But he wasn't proposing taking the money himself, he was proposing having the government take it away. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear in mu original post.
He does not then propose that the government do something that benefits himself, just that the government take it from the "rich" (actually, he is not proposing they take it from all of the rich, just those with what he deems an excessive income which will have a minimal impact on the truly wealthy).
See, I thought it was funny and didn't think about it again. Whether it was true or not didn't really matter. Still doesn't today.
I wish I had mod points, because that sums up my thinking about it as well. I remember thinking, "That is a really foolish thing to do that would make it hard to find another job, I wonder if it is true." Then I deleted the email and moved on with my life.
The difference being that Obama was the first to get a Nobel Peace Prize for just claiming that he was going to make peace (without giving any particular details about how he was going to do that). This topic is not really a criticism of Obama, but instead it is a criticism of those who awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize (although one could argue that only someone who was guilty of hubris would have accepted it under these circumstances...not an argument that I feel stands by itself, there are several other reasons that would explain accepting it when it clearly was undeserved at that time).
Well, I guess every country - and in the USA, possibly each state, has its own laws, but I've never seen a traffic law with acceleration limits. Your car may be very silent, so you might accelerate a lot and still don't break any regulations.
It is generally called reckless driving. However, while the statement "high rate of speed" may be redundant (since speed and rate are synonyms in this context), there is nothing about the word rate that implies that the speed is changing. In general English usage it is accepted that "high rate of speed" means very fast.
You never heard Teddy Kennedy call for raising the tax rate that the highest earners pay? You never heard William Gates, Sr call for raising the income tax on the highest earners? You didn't hear Jon Kerry call for raising the the tax rate that the highest earners pay?
I am aware that the top 1% pay less than ever before, the top tax rate used to be 90%. However, as the top 1% make over 20% of the income, they should be paying even more.
In 2007, the top 1% earners made 22.8% of all income and paid 40.4% of all income tax, so they already pay a larger share of income tax than the share of income they earn. Additionally, that top 1% paid more income tax than the total paid by the bottom 95%. How much more do you think they should pay?
The free market is an essential element of capitalism. If there is not a free market you do not have capitalism. If you have a truly free market you will have capitalism.
The problem with the accumulation of too much wealth that you refer to is not a problem with the economic system. It is a problem with the system of government. The problem is not that some have too much money. The problem is that some people get special treatment. The solution to the problem of some people being able to buy special treatment is not to limit how much wealth they have, but to work within the rule of law.
The idea of the rule of law is that the same rules and laws apply to everyone from the fabulously wealthy and/or politically powerful to the homeless person living under the bridge. Once it is accepted that some people are deserving of special treatment (whether good or bad), the system will begin to break down. The graduated income tax is every bit as much of a violation of the rule of law as the special favors that are written into the law for the wealthy.
It is claimed that the estate tax is intended to prevent the establishment of multi generational wealth in a family, look at the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Bushs, or the Duponts to see how well that works. In reality the estate tax functions to make it harder for others to join that elite group, thus protecting the power and privilege of those who have already accumulated great wealth.
No, greed is not simply the desire to profit. You are right that there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting more and better. I will give an example of greed that illustrates why greed is never good.
Some years back, I went with a group of people who were working with squatters in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. One of the things they did was provide some basic medical care to the children of these people. When they were conducting a clinic, it was necessary to send workers to each individual shack and let the mothers know that the clinic would be held on a particular day. This was necessary because many of the women would not tell their neighbors about the clinic even though it was free and there were sufficient supplies for everyone in that area because if the other mothers didn't find out about it their children would have something that the other children didn't.
The desire to have more than you now have is not in and of itself greed. Greed is the desire to have more than someone else. The sentiment expressed by Spun above is very close to greed. He voices a sentiment that is held by many people who want to take away from the rich, not because those people will be better off after the money is taken from the rich, but because then the rich will not be as well off. (Note, I did not say that he held that position, he may, but while his post comes close to that, he does not say that and may indeed have other motives than causing the rich to suffer).
