant problem with this
reliance was that luxury spending and investment were based on the wealthy's confidence in the U.S. economy." ... "The market crashes undermined this confidence. The rich stopped spending on
luxury items, and slowed investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being
able to pay the interest."
That's like saying, raping small children should be legal: Against it? Don't do it. Very, very poor reasoning. The original poster isn't just against it for himself; he is against it absolutely. Where do we draw the line? Do we draw it at what the majority of society says? That seems awfully arbitrary.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
ooohh..now that was a well-thought reply. actually my reasons for choosing that example have nothing to do with me personally but rather a friend of mine who recently told me she was raped as a child. it has affected her profoundly and weighs very heavily on my mind.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
your logic is very flawed. you can use your same argument to say that, if you do not want to rape a child, then don't. it is no different.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
I cringe at the very idea of Bush being president BECAUSE he IS the "Christian" candidate.
Unfortunately, you are in the minority in your thinking. I wish more christians were like you.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I picked "Jeff", because I'm voting John Hagelin (natural law). Not that you probably care, but that's topic of this poll, so there ya go.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Well, I'm one of those "this election is about the supreme court" people.
But, I don't much care about the abortion issue, for pretty much the reasons you just gave. I'm fed up with the agressive grabs for political power on the part of the christian right, especially where things like school prayer are concerned.
It it were up to them, nobody would learn biology, every high school football game would begin with a prayer over the PA system, schools would have the ten commandments on the wall, etcetra
You know, Bush's father made a statement to the effect of "no I don't think athiests should be considered citizens - this is one nation under God". Granted, nothing came of it, but this is not the kind of person I want representing me. Dubya, this June, declared a "Jesus day" in Texas. To me, these religious types are overreaching their bounds, and legislators are catering to their whims. Without a court to keep them in check, things would get pretty outrageous.
You may not be concerned by this - fine, I can't blame you. But for some reason, it bothers me - and that's why it matters to me that the next president will nominate all those justices.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I don't agree that's a reason they should be taxed more, but even if that's true, then a flat percentage tax rate would make everyone's tax proportional to how much they have to lose if security should fail. Perhaps someone who has twice as much to lose should only have to pay twice as much to protect it.
It seems like you're saying that if we don't treat the rich like dirt, then we must treat the masses like dirt. Um, why does anyone have to be treated like dirt? Even if taxes were fixed dollar amount per capita (so that Bill Gates pays the same amount of tax as the wino in the alley), nobody is being treated more or less like dirt, or getting more or less of a "free ride" than anyone else.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think that pretty much summarizes the "character" issue this time. He'll vote whichever way gets him the most air time.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Not oral sex!
Or, like so many of your ilk, are you willing to say that sex is sex is sex when it comes down to villifying the President, but willing to compromise your linguistic position when it suits your needs?
I love that word refooooo[...]oooooooorm.. ;-)..
We need a leader who will personally beat the crap out of anyone he doesn't like. Not like the US with their sex-crazed leaders, we have a leader who isn't afraid to throw the punches when they are necessary ;).
I'm still waiting for a leader that will crush those teachers who think that the system should work for them (and not the other way around). Though I suppose I have to wait for another provincial erectio... election... ;)
Vote for the most poopular (:-)) leader in the country.. ;)
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Similarly, I believe there should be a HIGHER tax on gas, and maybe even cigarettes. By increasing the cost of driving around a big honkin' INEFFICIENT SUVs or whatever, it will tend to make people buy more efficeint vehicles.
Do you like the economy? Do you want it screwed up? Do you want to be on the unemployment line come November 8?
C'mon. Higher gas taxes were CERTAINLY screw up the economy. For one, look at what it will do companies like General Motors. This is a company that makes *no money* whatsoever on fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, on small cars, they lose money! The only vehicle segment GM makes any kind of significant money on, at all, is trucks. Rase gas taxes, and sure people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles, but then they'll put GM out of business.
This is NOT an issue of "Everday Joe" vs. "The Big Powerful Money Grubbing Corporations." Without big business, you would NOT -- I repeat NOT -- have a job, you would NOT -- I repeat NOT -- be able to buy all these wonderful toys you have to play with and you would -- NOT -- repeat NOT have the HIGH standard of living you have now.
So stop whining about pollution...
My journal has hot
Who had the balls to label this as a troll? He's right - alot of the answers seem to be cut-n-pasted, and the answers don't necessarily flow very well. The poster makes a valid point, and Nader is a bit of a sarcastic bastard.
I would almost consider the above abuse of moderation power as a Troll. Wake the fuck up, please.
On the flip side, George Bush is anti-abortion and I believe that women have a right to choose.
Women should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, so long as it does not hurt another human being. So if they can manage to have an abortion without killing the human being inside of them then go for it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
(Note for the sarcasm-impaired: I'm not actually suggesting this but using it as a response to the mentality that those who earn more somehow should be required to proportionally pay more.)
--
Of course, this is G.W. "There Ought To Be Limits" Bush we're talking about here. He's got no problem with privacy as long as it's Big Business keeping trade secrets from Evil Badguys or whatever..
But turn around and put up a parody page to his campaign website and you'll see him up in arms about how political webpages ought to be regulated. Right, that sounds like the freedom of speech we've all come to know and love.
Yeeaaahhhh, so what was your point again? I don't understand how your rant on the 'legalization' of an abortion had anything to do with Nader's responses.
Oh, and the supreme court didn't legalize abortions. That would take a law passed by the legislature and signed by the president. The SC simply said a woman has the _right_ to an abortion
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
With abortion, in particular, a clear majority of the voters and people in this country support it. Even a substantial number of republicans support it. The anti-abortion people might make up 40% on a good day but are probably closer to the mid to low 30 range as a percentage of voters. The worst case would be that Roe v. Wade would be put on trial; keep in mind that this would mean passing a law through congress and the senate and then having a president sign off on it. Then the supremes could get involved, also assuming that a couple are replaced with "conservatives" then maybe it would be over turned. Should that happen then it would be up to the states and since there is a clear majority of pro-choice people, most states would keep it legal. And don't forget that Bush has gone on the record saying that he supports a woman's right to choose but that it is also an area that is open to regulation, such as parential consent for under age girls and so forth. Sure Wyoming, Montana and some others would outlaw it, some states may have to reverse existing legislature (Wiss. for example) but it would continue to be legal most places. Is this bad? Yes, but it's not the end of the world. It could even be a good thing for pro-lifers because it would solidify the movement again and pretty much lock a republican president and a lot of senators and reps out of office for years to come after the next election.
Personally, I don't see it as a large enough issue for them to try and push through and I'm doubtful it could get through if they tried, let alone passed and to the supremes. I don't think it is as much a hotbutton or as significant as it was 10-20 years ago. Thus, it is a fear tactic, funy how this wasn't used against Bush until it looked like Nader might cost Gore the election. This election has been in action for longer than ever before, the candidates were picked sooner than ever before, Bush and Gore were considered candidates for *years* before the actual election. If this was such a big deal then why wasn't it the heart of the Gore campaign for the last 18 months? Because they didn't think Gore was going to lose, they didn't think it was going to be close and they didn't give Nader the credit to take 5%. (Never mind the attention Johnny Mac and Bradley got.)
The truth is Bush and Gore might as well be the same person. It doesn't matter which one is elected because nothing will change and they aren't terribly far apart on any issues, let alone real issues, like big businesses and big money owning politicians and essentially having the capability to let minorities define important laws and issues (think abortion. If they were to over turn RvW then it would be a minority making law, not a democratic majority.)
Vote Nader if you care about issues other than the so called hot-button issues that they want you to worry about. It's fear that they are using to manipulate your vote. You're a fool if you let fear about abortion force you to vote for Gore, especially if Nader is fighting for issues you believe in, like campaign finance reform, big business owning politicians, and the environment. There is a lot at stake in this election but it doesn't have anything to do with abortion. A vote for Bush or Gore is a vote for the status quo, and as it stands now the power of your vote is being eroded. Nader and the greens don't agree with me on a lot of the issues but as far as integrity is concerned he is the only candidate in the race with any, he can't be bought, and he believes in what he says. Ask yourself, is it worth sacrificing the environment, campaign finance reform, social security, medicine, and numerous other issues because your told to fear Bush's supreme court picks and that they might over turn a law that a clear majority of the country (nearly enough to have a constitutional amendment!) supports? If you really fear that RvW then how do you feel about giving power to a tiny minority with lot's of money? A vote for Gore is a vote for giving lot's of power to that tiny minority and that's exactly how RvW would be over turned.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
I certainly hope those of you, especially in states that have very close races, vote your conscience and vote for Nader.
Those of us who want to see Bush elected will certainly appreciate it....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
In other words, if I want to smoke, and I'm not bothering anyone, why should I be taxed for it more than any other consumer good?
Because you're sitting next to me, and you're giving ME cancer.
Ok, you don't like pollution - no one does.
However, think again when you think a higher gas tax will help.
First of all, who is going to be hurt most by a gas tax? It's those with the lowest income that need to travel in order to earn even a little bit. Here in Colorado, the city of Boulder has a problem - it's so expensive to live there that almost any worker (like a clerk or policeman or whatever) have at least a 30 minute commute.
The people actually living in Boulder don't care about the price of gas - even if you doubled it, they wouldn't notice and it would not affect choice of car or behavior. Think about that - if someone has enough money to afford an SUV, are they going to care much if you double the price of gas? No.
But if you double to price of gas, how are people driving for an hour a day in a ten year old toyota going to afford that? A gas tax is nothing but a good way to trample the poor. You might get a small reduction in pollution when that person could no longer afford to drive to work. Personally, I'd rather the person be able to work.
If you really wanted to reduce car emissions, the best way would be to provide the poor with free emisison repair. Most of the pollution is coming from older cars whose owners really can't afford to keep up the car well - if you can target help to them you'll solve a lot of problems without needing a gas tax or other kind of "punishing" tax.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think we should pay the right price for things. I would be happy to pay more both for gas and for food, both of which are relatively cheap.
Economics says that if there are fewer farmers, the supply will drop on a relatively inelastic demand item. That means the price will go way up. Unfortunately subsidies screw up the economics. I think they should be lessened or tossed out.
And guess what, if there is less money being paid in subdidies, then the government has that much money to spend elsewhere, or taxes could be lowered. Total costs won't necessarily go up because groceries cost more. They might just go up in that one area.
Yes, and to some, living in those places is a luxury. Someone who lives in an apartment building is generally much more "environmentally friendly" than someone who lives in a big home in the country:
Do people who live in small communities have the right to live there? Sure. Do they have the right to live there cheaply? No! If they can live there cheaply that's great, but it's not a right. If the price of living in remote places goes up because of something like higher gas prices that's just too bad. Because I choose to live in the downtown core of my city rent is higher. If the rent got too high I'd move away. I don't have the right to live downtown cheaply, I choose to live here because I like it, and I enjoy the additional side-benefit that I pollute less and spend less time commuting than other people I know.
If gas is taxed higher, it's true that the price of goods transported by trucks will go up. But unless I'm wrong, the portion of the final retail price that comes from the cost of the gas used in transportation is pretty small, my guess is less than 10% on average. So if gas prices doubled you might have to pay 10% more for some things. That's not trivial but it's not like the total cost of goods will double.
But this money that goes into taxes doesn't disappear from the economy. It is collected by the government who can use it to fund new things, or they can cut the equivalent amount of taxes elsewhere. It could even go into reducing sales taxes so that the final cost of goods transported by trucks doesn't change, though I think that would be a bad idea. Trucks are some of the worst polluters out there, and I think trains should see more use moving things around.
Just think about it in the abstract. I can drive a huge hunk of steel 400 km on one tank of gas that costs me $20 to fill up. That's cheap!! That's the price of 2 movie tickets, a pitcher of beer or a large pizza.
The problem is that that $20 is not the real price of moving that hunk of steel around. It only takes into account the cost of getting the gas out of the ground, refined, and to the gas station. It doesn't include the cost to people's health from smog, or the damage to the environment, or all the other side effects from moving a car around.
Say someone is hospitalized because of the effect of smog on their athsma. In Canada heath care is paid for by the government, so everybody pays there share of this person's health care. Why should someone who doesn't own a car pay the same share as someone whose big oversize SUV caused the smog that put this person in the hospital?
Gas shouldn't be taxed more because it's an easy target. It should be taxed more because people who drive SUVs should pay for the pollution they cause, not just for the up-front cost of getting the gas to their gas station.
So how do we fix the pollution that has been caused already. Well, why don't we have the government pay for it like we do now? (Superfund) This makes you and me, the average shmoe have to pay for big belching factories' boo-boos. Well, what Nader is proposing is simply taxing pollutors. Think of it as a pollution fine or "paying for the privalage" of f*cking up our ecosystem.
What is wrong about asking those responsible for pollution to contribute the most to fix.
IANAL, but from my understanding of the law, you seem to be misinformed on the workings of Superfund, which is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. section 9601 et. seq.
Here's how Superfund works (AFAIK):
1) EPA, or usually a state EPA, discovers pollution.
2) EPA, or its contractors, are called in to clean up the pollution. Depending on the situation, the clean-up is either an immediate, short-term response action, or a long-term recovery action. EPA pays its cleanup contractors out of a big pile of cash known as the Superfund.
3) In the meantime, usually before EPA's contractors have gotten the OK to start a cleanup, EPA's lawyers have identified one or several possible Principal Responsible Parties (PRPs), who can be the owners of the land, owners or operators of the facility from which the pollution originated, or a variety of other persons or corporations.
4) Once the clean-up is in its final stages, and the dollar cost of the cleanup is known to the EPA, legal action is taken against the PRPs to determine liability for and recover the costs of the cleanup. Those who are found liable (either in settlement or in a federal court action) write a check to the Superfund.
The idea of the Superfund is that if the pollution is, indeed, a threat to human health, human welfare, or the environment, it wouldn't do to well to sit around for a few years trying to get the money to clean it up from the polluters. They pay retroactively.
Sometimes, the government does end up paying for it, because a PRP cannot be found, or no PRP can be found liable. But also sometimes, countries don't pay for the costs of wars they waged against other countries (reparations).
Well, that's another reason why you guys on the wrong side of the Pond need a government-funded health 'insurance' system (like the UK's NHS, and similar systems in most of the civilised world) - if the government has to pay the health bills, not just for the smoker, but also for the rest of the population he or she attempts to kill, then taxing them becomes much more intuitively defendable. Of course, anything that even /looks/ like the state will get in the way of 'private enterprise' (i.e., making huge amounts of money from getting people to pay too much for their health, something that is on our (European) bills of human rights, and arguably should be on yours) will be struck down immediately by a bunch of fools who cannot see that capitalism is not necessarily the Best Way, collectively known as the American People.
Indeed, much the same reasoning applies to the horrendous energy overspend and pollution problems caused by government intervention, subsidy and protectionism exercised to keep foreign, cheaper, better quality, and less pollution products from effective competition in the American marketplace, and sensible politics from the shores of the USA. Ah well, your loss (of life), but ours too (pollution of the world at a rate of 5 fold per capita than the rest of the 1st world, and even more so than other places, contributing to extreme climate change now and in the immediate future).
America - the small former colony that refuses to act anything more than a child in its playpen of international affairs.
James F.
-----
-----
"Be kind to your local milkman... you have his eyes." -Mother
That's a mistatement of what I said, and you know it. I'm not advocated voting for the winner- just for someone who represents a large enough consensus to potentially win. Nader doesn't and NEVER will. And look- it's just nuts to argue that the Democrats need to go left to win. They aren't going to chase a measely 3% on the left when there's a huge chunk in the center up for grabs. If you REALLY cared about the influence of big corporations, instead of jsut mouthing it, you'd notice that abortion isn't the only major issue the Supreme Court has on its contemporary docket: campaign finance reform efforts are as well. GW has made it pretty clear the kind of Justice he'll elect, and it's sure to be the sort that thinks that money is free speech, and that corporations are inviolate. Gore's range of choices do NOT favor this outlook. But of course you're so commited to claiming that there's no difference between Gore and Bush that you probably can't even see that. The bottom line is, if Gore doesn't win, you can kiss goodbye the very issue you claim to care so much about. So you know what? I think the average American voter is quite well informed: it's you who has their head up their ass.
You didn't cover: blacks, latinos, women... etc... Not that it really matters. Zealots like you have simply decided that your crusade is the only issue that matters, ever. With piss poor strategy, and a perchance for declaring victory when we lose, modern day progressive left is WEAKER and more dismissable than ever before. I just wish someday people will see what a TERRIBLE example Seattle and Prauge are- a lot of hubbub and patting each other on the back for accomplishing absolutely nothing for dubious and poorly thought out causes. If that's what you call "coming to the fore" we are doomed for sure. Such protests are practically irrelevant in this day and age for anything but cheering yourselves on. Real work is there to be done to affect policies that hurt real people, but too many leftists would rather run around on the streets chanting slogans and railing about "the system" without understanding anything about it. You have no idea what a colosal rout things like Seattle were- playing right into the hands of those seeking to demonize and sideline some legitimate concerns. They laughed at us. Too many zealous idiots spouting senseless nonsense about the unqualified evils of gobalization- all too easy to poke huge gaping holes in their poorly thought out positions- make fools of them and then write off the entire movement. That's no way to build a coalition. I hear plenty, from left and right.
Where did you find me contradicting myself? You know why I say "NEVER"? Get ready for a big surprise: the vast majority of Americans are far more conservative than you and most Nader voters. Nader is already nailed down as a extreme leftist, and he is. The majority of America disagrees with his policies. They probably always will. Get Real. Nader isn't even running seriously. He's going for 5%. That means that, instead of having to appeal to the majority of the American people- all he has to do is tell a slim subsection exactly what they want to hear. Sure- if you're in that subsection, that's really exicting- look at all that personal attention you're getting! But it's not a real campaign, and its entirely self-serving.
Abortion isn't the only issue that stands on a tipping Supreme Court- so does "the market interfereing with government" By electing Bush, you're actually kissing goodbye the one issue you claim to care about.
To bed? Like way too many Naderites, you can't even read for more than a few words at a time before blowing off onto an irrelevant point. I'm not claiming anything about Gore. I'm pointing out that the Green Party has NONE of the big endorsements of major left leaning groups. I think the willingness of Naderites to trade all the damage that Bush could do to the nation for a highly uncertain (of course, THEY think it's certain) chance at... what? Being righteous?
If you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that Clinton/Gore wasn't ABLE to do any of those things, not because it wasn't on the agenda, but because they had so little political capital. But of course, that's what happens when the left is continually engaged in petty squabling over who is the most "pure."
You spouting nonsense. You actually think that Americans don't know what Nader supports? Forget even that- even if they knew his platform by heart, do you really think a far left party stands a chance in a national election? GORE is treading water, and he's gone about as far right as he can. Like all zealots, you would rather think that the people are all just brainwashed and sheltered- it couldn't POSSIBLY be that they have legitimate political positions of their own could it? No no- we lefties are gonna win simply because we shout louder. Good strategy, as always.
I think that analysis goes overboard. I think you're closer to the truth when you talk about him pandering to certain constituencies. I think "behavioral modification" is a little far fetched. Your analysis of how to target certain brackets is only half true, for the reason I stated above- doing what you want to do to hit just the middle class is politically unfeasible.
You know, I'll give you- the two parties are unfairly squashing third party candidates. But it just blows my mind that you think that the American people don't know what Ralph Nader stands for, or that you could even think FOR A SECOND that he would have a chance in a national election, or EVER will, EVEN if he was given full coverage. The American population is fairly conservative. Get that? Does that leave any sort of impression- suggest anything to you? I doubt it, but hey, I tried.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that things like pollution DO have a cost. Essentially, untaxed pollution is people using clean air without paying for it. It's a public reasource, and as any Economist can tell you, things that are public goods get way overused. Taxing things like pollution would actually simply charge peopel for the REAL cost of what they do, instead of, basically, subsidizing their actions. You of course have a valid rationale in the "government doesn't decide morals" line- but you have to admit that for some things, like traffic and pollution, that's basically a straw man argument- because the "public good" rationale is really the relevant one.
