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
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.
In the case of underpaid foreign workers, know what? They accepted the jobs -- presumably because there was nothing better available. If there's nothing better available, these workers would be even worse off without the corporations' (admitted) abuse.
:)
Drifting into theory, here, from my econ classes long ago... The amount of money a company makes eventually (in a free market) ends up being just enough to convince them to stay in business, and nothing more. What a worker gets paid in such an economy is the same -- just enough to keep them willing to work, and nothing more. "to each according to his need"... sounds like what capitalism and communism give the little guy is eventually the same.
I agree that labor is essential -- but it's also plentifully available. Supply and demand, wonderful stuff. Prices are an essential thing to be discussed in this kind of situation -- if you're paid $1 instead of $4, but that $1 buys you what would have been $5 of stuff, you're better off. Discussing how something affects people's pay without discussing its effect on prices is illusionary -- you're pretending that a bigger "pay" number results in a greater amount of value. Instead, it just causes inflation -- even though I don't make anything close, when the minimum wage goes up, I add that increase to the amount that I, as skilled labor, ask for in my raise -- after all, the cost of buying a hamburger at McDonalds just rose when McDonalds had to give their employees raises. Prices go up in proportion to the increased costs of production -- and guess what, labor may have a bigger dollar figure on their paychecks, but they aren't making any more than they used to; the only end effect is inflation.
Want to start talking revolution? Fine! When the people are sufficiently dissatisfied, they'll revolt. So be it! As Jefferson wrote, a little revolution once in a while is a good thing. Revolution is almost akin to market forces, people being dissatisfied with a current provider of services and discarding in favor of another. I'm not about to complain about the possibility of its occurance.
And finally, addressing the last issue... yes, a "vast, poor middle class" exists in America. But do 'ya know what? They have cars. And phones. And TVs. And electricity. In short, they ain't all that poor. Based on my income, I'm in poverty right now -- but that doesn't stop me from being happy with my life. When people are poor enough to revolt -- poor enough to be so unsatisfied as to stop merely complaining and take action -- then they will through their actions be deserving of the change they effect. Until such time, 'yall are a bunch of whiners. Shut up.
Erm, no. There really is such a thing as a growing economy -- one where more people (wealthy, not, whatever) are making money and buying stuff with it. It shouldn't take much convincing to see that this is a vicious cycle -- the more stuff you buy, the more money the folks you bought it from (and the folks they paid to make it, etc) have and the more they buy... etc.
By diverting money out of this earn->buy cycle into the government, income taxes do direct and serious harm to the economy.
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
Where? Prof John Lott's (UChicago) exhaustive study of the topic.
fwiw, violent crimes involving personal contact (murder, rape, mugging, assault, etc.) down by about that amount generally; burglaries and similar crimes NOT involving personal contact up about 5%.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
"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.
There's nothing unconventional or new about Nader's economics. The EU has been languishing under those same policies for decades.
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.
Economic "growth" - you can't find two economists who agree on whether or not this is even possible. You'd think by now someone would have done the mathematics.
If there IS actual economic growth taking place, we'd never know it - corporations probably drink it all.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
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.
Why? It's probably not as bad as you think.
? bfromind=232&eeid=2768059&eetype=article&r ender=y&ck=&ver=2.11
http://www.grassroots.com/scripts/editorial.dll
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
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
Lest you haven't noticed, there's a sizable number of us who don't want government supplies 'safety nets' or 'education', on the grounds that they are neither safe nor educational. And having seen a number of do-nothing idiots repairing perfectly good roads, I can't say much for the road maintainence either.
What we want - to opt out. We don't need a nanny government to tell us what to do or live our lives for us.
- 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.
Evidently, the US idea of what liberalism is parts from what most liberal thinkers (John Locke, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls et al.) considered it to be, and indeed, what most liberal parties throughout the world stands for.
Central thoughts of liberalism are for instance the economic independence of the individual, the freedom to do anything as long as your act does not impose restrictions on other individuals freedom. The liberal principle is that any limitations on liberty must be justified. John Rawls, for instance, says:
An interesting view on the US misconception of what liberalism is, can be found in this quote (taken from the article "Waco and liberal corruption" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., available ; ;he re.
Centralism is something generally frowned upon from a liberal point of view. Indeed, the political movements that do defend centralism are generally conservatism and socialism.