You apparently don't realize that the truly wealthy pay little or no income tax. Additionally, you should be aware that the strongest proponents of a high tax rate for high incomes are fabulously wealthy people. Overwhelmingly the richest people in this country vote for candidates who propose raising the taxes on the "wealthy". Why do you think that is?
Are you aware that under current tax law those who earn the top 1% of income pay a larger share of income tax than ever before?
Those who think that capitalism says that greed is good either don't understand what capitalism is or what greed is (or both). Greed is the excessive and selfish desire for more (of whatever). In most cases it is not possible for one person to know that another person is motivated by greed. However, evidence of greed is the desire to have more than someone else, just for the sake of having more than that someone. Capitalism as a system works better if people do not get greedy, but it is the only economic system that does not completely break down when greed is present.
I was not trying to be funny, I was saying that you can no more have same sex marriage than you can have a square circle.
I specifically said that Progressives have always favored increasing government power. Progressives believe that it is possible to determine the "scientific" way to order society. Progressives historically have favored installing a "benign" dictatorship.
I in no way favor the government impeding on anyone's liberty. And it is certainly a valid argument to say that the government has no business being involved in marriage. However, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
I would disagree. This is the standard retort of the right. Whenever anyone suggests policies to limit someones ability to screw me over (EPA, Consumer Protections, etc), they call it a limit on their liberty and freedom of contract. Yet when they want to limit someones ability to marry who they want or smoke what they want, they call it defense of tradition and family values.
So stand up Attila Dimedici and let us know that you are in favor of same sex marriages, legalized weed, and right to die. Or just admit your a hypocrite and move on.
I question the Constitutional authority of the Federal government to make marijuana illegal. I'm not sure how anyone can say that you don't have the right to die, everyone does it eventually. If you want to not receive treatment for something that will otherwise kill you, I have no problem with that. However, if by "right to die", you mean someone (whether a medical professional or otherwise) killing someone who they believe wants to die, that is murder.
As for same sex marriage, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
"Positive rights" are nonsense. Those things which are called positive rights impose an obligation on someone else (usually left undefined by the proponents of "positive rights"). For example, those who say that people have the right to health care, never say who is obligated to supply this health care, yet in order for me to have health care someone must provide that health care.
Selling food that is unfit for human consumption for human consumption is fraud. You do not have a right to commit fraud. Prosecuting fraud is legitimately a function of government (although in most cases, I would consider that to be a function of state or local government, not the Federal government).
I agree that I can see the Supreme Court making such a ruling, but just like in the marijuana case, they would be wrong.
The evidence that it is wrong is the following. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution all agreed that the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal government. The Supreme Court ruling in the Gonzalez case that you referenced gives the Federal government license to do anything in the name of regulating interstate commerce, therefore this ruling must wrong. Especially when one considers that one of the Framers of the Constitution (I don't currently remember which one, although I think it was Madison) wrote about something close to this and said it was a misreading of the Constitution to think that Congress had such power.
It is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to decide what you eat. It doesn't matter how the law is written, nor what Constitutional justifications it uses, if it mandates that every American eat three vegetables and three fruits a day, it is unconstitutional.
Yes, if it was an actual case before the Supreme Court it would require some careful thinking to ensure that the ruling did not invalidate laws that are Constitutional.
In December of 2008, unemployment was at 7.2%, In February of 2009 Obama pushed through a "stimulus" bill because without it unemployment might get as high as 8%. By the way, the Democrats have had control of the government purse strings since January of 2007. I would actually argue that Congress plays a much bigger role in the state of the economy than the President.
Interestingly, the guy I replied to is modded "+5 instightful", while I am modded troll. If I am a troll, so is he.
It is over 2000 pages long. There is only one reason to write a bill that long, to hide stuff from people. The law vastly increases the amount of paperwork that financial institutions will need to file. Which company do you think suffers more from a major increase in paperwork, the one with 50 employees or the one with 10,000?