The point here is that there are MANY bussiness processes. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. But for much of history, those processes which pollute have NOT paid their true cost. Essentially, that means they've been subsidized- they've been a market failure which has unbalenced the true costs of certain processes. It's like the fact that we subsidize the internet but heavily restrict the phone network. Many people would argue that the backbone technology ideas in the phone network are lots better, scalable, and more robust than the net- but the two technologies AREN'T able to properly compete to see which is better, because the phone network is crushed under massive regulation and enforced high costs. So the internet wins by default. This is economically inefficient way of choosing a bussiness process.
I must say, however, that though THIS point I'm making is, in my opinion, sound- I very much doubt the Nader campaign understands it, or any other complicated economic rationale. Undisciplined anti-corporate zealotry is only going to embarras progressives in the end.
I've heard a lot of talk about the targeted tax cuts, but funnily enough, I've never heard anyone hit the nail on the head for exactly why Gore chose this plan. It's simple: it's very hard to simply cut taxes accross the board without mostly cutting the taxes of the wealthy people- any standard cut is going to benefit the rich disproportionaly more than the poor. That's just the way the math works. So Gore's cuts are complex and wacky precisely because it took so much effort and tweaking to come up with a tax plan that gave cuts primarily to the middle class. It really wsan't so much about "rewarding those who do what we wish" but rather trying to target an income range that's almost impossible to _solely_ target without implementing a tax scheme where different brackets pay different rates- which is politically unacceptable to most people.
wow, you can regurgitate content.
fo llow this link for cross-postational goodness, evidence, and a reply.
I'm not sure why you think Gore is a champion of the people, afterall Bush says "unity" just as often.
Nader doesn't have a chance not because of two party monopoly, but because his platform is one that few Americans support.
So it's not because people haven't heard his platform, it's because they don't support it. riiiight.
--
+&x
You actually think that Americans don't know what Nader supports?
and
You know, I'll give you- the two parties are unfairly squashing third party candidates.
go together nicely. Gore is treading water because he's gone about as far right as he can. It's not all people that are brainwashed and sheltered, but they are affected by what they hear and see. Many people have their own legitimate political postions, mine happens to be that I don't like the influence large corps have in my gov't. That *alone* is enough reason for me to stay away from Gore and Bush.
And no, I don't buy into the bullshit philosophy that if you don't vote for the winner, you didn't really vote.
--
+&x
I'm not advocated voting for the winner- just for someone who represents a large enough consensus to potentially win. Nader doesn't and NEVER will.
If you mean by "NEVER" the next four days, you're probably right, if you mean by "NEVER" never, then you sir, are an idiot.
I don't see why it's nuts to think that moving left would help the Democrats, I always grew up thinking that's what they were. One issue doesn't define a party. Abortion is a non-issue for me, and campaign finance reform will come from legislators, if at all. Most of it will be blocked by the media lobby, which Gore is buddy-buddy with (they don't want to give away air time that hard earned industrial campaign contributions can buy quite easily).
The bottom line is, if Gore doesn't win, you can kiss goodbye the very issue you claim to care so much about.
And if Gore gets elected, the continuing growth of the market interfering with government on a high level will stop, eh? Gore doesn't stand for my issues, why would I vote for him?
I think the average American voter is quite well informed: it's you who has their head up their ass.
If someone with a head up their ass can take four seconds and find you contradicting yourself, well, I guess I have a pretty smart ass.
--
+&x
You talk like they'd be getting something rather than just having less taken away.
Forget tax "cuts" (i.e. adjustments to the current screwed up system), and justify this: Why should a person who earns more than someone else pay more in taxes? Government enforced philanthropy?
Even with a flat $ (forget %) income tax, wealthy people would still be paying WAY more in taxes by way of sales tax.
Tax the rich only makes sense if you're willing to admit it's nothing to do with being fair - it's about socialism.
This just means the same thing that the regular US elections all show: that only a minority of the people in the US will take the time to vote in the presidential election :)
---------
---------
There is no try at jedinite.com
Progressive taxation is outright class warfare against the upper 25% of this country. And guess what, I'd bet that at least 75% of US readers here are either in that upper 25% right now, or will be within the next four years.
Glad to see (as of time of this post) that at least one moderator has his/her head on straight an has hit you with an overrated. Because your ideas are flat out wrong.
Progressive taxation is the most ridiculous of the vast array of ridiculous mistakes by the US govenment, which flies in the face of the intent of the founders of this country. No taxation without representation. Balance that out: no unequal taxation without the corresponding unequal represntation. If I have to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, I should receive a corresponding disproportionate voice in government. You want to base the number of votes (or weight the votes) based on the taxes that we have? Fine. Otherwise, progressive taxation is flat out oppressive.
Let's do some basic (simplified) math here:
Let's say I make $120,000 a year. I pay 40% of that in taxes a year. You make $60,000, and pay 20% in taxes a year.
You are right, The wealthy have the most to loose, and it can be argued the most to gain from the benefits of taxation (which is total BS, but i'll give you that point b/c it won't change the logical outcome).
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do. But guess what? Under a progressive tax system I pay more than twice. In the example above, I'm paying four times as much as you are in taxes, while only making twice as much? How in the world can you reason that as fair? Do you really think that I get progressively more benefit than you from my tax dollars? I can understand that I get proportionally more benefit from my increased income, but if you think i get exponentially more (as in proportional taxation), then..... well, I'll try to be civil, and just ask you to not Vote for the good of the country.
Your question "If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?" is very naieve. First, many people do hide money through various ways, either in tax shelters here or abroad. But don't forget, most of us in the upper 10% are here becasue that's where the IT jobs are. You think I could be making $120,000 only two years out of college in any other country? No. But if you did the math, I could probably take home as much by moving elsewhere, taking a lowpaying job, and escaping this unjust taxation system. Which is why I will be making specific plans to leave the country if Gore is elected. If we're going to live in a Socialist country, I'd rather move to a country who's been doing socialism for a while and realizes that it's not all it's cracked up to be (like, oh, New Zealand).
Here's hoping for another Boston Tea Party, sometime in the near future. So far this year I've paid $43,000 in taxes. I am by no means what I would consider rich. If that's not oppression, I don't know what is.
---------
---------
There is no try at jedinite.com
It took decades of organizing and a Constitutional Amendment (the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted in 1913) to finally get a tax on income in this country. The workers and farmers who fought for the tax saw it as a good way to take back some of the robber barons' ill-gotten gains. And it was a great deal for working people: The first income tax was paid only by the richest 5 percent of households.
You mention historical illiteracy. Sounds like you got smacked upside the head with a great big dose of it.
The founding fathers opinions on taxation was vastly different even among each other. And guess what, genius, the founding fathers were the wealthy few who were living the life of "privilage" that you mention. This country was founded by those that it currently vilifies.
People like you keep people like me very paranoid. Please, do your country a favor, and do not vote. If you can deport yourself to Mexico, that would be even better
FWIW, Article I, setion 8 of the constitution covered taxes. Here it is in it's entirety. Read up, genius:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officer, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, an the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; - And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
and just for completeness:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
which threw open the door to the ridiculously oppressive mess we've got today...
---------
---------
There is no try at jedinite.com
Dubya, this June, declared a "Jesus day" in Texas.
... it's called Christmas !
We already have a Jesus Day
You'd think a self-proclaimed born again christian, like Dubya, would already know that. This redundant holiday is especially striking comming from someone who won't support the ERA, gay rights or hate crime laws because he feels they are redundant.
- bridgette
What about the fact that the two main parties just don't represent the views of everyone. Liberals and Conservatives aren't even necessarily opposites; and even if they were, there are so many people who are opposed to both. Why do you think no one votes in this country?
I think a clash of ideologies is exactly what we need; a spirited debate in which every single American finds a voice to represent them. I'm not trying to make a cliche here; I just feel underrepresented by Gore and Bush.
Nope. We don't have proportional representation, we have a first past the post representative parliament.
Whoever gets the most votes in a riding gets, in essence, all the votes for the riding. Just like the electorial college, only with 301 ridings rather than fifty. (Assuming that we vote for the party, not for the representative in our riding).
There's a riding in Nova Scotia that the NDP won with under 33% of the vote in '97. In my riding, Stockwell Day won the byelection with about 80%. Both Day and the woman in NS have only the one vote of their riding.
Proportional representation is very bad, though I don't feel like going into detail. There's got to be another post somewhere on this article that does.
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
And just what exactly do _you_ consider a long term investment verses a speculation? What are your criteria and on what grounds of experience or knowledge to you base those criteria on?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Capital investment is an important part of our economy
hard work is to be discouraged
No, providing new jobs is to be encouraged. And if you read my post carefully you'll see that long term capital gains are actually taxed higher than normal income.
Don't earn your money. Invest daddy's money. Businesses need bodies to answer phones and assemble widgets. Someone who builds paper as you put it is probably supplying the money to pay your salary, or if you are still in school your parent's salary. If you are not a good phone answerer or widget assembler than it is the investor and not you who loses their savings when your poor performance causes a loss to the company.
But the end result if the investment goes well is that the investor makes a little bit more back on his money than if he put it in a savings account, the government takes their cut, and some fortunate individual is provided a job and perhaps some health benefits so that he can provide for his family.
Investing money is a valuable part of our economic and social system which should not be discouraged through extreme taxation.
When you or your parents bought their house did they have to pay for the entire thing all at once? Probably not, most families pay for their houses by obtaining a mortgage where they have 15 or 30 years to pay. But the home seller gets his money immediately after the sale is completed. This is because someone out there thought he could make some financial gains by providing you or your parents all the money for your home up front (and take a chance that you won't burn it down and default the loan) so that he could make a few points of interest every year. That person invested his money to provide a family a home. Should we discourage family home ownership by discouraging home loans?
If investing is discouraged who will invest?
If people are discouraged from investing then guess who will be responsible for investing to maintain the economy? The government. We will have the same people who've shown us amazing administrative skills by running the DMZ and buying thousand dollar toilet seats for the Air Force.
These policies taken to their logical conclusions will create a system where the state owns nations industry; although the route will not be the same as the nationalization taken after the soviet revoution, government sponsored investing will give us the same result. After all if the government is the only organization who's not put at a disadvantage by owning (parts of) companies than the government will be the only ones who will own companies. The result will be a soviet style economy where the government controlls the jobs, businesses, and economy. People will be paid less, have less choice of goods and there will be lower supply of products.
Because there is no longer a profit motive or even a motive to work (as the state must support you through job or otherwise) there will be reduced freedom in what occupation you can choose or where you can work because you will have to be threatened with punishment to work at a job you may not like for less than you'd like to be paid but a job that must be done nonetheless. Market controls will be put in place to prevent a 'black market' from emerging with cheaper goods provided from non-government corporations; these controls will be touted as "protecting the worker's jobs".
I rather have a free market economy where corporations have the ability to compete not only for market share but for employees as well with as little government handtying to stand in the way.
-- Greg
PS: Holding a stock for over a year is not speculation but a long term commitment to a corporation.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Speculation is already taxed higher than long term investing, thats the way the capital gains tax system works.
A day trader or regular speculator gets into and out of stocks rapidly; any income they make from a stock they hold less than a year is taxed at their normal income tax rate.
Investing, long term, in a company means holding that stock for quite a few years. Any stock held longer than a year is taxed at a reduced capital gains rate (20% or 10% depending on your income bracket).
Lastly, why should long term investing be taxed at a lower rate than normal income? Long term investing helps the economy and the country. Investors take risks which could result in them losing their savings to help new companies create jobs for people and tax revinues for the government. Any income they derive from that investment has already filtered through the IRS via corporate taxes of 36%, then again at the capital gains rate of ~20% (making the total tax burden for that income 56%). If the company goes bankrupt the workers keep all their pay up to the last day they worked but the investor loses all he invested and he cannot even deduct that amount against his regular income (it can only be deducted from other capital gains increases).
Thus investors both help the economy and government while creating jobs and pay a total real tax on their investment higher than their income tax.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Mr Nader, who exactly is holding the gun to your head to drive a Chevrolet SUV, drink a Starbucks latte, or wear Nike shoes? If you don't like a corporation than don't buy their products, own their stock, or take their jobs.
It's clear that the overwelming majority of americans either don't have a problem with the way any of these corporations do business or they do not feel the corporation's activitys are worrysome enough to put effort into seeking alternative products. If everyone in america was so horrified by the activities of a given corporation then they should cease purchasing their products and providing them a labor force. Then the company will have no course of action except to go bankrupt.
If corporations aren't bad enough that you avoid using their products than what justification is there to bring the force of government to bear against them?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
You have to multiply the percentages. Since x is commonly used as a variable, we use a dot instead.
Therefore, 99% and 98% = 99.98%
I think I will just move to Canada or the UK or something if Bush gets elected.
I've thought of moving to France or the French West Indies. Could always move back to Canada, but might like to just lie around the beach and let my money sit in T-bills, bonds, and a very small amount in some stocks that won't dive that bad under a Bush presidency. My dad's thinking of a similar move for his holdings too.
Will in Seattle
I am a second class US citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and I am not allowed to vote for President and only have a non voting representative in the US Congress
If you're lucky, Gore will win the electoral college, Nader will win 5 percent, and Bush will win the popular vote.
This will infuriate the GOP House and Senate, the Democrats will realize it could happen to them next time, the Greens won't let up. And maybe, just maybe, we can get rid of the Electoral College and, as the sweetener to the deal, Puerto Rico will become the 51st state, so that the Democrats will vote for it.
Hey, it's the 21st Century next year - a man can dream, can't he?
Will in Seattle
Again - go back to the point that was made earlier that something is not illegal unless a law is passed that *says* it's illegal. There are real laws that are in place that say prostitution and drug use are illegal.
Now... whether those laws are constitutional is really a question that you have to wonder since Roe v. Wade simple overturned laws that banned abortion.
Wanna make prostitution legal in all 50 states? Get some enterprising hooker to get her case up before the supreme court and compare her rights to those of a woman's right to choose. Likewise with drug users.
Of course the real reason why hookers and drugs are illegal is because they are a public health problem - so no case with the abortion argument will actually get them to overturn the laws that exist.
Wake up call Thalia: abortion is de-facto prohibited in most places anyway. Try finding an abortion doctor. You will probably have to drive hours and hours, then brave a gauntlet of foaming prolifers. Ob/gyns that perform this procedure (amongst myriad others) are picketed, driven out of communities, slandered, hunted and murdered. So what if Roe v. Wade is upheld? Why vote for another business-as-usual corporate politician who will carefully walk the middleground, both appeasing pro-lifer's with some "moral stance" and fostering an antagonistic environment, and appeasing pro-choicers with the token Roe v. Wade.
Both Bush and Gore suck. Gore might suck slightly less on this issue, but they both suck. Instead of voting for the lesser of evils, how about voting for the better of goods.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I thought the whole point of taxing *speculation* wasn't to stick it to Da Man, but instead to *disincentivize* wild speculation which may lead to wild variances and instability in the market (*cough* tech sector *cough*). With the introduction of so many day traders, who are not investing in their own personal belief in companies, but instead playing mind games to find out where the herd is going, we see a lot more ups and downs. As a country we don't like this (as we've decided we don't like smoking), so we tax it.
;) After all, lifestyle and diet related diseases are the #1 killer (aren't they? high blood pressure/heart disease, cancer which could potentially be linked to diet, etc. etc.)
Actually, although he probably meant it in jest, and I thought it was funny when he said it, if you think about it, perhaps we should be taxing food that's bad for you too
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ok, please remember that some of these quotes are coming from much longer essays, and speeches, and that you may be picking up the wrong vibe, or not getting the tone in which these were said. So I urge you instead to check out www.votenader.org, read over all the blurbs on the issues, and perhaps even catch some audio or text of his speeches. Nader is often facetious and lightheartedly pokes fun, so don't interpret everything that is said off the cuff literally without finding the context in which it was said. Perhaps some of these things need tags around them - but, hey, there's good reason to rant these days.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Okay, so consider the following (fictitious) election results from 100
voters, where people ranked their choices from best to worst.
40 voters
---------
1. Bush
2. Nader
3. Death
4. Gore
35 voters
---------
1. Gore
2. Nader
3. Death
4. Bush
25 voters
---------
1. Nader
2. Gore
3. Bush
(where "Death" means "I'd rather die than vote for...")
Who should win this election?
In head-to-head two-man elections:
A) Nader beats Bush (60 versus 40)
B) Nader beats Gore (65 versus 35)
C) Gore beats Bush (60 versus 40)
In a plurality, Bush would win because he got the most votes.
In a run-off election, Gore would face Bush (and win) even though Nader
would have beaten either one of them in the run-off.
In an approval vote, (where people cast a vote for everyone that they
rank above Death) Nader would get 100 votes, Bush 65, and Gore 60.
In a ranking vote (5 points for first choice, 4 for second, etc)
Nader would get 425 points, Gore 355, and Bush 345.
Now which is the best system?
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
you shouldn't waste your vote on who you WANT to win if that person has no CHANCE to win.
Do you honestly expect that your vote is going to swing the election one way or the other? If not, then by your logic your vote is wasted regardless of who you vote for.
tested a grey area, namely partial-term abortions (ie. abortions
carried out after labour has started). If the conservatives had won
this one, it would have made not one whit of difference to almost all
abortions; the fact that they lost pretty much shows how strongly the
Supreme Court supports Roe v. Wade.
The first poster is right to say that a Bush vitory will not
threaten Roe v. Wade.
Last time I looked, Europe did not have problems with sprawl.
You're kidding me. Have you been to Europe? Low-rise suburbia is the majority of the land use there. It does have more mass transit, because they're more tightly packed--but this is a matter of simple geography, not gas taxes. The environment over there is far more threatened than it is here, because the population pressure per square mile is greater. Add to that the inefficient farming methods they use (that Nader wants us to adopt), and there's precious little natural land left there.
And if you still think we have a problem relative to other countries, please take a trip to Japan. It will be eye-opening.
Sprawl? The phrase that describes how its users want everyone else to live.
Here's what I don't get... seriously, I don't know the answer to this and I'm hoping someone here does.
The popular vote doesn't mean anything, it's the electoral vote that counts. If the electoral college is under no obligation to vote the way the popular vote goes, and frequently doesn't, then why would a vote for Nader be a vote for Bush? What's all this noise about "stealing" votes from Gore?
A few weeks ago someone here posted the results of popular votes v. electoral votes. I seem to recall Perot getting a very substantial number of the popular vote and ZERO electoral votes. So what's the deal? Who did Perot steal votes from? Did all the Perot popular votes have any influence on the electoral votes at all? I assume that Nader won't get as many votes as Perot did in 92, so I assume that he won't be getting any electoral votes, either. So how does this work in practice, and why do people go on about "strategic voting" when it doesn't appear to matter at all?
I'm amazed at how close these poll results are (G:18/B:19/N:14/36k... as I write). I would have thought that slashdotters had a fairly distinct perspective from the mainstream's and were fairly aligned with respect to a good number of issues.
Yet Nader, Bush, and Gore are pretty close. If all the poll-takers voted it would only make a 1% difference in the swing diluted by the proportion of voters slashdot represents, though Nader would be helped more.
If accurate (big assumption), slashdot has been rendered effectively voiceless on it's core issues of agreement with regard to the presidential race, and I don't think it's exactly accidental (or targeted at us.) It's just not talking about some issues, and splitting the difference on the others based on demographic polls.
But that's not true. I can't smoke in my office. I can't smoke in a restaurant. I can't smoke in planes, trains, buses or taxis. I can't smoke at the cinema. I can't smoke at the theatre. I'm damned sure if I went to your house and started to smoke, you'd ask me to leave if you dislike smoke. So where, exactly, am I sitting next to you?