I do get a feeling that the corruption of the term liberalism has something to do with the fact that the US political arena is basically divided into two parties, each ranging from liberalism to conservatism in their opinions. Most other democratic countries do have more than two parties that have a chance to get their voices heard in the political arena, which nurtures the refinement of political idealogy and consequential politics rather than ad hoc decisions based on the decisions popularity among the masses or the "sponsors" of the parties or its candidates.
Just my 0.02 SEK. (If anyone wonders, I'm a member of the Swedish Centerparty, which is a liberal (in the non-US sense) decentralist party, following the liberalist school known as eco-humanism.
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?
In this system, we also have something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are not trumped by mere majority rule. It also stipulates that we are not to discriminate amongst citizens. 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. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or fair or legal. That is why we have institutions like the Supreme Court.
Anyways, do you really know what Nader "wants"? He says he wants to tax everything "we" don't like. Not that he would have the power as president, but we don't know what he's going to do until he explicitely states exactly what that is. If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
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
I know plenty about Nader, despite your assumptions otherwise. I've read his web site (in fact all the candidates sites) and followed his work. I am familiar with the ideals he holds and the work he has done. My point is that he will not make a goos president. I am a very talanted mainframe systems programmer, so should I be qualified to be president?
/effectively/ govern, regardless of experience in passing laws.
Nader is the man who exposed the auto industry as horrible unsafe back in 1965 with "Unsafe at Any Speed."
That is wonderfull and I am grateful for the work he has done in this area. Remind me...this has WHAT to do with being president?
He spends most all his time reading documents often quite boring, and keeping an all-watching eye on corporations, government agencies, and the people at large.
So we are electing a dictator wannabe? Read the "all watching" sentance again and ask if that is what you really want from your president.
If you don't know whats going on, you can't possibly
I agree, and he would be the right man for the job if watching corporations and lobbying for the enviornment was the job of the president. However, the president also needs to deal with forign officials and forign policy. The president needs to be diplomatic and work with both parties. Nader has shown himself (in my opinion) to be arrogant and self-righteous.
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.
I'm curious about what your number is based on. (Keep in mind that even if Slashdot has that many readers -- which would surprise me -- not all of them are US citizens, and not all of those are potential voters.)
Slashdot is arguably influencial in a certain subset of society, but I think it's really small beans in terms of overall media reach, and politicos and their handlers have other priorities. But major media outlets pretty much ignore so-called third parties -- aside from the occasion sophomoric horse-race crap about Nader "hurting" Gore -- which leaves third party people available (and desperate) to talk to almost anybody willing to listen to them.
What about people like me?
I hit the same tax bracket for those $50mil/year CEO's so I'm paying out the nose for taxes
But I live in a place that is so expensive that by the time the government eats up most of my check and then I pay rent I have less entertainment money then back when I was starting out, sharing a little apartment.. that's just stupid.
I know it's my choice to live here, but circumstances gave me two choices: paying over $2000 a month for an apartment, or being homeless.
Which one would you take? If a CEO is making $50mil a year, that means he did something right. Dont punish him for it. If the government didn't have so many damned departments outside of what it *should* be doing for the american people it wouldn't matter if he made $30K or $50M.. It's not the rich corporate types that are the problem, it is a goverment that doesn't know it's bounds.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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.
This is complete and utter bullshit. We already have mostly free trade - the minimal tarrifs on most goods aren't much of a barrier. However, we don't see the auto industry decamping for Brazil or Indonesia; we don't see the computer industry moving to Mexico (or even Alabama, where there are no trade barriers with the rest of the US), etc. Why? Because productivity determines wage levels. American (and west European and Japanese) workers are paid better than those in most of the rest of the world because their labor creates more value than other workers.
In any given industry, the race goes to whichever workers are most productive relative to their wages. The skill levels, capital investment and infrastructure that the auto industry requires to successfully make cars ensure that automaking will remain confined to rich and middle-income countries; while some parts of the clothing industry will continue to migrate to the lowest labor areas as the infrastructure and capital requirements aren't nearly as high.
For a country to improve its wage levels, it needs more capital investment in its industries and its infrastructure, and more education and training for its workers.