I favor something like what the Founders generally seemed to envision: a Federal government that had very limited powers mostly concerned with mutual defense and resolving disputes between the states. With most laws and rule setting happening at the most local level possible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "universal healthcare", but if you mean what most people mean, government run healthcare. Then yes it is very much a progressive ideal. Think about what Obama (and many other Democrats) has said. They are going to put together a board of "experts" to determine what the best course of treatment for various ailments and then that is what doctors will be expected to follow. Those doctors who do not follow the government mandated treatment program will be penalized. Do you really believe that there is one best way to treat everybody with a particular ailment? I am strongly opposed to the government deciding what kind of health care I get.My healthcare should be my decision based on my resources. If I know someone else who needs more healthcare than thier resources will cover I will help them out to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to take a gun and take from you to help them.
Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.
Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.
I don't know where you have been for the last 145 years, but that one has been pretty resolved for a little while now.
The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc),
When did the Democrats ever have less government and fiscal responsibility as their platform? Or haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on in Washington since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 (and especially since Obama got into the WH)? What they have done dwarfs what the Republicans did when they controlled the purse strings from 1994-2006 (during which time that deficit reduction you mentioned occurred).
Until the Democrats do something demonstrating that they are not still a bunch of racists. The last Democratic KKK member in the Senate only recently died, so I think that it is a little less than 100 years old.
And they'll just tail you night and day, just as if they had a GPS on your car, and they won't need a warrant.
You are right, but that means they need enough cops in order to get 24/7 coverage. Which means that a single cop who is looking to get something on me for some personal grudge can't do it all on his own, he has to get someone far enough up the chain of command to authorize all that manpower involved. Not only that, that much expenditure of manpower over any length of time is going to be noticed by the politicians holding the purse strings. Yes, it is still possible for a person in the right place to abuse the system to persecute thier enemies, but it reduces the number of people who are in that position.
Slashdot Mirror
But he wasn't proposing taking the money himself, he was proposing having the government take it away. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear in mu original post.
He does not then propose that the government do something that benefits himself, just that the government take it from the "rich" (actually, he is not proposing they take it from all of the rich, just those with what he deems an excessive income which will have a minimal impact on the truly wealthy).
See, I thought it was funny and didn't think about it again. Whether it was true or not didn't really matter. Still doesn't today.
I wish I had mod points, because that sums up my thinking about it as well. I remember thinking, "That is a really foolish thing to do that would make it hard to find another job, I wonder if it is true." Then I deleted the email and moved on with my life.
The difference being that Obama was the first to get a Nobel Peace Prize for just claiming that he was going to make peace (without giving any particular details about how he was going to do that). This topic is not really a criticism of Obama, but instead it is a criticism of those who awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize (although one could argue that only someone who was guilty of hubris would have accepted it under these circumstances...not an argument that I feel stands by itself, there are several other reasons that would explain accepting it when it clearly was undeserved at that time).
Well, I guess every country - and in the USA, possibly each state, has its own laws, but I've never seen a traffic law with acceleration limits. Your car may be very silent, so you might accelerate a lot and still don't break any regulations.
It is generally called reckless driving. However, while the statement "high rate of speed" may be redundant (since speed and rate are synonyms in this context), there is nothing about the word rate that implies that the speed is changing. In general English usage it is accepted that "high rate of speed" means very fast.
I am aware that the top 1% pay less than ever before, the top tax rate used to be 90%. However, as the top 1% make over 20% of the income, they should be paying even more.
In 2007, the top 1% earners made 22.8% of all income and paid 40.4% of all income tax, so they already pay a larger share of income tax than the share of income they earn. Additionally, that top 1% paid more income tax than the total paid by the bottom 95%. How much more do you think they should pay?
The free market is an essential element of capitalism. If there is not a free market you do not have capitalism. If you have a truly free market you will have capitalism.