Don't get me wrong - I support your right not to breath other people's smoke - but if I want to give myself cancer in the comfort of my own home, what business is it of yours?
If only it were that simple. As it stands, I have several relatives who smoke. When they visit, they either smoke outside, ask whether it is okay to smoke inside when they know that I would prefer that they didn't, or sullenly smoke outside and cut their visit short. This causes irritation in me - for two reasons. First, because I am wondering: are you really so fucking pathetic that you can't give up your cancer sticks for the duration of your visit? Second, I hate being made to look like or feel inconsiderate - a "villian" - because someone else can't control their addiction.
Then their are my children - fortunately not sheeple, so they recoil with deserved disgust at smoking, recognizing it for the revolting, nasty habit that it is - but a smoker degrades the station of "adulthood" in the eyes of my children, because I have taught them that being an adult is not some magical chronological entitlement, but can only be truly measured by maturity and responsibility.
Then there is the smell. I take reasonable care with my hygiene. I shower, apply the requisite anti-perspirants, don clean clothes - and wipe my ass after performing a bowel movement. A smoker might as well negelect all off these things. A smoker's breath stinks, their clothes stink, their hair stinks - seriously, I'd prefer breathing in a noxious fart which disipates in a few minutes than be trapped in an office or an elevator with a smoker for even a few seconds. Smoking also upsets my youngest daughter's asthma, whether that smoking was indulged in five minutes ago, or an hour ago.
I like to masturbate, and this activity certainly never hurts anyone. If I masturbated in public, I would even curteously come equipped with a Kleenex. Still, I imagine that many would object even then.
Do I think that smoker's should be taxed for their stupidity? Hell, yes. Do I believe that you or others have the right to smoke? Hell, yes. Will I defend to the death your right to do it? Hell, no.
Besides, caffiene is a far more satisfying way to kill yourself, and you can be social while doing it.
:-)
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
People listen to $the bottom line$ before anything else, so discourage them financially, and they'll listen immediately.
If you think enough about the aforementioned "sin taxes", in most cases there is a social cost involved (second hand smoke, drunk driving); the "sin taxes" help cover the cost of dealing with these problems without out and out criminalizing rightfully non-criminal activities.
Now, as to how these social costs are dealt with, that's another story....
just my blog and pix
Or in Canada ... where I'm glad we don't have a stupid electoral college system.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I didn't claim we had proportional representation (and I'm sorry if it came across that way). We don't have an electoral college system, though, more to the point.
BTW, When you consider 301 ridings for ~ 40 million people vs. the US's count, we represent our individual population groups (ridings) much better.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
:). The point is that it too must evolve.. And if people don't like maphia IRS, then they vote in people who care about reform.
It's just this sort of tolerant indifference that puts us in the crap that we're in. If the people say nobody can tell me because logically we're smart enough to realize that there is no perfect solution, then no solutions can be offered and we're left up to self governance.. And that puts those in power with the most influence.. Such as corporations, or organized hate / exploitation.
The way life works is you try something, then evolve it until it successfully accomplishes a goal. There is no perfect solution, no Utopia.. You pundits that think the net is Utopia, think again. Without regulation, eventually the net will be more dangerous than corporate america. Theft, defaiming, unsolicited perversion, stalking... etc. Laisez fair does not work after a certain level.. There _has_ to be some for of given up control on our parts.. This includes things such as morality.. We obviously don't allow killing.. But why? If I want to kill my neighbor, then what business is it of yours? Likewise with theft. But what about intellectual property theft? Or verbal phrase theft? Or hurting a company's profits by say.. selling a competing technology?
As you can see there is NO "solution"... There are temporary solutions that solve immediate goals.. These solutions have to evolve with the thinking man.. But you need to have some.
In order to enforce the various levels of governmental and societal control, the people have to contribute some sort of resources to the collective.. Just like bees in a hive. Now I don't advocate communism in any way.. The worker bee hive works because they're biologically engineered, not becase they feel a sence of self duty. Humans are very suseptible to mood and outlook. So in order to achieve a non communisitic self govenance, we pay taxes..
Unfortunately we're plagued with the false sence of fairness.. Somehow we believe that the "phrase all created equal" has significance that applies to what we deserve in life. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has some merrit, so long as you don't undermine the above mentioned human mood. Living beings work based on the reward/punishment system. Pavlov (sp?) tried to prove something along these lines. Some obey the law because we get to reap the benifits of society (protection, safety net and community services). Some obey divine law because of a similar feeling of community, or more commonly because of the "reward" of heavenly entrance (ill served if you ask me, becuase it allows them to write people off by saying they're going to hell). Children obey their parents partially out of the communal need for acceptance, but also out of fear of punishment or wanting of "treat" rewards.
From this, it makes sence that capitalism works as a productivity tool.. Give a group wealth for successful productivity (meaning productivity that fullfills a need w/in the community), and you've got a thriving system. However, wealth acquisition can be achieved outside of the law and or morality as well. Our system is starting to fall behind in the regulation of this respect because of the very same indifference towards morality that you present.
Beyond that, in taxation, the poor are struggling to live, the middle class are struggling to make ends meet, the wealthy.. well, they're either strugling to make it to the top, or hold on to their standard of living. Arguably, nobody is "content" with their station in life. But here's the difference...
If a poor person is taxed more, then they or their family may not be able to achieve the food, shelter or medical attention required. If a middle class person loses more to taxes, then they'll likely not be able to achieve the education or bettering themselves that would otherwise benifit society as a whole.. Additionally, they may have to move into lowering income housing whose environment will have negative effects on them.. in turn increasing the likelyhood of a less civil society overall.
If you increase the tax on the wealthy, the worst that happens is that they have to move into a smaller house, have a smaller car, take cheaper vacations.. Yes, they'll have less to invest into our economy, but that's not always an issue (such as today, where too many people are investing too great a percentage into the economy).
Now there are side effects, such as if you tax a busniess too much, then they may be forced to lay off people (especialy if you actually raise taxes for them).
The end result of all of this is an evolutionary attempt at government -including- taxation. A first generation may do a flat linearly proportional tax.. But then find that it's pointless to tax the poor, and painful to tax businesses. So then you raise taxes, and leave out important sections.. Then you start twisting the curve, so on and so forth... Eventually you come to a tax code as complicated as ours.. requiring the employment of a good number of people. But is this bad? Maybe.. Here are a couple outcomes.
You increase beuracracy.. You have to hire more government personelle, (which requires a raise in taxes). You have greater chance for fraud, due to people hiding in between the lines... So you have to hire a substantial number of government personelle as well as enforcement agencies..
This causes the IRS to be almost like a mafia... Putting out hits on people that don't pay up.
Medium to high income earners must hire tax consultants, which winds up taking away even more of their funds if they don't neatly fit into the niches.
You wind up in social engineering, which is at the whim of the potentially short sighted government (or public mass mob).
But here are some good parts.
The 20'th century was based around specialization.. Computers were just a natural extension.. "No generality is worth a damn, including this one" - Mark Twain. A general rule is not the best suited. By forming specialists, and people that do nothing but study the outcomes of taxation, you can device more efficient means of collecting monies from people that has the least negative effects. Likewise, people who specialize in minimizing taxes can aid the earner / consumer.
Just like our capitalistic society, of change, advancement, trial and error, taxation perfectly fits into that methodolgy. It would be hypocritical to say let businesses (which affect our live more profoundly than the government) operate as they choose, but limit the influence of the government.
In order to facility the poor that can not afford tax consultants, you put all things that affect them on the easy form, and give them a standard deduction. If they can read, they can fill that out.. No, they can't _optimize_ their returns, but they can almost essentially pay nothing, so what's the difference.. The wealthy, as a general rule, are to be taxed at a greater percentage, but they can afford an entrage of tax consultants to maximize their activities so as to conform to tax-free niches.
So what of beuracracy? Well, that should also be the role of specialists.. To find ways to make the process more efficient.. Computerized returns that allow instant electronic validation? Electronic receipts? Computers, as before are nearly the ultimate in specialized machines (it is afterall a gereral purpose machine
Even in idealist China and Russia, there is no "flat" system.. They've learned that this doesn't work.. They've had to include dozens if not thousands of special cases.. In Econ, I learned of the ticket system, where you _earn_ the right to consume a luxurous good (like a bicycle). Doesn't sound like to each according to his need to me. If I happen to be good, but I already own a bike, then what's the point.. Or if my friend hasn't received recognition, yet they're very far away and could use a bike, isn't this misallocation of resources? An ideal system would have benevolent omnipotent monitors picking off the good and bad and allocating resources wisely. But that 'ain't gonna happen. Life isn't about ideal cases.
So in summary, graduated taxes WORK (look at the 90's). It should not be a static system, and on occasion is must be simplified (typically to more effective generalities), but it will always grow in complexity to handle the special cases.
Think of it as a genetic algorithm.. The algorithm is the tax system, and the parasitic problem is the greedy and needy tax payers.
-Michael
-Michael
Ok, then we take the revenue expenditure of the government, divide it by the number of people, minus the poor.. Let's see, that makes roughly $10,000 / person ( 1 trillion / 100 million working ).. Correct the numbers if I'm wrong.
Ok, well, obviously a person that makes $25,000 is in the hole, so we need to raise it to say $30,000 minimum income.. But oh damn, that means that a person earning $29,999 had better not accept a tip, or they're out 30% of their income.. Damn that's a #$@%.
Ok, well, shoot, lets see, we can graduate this puppy.. Say between $25,000 and $100,000 we graduate it to that $10k / year.. But, well,err.. this IS a flat tax isn't it? Well, we're just making an exception for the poor.. We're just redefining who's poor.
Ok, but damn, now we've lost 90% of the population, that means that we're going to have to raise the overall tax.. to say $20k / year.. Again, drop off the lower part, keep the graduation.. Hmm. Maybe if we use differential calculous we'll come up with the right number. GOT IT.. Ok, now let's see.
approx $22k / year ( fictitious number ) for $100K / year and above.. And we graduate it to zero at some point below. But now let's take a look shall we.
A person that makes $100K and below pays out about 22% tax.. Ok, that's not TOO bad.. Especially since we cut out that horrible bearacracy right? ( all of what fraction of a percentage of federal expendatures? ). But now, how about someone that makes $100Million / year. He only pays out 2.2%. Damn!!! That's not right
Ok ok.. So the truely "fair" system of equal rationing doesn't seem to hold mustard, lets try the percentages approach.. Everybody pays out x%.
Again, we cut off the poor (we'd have to pay them welfare anyway). I have absolutely no idea what the x would be. I have rough ideas of government expenditures, and revenue, but there are too many factors to figure it out-right.. So instead let me make some observations.
Currently, a low income family of $25k or more, pays out something along the lines of 20-33%. I suppose that higher incomes come out to about 30-60%. The ONLY thing a flat tax does is even out those percentages. If the government spends the exact same amount (which is almost always independant of taxation since they can always sell bonds to make up the difference), then a reduction in the higher end will mean an increase in the lower end.
Thus, the only affect in "fairness" is to raise the taxes for the middle income (and some of the lower income). But, raising taxes for the middle income reduces the overall quality of life for the country (increases the propensity for inner city living, pessimistic feelings, which combined promotes crime).. Not to mention, you reduce the income for college bound families.. Which has the effect of reducing their likelihood for seeing college through.. This hurts the american worker with respect to foreign ones.
Now let's look at the wealthy.. What did they do with their new found "wealth".. Well, it couldn't have gone down too much.. A person that makes 100Mil paying out say 50% going down to say 35% means an additional burden on the middle class of $15 million. With an average american paying out $9 - $16K / year, that would mean the entire taxes of roughly 1,000 americans. But what happens to the wealthy American.. Meaning that there has to be roughly 1k workers to compensate for 1 reduced wealthy person. (Heavy use of approximation since most wealthy make less than $100M, but we also have to take into account the raise in taxes of existing tax payers)
The wealthy guy must already have lived comfortably at $100Mil minus taxes. If you give him an additional $15 million a year, then you've just inflated the economy.. Stock market explosions, luxury items grow in sales.. Essentially, the rich will suddenly get a lot richer (for free), and the economy will inflate..
Then you have the middle class who get a double wammy.. First they get an immediate tax increase (which is absolutely required by a flat tax), THEN, they get inflation.. Worse, they'll have less spending capability, which will hurt the very sorts of small businesses the lower income people promote. But, any industry that a poor person has in common with a wealthy person will become inflated... Property value / tax, for example will shoot up again.. Automobiles in the upper 20's and beyond will increase in expense.... The costs of education.. etc.
In an economic stabalizing system, you want to provide resistence to highly profitable ventures. The fed does this by raising the interest rates when we're infalting too quickly (or to ease them off when we need to encourage investment). The government sometimes can do this by raising taxes for the wealthy when we want to slow down the economy, and to reduce taxes for the majority middle class, to increase consumption.
The point is that flat taxes are the simple minded person's way out (meaning it's a no brainer, and has immediate benifits for some). In strategy video games, it's like spending time to accumulate battle cruisers and sending them all out in a periodic fashion until you wipe out the enemy. It can work, but leaves you wide open to side attacks. The graduated tax with accompanying deductions is more for the strategist, and hense, thinking man(liken until strategically sending tiny forces here and there to cut off the enemy). Neither system is can sit for too long without needing adjustment.. But my claim is that even if you did go to a flat tax, you'd eventually have to make innumerous ammendments to account for problems with it.. And soon, you'd be right back to a system just a complex and "unfair" as with today.. The difference is that you'd virtually destroy American society and economy for a time in the process.
-Michael
-Michael
I assume by "we" he means the People (although in reality it's the Party). If it were the people, you can rest assured most people do _not_ like pollution, etc. I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
Then I guess "we" the people do _not_ like people getting rich... since that's what "progressive" taxation goes after.
The problem is we do strategic social taxing constatly and its always pointed at the wrong people. We tax 6-7%, or 8% here in Chicago, on needed goods and services including food, yet I can trade a million dollars worth of stock and not pay a penny of taxes for the transaction.
/.'s villian Microsoft?
The wealthy have a certain position of priveldge and a huge gap between them and becoming the working-poor or falling below the proverty line, in other words they can afford it. The richest always get taxed more and it will always be that way for this reason.
I'd rather see strategic taxing on cigarettes that helps support programs and subsidises medications/treatments to get people off of them who cannot do it by themselves.
Its like when they build the tollways, they promised it was just to make up for the price of building it and would go away after x amount of years. Thats strategic taxing, breaking that promise and taxing just because we can is the status quo.
I will for the rest of my days be paying X amound of tax a day, I'd much rather see it used wisely and responsibly instead of seeing more and more loopholes for the wealthy.
I'm surprised Nader isn't doing much better who else has come out publicaly against the patent system and
Unfortuantly, this vote reflects what a significant number of netizens think of slashdot, that its a sophmoric discussion board dominated by psuedo-liberals who are dying for their IPO fantasy so they can become the new Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos and practice business their style.
Flat tax? Are you serious, it'll pummel the lower classes and give the wealthy a much larger break than they already have.
Katz might not think voting is worth it but there's only one candidate, Ralph, who wants a none of the above option in every election, and if none wins we get a new election with new people. At least then you can express your disgust instead of sitting at home and, umm expressing your disgust to your cat.
Oh yes and there is a point to all this, no matter what (democratic) country you come from, VOTE, as voters we have ultimate power (except when your Premier passes a bill no one wants *cough*Ralph Klein*cough*).
Didn't like hearing about Non-US Politics? Now you know how most of us feel about U.S. politics in a nerd forum.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
I don't have the illusion that I am going to persuade many people who've already made up their minds for other reasons that they should vote for a third party candidate. But for the people who are taking the lesser of two evils approach to voting, I have a thought. Whether it is true or not, various third party candidates have been accused of throwing elections to the major party candidate on the other side of the fence. Many Gore supporters, including the New York Times, have urged Nader to get out of the race because they fear this effect.
It doesn't matter whether third party candidates draw voters away from the major parties, or draw in voters who otherwise wouldn't come to the polls, or both. The Democrats and Republicans want those votes. You can bet that they will pay attention to any issues that have been championed by candidates who drew a significant portion of the vote. They will try to make those issues their issues.
I believe it was Edsgar Dijkstra who said in the 1970's, "I do not know what language we will be programming in in the year 2000, but I do know that we will call it Fortran." Okay, the exact prediction was wrong, but the point was valid. Incremental change happens, and often over long periods the end results are unrecognizable as the offspring of the original. I don't actually want Republican-lite or Democrat-lite, but I prefer them to the likely results I'll get this year either way. And, regardless of who gets elected, he'll be preparing over the next four years for a re-election campaign. So a vote for a losing third party candidate can even have an effect on the policies that the winner pursues.
Imagine an outcome like this:
Bush: 35%
Gore: 33%
Browne: 10%
Nader: 10%
Buchanan: 2%
Whether you flip the numbers for Bush and Gore only changes who's in office and which voting bloc he is courting. If the size of any third party candidate's turnout in the polls is greater than the difference between the front-runners, or the projected difference four years from now, that candidate represents a voting bloc worth having.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Probably the best reason to vote for Nader is if you wanted the economy to collapse.
Just wondering. Nader can't possibly be elected. So your implied argument, that in the hypothetical case that Righteous Ralph did achieve the Presidency, he would somehow "wreck" the American economy, that hypothesis, true or false, is irrelevant to the case that is.
In our common real world next week, voting for the unquestionably excellent Mr. Nader would be, in the short (next four years) term at least, more of an instance of performance art than a game-theoretical-optimax, decisive, rational act of patriotic, executive national decision-making. So by what mechanism, then, do you believe some poetry-inclined voter's more or less symbolic act of registering an official protest vote will "cause the American economy to collapse"?
Are you focusing instead, wisely, into the far haze, looking out at the long term? Do you grant Mr. Nader so much mythopoeic power? Do you imagine he can really mobilize that majority who have for so long consistently stayed home Election Day and voted for "none of those asses!"? Is your reasoning by any chance related to Shelley's dictum "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the World"? If so I can really dig where you're coming from! I really believe that.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Probably the best reason to vote for Nader is if you wanted the economy to collapse.
Just wondering. Nader can't possibly be elected. So your implied argument, that in the hypothetical case that Righteous Ralph did achieve the Presidency, he would somehow "wreck" the American economy, that hypothesis, true or false, is irrelevant to the case that is.
In our common real world next week, voting for the unquestionably excellent Mr. Nader would be, in the short (next four years) term at least, more of an instance of performance art than a game-theoretical-optimax, decisive, rational act of patriotic, executive national decision-making. So by what mechanism, then, do you believe some poetry-inclined voter's more or less symbolic act of registering an official protest vote will "cause the American economy to collapse"?
Are you focusing instead, wisely, into the far haze, looking out at the long term? Do you grant Mr. Nader so much mythopoeic power? Do you imagine he can really mobilize that majority who have for so long consistently stayed home Election Day and voted for "none of those asses!"? Is your reasoning by any chance related to Shelley's dictum "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the World"? If so I can really dig where you're coming from! I really believe that.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
the M. Moore story is here (unless my cookie timed out or something, which might have been the problem with the original post).
But nader traders are so hard to find! There's no forums on the nader trader site or anything... I'm voting in michigan, most of my friends live in michigan. I'll vote for Gore; anyone in a Bush state want to swap for a Nader vote? Email me!
Ah... I'm pretty sure Oregon has no sales taxes, since they disproportionately tax the poor, and the difference is made up in increased income and property taxes.
Oregon residents care to comment?
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ends up dividing your government into representative groups that are too diverse to reach consensus. Just look at the political inability of parlamentary systems with Proportional Representation. Examples, Isreal, Germany, Austria, etc. These countries are paralyzed to take significant and desicive action when required. Their leaders are shackled by weak "collolition governments" that end up pandering out pork projects to buy votes. If you think we've got gridlock now, just implement preference voting, and its like.