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/
Hmm, like missile technology? Seriously though, how many Chinese do you think are going to buy expensive American goods when a) the average worker / peasant makes less than a dollar a day, and b) with factory wages so low, they can make copies of those same goods at lower cost? The myth of the vast Chinese market for foreign goods has existed for well over a century now. The West has gone to great lengths to try to secure that market, all the way back to helping suppress the Boxer Rebellion, and waging the Opium Wars (an eternal black mark on an imperialistic Great Britain), with little luck. AIG (American Insurance Group), for example, has been active in mainland China for over 50 years now, and has yet to turn a profit.
I don't think we'll gain much from free trade with China, though I have no doubt that more than a few corps will try to take advantage of the utter lack of trade unionism and environmental protection in China, attempting to turn it into a giant Nike factory. Swish! We'll see where nationalism takes the Chinese then....
Fu zi yue: San ren xing bi you wo shi yen.
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
be sure to read his lips :) How naive!
Jilles
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
Actually this was posted first at Michael Moore's website, (www.michaelmoore.com) and has been posted on a lot of political sites as of late (not to mention I have about 20 emails of this). But I gather you can guess that with the credit to Michael at the top of his post. :)
I think his work as a whole is pretty good, it's nice to actually see someone from the left on tv every once and a while. Though I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote for McReynolds or Nader.
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.
I disagree. Because in some cases, there is no way to make the effect zero. For the tax scheem to be truly representative of what's going on, the revenue generated must simply be spent equally on all the people effected- they are essentially getting paid for their forfiture of reasources which are being consumed. Cleanup is only one of the ways "they" could choose to spend that money.
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?
You can't vote with your dollars because... you and everyone else like cheap shoes. You can't vote at the ballot booth because MTV and popular culture have convinced you that if there's no instant gratification then it's not worth doing (like helping third parties so that in a few years there may be _real_ choice).
One beautiful thing about free enterprise is that if a large number of people thought so badly of Nike that they would pay double what a Nike shoe costs just to buy a shoe that isn't Nike then there would be a business to meet that need. Only they won't so there isn't. That goes for any industry.
Bummer that Nike uses sweatshop labor, but with the money I saved on their shoes because of the lower labor costs I can get another RIAA-supplied 'Rage against the machine' CD and get a bus ticket to the next WTO riot! woohoo
There is no product in existance that you cannot either go without or find a small competetor to supply.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
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!
You (or your next of kin) have the same options that you'd have if your neighbor's dog bit you or if your dentist pulled the wrong teeth. There has yet to be a law that's prevented individuals from being stupid or negligent, however there are options for those who are harmed by this negligence to seek compensation.
-- 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!
But enough rambling.. The mindset which keeps people down in this country is the "cult of victimhood". The Democratic party plays this line to the hilt, promising yet another program to help the "victims". It's really sad, because by focusing on being "victims", people pass up opportunities to improve their situation..
Kind of funny when you think about it.. Democrats need "victims" to help. It there were no "victims", there would be no need for Democrats and their do-good programs. Ergo, Democrats must never actually fix any problems, because then their reason for being would go away.
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
The people who would pay the largest fees will be poor people who cannot yet afford to buy a newer, cleaner car
You can't have it both ways. If you impose regulations requiring that all cars must emit less than X amount of pollution, then the costs of that level of pollution control will be added to all cars, which has exactly the same effect in terms of pricing the poor out of the car market.
Ultimately, the problem you raise is one of perverse incentives -- for a middle-class person, high pollution fees encourages the purchase of a cleaner new car; for a poor person, they significantly degrade the ability to afford the new car. I can see possible ways around the problem (earmarking the pollution fee money to pay for incentives to buy clean cars).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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?
No, but he might make a bush president.
I am a very talanted mainframe systems programmer, so should I be qualified to be president?
Maybe you should be qualified. What, are you slacking off?
Read the "all watching" sentance again and ask if that is what you really want from your president.
You're right, Reagan was best when dozing off.
Nader has shown himself (in my opinion) to be arrogant and self-righteous.
Yes, that's what makes him different and refreshing as a political candidate!
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
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 can't imagine that it's not obvious. That forcing the delivery of a child in an of itself is useless.
You extrapolate out of context. The point is that death and killing are both natural, and that the threshold of acceptible behavior is situationally dependant. Morality is is abstract concept.
In some cases yes.. It's situationally dependant.. If a bunch of people are on a desert island with limited food, but you know you'll be rescued in due time... It's entirely acceptible for a person to sacrafice themself for the good of the others (namely, to choose not to eat). And though it's "morally" questionable, it's entirely _natural_ for one or more individuals to gang up on others.. to fight for the food. If a person chose not to eat, it would be a painful death.. They may, instead, choose to commit suicide.. Christian ethics condems this, but that's just one variation of ethics... (which is an underlying point).