The problem with the accumulation of too much wealth that you refer to is not a problem with the economic system. It is a problem with the system of government. The problem is not that some have too much money. The problem is that some people get special treatment. The solution to the problem of some people being able to buy special treatment is not to limit how much wealth they have, but to work within the rule of law.
The idea of the rule of law is that the same rules and laws apply to everyone from the fabulously wealthy and/or politically powerful to the homeless person living under the bridge. Once it is accepted that some people are deserving of special treatment (whether good or bad), the system will begin to break down. The graduated income tax is every bit as much of a violation of the rule of law as the special favors that are written into the law for the wealthy.
It is claimed that the estate tax is intended to prevent the establishment of multi generational wealth in a family, look at the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Bushs, or the Duponts to see how well that works. In reality the estate tax functions to make it harder for others to join that elite group, thus protecting the power and privilege of those who have already accumulated great wealth.
Yes, to make it easier for you to protect yourself from the government.
No, greed is not simply the desire to profit. You are right that there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting more and better. I will give an example of greed that illustrates why greed is never good.
Some years back, I went with a group of people who were working with squatters in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. One of the things they did was provide some basic medical care to the children of these people. When they were conducting a clinic, it was necessary to send workers to each individual shack and let the mothers know that the clinic would be held on a particular day. This was necessary because many of the women would not tell their neighbors about the clinic even though it was free and there were sufficient supplies for everyone in that area because if the other mothers didn't find out about it their children would have something that the other children didn't.
The desire to have more than you now have is not in and of itself greed. Greed is the desire to have more than someone else. The sentiment expressed by Spun above is very close to greed. He voices a sentiment that is held by many people who want to take away from the rich, not because those people will be better off after the money is taken from the rich, but because then the rich will not be as well off. (Note, I did not say that he held that position, he may, but while his post comes close to that, he does not say that and may indeed have other motives than causing the rich to suffer).
You apparently don't realize that the truly wealthy pay little or no income tax. Additionally, you should be aware that the strongest proponents of a high tax rate for high incomes are fabulously wealthy people. Overwhelmingly the richest people in this country vote for candidates who propose raising the taxes on the "wealthy". Why do you think that is?
Are you aware that under current tax law those who earn the top 1% of income pay a larger share of income tax than ever before?
Those who think that capitalism says that greed is good either don't understand what capitalism is or what greed is (or both). Greed is the excessive and selfish desire for more (of whatever). In most cases it is not possible for one person to know that another person is motivated by greed. However, evidence of greed is the desire to have more than someone else, just for the sake of having more than that someone. Capitalism as a system works better if people do not get greedy, but it is the only economic system that does not completely break down when greed is present.
If something is a square, it is not a circle. If something is a marriage it is between a man and a woman, that is part of the definition.
I was not trying to be funny, I was saying that you can no more have same sex marriage than you can have a square circle.
I specifically said that Progressives have always favored increasing government power. Progressives believe that it is possible to determine the "scientific" way to order society. Progressives historically have favored installing a "benign" dictatorship.
I in no way favor the government impeding on anyone's liberty. And it is certainly a valid argument to say that the government has no business being involved in marriage. However, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
I would disagree. This is the standard retort of the right. Whenever anyone suggests policies to limit someones ability to screw me over (EPA, Consumer Protections, etc), they call it a limit on their liberty and freedom of contract. Yet when they want to limit someones ability to marry who they want or smoke what they want, they call it defense of tradition and family values.
So stand up Attila Dimedici and let us know that you are in favor of same sex marriages, legalized weed, and right to die. Or just admit your a hypocrite and move on.
I question the Constitutional authority of the Federal government to make marijuana illegal. I'm not sure how anyone can say that you don't have the right to die, everyone does it eventually. If you want to not receive treatment for something that will otherwise kill you, I have no problem with that. However, if by "right to die", you mean someone (whether a medical professional or otherwise) killing someone who they believe wants to die, that is murder.