Someone you trust is one of us.
But who cares? What you are saying is that the big guys are basically taking each other's money for the stock when it gets into those rarefied reaches of share price. Near as I can tell, this means:
- The little guy isn't buying, so won't lose any money if the price tanks.
- The little guys who bought early get a chance to take a lot of money from the big guys.
I don't think that's quite the conclusion you wanted, but I don't see how you escape it given your premises.--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Want proof? Look at the IRS stats on individual income. Check out href=http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/ irs -soi/98inprel.exe. Look at just the individual income figures (note, this does not include corporate income, excise or severance taxes, or any other source of Federal tax revenue). Capital gains accounts for all of 8% of all individual income, and an even lower proportion of total taxes. We could eliminate the capital-gains tax and still have a surplus.
I think we should. Getting rid of the capital gains tax would get rid of a lot of accountants and tax bureaucrats. It would eliminate any incentive for people to keep their money locked up in poorly-performing investments just to avoid having to pay the taxes required to get into better ones. And it would make mutual-fund investing an even better deal for the little guy (none of this crap about having to pay capital-gains taxes because the fund sold some stuff at a profit in order to buy some other stuff).
Getting rid of the capital gains tax would eliminate a bunch of obstacles and disincentives in the economy. It would probably help; it doesn't yield enough tax revenue to really hurt.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
http://www.quimby2000.com
;).
Vote Diamond Joe Quimby for President
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Voting on this Jeffteenth day of Jeff, Nineteen-jeffty-jeff.
This is one of the problems with our political system: People who will only vote for the candidate most likely to win.
You should vote for the person you WANT to win, not for the person you believe WILL win.
It is an election, not a popularity contest. Voting for the person who WILL win simply perpetuates our broken pseudo-two-party democracy. Everyone complains that we have no choice. The truth is, we *do* have a choice, but we are so afraid to take a step outside of normality that we don't exercise that choice.
If you would like Browne or Nader or someone other than Bush or Gore to win, but you vote for Bush or Gore anyway, you are giving implicit consent to keep things the way they are. If we are ever to see true reform to our political system in this country, it's not going to happen from people voting for the 'lesser of two evils'.
It's ok to vote for a candidate that loses. Honest. Even if they don't win, your vote sends a message to the rest of America, including the big political parties.
I think the fact that he wasn't able to reply or chose not to reply illustrates Nader's biggest shortcoming:
the fact that he's a very one-faceted politician that stands for very little and is not knowledgeable enough in the majority of issues that this group want to discuss, let alone all of the issues that the country wants to discuss and have answers from.
is there going to be a crisis on the middle east and Nader goes "well, it's not what I'm all about so I won't deal with it" or "well, it doesn't have to do with giving people a tax cut, so it must not be worth my time"?
If anything, the wealthy are less in need of the services of the government, and thus get even LESS for their tax money.
Really? I think the wealthy use the "services of the government" as much as the next guy. They just use different services:
Corporate welfare
Infrastructure
Public Works
Tax breaks
etc.
To say that the rich don't squeeze a bunch out of the government is extremely short-sighted.
Not really. more than 80% of all wealth generated by the stock market has gone to the wealthiest 10% of the population. They make much of it through speculation, or buying mass quanities of a particular stock or group of stocks, driving up the price beyond that of the small investor.
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
When a major political party can't give you a good reason to vote for it, and instead resorts to fear tactics, it's time to withdraw your support for it. Don't just cave in and do what they say. Show 'em you won't be swayed by FUD -- vote for someone else!
Free Hans!
Well, that's complete BS however they label it. The $250 million or so that they gave out this year came out of the federal coffers. This money could have been spent by reducing everyone's (including my) taxes by a dollar. So it cost me a dollar, either in what I payed, or in what services I didn't get.
Assuming the cost of the federal government is determined (rather than, "we'll spend everything we can get"), then the taxes need to be set so that the sum of the money brought in, excluding the presidental campaign fund, is equal to this amount. That means if everyone is saying "use my money to do this", then the taxes need to be set slightly higher.
Money is fungible, so the idea of "my money" and "someone else's money" has no meaning once it gets to the IRS. All the checkbox does is determine what the funding level will be. That amount is then funded from the money that the government takes in.
Anyone think it's funny that like all slashdot polls, this one warns us not to complain about lack of options?
What? I should hope that this joke gets 5% so that next election my money will be paying for this fascist to go around campaigning? I should vote for someone who complains about being left out of the debates, then not showing up for judicial watch's debate because Gore won't be there? I should vote for someone who's supporters post signs talking about Bush's support of the death penalty, but seem to forget that Gore is just as much in favor of frying criminals.
There's nothing "quasi-socialist" about progressive taxation. He's a socialist, no quasi about it. I hope all his policies get enacted, then he gets hit by a propane powered bus while driving a 1000lb econo box and dies because all the hospitals are run by the same people as the post office and the DMV.
Nader is not automatically preferable to the other two. My order of preference is Browne, Bush, Hagelin, Gore, Buchanan, Philips, McReynolds, Nader, but I'm pretty indifferent between Gore and Buchanan, or between McReynolds and Nader. If Nader got elected, I'd start brushing up my spanish and figure out what agency you bribe for a work permit in mexico.
Am I the only one here old enough to remember the Gores' leading role in trying to censor the music industry? And how, in order to prevent government action, the industry "voluntarily" began putting warning labels on their music?
If it's still available, run (don't walk) to the nearest record store and get a copy of "Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Prevention". One of the tracks is based around the Senate hearings where Zappa testified against censorship. The shril, whiny female voice you can sometimes hear on that track is Tipper. You might learn something about what the Gores really think of freedom of expression.
And the brethren went away edified.
How does the fact that people are too stupid to see through this ridiculous statement -- which, on the face of it, is no nastier or more damaging than anything the two major party candidates say about each other -- conflict with what I said?
And I'll have you know that the squirrels in my yard get the freshest, tastiest acorns around!
And the brethren went away edified.
There have always been other choices. There have always been "third parties" on the ballot for national office. If the non-voting majority really wanted a change from the Republicrats they could have made it a long time ago. The fact that they haven't, and certainly won't this time around, just goes to demonstrate that for the most part they really are apathetic, lazy, ignorant slugs.
So go tell it to someone who doesn't know any better.
And the brethren went away edified.
Remember the ill-fated phrase, "Read my lips, no new taxes!"? Remember how to tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving. 'Nuff said.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I guess asking some of you to think qualifies as Flamebait. I should have included a disclaimer: Don't think too hard - you'll hurt yourself if you're not used to it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
If you look at our current tax structure, taking into account sales/property/income/excise taxes, we tax the poor, not the rich. In Washington state, the poorest 20% of the population pays 17% of their income in ALL taxes (federal, state, local). The highest 20% pays 3%. And before you start talking about the mathematical simplicity of smaller totals necessarily giving larger percentages, why don't you imagine earning under half the median income. And then paying 17% of that. Now imagine a seven-figure salary. And imagine paying an extra 1% of that. Which hurts more?
How about we look at some different figures instead? The richest 1% in this country pay 62% of all income taxes collected. Do the rich use roads much more than the "poor"? Do the rich use medicare and social security so much more than the poor? Is it the rich who require the defense systems so much more than the poor? Is it the rich who require all the things that government provides so much more than the poor? Why then should the rich be paying for most of it?
If you were renting an apartment with other people, that would be like saying that one of your roommates paid most of the gas, cable and electricity bills because he had more money. Try making that work. Yes, it probably would hurt that person less to pay for that but don't PRETEND IT'S FAIR, because it's not!
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not rich or even close to it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
It's political Darwinism. Anyone who's stupid enough to waste his vote on Nader is stupid enough that eliminating their vote from the political process is a good thing!
Mmmm.. Donuts
As for the taxation without representation whine, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the assertion that the wealthy are under-represented in Washington. Soft money donations to the major political parties can get you a sit-down with your favorite politico, or even a night in the Lincoln Bedroom if you've got the cash.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It's a tricky argument when you start proposing taxing things that "we don't like." Who says that "we" all agree?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
You must have done something to your withholding (401K, etc.) to warrant that - taxes don't eat up 87% of marginal revenue.
Posting as an AC only hides your identity, not your stupidity!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The absurd number of firms that make huge profits but fail to pay dividends now or in the foreseeable future (most prominently Microsoft) is a hallmark of the market bubble that has been inflated over the years and is now only relaxing slightly. Sooner or later, there won't be a bigger fool to come along to pay top dollar for a share that has no financial benefit attached to it.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
That wasn't modified - once your karma passes a certain point, you're comments appear automatically at a 2.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
That is the impossible part of setting tax policy - despite any scheme that's implemented, somebody will always feel like they're getting screwed (my contribution to the economy is much more important than so-and-so's). The point I addressed above wasn't so much to justify progressive taxation, but simply to show that the wealthy do get real value out of the higher taxes that they pay.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
*grin*
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Yet another independent, undecided voter searching for a candidate with the whole clue....
"This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
Take preparation for retirement. Either it is the responsibility of the individual to provide for his retirement, or it's the government's responsiblity to take money from others and give it to him.
Either it's your responsibility to care for yourself, or it's the government's responsibility to care for you. When you are responsible, you get to do as you please. But when the government is responsible, they tell you what to do and how to do it.
I know many of you here on Slashdot are tired of corporations squashing your rights - I am too. Before you retaliate, think back to what I said a moment ago. Either it's your responsibility to ensure your happiness, or it's the government's. If you choose "it's the government's," you will have to take whatever Ralph Nader or Al Gore gives you, which won't be much. If you choose "it's my responsibility," you can work to eliminate the power the government has today, which gives corporations the power they have today. The way to do it isn't to give the government more power but to give it less. To minimize government - both their control over your pocketbook and over your actions.
Vote for Ralph Nader or Al Gore if you want, but know that when you do you are voting for someone who wants government to control every aspect of your life. If you would rather have that power yourself - the power to live as you please - vote for Harry Browne or GW Bush. I don't have any idea who would vote for Pat Buchanan or John "all we need is meditation" Hagelin.
Actually the Founding Fathers did intend it this way. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion in your American History book. George Washington actually led the US army (the only time a president did so) to inforce what was in many ways essentially a "sin tax".
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
In my region (Research Triangle Park, NC) they handle this pretty well. Basically, they charge an impact fee to the developer when they put up new construction. These fees are to cover the extra burden that new people (like me) will put on the roads, the schools, the water/sewage system, etc.
Of course, the developer passes these fees on to the homeowner and they end up paying for their "impact". I find this system to be fair.
A normal impact fee will be something in the range of 1% or 2% of the cost of your house.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
At the same time, I'd like to put progressive taxes in a better light for you. Such systems have existed long before Marx perverted Latin to make himself look scientific and learned. In fact the Romans themselves has such a system from the earliest days of their republic. The idea is that those who have more feel compelled to give more and everyone benefits. This only becomes oppresive when it becomes confiscitory or the scale rolls too far down into those who should pay no taxes at all.
Think about it.
Isn't it enough that people at the bottom of the ladder provide conscription service, labor and offspring? Why should the state try to take from them? Instead the state should do what it can to help such people become more productive members of society: education, training, stimulation. Charity for these folks starts and should end at home. I can see the top of this group starting at $100,000/year for a married couple.
From the other end, decent people with real wealth generally want to help their fellow man. By real wealth, I mean people who are no longer dependent on others for income (yes, independently wealthy). Even evil Billy G. wants to give his wealth away. Why else would anyone want to earn so much?
Progressive taxes are supposed to lift up not bring down. Taking from those who are easily ruined is stupid and cruel.
Beware of people who prommis to help you by hurting others. They generally want to enslave you as well as steal from their betters. There's a better way to do things.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I say this because I expect that post to be moderated out of existance, and wish to draw attention to its fundamental point, without advocating its attitude.
Thad
Thad
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:5, Flamebait)
I never thought I would see this.... ;)
This is just part and parcel of the notion that the US government should tax whatever Ralph Nader doesn't like. Note, no position paper included on encryption? Perhaps because you should have, in his eyes, a right to privacy... until the government decides that you are an evil corporation person. I like what he says about ICANN (which somehow noone blames Clinton for), but I can't help but believe that the Green Party and Nader's philosophy is everything that is wrong with ICANN and more.
Those of you still in school, bear with me for a second. The rest of us (including /. itself) are the corporations that Nader is talking about. It is about the persuasive versus the productive. We're working our asses off in these startups, and he's busy spending our wages on his ideas. If his ideas are so great, why not make a few million dollars selling people things they want and using the profits to benefit the charities he wants, instead of trying to force it out of people who paid the price for success in social stigma, gruelling education, and all nighters at work?
Nader wants the majority to be able to take property at will from the minority, when the majority decides that the minority deserves to have it taken from them. Funding the government is secondary. He wants to use taxes to control people, to make them do things his way. Ironically, he claims to be more pro-open source than his competitors. He wants to make all of us government contractors.
Nader, for all his intellectual pretentions, has a really simple, almost JonKatzian idea: there are Good People (like me) and Evil People (those who oppose me). Everything else in his 'seatbelts and socialism' platform boils down to that. I mean, how many times can he go off against companies? Is he aware that virtually everything he eats, wears or uses is made by private enterprise? Or that 'corporate profits' go into stock options for employees in small, fast growing companies, and to investors (ie retirement funds for ordinary people-- the overwhelming majority in stock ownership) in large established companies. Or that the 'exploitive third world factories' provide jobs which are great by the standards of those countries, while freeing up better jobs here in the developed world?
Nothing is perfect, but Nader wants to bring us back to the old academic 'fascism vs communism' debates of the first part of this century. Everyone at the time assumed that centrally planned systems were the wave of the future, and that in a complex future, only experts could design a social system. Democracy and capitalism were considered obsolete. The distributed model beat central planning, though. Nader just doesn't seem to have noticed.
Check the US Census for (inflation adjusted) statistics on how much incomes have increased. Not to spoil the surprise, but over the last 50 years, ALL classes have increased their wealth. The poor are NOT getting poorer, they are getting richer. This misconception comes about because the poor are not getting richer as fast as the rich (this may also be a problem, but we can debate that another time).
The average (inflation adjusted) growth rate of the GDP in this country is approximately 2.5%. This growth is due to: population increases (duh, this is why GDP per capita growth is what's really important), women entering the labor market (actually, this is one of the primary reasons why the rich are getting richer, because poor women have always worked, but now that rich women are working too, upper class families now have almost double the income they used to), and of course technology.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
No, we always had this. The Gilded Age simply made people rich enough that they could actually sit back and take notice. Things were most definately improving, but they weren't improving fast enough to suit some people, so political action was taken. Right or wrong, at least realize that free-market capitalism did not produce the bad conditions, they were there before it was introduced.
As for why lack of import tariffs are good, think about those southeast asian sweatshop workers for a minute. The only goods their domestic economy can support are the basics: rough clothing, food, and so forth.
Let's say they can produce 1 pair of sneakers every hour, and they get paid $0.50. The only reason that they'd work for Nike is because that $0.50 is MORE than they could make doing similarly skilled labor elsewhere in the economy. Poor countries are POOR! You can't make them rich just by wishing it so.
If Nike did pay their workers $20 an hour, it would horribly upset the local economy, because they'd be making more than, say, doctors. We want to encourage those in backwards economies to learn skills, not just work for Nike (Nike doesn't want that, but they'll regard it as an acceptable consequence of their trying to find the lowest labor cost possible).
The reason they can't afford Nike shoes is because Nike is not just the southeast laborers, it's also the marketers, the lawyers, the executives, the Nike Town stores, and so forth. Go into a shoe store, and compare the cost of Nike shoes to that of some no name brand, and try to tell me that marketing does not dramatically increase the price you can get for a good.
Okay, I've talked enough about this. The conclusion: import tariffs are bad because they force us to pay higher prices, and they hurt developing economies desperately in need of steady jobs. For a good recent book on free market economics, read Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The problems you describe explain the recession, but do not explain why we should have had a full blown, 10 year depression. In a capitalist economy, you're always either driving towards inflation, or driving towards recession, it's the nature of large publicly owned company. Publicly owned companies cannot say to their shareholders "we are going to grow right at the rate of natural economic growth: 3% a year, every year, from now until the end of time." Instead they have to say "we're better than everyone else, we're going to grow at 5%!" Anyone who points out the absurdity of this within the company is seen as being afraid of not being able to make his division live up to the standards and is replaced. This boom-bust cycle is clearly visible in the American economy since at least the mid 19th century. It takes government intervention, however, to take a recession and make it into the Great Depression.
Oddly enough, bad monetary policy has plauged the US ever since the Fed was created in (IIRC) 1904. This is why some, such as Milton Friedman, propose replacing the Fed with a set of laws (if output falls 1% in a given quarter, lower interest rates 2 basis points, for example). Programming our economy, so to speak, using monetary policy as the language.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Capital gains tax, which is what applies in this circumstance, which runs currently about 21%, IIRC. Sure, this sounds low, but that's for two reasons: first of all, you can't deduct anything from capital gains, unless you first transfer the stock into a charitable foundation (those people PBS is always thanking, the money in the foundation can ONLY be given to charity, you can't use it to buy things), whereas for regular income tax there's a whole slew of deductions. Second, it can be very easily shown statistically that the rich countries are those who save. Japan's meteoric growth is a perfect example of this. Countries that consume a very small portion of their income are consistently the fastest growing, and since this helps everyone, not just those who invested in the first place, the government wants to encourage it. This is not so much social engineering as economic engineering.
Finally, property tax is set by state and local governments, not federally (Ammendment 18 only gives power to tax based on income, and the only other taxes the government is authorized to levy must have something to do with interstate or international trade, such as import duties). A president would have no authority over this. I believe, however, Oregon has no property taxes, so while it's a little late for the retirees (best thing for them to do is keep voting in local and statewide elections for fiscal conservatives), if this is something that worries you, you're welcome to move.
P.S. IANAL (tax, estate, or otherwise)
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Boy has this two party duopoly got you brain washed. They got you convinced that that if you dare to vote for anyone else it is throwing away of a vote. You may say, "well there is no way Nader can win, duh-urt". Well how will a third party ever win unless people throw off the (two party created) notion that a 3rd party vote is wasted vote and take some courage and vote for their conscience.
Another thing you have to remember the election is decided by Electoral College, and states are winner take all. So if you're a voter in a state that is definitely going to Gore and you vote for him YOU'RE the one who's wasted your vote. Where the Nader voter has done something that WILL shape politics, by getting the Green Party 5% of the vote and allowing them to recognized party.
Hey, If you're in a swing state, go for it vote for Gore. But if you are in a state that's definitely going one way or the other, vote for who you think will bring change to the politics to this country and not for who the corporations tell you to vote for.
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break [1], not just those of us who engage in whatever behavior the government wants to encourage [2]..
2 relates to your beliefs about social engineering. Whatever. That's another debate. I'd like to talk about 1. I'd like to address the idea that "we all deserve a tax break." First and foremost, none of us deserve a tax break until the debt is paid off.
It's the people's money, right? Why isn't it the people's debt? "Those naughty politicians spent all the money, it's their debt!" Shucks to that. Who elected these politicians? The people did. Whose votes did they count on while increasing spending and decreasing taxes? The people's. Who is ultimately responsible for their dispicable deeds? The people, who fell for expensive magic tricks.
If you want to argue that we're being taxed too much, I would argue that we weren't being taxed enough, and now the time has come to take responsibility. The people can afford it; they have been affording it. All we have to do is NOT increase spending or decrease taxes, yet both parties place paying down the debt behind tax cuts because it'll get them more votes.
--
If there were no forms of motivation other than profit, would Open Source software exist? Or, for that matter, Free Software? Hell, free-as-in-beer freeware wouldn't even exist.
Funny how workers in southeast asian sweatshops can't afford the sneakers they make, then.