A mother would barely think twice about putting herself in harms way to save a child. But that's just another type of suicide. Christiantiy condones this (martyrdom). In "the good earth", we learned of a different set of ethics.. No more right or wrong.. Just different. My thesis was that it's a political issue as to where the threshold of right and wrong lie.
-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.
Your logic is, frankly, bunk.
Wealth != income. Wealth involves the summation of income less summation of expenditures.
Take 100 different people, and pay them the exact same amount for 20 years. At the end, they will NOT have the same wealth; some will have squandered it, while others will have been frugal.
Likewise, Mr. Gates could retire, decline all pensions, and decline ALL forms of income -- but he would still be immensely wealthy by any measure. Alternately, a person making $10 million a year could waste it on a myriad of vices, and end up quite poor.
Many of the rich got there because they spent their money wisely, avoiding frivolities like eating out multiple times a week, buying cars every couple of years, or seeing _Titanic_ a half-dozen times in theatres. 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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
The president cannot singlehandedly save nor trash the environment. His powers are limited.
Have you actually read Gore's book? What he wants to do to "save" the environment is frightening.
I will vote for Bush because of what President Clinton said: "Gore is the next best thing" to third Clinton term.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Since vote swapping is legal in Congress, it should be legal for the average citizen as well. OTOH, IANAL.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
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
Bollocks. It's called democracy.
Three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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.
--
Your entire opinion is based on a poor choice of wording? Amazing.
Justice is "blind" in the sense of not giving any prejudice to one side or the other before hearing the evidence. But the court still needs to hear evidence, and need to form an opinion based on evidence! If the standards of capitalism were applied to law--that is, not taking a person's situation into account--all courts could be replaced with a coin toss.
Perhaps the writer should have used the term "fair" instead of "just". But you're still reading things into it that aren't there.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
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
Your definition of justice would involve the judge picking a ruling out of a hat. You completely ignored my point. This entire metaphor is irrelevant anyway, since there is no equivalent of "guilty" or "innocent" in economics.
Critical Race Theory is widely known to be a sham. Including by members of the left. That's not my form of liberalism.
Judging a person's influence in the world by their popularity in academia doesn't work very well---last time I checked, there were more conservatories concentrating on classical composition than pop songwriting, and nobody claims that classical is more popular than pop.
Saying that some professor's views characterize the entire left is like saying that all people on the right firebomb abortion clinics and drag gays behind pickup trucks. Isn't pigeonholing fun?
---
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
Real democratic socialism has been doing fairly well in Western Europe. It's the so-called "Communist" nations, actually totalitarian autocracies and not really socialist, that have collapsed. Authoritarianism failed, not socialism.
---
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
So-called "free trade" encourages maquiladoras and other overseas sweatshops. When all trade tariffs are removed, the race goes to the country with the lowest wages and worst labor laws.
---
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
The metaphor of economy as organism only goes so far. You could also say the same thing about an ecosystem--but if an ecosystem continues to grow, guess what you have...overpopulation! There's a limit.
He was saying that the notion of economic "growth" is actually a mistake, since it is simply shifting money from one group--the poor--to another group--the rich. It's an oversimplification, sure, but his point holds...that's not growth any more than chewing your fingernails is nutrition.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Somebody mod that up!
---
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."
> New humans come into existence through the sharing of another body, and thus they have a fundamental right to the use of "their" host.
Do they ? First, you should tell me at which week does an embryon become human. You should also tell me where such fundamental right is defined. Last time I checked, human beeing have equal rights at birth. But before ?
Based on your thinking, abortion would be illegual even if there is danger for the life of the woman:
> Now, if that new life really was a real and imminent threat to the life of the host (kind of like violating the terms of the "joint ownership", so to speak), then there is a justification for aborting the new human.
The opposite holds. If a woman endanged a foetus, then the would be a justification for 'aborting' the host.
> You're probably angry at this, but don't get angry at me. This is biology, pure and simple.
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.
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", "a woman is NOT totally a sovereign entity", "This is biology, pure and simple".