As for same sex marriage, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
"Positive rights" are nonsense. Those things which are called positive rights impose an obligation on someone else (usually left undefined by the proponents of "positive rights"). For example, those who say that people have the right to health care, never say who is obligated to supply this health care, yet in order for me to have health care someone must provide that health care.
Selling food that is unfit for human consumption for human consumption is fraud. You do not have a right to commit fraud. Prosecuting fraud is legitimately a function of government (although in most cases, I would consider that to be a function of state or local government, not the Federal government).
I agree that I can see the Supreme Court making such a ruling, but just like in the marijuana case, they would be wrong.
The evidence that it is wrong is the following. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution all agreed that the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal government. The Supreme Court ruling in the Gonzalez case that you referenced gives the Federal government license to do anything in the name of regulating interstate commerce, therefore this ruling must wrong. Especially when one considers that one of the Framers of the Constitution (I don't currently remember which one, although I think it was Madison) wrote about something close to this and said it was a misreading of the Constitution to think that Congress had such power.
It is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to decide what you eat. It doesn't matter how the law is written, nor what Constitutional justifications it uses, if it mandates that every American eat three vegetables and three fruits a day, it is unconstitutional.
Yes, if it was an actual case before the Supreme Court it would require some careful thinking to ensure that the ruling did not invalidate laws that are Constitutional.
In December of 2008, unemployment was at 7.2%, In February of 2009 Obama pushed through a "stimulus" bill because without it unemployment might get as high as 8%. By the way, the Democrats have had control of the government purse strings since January of 2007. I would actually argue that Congress plays a much bigger role in the state of the economy than the President.
Interestingly, the guy I replied to is modded "+5 instightful", while I am modded troll. If I am a troll, so is he.
It is over 2000 pages long. There is only one reason to write a bill that long, to hide stuff from people. The law vastly increases the amount of paperwork that financial institutions will need to file. Which company do you think suffers more from a major increase in paperwork, the one with 50 employees or the one with 10,000?
I favor something like what the Founders generally seemed to envision: a Federal government that had very limited powers mostly concerned with mutual defense and resolving disputes between the states. With most laws and rule setting happening at the most local level possible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "universal healthcare", but if you mean what most people mean, government run healthcare. Then yes it is very much a progressive ideal. Think about what Obama (and many other Democrats) has said. They are going to put together a board of "experts" to determine what the best course of treatment for various ailments and then that is what doctors will be expected to follow. Those doctors who do not follow the government mandated treatment program will be penalized. Do you really believe that there is one best way to treat everybody with a particular ailment?
I am strongly opposed to the government deciding what kind of health care I get.My healthcare should be my decision based on my resources. If I know someone else who needs more healthcare than thier resources will cover I will help them out to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to take a gun and take from you to help them.
Neither is the opposition to Kagan.
Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.
Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.
I don't know where you have been for the last 145 years, but that one has been pretty resolved for a little while now.
The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc),
When did the Democrats ever have less government and fiscal responsibility as their platform? Or haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on in Washington since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 (and especially since Obama got into the WH)? What they have done dwarfs what the Republicans did when they controlled the purse strings from 1994-2006 (during which time that deficit reduction you mentioned occurred).
Until the Democrats do something demonstrating that they are not still a bunch of racists. The last Democratic KKK member in the Senate only recently died, so I think that it is a little less than 100 years old.
And they'll just tail you night and day, just as if they had a GPS on your car, and they won't need a warrant.
You are right, but that means they need enough cops in order to get 24/7 coverage. Which means that a single cop who is looking to get something on me for some personal grudge can't do it all on his own, he has to get someone far enough up the chain of command to authorize all that manpower involved. Not only that, that much expenditure of manpower over any length of time is going to be noticed by the politicians holding the purse strings. Yes, it is still possible for a person in the right place to abuse the system to persecute thier enemies, but it reduces the number of people who are in that position.