Import tariffs also do this. I still haven't seen a good argument for why a lack of import tariffs is desirable, other than a vague idea that free markets are just inherently "better", or "Adam Smith said so (never mind the fact that the world has changed quite a bit since Adam Smith was writing, including the creation of corporations and most of the Industrial Revolution)".
America had laissez-faire capitalism at one point. It didn't work. We ended up with unsanitary meat, child labor, excessive hours, and extremely dangerous workplace conditions.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
If you're libertarian, by all means vote libertarian if your state is locked up.
The point is that living in a state that's locked for a candidate means you are more free to vote your conscience, whatever that might be, than having to vote defensively to make sure the guy you really don't want is kept out of office.
How is being told where to go for your doctor by a corporation any less of an infringement of civil liberties? This mantra of "it's socialized medicine, it's socialized medicine" really annoys me, because it's so painfully obvious that the people who repeat it haven't given any thought to it.
If an elected official is in charge of determining where the money for medicine goes and screws people over, guess what--he can be voted out of office! However, with corporate control of health care, your only recource is to switch to another provider (usually limited by which ones your employer will allow, heaven help you if you're unemployed). But all corporate health plans have the same goal--minimize overhead. In other words, determining how little money they can get away with providing. And since in most states HMOs are legally immune from lawsuit, they can get away with giving you very little, even if it kills or cripples you.
There are disadvantages to universal health care, but calling it "Socialized medicine" is just empty rhetoric.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
This works both ways.
You make it sound like a loan is a donation. Wrong...a loan is a donation with the understanding that it will be paid back completely, plus interest. It just means that the loanee can buy something now that he would otherwise have to save up for. If the poor guy has a low wage (or no wage), how is he supposed to pay off the loan? With another loan? Will he magically get a better paying job before it comes due?
Bankers generally don't make loans to people who are considered a "risk"...in other words, people who they think won't be able to pay it back on time.
Credit (loans are a form of credit, but you already know that) doesn't generate more money, it just delays payment for one person.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Wait a minute...first you say that redistribution of wealth isn't a good idea because the amount of money in the economy isn't fixed. Then you turn around and say that if everybody increases their income, that's inflation. Whose point are you trying to make?
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
If the job market is tight, and/or your skills aren't in high demand at the time, you can't leave. And anyway, my point was that even if you switch HMOs, their goals are all the same (profit) and create the same problems (bad health care). Even leaving for another provider doesn't help, because it's your employer paying them, not you. If you change jobs, it doesn't bother the HMO because your ex-employer will just hire someone else to fill your position, and continue to pay the HMO.
But elected officials live in fear of being voted out of office, and so are loathe to piss off too many voters. If somebody dies because of substandard care, their relatives are going to be pissed. If somebody dies because of substandard care in an HMO, the HMO says "oh well" because their revenue stream is barely interrupted (they get paid by the person's employer, and if the employer hires somebody to fill the position, the revenue stream continues), and they don't have to worry about angry relatives because the relatives are legally unable to sue.
The universal healthcare proposition that was voted down a few years ago in California would have created a new elected position in charge of health care.
And anyway, under what definition are HMOs not bureaucracies?
However, the entire point of HMOs is their lack of accountability. That's why they replaced the older form of health insurance, which, since insurers could be legally held responsible for problems, became extremely expensive in order to pay for the inevitable lawsuits. HMOs are cheaper because they don't have to pay for lawyers. It's the foundation of the HMO business model.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
You'd think this poll would be a golden opportunity to throw that option in there.
More seriously, why isn't McReynolds on this poll, when he took part in a Slashdot interview?. And why does it have the comments from the Nader article under it?
Weird.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
The non-rich generally use their cash to buy products. This money also goes to the companies. If the lower end of the spectrum had more money and the high end less, relative to where they are now, the same amount of money would be in the economy. There would be less investment, but more people would be able to afford more products. I fail to see why an investment in a company is economically more important than the same amount of money received by the company through sales.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Good point. I agree.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" (emphasis mine)
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Not to mention, "how much will they cut my taxes at the expense of everyone else."
There are stupid and greedy people on every side, my friend. Not just on the side you disagree with.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Not necessarily. Speculators also create quite a bit of chaos by themselves, and can even amplify existing chaotic stock price twinges into major market swings as all of them try to jump on a bandwagon at once. Witness the recent dot-com boom, where companies with no forseeable source of income made huge amounts of money from IPOs--many companies actually treated stock sales as if it was income--which was fueled by a simultaneous boom in day-trader activity (thanks to online day-trading firms like E*Trade, among other factors).
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I'm actually glad he did so. I don't think he's had much of a chance to do research into the issues there...it's not, after all, an issue a whole lot of people are familiar with--I'd be willing to bet he hasn't heard much about it. I admire his discretion in not making up an opinion off the top of his head on an issue he is unfamiliar with.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Why do you think it does? Because Democrats and Republicans use the idea as a political football? Political posturing is just that--posturing--and shouldn't be mistaken for facts.
Most of what the Supreme Court does has nothing to do with abortion. That's just the issue that people outside of the court always bring up, because it's one of the most emotional for a lot of people.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I wonder who you'd have to talk to to get the voting system changed?
Anyway, the fact that McCain is 'out of the race' to me is a crime. That and the fact that the only two you see debating are Gore and Bush. I just don't understand why people feel disconnected from government...
Voting Is A Waste Of Time unless you're voting in a Slashdot pole?
OK, OK, they were asking about "real" elections, but somehow the fact that so many people voted that voting is a waste of time amuses me.
I think one of the choices should have been "Slashdot poles are a waste of time". Of course, if 7% of the people want to confess that they like wasting their time I guess there is nothing wrong with that. Better yet, many of the things commonly referred to as a waste of time, such as trying to convince people you are right and they are wrong, may in fact not be such a waste of time after all despite the fact that they have acquired such a label.
Ugg... I feel a recursive existential angst coming on. I think I'll quite now.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Any effective politician is going to be a tool of what Nader would call a "corporate party". This sad but true fact is not a construct of the party system, but of human nature, and any attempts to rectify it will fail.
I'm voting for the Tool of the party I trust. If that party betrays my trust, I'll work to fix it from within. The American political system doesn't work on coalitions. We get our diversity because our parties have localized units with their own opinions that sway the party on a national scale. It's slower and more stable. Good, bad? Neither, just American.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Moderators! You should be ashamed of yourselves. This is NOT a troll. I completely disagree with this post. I believe this post is expressing a close-minded and unfair opinion. That being said, it is an opinion. Opinions are not trolls. A mistaken analysis can be a troll, and an outright lie can be a troll as well. An opinion, one which I might add is shared by a huge population of this planet, is not a troll.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I'm afraid you are speaking out of ignorance.
If you think it's unfair for women to reject that responsibility, explain how it's fair that men get to do it all the time. When men carry the babies, I'll consider your point.
The psychological risks of an abortion are NOTHING compared to the psychological risks of burdening a woman with a baby she is not ready for. There is no greater slavery than that that people enter by their own will, and women, being essentially good at heart as all humans are, will not frequently abandon their children, and can rarely find more suitable caretakers, so they will sacrifice whatever potential they have for upward mobility for the sake of the child. Your giant leap for morality has just put a huge burden on society. I thought morality was supposed to make everyone's lives better? If not, it has no place superseding free choice.
Even the most outdated of the abortion methods currently in use are safer than childbirth. Abortion, at least in a legal, clinical sense, is not "dangerous".
As much potential as was wasted in the kids, think of all the potential in the mothers that was saved. Sure, there may be a few missed geniuses and inspirations, but kids who are born to unready mothers are FAR more likely to be the ones who fall through the cracks. All your sentimental longings for those missed geniuses are irrelevant, because when you talk of forbidding something on a societal level, that is necessarily a matter that must be treated statistically. Sure, it's a little dehumanizing, but so is poverty. Poverty is a condition of long duration, while an abortion can be recovered from rather quickly.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
What we really need is a binding None of the Above option - if none of the above wins, all new candidates must be nominated, the old candidates are not allowed to run, and a new ballot must be cast. I bet a lot of people would turn out just to stop some of these idiots from running.
Another idea a friend had would have the same federal elections every two years, with the following changes - all elections are for ONE 6 year term - one year, all seats for the House are voted on - they serve 6 years, and then never again can they sit in the House. Next election, the entire Senate, again one 6 year term and out, and finally, President, again one 6 year term and out. No more need to waste time and money trying to get re-elected.
I am not under the delusion that this will happen - the system would react far to violently should that many politians have their oxes gored that way. A national referendum would be nice too - force these things down the pols throats.
anyway, its all in the sig
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Enter earnings here: ____
If I get a company car, is that earnings? If my company pays my health insurance, is that earnings? If I use half my house as a coffee shop, how much of my house payments count as a business expense? If my company gives me tuition re-imbursement, is that earnings? If I'm required to take continuing education classes to keep certifications required for my job, do I pay taxes on the money I spend? If I'm a pizza dilivery guy, and drive my own car, how much of my car expenses count as business expenses?
Do you think the question "how much do you earn" can always be answered by looking at a W-2 form? What do you imagine all those miles of tax codes are for, then?
I'll admit that the stuff like "stuff you get stolen from you can be knocked off your earnings" or "if you get sick and have to pay hospital bills, it gets knocked off your earnings" or "if you pay interest on your home, it gets knocked off your earnings" are mostly just fluff. But thats not where most of the complications seem to come from in the tax codes. Most of the complications come when you try to do anything non-traditional, and try to figure out your earnings at the end of the year.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die?
I don't believe anyone with a conscience or a sense of moral duty would. But another 'the question' is, how do you want to help them?
USA Today had a good article yesterday about this issue. Most seniors today are -not- being weighed down by 'budget-busting prescription-drug bills', despite the rhetoric that's being bantered back and forth betwen the candidates, and the plans of both Bush and Gore would, in all likelyhood, simply increase the burden on an already strained Medicare system.
If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
If it were the only way in the universe, perhaps I would say yes. But I do not believe that to be the case. There are thousands of charities out there, many of them with the sole purpose of providing medical aid, whether the case be 'hopeless' or 'reasonable'. IMHO, a private, non-profit charity is, 9 times out of 10, if not more, going to be much more efficient than a bueaurocratic government could ever be. If I could've given the money the government took out of my last paycheck for Medicare to a charity of my choosing, I'd be a lot more confident that it might be used well. And if I could've invested the money the government took for Social Security... well, that would be a nice boost for not only my own retirement, but also taking care of my parents someday, I'm sure. But then, that's another topic....
Me, I'm voting for Browne. Whether he wins or loses, I'm sick of all this 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
"The polls are showing some support for an unknown candidate this year, one 'Commander Taco'. Nobody is sure who this person is, or their significance in this election..."
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
DISCLAIMER: If you aren't American and don't have anything to say that would contribute to the discussion, please don't say anything at all.
IIRC from the many history classes I've had, The framers of the Constitution set out to prevent such party systems. The whole idea was against the party system, it wasn't supposed to happen that way, but it did.
And it worked remarkably well. It was an OK bad thing, it didn't turn out to be the terribly anti-democratic system it was perceived to be.
Now I understand why so many saw the party system as a bad thing early on. It just took 200 years for it to devolve into the mud-slinging crap contest it is nowadays.
We are cruising for a revolution.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
is a black woman for president!
Not just any black woman, but a smart one with a couple of PhD degrees in some technical or biological subject. She also must be a mother and probably a wife (although who needs a first man anyway).
You need someone who cares for your country and her children and has long term vision!
(answers to implied questions: no I'm not a US citizen, no I'm not a woman, no I'm not black, yes I do have a degree (not a PhD), no I don't have children and I also don't have a significant other)
From what I can see, Nader is about taking choice away from the rich autocracy and returning it to ordinary people. If it's communistic to wish the lessening of power of the oil companies, the MPAA, Microsoft, Nike etc, then where do I sign?
If Nader gets 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party will get Federal Matching Funds. For a grass-roots party like the Greens, that $7 million would be mighty important. The Greens certainly do not have many big campaign contributors funding them, folks.
In the long term, such as the next four or fifteen years or so, I think Nader, or whoever succeeds Nader as the Green candidate, has real potential to add to the quadrennial political discourse in the United States.
Of course if you're not in a solid Bush state, then you would have to vote more tactically, maybe by your own political beliefs, and maybe still for Nader, but I've nothing to suggest there.
But despite his quasi-socialist notions about progressive taxation and wealth, I think it's worth it to vote for the guy, especially if you're in one of those states where your vote won't make one bit of difference one way or another in the overall outcome next Tuesday.
I mean, I don't recall either of the others even mentioning Open Source, or taking a rational position on IP issues.
Ed
First, the tax system was not intended as a carrot and stick system to punish behaviour the government doesn't like, and reward behavious it does.
Excuse me? Whether we like it or not, the U.S. government has been doing this from its birth. Some of the very first taxes in U.S. history were tariffs on imported goods. Of course these brought in revenue, but their primary purpose was to allow American manufacturers to compete with the super inexpensive goods coming from Great Britain.
Let me reiterate: whether we like it or not, the U.S. government has been doing this for ages. Taxes are not only revenue producers, but power. Who was it that said "The power to tax is the power to destroy."? This is the very essence of my argument.
So whether we think Nader is evil for saying these things or not, do not think that these are new ideas, because they aren't.
-----
Which gives him two choices:
1 - Contribute to the well being of his family members directly, making sure that they get the full benefit of the money he provides.
The real problem with progressive taxation is that it's NOT a tax on wealth. It's a tax on the act of getting wealthy. A progressive tax actually helps keep the wealthy on top, and makes it difficult for young people to amass enough money to move up the ladder.
last time politics was a discussion on slashdot someone from slashdot said that no one ever submits stuff for the green party except party pages. well i submitted this twice and it was rejected both times. so here it is.
This same argument by political conservative was presented when Clinton took office. That his new taxes - of which there have been several, income, fees, usage, etc - would stifle growth.
As anyone can see, growth was not strangled between 1993 and 2000. Was this recent economic growth due to higher taxation? No, but who cares about facts these days.
Finally. Go to the Office of Management and Budget. Look at the where the money comes from and where it goes. The surplus is not from income taxes or fees or tariffs but from Social Security receipts. The SS money is then applied to General Revenues because by law, it does not have to go to a locked account. Take away the SS revenues and you have a budget deficit. SS revenues are from employees and employers. Lower employment and that number goes down, revenues go down and sooner or later we have another budget deficit.
Demand that the politicians be honest about this so-called "surplus" and Social Security.
"They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed."
I guess a tax break for those people wasn't one of the things those contributors asked for. Tongue in cheek.
sin taxes are an interesting example from an economics perspective: the "sins" generally have a low elasticity of demand (changes in price do not change consumption much for gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.). Because of this feature, taxes on these items do very little indirect damage to the economy. (if raising cigarette taxes does not reduce consumption, cigarette workers will not become unemployed, etc.) This makes the sin taxes really good sources of revenue.
So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't vote for Gore or Bush, either. At least there is some response from Nader or his staff. And read what he has to say, he makes some very good points.
/.ers could be answered with things that /Nader has already said/! I find it remarkable that Nader is addressing these important issues, before we even ask about them (while at the same time, Gore and Bush focus on lame issues and refuse to take stances, lest they offend either the voters or the businesses with which they are buddy-buddy). Now THAT says something.
Let's also consider this: most of the questions asked by
As far as selfishness goes, the aim of democracy is to make as few people unhappy as possible. People are happy if their selfish needs are fulfilled. Thus, it's appropriate to vote based on what you want. If most people agree with you, than the solution that makes the most of you happy will probably be adopted. As far as being influenced by others, that's part of society and it's going to exist no matter what, unless we have a government that is ignorant of the demands of the people. (That's Arrow's Theorem: the government that minimizes conflict is a dictatorship.) That's what democracy is, folks. People have a right to believe what they want to, regardless of where they hear it. Sure, it would be nice if people were as educated as Slashdot readers (although perhaps a little less belligerent), but a population doesn't have that luxury. So don't be elitist about voting, you're not the only person in this country.
I seriously doubt that someone (Nader) who graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and holds a law degree from Harvard is ignorant of basic economics and clings to any deep-seated class jealousy. This particular notion "tax speculation in the stock market" is way too vague as to be anything but fodder for clarification. It sounds like a capital gains tax to me. After all, how do you tax someone for speculation if they have actually lost money? Maybe they should just apply a national sales tax to the transfer of stock (since it's a sale). Either way, this will not affect investment drastically. Any reduction on investment gain due to taxation is merely to be figured into the return side of the risk equation-- just like it has been for years and years.
I do not have a signature
So I answered the Slashdot Poll and got ... a long discussion about Nader's responses to questions and everything else Nader. Where's the discussion on the poll? Bug or feature?
sulli
RTFJ.
Vote on who you think will uphold a worthwhile society (*cough*) rather than upon petty personal issues like taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. These issues will not influence significantly one way or the other the decline and fall of American society. Indeed, they take attention away from worthwile issues!
Please, consider the long run, and the worthfulness of American society. Vote what's best for that.
Well, this is a nice little self-selected opinion poll. It would be great to have /. run a poll similar to this one asking people if they voted, and then who they voted for if they did. You'll find that there are many willing participants who don't make it out on Election Day. Sad, but true.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Hmmm, as I'm viewing this (admittedly early on), it's Gore #1, Bush #2, Nader #3. Given the /. demographics, I'm not surprised that Gore is doing better than Bush. But I'm surprised that Bush has Nader by 5%; guess there are a lot of Bush voters out there, like me, who don't feel like they need to stir up trouble by putting their votes in their .sig. =) Hell, I'm an independent, and there are many Dem's I'd vote for over Bush, but Al ain't one of 'em.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
I agree about the "mission" question, only because we can't judge our own behaviors and motivations until fifty years from now, and look back and see where we blindly led ourselves. That's history, folks. People living in the Dark Ages weren't all gloomy and unhappy that they were living in a wretched time; they thought it was simply an extension of the times they knew, not necessarily bad. But from our hindisght we can tell they had it rough.
# debian/rules
It's partially his ideas we support, not just him.
Remember John McCain? He may have made a pretty good president, and his ideas of campaign finance reform were not that widely popular among the other candidates. When McCain's popularity, however, became a concern for Bush et al, they all started supporting McCain's issues to get votes. At first it wasn't working for Bush; he was losing states in the primaries pretty quickly, but eventually it paid off. Now both candidates are making as a major issue campaign finance reform.
So even if Nader doesn't get elected, Gore should be smart enough to see that if he wants Nader's five percent, he has to support Nader's ideas to get some support and win the election. If he's not smart enough to figure that out, then I don't want him to be president.
# debian/rules
"Supposedly the 'pill' is what 98% effective? And condoms are 99% effective? Hell, add those two up and you have 197% protection!"
:-)
Too much fuzzy math for these republicans...
I do agree with you though that if you use birth control then you have little to worry about. Problem is some people don't and just get an abortion when they get pregnant. Thus my position on abortion is that it should be more expensive, but covered by medicare for certain people, i.e. low-income who can't afford a child and at-risk pregnancies.
# debian/rules
So in other words, you want government to control the population through taxes. Why not tax certain religions that "we like," and not others? Or certain races? In other words, if I want to smoke, and I'm not bothering anyone, why should I be taxed for it more than any other consumer good? (Presuming I have my own healthcare plan, and will not suck up any of your tax money when I start dying of lung/throat cancer.)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
I find it interesting that Bush supports privacy:
Why? He's a Republican. That means they want the government out of your life (unless you're talking about sexual or religious issues, of course!) In addition, privacy is pro-corporation, because there are lots of companies out there that could be making more money if they could sell their encryption products overseas without as many restrictions. Republicans are pro-business.
(I'm voting libertarian, for what it's worth.)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
We need a leader who will personally beat the crap out of anyone he doesn't like. Not like the US with their sex-crazed leaders, we have a leader who isn't afraid to throw the punches when they are necessary ;).