I thought this kind of archaic thinking was disapearing. Looks it gets a +3 Insightfull on slashdot. Sad.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> 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
First, he was arguing with biological facts. I was replying that it is an ethical issue. So *I* was the one that wanted to make the debate ethical.
Second, I don't see how a religious decision could affect me, as I am profoundly atheist. I mean that *if* the bottom of the issue is religious, then everyone should deal with it in conscience, in which case abortion have to be legal.
Third, I make an ethical decision on this issue, so I definitely don't understand you:
"Women have the right to decide wether they wan't an abortion or not because the baby is growing in their body"
This is a simple as that. Their body. Their baby. The father have its words to say, but the final decision is the one of the women.
> What doesn't make any sense at all is each woman determining the personhood of her unborn child on a case by case basis.
So let's say that an 'unborn' child is just that (not born). You are an undead man, and I don't consider you as dead. The baby don't exist, may never exist, and in fact is not even a baby. Woman have not to decide if the so-called 'unborn' child is a person, but only if they want an abortion.
> As with most liberals,
That's fun. Now I am a liberal. Thanks for the info.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> You're being just stupid. A human's rights begin when he/she is born?
AFAIK, Yes.
> So that means it is OK to kill a baby the day before its due?
Every argument, when pushed to its extreme, is silly. This is the reason why an abortion is legal only during the first few weeks (and it would be really impracticable after).
But basically, yes.
Anyway the "murder-of-the-unborn" argument looks equally stupid. What if a pregnant women lost her baby naturally ? Say she did a long travel by train, and lost her baby a couple of weeks later (the baby may probably not have been lost if she stayed in her bed for the 9 month of pregnancy) ? She killed someone ? She should be put in jail ? Sentenced to death if it happened a few times ?
Note that loosing the foetus in the first weeks is a _extremely_ common thing. How the law should deal with that ?
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> "but first and foremost we're here for reproduction"
I beg to differ. We are here to live our lives.
If someone is sterile, is he here for nothing ? Beware of thos biological reasonings. Humans are not insects. (At least some of us...)
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Let's leave your ass out of this, if you don't mind.
You are confusing the vote of the people with the platform of the candidate.
Voting for Nader because you agree with his platform is democracy. That has nothing to with the fact that his platform is tyrany. It is perfectly possible to vote to END democracy, which may very well be democratic, but the end result may still be fascism.
Note as well that we do NOT live in a democracy for the explicit reason of preventing just such a thing from happening.
Shall we vote to kill all the Jews, or Blacks, or Males over 30, or Non descendants of original English settlers, or geeks?
Nothing wrong there eh? No tyrany involved, it's just democracy.
Go read the constitution and a basic high school civics text.
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
You either didn't understand what the first poster was trying to say, or are an idiot. Perhaps you should go back t ECON-101, or better yet, 2nd grade math. .44) = $440,000 or 88% of the total
.30) = $57,000 or 11% of the total
Lets do a little experiment
20 people in the country
1 makes $5,000,000 (5%)
19 each make $10,000 (95%)
People above 100,000 pay 44% of their income
People below pay 30% of their income
Top 5% pay (1,000,000 *
Bottom 95% pay (19 * 10,000 *
These numbers are completely made up but show how the top 5% of income earners could pay for the majority of taxes
Maybe your school needs more of the accountability Bush keeps talking about.
wouldn't that be 1.4 stockwell day's for 1 nader?
/bluesninja
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'd say that he probably does know how the economy works; it's just poor wording. After all, he doesn't say that they got rich by rigging the system, it's that they got that rich, indicating that if they didn't rig the system, they'd be less rich, which is true. Besides, with capitalism it's easy to say that become rich is abusing the system somehow. :-)
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.
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.
As if you earn money all by yourself! Hah! Do you make your money in a vacuum? Nobody else had anything to do with it? There is no system in place that supported your efforts? Maybe you should think about it differently. Maybe you should consider it like this:
Those at the bottom, those who bought your wares and helped make you 'rich' are insisting that you feed some of your money back into the system so the system stays healthy and so that others have the same kind of chances that you had.
The people who succeed have an obligation to keep the system healthy so that others may succeed in the future.
Your simplistic reasoning is excusable since it is obviously brought on by an acute case of selfishness. That's why we have to mandate your participation in the tax system. We know how attracted you are to arguments that favour you economically.
I find this 'let's-tax-the-rich-so-that-we-can-give-more-to-th e-poor' trend a bit disturbing.