I'm voting Chretien too, but you know, the ultimate PM ever was Canada's very own sex-crazed leader, Trudeau.
Compare, if you will, Trudeau and Clinton. (Most of my Trudeau info paraphrased from the documentaries on TV after he died.)
Sex
Clinton: Married, cheats on his wife with interns, and then denies it by claiming it wasn't really cheating.
Trudeau: Goes into office as a bachlor -- smart move, considering all the tail that's available to him as a PM. When asked before elected who will be the hostess at Sussex Drive, he asks if he can have multiple hostesses. Gets married, has 3 kids, gets divorced, then has a child out of wedlock with a different women. Reputed to have quite the libido.
Drugs:
Clinton:I didn't inhale.
Trudeau:When I was in Turkey, I smoked a hookah -- I don't know what was in it, but it was probably hash. In India I smoked ganja with the workers. In China, opium. Heck, everywhere I went I smoked whatever they had.
You've got to love his moxie.
I can spell. I just can't type.
I shouldn't complain as I did not send any questions in (I already had the answers to my questions), but I have to say that more than a couple of those questions were stinkers.
The particularly smelly one, though, was the "mission" one. The very premise that America HAS a mission is itself a false one: this country, like that of it's father, the UK, is based on the principle of wealth accumulation and manipulation by the powerful. In other words, the US is just like any other nation state you'd care to name; it's just been incredibly successful at its real purpose.
Don't look to the government or a geographical location for the meaning that is absent in your life; look within yourself. Once you do that, I wager you'll see these "missions" for what they really are and realize how little they speak to the "values" professed by those who pride themselves on being "American".
Patriotism: just say no.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
But I am planning to vote on Tuesday and I'm trying to emit concern rays, which should displodge apathy particle blockages in people I pass on the highway, in the hallways at work or in the potato chip aisle at the DeLuxe Market of Aptos.
I've heard that several dozen potential voters in the US will not go out to their place of polling and pull a lever or push a pin to do that one thing for themselves that no-one anywhere else in the world can do for them. That's right. Cast that vote for president of the nation which uses the most toilet paper on earth.
Sure, some of them are thinking to themselves: Whether or not I vote, we will go on leading the world in toilet paper usage, what does it matter? Consider for a moment that your choice may decide whether that paper is made by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, agricultural giant and significant donor to the George "My dad and mom say I'm my own man so you can believe me when I tell you that I am" W. Bush, from corn cobs or from recycled Al "I don't know that other man in the White House" Gore speeches.
Everyday people around the world toil and suffer and raise their voices in anguish for the right to make this important decision (ADM Corn Cobs vs Photocopier paper with potential staples or paper clips) While effectively some americans aren't clear on the concept of practicing good hygene or how to go about it (Right hand or left?)
To the undecided, I project my concern rays at you and trust you to get up off your seat and do the right thing. And in the interest of domestic tranquility, don't forget to put the lid down.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually, I'm in Pennsylvania :)
I never said anything about Income Tax...that I rule as a necessary evil.
You say that the EC is a buffer between stupid people and policy makers -- but what better way for policy makers to keep their old two-party system afloat, as long as they keep those same two parties in control of the House as a fallback measure.
Let's say a nice amount of non-Dem/Rep Congress{wo|}men get elected, such that neither the Dems or Reps get a majority (it wouldn't be that hard, either.) And then say that no presidential candidate gets an electoral majority. Party politics as it is, when it reaches the House, no candidate will *ever* get a majority. Thus the entire electoral process is exposed for the sham that it is.
Unlikely, you say? Congresspeople are elected by popular vote -- if third party candidates are popular enough, they get votes!
Maybe there's a few disgruntled Reps/Dems who'd be willing to defect to Libertarian/Green/Reform/etc...we can only hope...
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
I'm a woman, and ALL of my female friends are supporting Nader, even my mother. Why don't you hear about it? The media doesn't want to listen. NONE of us are right, and we do have alot to lose, but, Al Gore has let us all down.
I find this 'let's-tax-the-rich-so-that-we-can-give-more-to-th e-poor' trend a bit disturbing. Allow me to explain why. I came to the United States about ten years ago. I was 15 at the time, and wasn't particularly fond of the idea of leaving all my friends behind, etc.
You know, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's all these recent immigrants who think that, just because they left their home countries due to higher taxes on the rich, that somehow they should get an even better deal than they were already getting.
I mean really - you left a country where the richest one percent are taxed at a 70 percent tax rate to come to one of the only countries which taxes you at 38 percent, and you think you deserve more?!?
Get real and go back to whence you came - then change the system there before you try to impose your un-American values on us native-born Americans.
I want a real conservative politician, one who will bring back the 40 percent tax on corporations, and make sure that only 15 percent of Americans pay taxes at all, such as we had until the 1960s. When a corporation could be dechartered for not doing enough for the public good.
Oh, what's that you say? You don't want that? Then stop complaining and stop putting your ill-gotten gains in tax havens like the Bahamas and expecting the 90 percent of Americans who are below you from subsidizing your vacations!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask those of you in the 99 percent of Americans who make less to please vote Nader.
Think about it - if you just vote Nader in swing states, you can help put Bush over the top and allow us to deduct our corporate expense trips to Bahrain and the Bahamas. We need our perks - like our annual meetings in St. Lucia - for without them we'll get cranky.
So, please, if you're thinking of using your common sense - hold off on that thought. Sure, it would be easy for you to all vote Green in Texas and other pro-Bush states and give Nader 10 percent of the vote, but we want you to vote Gore where it doesn't matter and Nader where it might make a difference to your lives.
Won't you please help my child? He's only had six trips to Santa Barbara this year, one week in the French West Indies (corporate tax writeoff, since we're researching French companies to buy with his earnings), and a Christmas cruise from Los Angeles to Baja, California. If you don't help us now, he may only be able to spend one week on the French Riviera next year and we may have to ski at local ski hills.
Please - please - think about how you vote and find it in your heart to help a deserving child learn three languages at your expense.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
We of the drunk driving community, wish to endorse Bush, with one DUI and a fine, and Cheney, with two DUIs.
We figure their morals say more about what their record in office will be than anything else.
Also, we plan to drive around local schoolgrounds in support of them - after all, if we run over a few kids, they're too young to vote anyway, and maybe we can find some high school girls at the same time.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Get your fucking grubby hands out of my womb. No, I won't shut up. It is not your choice to do what you want with my body. It is my body. My fucking body. You have no right to determine my reproductive destiny by raping me, and you have no right to determine my reproductive destiny by criminalizing my body and what I do with it. What I do with my body is between me and whatever Divine Maker I worship and it has nothing to do with you.
It's not murder when I amputate a gangrene foot from my body and it's not murder when I extricate a tapeworm from my body. It's the same with abortion, and if abortion is ever recriminalized, then I will arm myself and defend that right. You won't want to mess with me.
-- Anne Marie
Yeah and might i add that it was me who invented the wheel.
For once I'm complaining about lack of options. There is an option missing on your poll: I am a second class US citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and I am not allowed to vote for President and only have a non voting representative in the US Congress.
Let's see here: who's taking the bigger risk-- someone who provides economically for their family via wages paid to them by one employer, or someone with speculates with a diversified portfolio? The average worker takes a far greater risk on the success of the company. And speaking of ignorance of basic economics, it's important to realize that over the past ten years companies have retired more stock than they have sold. The stock market today provides no practical basis for capital investment for businesses. To put it bluntly, the stock market's a Ponzi scheme. It serves no useful purpose other than to make the 5% of stockholders who own 90% of the stock richer.
Sure it may sound a bit cynical but c'mon... most American voters, at least at one point or another, have come to the realization that it doesn't really matter if you vote or not. Personally, I live in Texas. It's insane to think that George W. Bush would EVER lose to Gore or anyone in the state of Texas, his homestate, a very strong Republican state, and the state he governs. I also don't agree with a lot of Bush's ideas and plans. So, I'm not going to vote for him. However, thanks to the electoral college system, if I don't vote for Bush, my vote is definitely going to someone who isn't even going to get a single real vote for president. Even if I did vote for Gore (who I also don't agree with on several points) it wouldn't mean anything. So, not only do I not have any candidates that think like I think and feel the same way about the state of the union as I do, it doesn't matter, because even if I did it wouldn't matter, my vote wouldn't miraculously make them win Texas.
But I did vote. I voted for Nader, and not because I agree with everything he says, not because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", but because by voting for Nader I throw my vote in the face of the election. It's ridiculous that we only have two candidates to represent the 250+ million people in the US today and expect everyone to be satisfied, especially when their opinions on matters are so influenced by money and lobbyists that they "agree" on so many points. My vote wasn't for Nader, but for the hope that 4 years down the road someone might come along and actually have a chance in the election other than the Republican and the Democrat - someone that I actually agree with. Sure my single vote doesn't make a huge difference, but my vote for Nader is a vote for the hope of an actual choice in the future.
Voting shouldn't be this hard. People shouldn't have to argue about who's the better candidate, there should be someone running for president that you agree with, at least for the most part so unless you agree with what Bush says or with what Gore says, why NOT vote for Nader? He's not going to win, but at least your vote has a little bit of meaning.
... is that 25% of the people voting on slashdot arn't US citizens.
Now I'm aware that the US political world can shape the future of the global geek world, but IMHO this slashdot poll should nudge slashdot away from it's US centric postition.
While I don't mind an open discussion on the geek effects of the US drongoid election lets leave out the politics eh?
You can bet that Bill Gates did not pay huge amounts of money in taxes either, because, like most Microsoft employees, he takes much of his compensation in the form of stock options, and stock capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than the "unfair" rates charged to me on my income (I'm in the highest tax bracket, but my income is less than 1% of Bill Gates's).
The current system of taxation is unfair to whom? Certainly not to Cisco or Microsoft or Bill Gates or anybody who is truly rich.
Meanwhile, local retirees are up in arms because their property taxes have been raised to the point where their homes, which they worked hard for all their lives to buy, are about to be taken away from them. At the same time, local developers continue to line up for multi-million dollar subsidies from government, ranging from stadiums to "redevelopment" projects. So let's see... today's system of taxation is unfair to the guys lining up at the government teat?
Yeah, right.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
There's just one major issue with that kind of system.
How do you intend to motivate people to produce without the ability to get rich?
My father was once a mid-level manager for PG&E. He singlehandedly raised the output of every area he worked in while reducing the number of men needed. He now (despite being below retirement age) takes a much lower-paying job doing coordination and planning for a tiny town in the middle of a desert. He isn't producing as much. There are more people who could do what he does now than what he did then. However, due to your "progressive taxes", he decided that the extra effort wasn't worthwhile.
You may see this as fine -- after all, it doesn't seem to hurt the working class any. However, if this ONE MAN could cut the operating costs of a branch of a utility company by 20%, and you drive him out of this position, you just raised the utility bills of everyone in the area.
Okay, you say, that raise in utility bills is compensated for by the lower taxes they're paying, since my father's paying them instead. Oh, wait, he isn't. He quit that job, since the reward was no longer sufficient. Oops. By contrast, if you permitted my father a higher income ("unearned" or no), and he spent this money on purchases rather than taxes... who makes the stuff he buys? The working class. By permitting the "upper class" more effective income, you make jobs for the labor class and (by increasing the sales of the companies they work for) allow them to be paid more. By removing the ability of people with extrordinary abilities to make corresponding amounts of pay, you doom society to mediocrity.
What you forget is that the whole point to this "income" stuff that you're taking is to motivate to do things to the best of their ability. Take away that motivation and you just decreased the nation's productivity -- and it's that productivity that determines how much your beloved Working Joe pays for that new car he wants.
Remember that the thing that caused the Depression wasn't the stock market crash itself, but people who stopped spending what money they had because of their fear. What matters in terms of people's actual wealth isn't how much money they have but how much they spend, and taxes take directly from money that would be spent.
An even better measure would be elimination of the minimum wage. Keep in mind that every dollar that a store spends on its checkers is a dollar that's paid for by the markups on the items it sells. By eliminating the minimum wage which forces people to be paid more than their labor is worth (by definition -- its worth is what a free market would make it be) you decrease prices to consumers, thus compensating for their reduced pay and stimulating the economy further (as those are paid more than your "minimum wage" would have been are given still more buying power, permitting them to make more purchases, increasing jobs and pay). By eliminating this artificial inflation of costs, this also reduces the flow of jobs out of the country, which you so bemoan.
And one more thing. I'm expecting, right now, an attack as being from a family of rich people, and thus guaranteed a position of security while the poor are doomed to poverty. My father came from a family of 10 people trying to eat off a single living wage. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps. I've a friend from a family of immigrants, the first person in his extended family ever to go to college; He's a corporate lawyer. That people can't change their positions in society is a sorry excuse given by those without enough ambition and intelligence to do so themselves.
And one last thing. The labor class doesn't nearly get paid squat. Where I am right now (Chico, CA) a single person can easily live off of $6000/yr -- I've done it. Not a particularly high quality of life, but food/shelter/clothing are all there. The supposed "poverty line" here is in the range of $30K/yr. That leaves $2000 a month for luxuries (or for buying real milk instead of powdered, or owning a vehicle... I'll be the first to admit that when doing $6000/yr I was cutting it pretty close). And you say the working class here in America is paid squat? Hardly!
There's some other details -- tax breaks, tax credits, special exemptions galore -- and yeah, I think those should be wiped. Mostly because they are sneaky ways to give welfare to the rich. But the flat tax doesn't really change anything about those.
Taxes will be complicated. Does the flat tax get rid of deductions? Depreciation? I haven't heard anyone talk about these, but I'm sure it doesn't, because these (complicated) rules are methods of calculating people's real income. All forms of the income tax require calculating income. All forms of the income tax are somewhat complicated. The flat tax isn't any better.
CEO's who earn $100 million a year aren't making honest money from honest labor -- you just can't make that much money from labor. You can make it by selling your influence with businesses and politicians, but that's not honest. You are just manipulating a corrupt system.
Extra taxation on wages that excede the lowest paid worker by a certain factor is one way of taxing this sort of situation. For example, all wages above 20x the lowest paid worker are subject to corporate taxes. I believe Nader supports something like this (though I don't know the specifics).
Capital gains certainly isn't money from honest labor, since it doesn't involve any labor. Right now capital gains taxes are much lower than taxes for other sorts of income, which seems quite unfair.
I don't think Nader would propose special taxes on certain professions, but rather makes a distinction between money earn by labor and money you get otherwise.
ah, but speculation is NOT taxed at a higher rate than honest hard work.
In other words, you can get taxed less by holding stock for at least 12 months, than you can by working. In other words, hard work is to be discouraged. Don't earn your money. Invest daddy's money. Don't build anything real, build paper.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I accept atheism as a philosophy, but a religion?
...
[Atheist church service]
Atheist#1: There is no God.
Atheist#2: Nope.
Atheist#1: Nosiree. No God. Not one.
Atheist#2: No God.
Atheist#1:
Atheist#2: Nope.
Atheist#1: I knew this one guy who thought there was a God. I think he was wrong.
Atheist#2: Yeah. He thinks he's going to heaven when he dies, but he's just going to be dead.
Atheist#1: I can prove there is no God.
Atheist#2: That's ok, I'm convinced already.
Atheist#1: Nooooo God.
...
Have I left anything out?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The majority always were happy to do a lot of other things that we all know are great injustices. The duty of the country is to protect its citizens -- not to please the many by the harassment, theft or persicution of the few.
Of course, should be and is are worlds apart.
---
seumas.com
There are more people who will vote for Candidate X because their family has always voted the party-line or who don't like the other candidates' race/sex/religion. There are always more people who will vote for someone because Paula Poundstone, Alec Baldwin or Rosie O'Donnel told them they should. In short, in a country where religious orders, celebrities, television and commercials perform the functions of critical thinking for the majority of individuals, there will never be a drastic positive change. Governments will always grow larger, taxes will always climb (on the grand scale, though year to year they may fluctuate) and we'll always sacrifice our liberties "for the children".
I know of no way to resolve this dilemma, short of neglecting the entire philosophy that the country was supposedly founded on. So it seems that it is part of our political structure that we will always be forced into mediocrity -- at best.
---
seumas.com
The government, though bloated, should still seek taxation as a form of revenue for the funding of things we as a country have deemed worthy. Too many political figures and groups seek taxation as a form of retribution.
And what are they seeking retribution against? Hell if I can figure it out. I guess hard work is no excuse for deserving money -- so you need to have yours taken away so those who make lesser wages can feel better about themselves.
Hell, I don't know. I don't like to sound so angry over money and taxes, but I'm disgrunted that I have relatives who could really use a bit of the 52% of my salary that the government is taking out of my checks.
---
seumas.com
--
We should tax stock market speculation.
Well, at least the man is admitting he wants to use taxes as a means of getting around the 4th and 5th amendments, to punish people without all the bother of convicting them of crimes.
The above sentence means he wants to punish people for investing in American businesses.
It means he wants to punish 401k plans and pension plans.
This basically negatively affects everybody who doesn't work in the fast food industry, and it affects them too if they're management.
-
I've heard Nader speak on the issue. What he's really talking about are day traders and the like. These are a distinctly different breed than the ones who are generating wealth. In fact, virtually EVERY day trader looses money on the aggregate (hint: That's not how you build wealth). They may win on a couple trades, but for everyone of those they lose or just break even. It's virtually impossible to beat the market and if you can't the transaction costs (i.e., the price you pay per trade) will eat you alive.
Nader wants to tax ALL trades, believing that people who turn over their portfolios a lot will get hit, and thus be discouraged, while "grandma" who holds on to her portfolio will only incur nominal taxes when she sells. However, this is pretty foolish because, as I pointed out, they already are losing on average. Secondly, this does nothing to override windfall profits on a particular trade. Thirdly, even speculators (not all speculators are alike) can (and do) play a postive role in the markets, they can and do absorb risk (i.e., by buying a stock when it's falling). Fourthly, though I don't have the exact numbers on hand, I don't believe the more recent volatility in the markets is the result of "pure" day traders; rather, it's something in between. It's the mass of new and inexperienced traders that, although they aren't necessarily turning over their portfolio every day, they don't understand the fundamental nature of the market. They buy into the hype, the fear, the fud, etc, and are easily spooked as a result. It is doubtful that a tax would address these people, unless it was really high (in which case, it'd absolutely kill the economy).
As for your second point about people "buying" up large quantities of stock so they can profit, that's absolutely baseless. If it were anything close to a sure thing, it wouldn't be called speculation anyways.
I don't know about you, but I'm deeply indebted to Mr. Gore for his contribution to the world in creating the Internet. Even though I can't vote, since I'm not a US citizen, I couldn't let this opportunity to thank him profusely for what he has done go by.
:)
I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like. We should tax stock market speculation. We should tax pollution. We should tax activities that we don't like, like sprawl, in order to get a better planning system and better zoning system. And we should lighten the taxes on things we do like, like honest labor, like food."
Silly me, I thought the reason we had a tax code was to raise revenue, not to engage in this sort of asinine social micromanagement..... Until we get smart and implement a flat tax, people are just going to engage in whatever sort of financial misdirection they can to avoid paying taxes (as they should).
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break, not just those of us who engage in whatever behavior the government wants to encourage....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Where is the "I wish I wasn't a US Citizen" option?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Light him on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life
Although I like some of Nader's ideals, Harry Browne fits my leanings more closely. I also like his responses to the Slashdot poll.
You've answered your own question. You did well in life because you got a good start: your parents were well-educated and supportive. If they had been illiterate, I doubt that you would have fared as well. Poverty breeds poverty.
There are about one million Americans who work full-time, but are still homeless. Moreover, there 1.2 billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. I find this unacceptable. Since I earn far more than most, I think it's right that I should give a large portion of my income to help those who are less well-off.
For more about global poverty, see this.
For the causes of poverty, see this.
Then read this or this or this to find out more about what can be done.
--
In response to a post where I said I preferred Bush to Gore on Heinlein's "find a well-meaning fool, ask him how he intends to vote, then vote the other way" strategy, someone wrote back:
> By this you mean that Bush is a malicious fool?
My response was "Actually, yes [as in yes, I agree Bush is a malicious fool] ;-)"
The difference is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that the malicious at least sleep. Those who mean well never rest.
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes. Nader wants to tax "things he doesn't like". Both are using the power of the state to micro manage individual behavior.
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush. A fool? Sure. Malicious? Perhaps. But at least malice sleeps at night. Those with good intentions never rest.
Oh boy.. Do I see the fledgling religious war comming on?
First of all, the "body" inside the womb is the combination and product of two humans. Without the support of at least one of them, that "body" will most certainly die. You can coerce the woman to have the child, and you can even take the child away from her, but you're fighting an uphill battle to bring to child to a worthwhile life.
Beyond that, the fetus does not belong to the mother anymore than the body belongs to the mother. We are in turn products of the earth. Divine significance is left as an exercize to the reader. The point is that there is no such thing as physical ownership. There is only brute force (either psychological or physical) protection of materials. It is the perception of ownership that allows us to commit "atrocities". I own this land, I can burry what-ever I want here.. I own this forest, I can cut it down and make a profit. These are my children, I can discipline them however I choose. This is my wife, I can have sex with her whenever I like (anybody remember this old addage?)
So from that, you should be able to morally justify that a woman can't just claim that this is my fetus, and I can rid myself of it however I choose. You'd be right except for one small detail... Circumstance. Assuming that I can convince you that we do not "own" anything, but merely protect our possessions, then take that every cell in your body is an independant possession. Each of which has had it's destiny mapped out for it.. Depending on what part of the body it happened to start out as, it is designed to have a certain life expectancy.. They are individual life forms, no less significant or magnificant than a fully functional Einstein. Man, in all his knowledge has never reverse engineered cellular life. These cells have been chosen (through divinity or natural selection) to work together as a team, and thus take part in their destiny. Most of these cells will sacrafice themselves for the good of the many. Your epidermous, your hair, your red blood cells.. All of which go through a living stage and will physically die in order to fullfill some organized purpose. In fact, the act of consciousness is little more than a high level functioning machine. The potential supernatural aspect is wholely independant of the mechanical wonders of the mammal's body.
Given this, you _must_ accept that death is a part of life.. That life regularly chooses who among them will die before their time.. There is nothing un-natural about death or selected killing (even indiscriminant killing). The question becomes what is best for the species, the individual, the particular organ... Or fetus. 99% of the time, our conscious selves are shielded from these sorts of descisions.. We don't have to make life-and death descisions (or at least we tend to delegate such authority to a select few). That's fine as a way of handling order and peace. But that is a choice of a particular community. Each of us regularly subconsciosly chooses the death of innumerable living beings.. Everything you eat is evidence of this.. Every wooden structure you utilize, every blade of grass you stomp apon... We think little of it, and so we should.. But we can't neglect that death is around us, and is wholly natural.
Variously religious Dogma's have placed priority on human collective life, as would be expected by any life form... Life always looks after it's own (it's more of that evolutionary/engineered rationalle). We also place heavy emphasis on the new-born... Sub-consciously, this is our hope for survival as a race... The Motherly protective instincts in most of us.
But you have to understand that life is about choices.. That choosing to take a baby into an unwanting family (especially in the cases of rape, or if it caused the death of the mother), will do no species good. In nature, unwanted children are physically killed by their families. You may claim that we have the benifit of a collective peer consciousness, but understand that we don't have all the answers... I make the claim that if we continue on with our "collective" wisdom as we have done for the past 200 years, we will eventually rid the Earth of our grotesque selves. Learning to vote ourselves tax breaks, allowing every human wanting desire to be fullfilled in part or whole... To promote greed, wastefulness, anonymity and thus removal from responsibility... When natural resources are so scarce that we must fight for them, I garuntee you that the fat cats of the world will not gratiously share with one another.. War will be eminant, and life will be scarce thereafter. Heven help us if we learn to travel through space to other colonizable worlds.. Has anyone actually seen Independance day?
In summary. Life is wonderous and prescious, but there are powerful forces that choose expiration dates. We are one of those forces, and it is merely politics (at the personal and pseudo-religious level) that decides who and how we should exercize that right. Never forget that you have Godlike powers across the earth (in terms of the level of control you wield), and with that comes God-like responsibilities. You may very well choose to limit your influence on death, but just as you must eradicate the very much alive cancer and bacteria in your body, you must sometimes allow for sacrafices.. Even of your own kind....
-Michael
-Michael
Investing in the stock market in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It can provide a company with much needed capital to produce greater growth. However, speculation is the act of putting money into a company on whim; for short term. Speculation, as I see it, is the factor in the stock market which destablizes it. Instead of investing in the long term, day traders do by the minute profit catching, irregardless of the actual value of the company. Additionally, I think it's safe to say that Nader is against any method in which you could make significant amounts of money at the expense of someone else, which is exactly what stock market speculation does: when everyone sells off their stock simultaneously to profit off of the skyward bound IPO, and it tanks, the people who joined in late are screwed.
It falls in line with the core belief that corporations, and those who are fortunate to have money to place in corporations, shouldn't be wholeheartedly congratulated for screwing over the hard working laborer.
For more information concerning the ways that corporations screw over democracy, check out this interview done with MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.
yours,
yours,
kbs
As long as our government is in the business of providing medical care for people who fall sick, I think it's fair that the people who put themselves at disproportionate risk of costing the system SHOULD be taxed.
This is a prime example of how government grows from one area into another. With federal money *always* comes federal control.
The same dynamic applies to the school system. Until recently, government schools were were run at the state and local levels and received no federal funding, and no federal control. Now, since schools are receiving more funds from the federal government, there is a push for central "standards" and "accountability". In other words, we are moving more toward centralized, federally approved curriculum and standardized testing.
I'm no fan of government schools of any kind, but I would have to choose decentralized local schools over centralized federal schools any day.
As far as health care, I'd like to see the federal government out of that business too. And postal delivery. And ketchup-testing, and swiss-cheese-hole-size-regulating. And funding of political campaigns and corrupt debate commissions.
--
I assume by "we" he means the People (although in reality it's the Party). If it were the people, you can rest assured most people do _not_ like pollution, etc. I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
A Letter from Michael Moore to the Non-Voters of America
Dear friends,
DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter I spit out over the Internet.
So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?
I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).
So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away.
What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.
To Whom It May Concern:
I address this letter to the largest political party in the United States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting in November.
You know who you are.
AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!
You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!
Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished right - the right to freely choose your leader!).
Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.
The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed.
On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!
"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.
The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice on the ballot.
So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"
Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.
In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke - somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.
So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political molotov cocktail.
Boom!
"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy?"
Boom!
Not me.
Boom!
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
KAAAABOOM!
Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar a day.
And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?
I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.
We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've become at the whole electoral process.
Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.
I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the bastards.
Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.
Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.
Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.
And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?"
The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure, there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you are.
But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.
If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for Bush winning the White House.
In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House, either.
Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the worst nightmare of their lives.
November 7. Payback Time.
The revenge of the Non-Voters!
So sayeth their unappointed leader, yours truly,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
http://www.theawfultruth.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com
PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.
When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.
The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.
Democrats should send their checks to Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036.
(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)
PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled, " I Ain't Fallin for That One Again. "
PPPS. Tonight, Wednesday July 19, on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 10 p.m. ET/PT), Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken makes a surprise return visit. Don't miss it!
PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Roe v. Wade is indeed liable to be reversed. But whether this is a good or a bad thing, from your point of view, depends only secondarily on what you think of abortion. First you must decide whether you believe the end justifies the means.
I believe the US Constitution should contain a guarantee of privacy. It doesn't. Neither does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a woman's right to an abortion, except under the most wilful misinterpretation.
Maybe it should. I'd change the Constitution in a bunch of ways, if I could. Fine as it is, it's far from a perfect document.
Anyway, I personally don't give a hoot about abortion one way or another. But I detest the notion that the Constitution, or any other law, is a "living document", whose evolution is determined solely by a handful of unelected goverment officials. If the law can be bent so easily in a (debatably) "good cause", it can offer little protection when the wind changes.
When the end is used to justify the means, the end all too often turns out much, much worse. The degradation of our constitutionally ennumerated rights is, IMHO, a result of the same judicial activism that decided Roe v. Wade. For this reason, I will use my vote to try to achieve the very court that you warn of.
I would say that you're factually wrong on this point:
if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion rights by Federal Judicial fiat are history. Abortion issues then devolve to state legislatures and constitutions... to the more normal processes of democracy. This is far from saying abortion shall be banned, or that abortion rights are history.
Written with respect for your opinion.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by Indians, " Who's *we* whitey?"
I'm sorry, but that one statement is about the scariest damn thing any of the candidates has said. Well, except for Buchannan, but he's a loose channan on the deck.
It is nothing short of tyranny.
Guess where the surplus came from? Thats right! Capital gains taxation. When the market goes, these taxes vanish, and there goes the surplus.
This nation will soon learn the error in depending too much on the taxation of speculation to prop up the budget, particularly whne most of the speculative behavior tapers off in a bear market.
Me? I hate politics. Let me say that again. I HATE POLITICS.
Why? Because they accomplish nothing. People just vote for whatever they think they are: Democrat or Republican.
That's why voting is a big waste of time to me. I don't like either party and I don't consider myself to be so one-sided as to "fit" into either declared system of beliefs.
I almost didn't vote this year, because I feel that it accomplishes nothing. Both Bush and Gore are the same people. Maybe they have differences of opinion in speeches or debates, but let's face it: they will do the same thing every president does after they win. And that's do whatever they feel like, past promises be damned.
Then I started reading a little. I went to http://www.speakout.com/votematch/ and took the poll. It was EXTEREMELY interesting to find out what "my" views were in regards to the candidates. If you have 20 minutes to spare, your should do it too. I assure you that you will be suprised by the results. I'll bet that your views are actually more like a different candidate than the one you plan to vote for on November 7th.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
Why?
Not because I think he can win. Let's be serious, he can't.
But if he gets just 5% of the vote in this country, he qualifies for government funding in the 2004 election. That means that for the first time since well...as far back as my memory goes, we will have a SERIOUS 3rd-party candidate in the running.
Why is that good? Because it is a 3rd choice, and having more than two choices is a good thing. I, for one, am appalled by the fact that in America, the greatest country in the world, we limit ourselves to only two guys for the leadership of our nation. We force OURSELVES to make a choice simply on who we hate LESS. That's horrible.
Now I bet some of you know the issues involved in the media about Nader. Here is my reply to them:
Q: Nader isn't going to win. He is a wasted vote.
A: If you already plan on NOT voting, take half an hour out of your life (it only happens every 4 years, you can spare it) and vote for Nader. Simply make your voice heard that you WANT a 3rd choice, regardless of who it is. One more guy to choose from is one more way to make the other two guys more honest.
Q: A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
A: Not true really, math-wise. It's just a vote for Nader. Maybe you would have went with Bush, maybe with Gore, or maybe with no one because it used to be worthless to pick.
Q: Bush/Gore is going to win my state, so why bother?
A: If you live in a state that is already "projected" to be an overwhelming victory for one candidate, then you have NOTHING TO LOSE by voting for Nader. So instead of adding another vote for the guy who already has 90% of them in your state, you can still be happy that Gore/Bush won your state AND use your important vote to add to Nader's small pile.
Q: Nader won't get 5%, this is a waste of time.
A: Nader already has 10% of California alone and over 5% in a few other states. This is not going to be a 1-2% deal. It is going to be close. Maybe 4%, maybe 5%, maybe 6%. It's that close right now. So use your vote to make a difference in our democracy for a change.
My hope is that one person that reads this will look into the issues and give Nader their vote. If he hits that 5% mark, we can expect to see a 2004 election that is unlike the usual tripe and empty promises we expect from politics.
Make a difference. Vote for a change. Vote Nader.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
You are so full of shit it's not even FUNNY. All you people who spout off about "spending the surplus on the wealthiest 1%" forget WHO'S GODDAMNED MONEY IT IS. You talk about math that doesn't add up? Let's take an example. Johnny gets his ass taxed loose at a rate of 40%. Billy gets not-so-vigorously-ass-raped at a rate of 20%. Frankie is bought dinner and a movie to give it up at a rate of 5%. Now, cut all their tax rates by the same 5%. What happens?
And you know what else? The "rich" end up paying a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of the remaining tax burden now, since Frankie USED to pay, and now DOESN'T. But that's just not enough for people like you. You want to put a gun to Johnny and Billy's heads, take their money, and GIVE it to Frankie. Fuck you. And guess what? I'm not even a millionaire. I just want to be one some day. You think you'll get "targetted tax relief" under Gore? Better run out and buy your electric car and get that photovoltaic system for your roof. Better have some kids of exactly the right age, or pound out some new ones. Better be a stay-at-home mom. Better put those kids in a Federally Funded and Approved afterschool program. After all, you've got to show the Government that you NEED your own fucking money. Christ on a crutch. Wake the fuck up.
Insert humorous sig here.
Food and clothing are already tax excempt
:)
:), only then will the non-Democlicans/Republicrats have a sporting chance to become President.
Not in Ohio they aren't. Thousands of border-dwellers on the Ohio side buy their clothing on the No-Tax-On-Necessary-Clothing PA side.
Notice that candy does not count as food
My 2: Penguin Mints should be re-classified as "pharmaceutical/non-prescription" and thus tax-free.
Now that I'm thoroughly off-topic...
If it wasn't for Gore, I'd be voting straight Democrat this year (Ron Klink for US Senate, Terry Van Horne for Congress (PA 4th district), and my incumbent PA state senator and rep), as I've done in '96 and '98. Why am I not voting for Gore?
Because there are better candidates out there. Nader and Hagelin for two, probably others.
And now for the real reason voting for anyone other than Bush'n'Gore (which sounds like a Porno Snuff film) is a wasted vote...The Electoral College.
We know that it's going to be a damn close election, electoral-vote-wise. Let's assume that Nader gets lucky and wins one or two states, thus causing nobody to have an electoral majority. Then the next President will be chosen by the CURRENT House of Representatives. Which means Bush will win, since the Republicans control the House (two-party politics strikes again.)
Once the Electoral College is abolished like the anachronism it is (along with the Patent Office and the x86 instruction set
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
But who should we be voting for? I don't have the time right now to really dig through the material and read pages after pages of policy and view points. I have class work to do - I need bottom lines. As a geek, there's certain rights that I'd like to see preserved. Al Gore and the Democrats want to see them removed (DMCA). On the flip side, George Bush is anti-abortion and I believe that women have a right to choose. Economists at my school have told me that Nader's financial plans are a joke. The fourth guy just doesn't matter. *chuckle*
One might argue that my lack of time to do proper research means that I shouldn't influence the election - but I feel it's my duty as an American citizen to vote (people shed blood so that I could have this privaledge). But, I don't like any of the candidates.
What is the general opinion of the /. community on who is the least evil - or are there any alternatives to casting a direct vote that still enables me to fulfill my duty? (Someone from the UK had mentioned sploiling the vote - something similar for the US?)
I think Nader is 100% correct by saying we should tax things we don't like. Pollution _should_ be taxed. Air pollution causes up to 80,000 deaths in the US each year and adds millions in health care costs. As for taxing sprawl, the real problem with sprawl is that it is a direct result of our insane automobile subsidies. There is this myth that gas taxes cover the costs of our roads, highways, etc when in fact it doesn't even come close. If drivers (i.e. road users) had to pay the real costs of driving out of their pocket, gas tax would be at European levels. Last time I looked, Europe did not have problems with sprawl.
I too, am voting Liberal in the upcoming Canadian election.
:)
Canadian Alliance? Nope, Stockwell gives me the shivers. I liked Preston (Refooooooooooorm Party!) but Stockwell has that weird look in his eyes...
Progressive Conservatives? Not on your life. I'm looking forward to the day when the party of Mulroney no longer exists. And poor Joe Clark... shouldn't someone tell him that everybody else left?
Bloc Quebecois? *snort* Even Hop-Along Lucien wants nothing to do with them anymore.
NDP? After seeing what an NDP government did to BC? Not freakin' likely.
So it's Liberals for me.
Besides, you gotta like having a leader who'll take the time to punch out a whiny protestor.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I find it interesting that Bush supports privacy:
"In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system -- including encryption export laws -- to allow companies to export products..."
while Gore still wants to maintain the FBI's right to choose:
"I believe that the best encryption policy is one that balances our commercial and privacy interests with national security and law enforcement concerns"
He also goes on to say that what they've done in the current administration has been the right balance.
I don't see how anyone interested in privacy could waste a vote on Gore, who wants more of the same (Clipper, government key escrow, etc.).
I understand that most people on Slashdot aren't likely to put their vote in the (R) column on November 7th, but at least Nader or Browne would support strong encryption and privacy concerns.
Probably, way too many people (even on Slashdot) are voting for Bush on the theory that he's the "Christian" candidate. After all, Clinton/Gore are morally pretty icky, and they support abortion, right?
However, if you are in that position, I want you to think about the following propositions:
- Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible once. Not once.
- Failing to care for the poor is repeatedly mentioned (especially in the minor prophects). Its specifically mentioned 147 times. How 'bout Proverbs 29:7, which says "The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, The wicked does not understand such concern?" That is just one example.
- The Bible is distinctly opposed to some things that are core parts of corporate practice. For example, hoarding of property and charging interest.
- If you think there are no poor people in this country, then you've lived a sheltered life. My wife runs a food bank (I help) -- I meet poor people regularly. There are people with no place to stay. There are people who can't work and have to live on a wopping $512/month from social security. (And no, they really can't work.) There are people working their butts off at dead-end jobs who can't afford to feed their families. (And a lot of dead-beats. The solution is not to cut off the people who really need it to get the dead beats.)
- Stop whining about the "marriage penalty" -- every day families are broken up by the welfare system, and not so Suzie can have a new radio for her SUV, but so that the family can survive. The solution is not to abolish it, but to really fix it. It's going to cost more -- so be it.
- Let's not forget issues like the fact that in 10 years we're going to have to pay taxes on our thoughts because some company will have patented them!
- What's the first responsibility that God gave man? To cultivate the ground. Genesis 2:5. That doesn't mean clear-cutting it. Guess what people: Christians SHOULD be environmentalists.
- Guess what: there are people who can't afford medical care, and who can't buy health insurance at any price. My mother was one of them. Here last 36 hours cost $37,000 at a time when my father was making $40K! Should we just allow those people who can't afford health insurance to die in the service of the almighty buck?
- And, oh yeah, the federal government created a lot of these problems. The welfare system, for example. Or the high cost of healthcare, which was created back in the days when Medicare/caid would pay pretty much any charge without blinking. The federal gov't is the only one who can fix them.
So who am I voting for? Not Bush, with the silver spoon stuck to his tonsils and the big oil backers who would rather die than see real environmental regulation.But not Gore either. As far as I'm concerned, he lost my vote when he supported a known felon and adulterer as president of the United States because it was politically expedient. (I am also voting againt Senator's Warner and Robb, as well as my representative, on those grounds.) Not to mention the fact that he supports aggressive expansion
As for Harry Browne -- well, Laisez Faire economics is bull, always has been and always will be. Anyone who thinks that corporations will take care of their workers in the long term needs to go back and read some history. Start with the industrial revolution. (Besides, the end of that path is corporate Feudalism and "the Company Store". Why don't we just repeal the Thirteenth ammendment -- which abolished slavery -- and get it over with?)
I guess its Nader. There are some things I'm not comfortable with. His stance on abortion. His stance on homosexuality. His desire to expand government without bound. But what's my choice?