Good. That trend IS disturbing. But it has LITTLE to do with progressive taxation.
Don't distort the issues.
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.
How about using your taxes to maintain and improve schools so that other immigrants can go to college. Why focus on welfare alone when we could focus on military, roads, police, national parks... Why should you pay more? Because you are obliged: the system worked for you so you are in a position to keep the system healthy and fertile. You ought to make sure it can work for others in the future. Yes, it's about fairness.
And no, you don't earn money all by yourself. You don't live in a vacuum. We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about a huge economic system and society that needs to be improved and maintained.
Now that you're earning money for yourself, you want out. But when you need a FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION, did you think of yourself as an "unwashed welfare-leeching" hoodlum? I bet not.
Your reasoning is simplistic. Your arguments favour your postion economically, but they fail you logically.
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
Bush didn't have to work hard to make his money, he inherited it. Same with many of the other rich people. Once people get to the point where their interest rates on their savings in the Caymans or something are plenty to live on plus taxes, they may stop contributing to society (this doesn't happen much, but Gates could do it...). Yes, when you're rich you get more benfits than the rest of us, but that doesn't mean you should have so much money while some guy is living on a meager income barely making enough money to pay his bills. This only makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (since the revenue would have to come from them if not the rich)
# debian/rules
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
Lemme give you another analogy on those same lines: who keeps winning the NBA playoffs/World Series? The teams with the highest amount of $$$$ (Bulls of the 90's, Lakers, Yankees, Braves.)
Who keeps winning elections? The parties with the highest amount of $$$$ (Reps & Dems.)
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
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.
-
Of course there is a provision that exempts law enforcement. Laws are to control the citizens, not the government, silly!
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.
:)
The primary problem I have with your argument is that even Nadar wants government to have power
This is absolutely wrong by the definition of government of the USA. Why can't the federal government just provide defense, and postal services?
Tell me what is so bloody wrong with that? Nadar just said to tax the things that are not honest labor - government is crossing it's bounds. Sure, go vote for your different government, that's fine.. but don't cry when it's just the same old government pulling different tricks.
As for myself, I could give a shit less about Rocko the homeless guy who is able to work but panhandling is easier so he does it and collects welfare.
I think that for welfare to be collected, you should have to provide medical evidence of your inability to work or at least 3 rejection letters as to why you didn't get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds
It's easy to get a job, it's really easy. Anybody who says it's not is lazy and has too much pride to be accountable for their own stupid mistakes.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. It's not my responsibility - but I get forced to pay so bloody much so Rocko can constantly get my money. He's cheating the people who need help.. let him starve, if it means someone who needs help gets it.
Yeah I'm cold.. so what.. some people need to be that way to get things done. Until a person like that is in a position of power it's gonna be the same old shit, with the same old tricks.
Maybe I'm just bitter, but looking at my yearly tax summary and seeing that the money I pay in taxes in a year could pay for a complete college education for my kids - and I'm talking *good* schools.. Ivy leage not your local community college.
(Granted, I dont have kids.. but I will at some point).
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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.
Uh, it did come out of campaign pamphlets... Nader didn't give these answers; they're from an assistant. The ones that weren't answered were the ones where the assistant wasn't sure where Nader stood on the issue, or wasn't comfortable issuing a statement about it.
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? ;)
I have the right to defend my womb from foreign agents who would suck my life force for their own benefit.
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you can't separate your body from its fundamental function of reproduction. Your body is more than the vessel for your brain. Part of being human means reproduction, and being a woman means you have the potential to host a new human being.
What this means is that a woman is NOT totally a sovereign entity. Once your womb is carrying a new human being, your body has temporarily become "owned" by that new human being.
I know you don't like to think about it this way, but you can't separate your brain from your biology. New humans come into existence through the sharing of another body, and thus they have a fundamental right to the use of "their" host.
Bottom line, your womb is not only your womb. Your womb becomes joint property once a new sovereign human being starts growing within it. Now, if that new life really was a real and imminent threat to the life of the host (kind of like violating the terms of the "joint ownership", so to speak), then there is a justification for aborting the new human.
You're probably angry at this, but don't get angry at me. This is biology, pure and simple. You can't separate your brain from your biology.
And by the way, yes, if I was capable of having children, I would feel exactly the same way. It's not a question of whether society (or "me") have dominion over another person's body, it's whether the new human life does. And it does.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.