I would really like to see a candidate with a bit of common sense. Sadly, no one with any sense would want the misbegotten job.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Bush's answer, on the other hand, is a complete, detailed response that not only addresses the concerns surrounding use and export of encryption, but also points out that the Bush campaign has taken the time to deal with the important issue of information collection and notification. With specific examples of how they are enacting these principles today:
Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
Access. Individuals have the right to correct any inaccurate personal information.
Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.
Bravo, Bush! Say what you like about George Doubya personally, or Republican policies in general, but you have to admit that they seem to care a whole lot more about the rights and freedoms of individuals.
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
dinner: it's what's for beer
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like.
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
Just another quest for power. Who is he to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like?
Why vote Nader if you don't want him to be President?
What is his stance on why he should be Commander in Chief? Why does he deserve to command foreign policy? What would he do as President to overcome his low stature as a diplomat? How will he work with a congress divided between two parties he has no influence in?
No! This is not a time to protest-vote, not for me anyway. If I vote for a man to be President, he should in some way resemble a national leader with an ability to conduct foreign, not just national, policy. I will vote _only_ for someone I want to actually be President. Not this populist gadfly who I simply cannot take seriously.
-Ben
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break, not just those of us who engage in whatever behavior the government wants to encourage....
Christ on a crutch, you really think you will get a tax break worth lifting your eyelids to see from a Dubya Administration? Mr. Bush plans to hand out a huge honking tax slash extravagnza to all the people who are millionaires already and don't even know now how to spend all the money they've got, and for you, guy-who-works-for-a-wage, you'll get some trifling little bonus that isn't worth half the value of this or that existing government program, which you rely upon, that he plans to dig out from underneath your feet.
Don't take my word for it because a.) I am nobody and b.) you can't believe everyone you read on the Internet, obviously. But would you grant any authority to, say, a full professor of economics at MIT? who is also a regular columnist for the New York Times? I mean, you might not agree with such a fellow on every nuance of policy but will you not go along with the notion that here, at least, is a man who can add?
This MIT professor is named Paul Krugman, and if you have the stomach to put up with the NYT web site's totally annoying password nonsense, then please examine this column from October 1st,, entitled "Oops! He Did It Again" which contains (short "fair use" quote, thank you) the following:
But I guess some people get special treatment.
I really, truly wasn't planning to write any more columns about George W. Bush's arithmetic. But his performance on "Moneyline" last Wednesday was just mind-blowing. I had to download a transcript to convince myself that I had really heard him correctly. It was as if Mr. Bush's aides had prepared him with a memo saying: "You've said some things on the stump that weren't true. Your mission, in the few minutes you have, is to repeat all of those things. Don't speak in generalities -- give specific false numbers. That'll show them!"
Note that this isn't Krugman's first column on the numerical anomalies in Mr. Bush's proposed budget, it's just the others scrolled off the NYT web page by now. Krugman goes on from there; concluding:
While I'm quoting Krugman, here is his column of the 25th of October, a cheery little note entitled "Fuzzier and Fuzzier" which ends on this upbeat note:
Indeed, the motto for this election year -- and the epitaph for the soon-to-be-departed budget surplus -- should be: Real men don't think. Unfortunately, what you refuse to think about can till hurt you.
If you began paying into SS last year, excuse me for annoying you with my trivial personal concerns. I've been paying into SS for thirty years. Believe it or not I would be very displeased to find out, in the unlikely event that I live to retirement age, that I will get no money back because the so-called Social Security Trust Fund has been handed over, in the main, to millionaires and stock-jobbers.
I expect certain things from slashdot readers, which I would not expect from randomly selected members of the general public. In this case, specifically, a decent respect for the laws of arithmetic. You can't expect the average guy to know or care too much about numbers, but, like, "news for Nerds," right? The point to all this typing, then, is that Duh-byuh's stuff just plain doesn't add up.
It follows then that somewhere in the big scheme of things, certain promises will not be kept. There are 800 or so people have contributed $95-million out of $100-million his election campaign has brought in. Mr. Bush has promised their social class, in which he also personally enjoys membership, a vast and majestic tax cut. Also Mr. Bush has promised you, Mr. Nobody #26,981,102, and me, Mr. Nobody #165,220,748, some trifling sort of tax relief. Now assume Mr. Bush gets elected President. Also assume, optimistically, that the laws of arithmetic continue to hold into the near future. Then one of those two groups - the campaign contributors, or the nobodies, is in for a letdown.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Nader Trader is still up, though.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Can I just cast an anti-vote?
Actually, it's possible to change this. Especially if your state has an initiative system. While the electoral colege is a federal institution, the method of selecting a state's electors is up to the state. So, this can change, by bits and pieces.
Remember, the only significant part of the election as far as the Presidency is concerned is the electoral vote. The popular vote is unimportant, except for the fact that it can qualify third parties for federal matching funds. As long as the Green vote doesn't impact the electoral vote significantly, it's hardly "giving the country to the Republicans".
So, it is safer to vote Gore than Nader in a swing state, but in a state that's already locked up, it hardly matters. In that case, vote your conscience, comfortable in the fact that it won't negatively effect your second choice.
California looks to be essentially a lock for Gore, despite Bush's recent efforts, so I'm voting Nader. Gore doesn't need my vote here.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
When asked about taxation, Ralph Nader believes in lighter taxation on "honest labor". What is the definition of "honest labor" today?
I mean, in the good ol' days, I guess honest labor good be catergorized by some blue workshirt wearing, hardhat guy with a shovel, hammer or rivetgun building the American dream.
What is "honest labor" categorized as today?
Also, Nader claims he wants to tax certain things. For instance he mentions "sprawl". I take it that means urban sprawl. I will admit many of those areas are butt ugly, but who gets taxed? The parent company who bought the land and planned the buildout? The builder? The city or county officials who approved it? The homeowner? [Personally, I just want them to tax the people who come up with those stupid names - Horizon Vista Hills Community, etc. Blah].
Polluters get taxed? Who? Me and my car which is the only option available to me based upon size, use and price? Or me, because I drive a car and there is no mass transportation that works for my needs? Or GM/Chrysler/Ford/etc for only providing internal combustion engine transportation? Is location a factor here? In many Northeast burgs, there is a variety of train, bus, and other mass transportation that the folks in Montana simply don't have. Who gets penalized?
Does anyone have answers for these questions? If not, I am afraid Nader is no different than any other politician who makes statements and policy without telling me how it is going to work.
PS - I have been to the Green Party website. No luck.
No! if the balance on the court tilts, abortion rights are back in the hands of the people where they belong in a democracy. In a democracy, the definition of murder, manslaughter, medical care, legitimate, illegitimate, you name it, is in the hands of the people. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, The People will get the choice again, and many states (New York, Mass, Calif, etc) would not outlaw abortion, though they would probably curtail disgusting procedures like the infamous brain sucking late term techniques.
Furthermore, I think if The People were able to express themselves on the abortion issue, we'd see less polarization and more acceptance of differing opinions. If you don't trust The People with Choice, how can you trust them with children? ;)
Inquiring minds want to know ...
Oh, wait, I guess we're supposed to vote for Bush, right?
Can we write in Linus Torvalds for President instead? I know he's Finnish, but I don't mind voting for people from other religions, and since this Linux thing must be a religion or something, he might not do too well down south.
Also, if Linus wins, does that mean that we keep Bill Gates as CEO of the World, or do we have to have another election afterwards?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
There are medical situations that may justify an abortion. For instance, if the mother and baby are both in jeopardy, then I would suggest that the mother's health should be the first consideration. What really ticks me off, though, is when BABY MURDER is used as a means of birth control. And don't doubt for a moment that it is used in such a heinous fashion.
In todays world, there is very little need to resort to such brutish, evil behavior to satisfy anyones pursuit of happiness. With all the modern methods of preventing conception today, there is NO excuse for multiple unwanted pregnancies. Supposedly the 'pill' is what 98% effective? And condoms are 99% effective? Hell, add those two up and you have 197% protection! (oh yeah, I do know that that doesn't pan out exactly statistically speaking) Add to that a diaphragm and some spermicidal lubricant, and you would be hard pressed to get knocked up.
Of course, if that is too much trouble, there is the old fashioned, but guaranteed 100% effective method of keeping it in your pants(men), or keeping your legs closed and pants on(women). Oh yeah, all those things get in the way of my instant gratification, poor me.
Gosh, you know, my parents are becoming a real inconvenience. Maybe that day after pill will do them in, too {{SARCASM}}, and don't get me started on that good for nothing grandma of mine {{MORE SARCASM}}.
This is getting a little nastier than I intended, so let's change the pace. I don't know how many of you out there have children, or how many of you have had abortions. I have my first son now. He is 6 1/2 months old now. My wife and I dated for 6 years before we married, and have been married for 5 1/2 years now. You know what? She has not had to choose an abortion, for any reason. I miss the three times a day sex now that we have a baby (OK, lets get honest, since we have been married - you married guys know what I mean;-), but I do not regret it one bit.
I saw the ultrasound at 4 months. There was a heart, and it was beating. There were arms and legs. There was a spinal cord and a head. There was even a penis. He was moving around.
What is the definition of life? What is a baby? What is innocence? Does life experience and memory have anything to do with it? If so, then what about permanent amnesia sufferers. What about Alzheimers. What about the idiot savant.
Abortion for medical reasons, maybe. This is the area where choice is appropriate. Abortion because of carelessness? Recklessness? Irresponsibility? Inconvenience? That is just plain old murder.
sane_one@wowmail.com
What will be the value of your life in the end, the glorious end.
I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
First, the tax system was not intended as a carrot and stick system to punish behaviour the government doesn't like, and reward behavious it does. It's purpose was, and should be, revenue generation. If a behaviour is so bad that you want to stop it, criminalize it. But, that won't work, because outright criminalization of certain activities, like tobacco use or alcohol consumption would cause an uproar in the populous, not to mention raise serious constitutional challanges. So, they instead play games with the "cost" of these activities. It's a way of controlling your behaviour without getting you all hot and bothered about it.
Secondly, it is all to easy for the "we" to start to include only those who think like we do. We are a society which was built by those who feared tyrany, be it tyrany of a king, or tyrany of the majority.
It's a slippery slope, deciding which behaviours "we" approve of, and which we don't. Govenrment should be kept out of my daily life as much as possible. Let me make decisions for myself, as long as I'm not depriving anyone else of their rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you don't like my choices doesn't mean you have to take them away from me. You don't always know what is best for me!
</rant>
Ok, it is quite simple. Pollution is a problem. I causes us to have bad air, and bad water and general ickiness. So how do we fix the pollution that has been caused already. Well, why don't we have the government pay for it like we do now? (Superfund) This makes you and me, the average shmoe have to pay for big belching factories' boo-boos. Well, what Nader is proposing is simply taxing pollutors. Think of it as a pollution fine or "paying for the privalage" of f*cking up our ecosystem.
What is wrong about asking those responsible for pollution to contribute the most to fix.
Similarly, I believe there should be a HIGHER tax on gas, and maybe even cigarettes. By increasing the cost of driving around a big honkin' INEFFICIENT SUVs or whatever, it will tend to make people buy more efficeint vehicles. Same thing with cigs. If they are more expensive, people will smoke less beause they have an economic incentive.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
This is utter nonsense. Nader doesn't have a chance not because of two party monopoly, but because his platform is one that few Americans support. Do you really think any more than at MOST 11% of Americans will vote for a man who wants to tax stock trades? Or is even a little lefty? What's worse is that the Green Party isn't even a true left party. Where are the African Americans? THe Latinos? The feminists? The unions? How can one posssibly have a new left coalition without these groups? Nader thinks he can. He's wrong.
What's really sick is that most of the people voting for him really don't have much to lose. They're rich white college kids. If Bush wins, they'll probably BENEFIT, though they don't see it that way. They'll be disappointed, but they wont see their _personal_ interests torn to shreds. No, they can parade around their big moral victory of a Nader vote while gays, blacks, unionists and pretty much the recipients of progressive movement get screwed.
The fact is, Roe v. Wade was upheld 5-4 in the last battle. So, if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history. If you look at the last major abortion opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart , you will find the following:
Five justices who voted to strike down the law restricting abortions: Breyer (delivered opinion), joined by Stephens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter. Notice that the two appointees of Clinton's, Breyer and Ginsburg, are solidly in the pro-choice camp.
Four justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Every one of these justices was appointed by a Republican. And, of course, Mr. Thomas was appointed by Bush, Sr.
Now, Justice O'Connor is sick (she has ovarian cancer), and justice Stephens is getting quite aged. It is very likely that one of these two liberal/middle-of-the-road justices will retire in the next four years. On the other hand, all of the conservative justices are young & healthy. So, the fact is your vote will affect a woman's right to choose.
Hope that clears up the confusion,
Thalia
First, you're absolutely right that any standard tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor. The rich pay most of the income tax in this country; it stands to reason that any cut across all tax brackets will benefit them more on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
That said - I disagree when you say that Gore had no choice but to implement his cuts the way he did. It's a question on what you mean by "cut taxes across the board". Cut tax rates across the board, and you'll favor the rich. But you can cut taxes across the board and maintain any degree of progressivity you like in the tax system.
Here's a snapshot of the federal tax rates for a single filer (ignoring standard deduction, we're talking rates here):
$0-25,350 - 15%
$25,350-61,400 - 28%
$61,400 - 128,100 - 31%
$128,100 - 278,450 - 36%
$278,450 and up - 39.5%
There are zillions of ways to "target the middle class" without "rewarding those who do what we like" while still "giving everyone who pays income tax a tax cut".
- Make the 15% into 10%, and the 28% bracket 15%".
- Change the numbers - $25350 -> $30000, $61400 -> $100000, $128100 -> $200000, $278450 -> $300000.
Bush's plan is similar to one of these - everyone gets a cut.Don't wanna give "the rich" a break? Fine, go with the earlier variation.
But for the love of God, don't go the Gore route and say "If you have a kid under age one, and pay $FOO in child support, and earn less than $BAR, you'll be able to deduct $BAZ, and if you have a kid in college, and earn less than $FROTZ, you'll get a $XYZZY deduction, and if you..."
If the tax system is "code", the Bush approach involves changing some constants. The Gore approach is to cruft on a whole series of if/then/else structures. Ug. Gore's proposal a kludge, a horrible kludge to an even kludgier system.
Given the wide range of options available, the Gore approach is clearly more concerned with behavior modification than tax relief.
(And the cynic in me says that both approaches are engineered as efforts to pander to specific demographics - Gore for the "Soccer Moms" in his party's base, and Bush for the economic conservatives in his party's base.
That the Slashdot rhetoric mirrors the campaign's rhetoric -- "Big Oil vs. the middle class" (if you vote Gore or Nader) and "big government vs. your paycheck (if you vote Bush or Browne) is indicative that both campaigns have succeeded.
Both the progressive and the libertarian want "fair" tax cuts - but can argue for megabytes over whose cuts are "fair" - because they disagree at the most fundamental level on what constitutes "fairness".
(Of course, they also disagree on what constitutes "middle class" - $70K is dangerously close to poverty in the Bay Area!)
Does that mean the rest of us get to rule your country?
First, and most bluntly, the wealthy have the most to lose, and therefore, gain the most from the societal structure of law and order that keeps them in their privileged position. Treat the masses like dirt while giving the wealthy a free ride, and you can expect another Soviet-style revolution.
Secondly, as many others have pointed out, basic neccesities of life need to be exempted from the tax scheme, and since the wealthy spend so much less (as a percentage) on those items, they will end up paying more in tax.
Lastly, I think you'd rather be angry over money and 52% taxes, than over the daily battles of living paycheck-to-paycheck without any hope of building a future through home ownership or higher education. If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 18, 2000
I think the first time I remember hearing this political urban myth was in the 1976 presidential election. Somebody told me the reason I had to vote for Jimmy Carter was because if Gerald Ford was elected, women would lose their right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion had been legal for only three years at that point. It was considered a great victory, one we all wanted to support.
So, I voted for Jimmy Carter -- and guess what? One of the things he did was to stop all abortions provided for women or wives in the armed services! He also stopped any further funding to birth control groups overseas that offered abortion as an alternative. And he ended all Medicaid payments for poor women in need of an abortion.
I felt a bit abused. I mean, Gerry Ford had been pro-choice. His wife was an ardent supporter of women's rights. And it was a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court -- Justice Blackmun -- that wrote the majority opinion making abortion legal. What was I thinking? (Other than that the Nixon Nightmare years had to come to an end! That, I correctly rationalized, was worth the vote for Carter.)
Four years later, Democrats and liberals were going nuts over the possibility that Ronald Reagan might unseat Carter. Dire warnings were issued to all: If Reagan gets in, abortion will be illegal, period.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan OR Carter, Reagan got in, and then something strange happened: Abortion remained legal! Sure, Reagan built on Carter's abortion restrictions, but Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when the Gipper rode off into the sunset eight years later.
Yet Reagan had appointed plenty of wingnuts to the Supreme Court, so when the doomsayers in 1988 warned that George Bush would CERTAINLY send women back to the alleys to have illegal abortions, another bizarre thing happened -- Bush got elected, and ... four years later ... ABORTION WAS STILL LEGAL!
But Bush did leave us with Clarence Thomas, so when the Democrats came to scare the bejeepers out of me with what Bush would do to a woman's right to choose if he got a second term, I decided to vote for Bill Clinton.
So what's happened under our first feminist-man president?
Perhaps Clinton misunderstood his mission: he was supposed to support a womanÕs right to choose, not his right to choose women. Roe v. Wade is still on the books (mainly because of the consistent and unwavering support from the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor, the Ford-appointed Justice Stevens, and the Bush-appointed Justice Souter! They have voted to uphold abortion rights every single time). But it is now twice as hard for a woman in America to obtain an abortion as it was when Clinton took office. The anti-abortion terrorists have been so successful in their campaign of violence against abortion clinics and doctors and hospitals who perform abortions that a woman can now get an abortion in only 14% of the counties in the United States. That's right. Terrorism has scored its first victory on U.S. soil by assassinating enough doctors and firebombing enough clinics so that no one wants to perform an abortion. So if you live in one of the 86% of counties where not a single doctor will do an abortion, let me ask you this: what good is a "right" to an abortion if you can't get one?
The stunning thing about this virtual elimination of abortion in America is that it has occurred at a time when nearly 70% of the country supports some form of legal abortion. The terrorists have literally gotten away with murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C., doing damn little about it. About the only reason I voted for these clowns was because of this issue -- and where the hell have they been?
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, if 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue. He is already moving to the center on abortion and has been doing so since the primaries. He wants to win. He already has the majority of women supporting him in the polls, in part because a lot of women are confident he will not upset this apple cart.
3. The New York Times two weeks ago did a study of Bush's court appointees in Texas and found that he did NOT appoint right-wing crazies, but rather moderates or moderate conservatives who have upheld legal abortion in Texas and struck down some cases that tried to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
4. Sometimes even conservatives end up accepting that the tide has turned against them. The most stunning example of this came last month when ultra-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted on writing the MAJORITY opinion for the court upholding the Miranda ruling that requires the police to inform an arrestee of his or her constitutional rights. Now, you know a guy like Rehnquist personally just hates forcing the police to read someone their rights. But in his decision keeping Miranda the law of the land, Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda rights are now "part of the American culture" and therefore should not be done away with. Even pro-Miranda liberals had never heard that line used by the Supreme Court in backing a decision, but it was, in essence, the truth. Reading someone their rights is now like apple pie -- and so is a woman's right to choose what to do if she should become pregnant. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it a decision best left with a woman, her doctor, her God -- and it's nobody else's dang business. That, too, is part of the American culture. It's called privacy, and it's been around for over 200 years. Nobody, regardless of their political stripe, wants the politicians or the justices in their bedroom.
So, this year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience. And I'm not going to let the Democratic candidate for president cynically use this issue when he himself has served in D.C. for 8 years allowing the right to get an abortion to be whittled away to near nothing.
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.