PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Is Socialism OK?


Pages : 1 [2] 3

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:34 AM
I think it's highly amusing that you think any form of tax (presumably other than property taxes) is thievery.

Why does he get to make a distinction with property taxes?

I mean, it's his inviolable property still, isn't it?

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:34 AM
Your sad idea that we can't have a functioning government unless it steals from its citizens isn't a compelling one.

So, you don't know what should be done when someone violates someone else's life liberty or property?

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:34 AM
You're confusing the republic with what we have today. The republic died long ago and was replaced with a socialist democracy. Of course the bandits are going to vote for their banditry.

When power is distributed across a body of soverign nations, that's a republic. What you are describing isn't anything close to Republicanism.

Talk about confused...

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:37 AM
I don't see anything in there about stealing property in order to do it.

Oh, you're hung up on taxes, well that's in there too:

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;

OMG!! Those thieves, how did they sneak that into the Constitution? (*gasp*)

Taco, you'd better grab your Silver Delorean quick and see if you can get back to the Constitutional Convention!

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:38 AM
Talk about confused...

Yeah, he dropped that one, I guess it was just too patently wrong.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:38 AM
And still manages to hit the nail on the head.

Let's not forget that nobody has even touched a word that I've said with regards to the superior morality of libertarianism. Hurled insults about how it's utopian to believe that government should operate without infringing the liberty of its citizens is hardly compelling.

Mostly because it doesn't have any. Your weird fixation with the "superior morality" of libertarianism and the "immorality" of taxes is just that -- weird. Not compelling. Not a good argument. Not persuasive. Just....weird.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:42 AM
Why does he get to make a distinction with property taxes?

I mean, it's his inviolable property still, isn't it?

He said something before about choosing to own property in that locale or something, which I extrapolated to a general carve-out, presumably because he recognizes that SOME form of taxation (local, preferably) is needed to maintain the bare subsistence government that he yearns for.

But yes, I am extrapolating. His position, though weird, at least has the benefit of being internally consistent once one figures out all the weirdnesses.

At any rate, it's turning into a triple team on TJ, so I'll bow out. 'bout time for bed anyway.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 12:42 AM
Mostly because it doesn't have any. Your weird fixation with the "superior morality" of libertarianism and the "immorality" of taxes is just that -- weird. Not compelling. Not a good argument. Not persuasive. Just....weird.



Bunch of fucking wierdos...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7260/5bunset5d.jpg

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:44 AM
Bunch of fucking wierdos...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7260/5bunset5d.jpg

I seem to remember that those fellows were objecting mainly becuase they had no say whatsoever in the process that led to their being taxed.

Has someone infringed upon your right to vote of late?

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:44 AM
He said something before about choosing to own property in that locale or something, which I extrapolated to a general carve-out, presumably because he recognizes that SOME form of taxation (local, preferably) is needed to maintain the bare subsistence government that he yearns for.

But yes, I am extrapolating. His position, though weird, at least has the benefit of being internally consistent once one figures out all the weirdnesses.

At any rate, it's turning into a triple team on TJ, so I'll bow out. 'bout time for bed anyway.

Yeah, but what meaningful distinction is there that makes that acceptable and income tax "thievery"? All of his sweeping statements in here are that NO ONE has any right to interfere with his property rights (presumably county commissioners too), so I don't know if he makes the leap you do here, or at least not consciously or explicitly.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:45 AM
Anyway, as I say I'll bow out. 3:1 is hardly sporting.

banyon
02-15-2010, 12:47 AM
Anyway, as I say I'll bow out. 3:1 is hardly sporting.

Hell it was 50:1 in this thread previously for Big Daddy et al to pile up and exchange high-fives over perceived socialists before today.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 12:48 AM
Bunch of ****ing wierdos...

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7260/5bunset5d.jpg

The echoes of your shredding the pages of history to rip this from its context are pounding. Shamefully dishonest.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:48 AM
Yeah, but what meaningful distinction is there that makes that acceptable and income tax "thievery"? All of his sweeping statements in here are that NO ONE has any right to interfere with his property rights (presumably county commissioners too), so I don't know if he makes the leap you do here, or at least not consciously or explicitly.

:shrug: I'll let him answer. The whole structure is fairly nonsensical here in this little place I like to call "Planet Earth". His views are so absolutist that they don't really allow for governance at all.

It reminds me of CSA Jefferson Davis' pithy comment when the Confederacy was having such trouble dealing with all the militant states' rights governors etc. when he was trying to coordinate efforts to fight the Civil War.

It goes something along these lines:

"If this Confederacy shall fail then it should be written on its epitath: "Died of a Theory".

orange
02-15-2010, 12:49 AM
I seem to remember that those fellows were objecting mainly becuase they had no say whatsoever in the process that led to their being taxed.

Has someone infringed upon your right to vote of late?

Actually they were protesting against a tax cut.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:50 AM
Hell it was 50:1 in this thread previously for Big Daddy et al to pile up and exchange high-fives over perceived socialists before today.

I wasn't around for that. I took on alot of 5:1 and such in my early days. Those were fun. Put my speed typing to the test I tell ya.

Socialism/Capitalism is an off/off switch to these fellas. Rather amazing outlook, but that's about the best way to summarize it.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 12:50 AM
Anyway, as I say I'll bow out. 3:1 is hardly sporting.hey I missed out.:cuss:

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 12:56 AM
:shrug: I'll let him answer. The whole structure is fairly nonsensical here in this little place I like to call "Planet Earth". His views are so absolutist that they don't really allow for governance at all.

Is Planet Earth the place where towering liberal intellectuals ably saw the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation? And thus, got together in Philadelphia to "make a few changes"?

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 12:58 AM
I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years.

Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.

It's a real shame that you and BEP keep trying to redefine commonly understood words as you WANT them to be, as opposed to how 99% of Americans uniformly agree that they ARE.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 01:00 AM
Is Planet Earth the place where towering liberal intellectuals ably saw the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation? And thus, got together in Philadelphia to "make a few changes"?

That's my planet.

On Planet BEP/TJ, there was clearly some kind of huge clerical mistake made in there somewhere, and we really ought to just hit a big reset button and go back to the Articles of Confederation because the Constitution isn't even valid. And then we'll all live happily ever after in this la-la land.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 01:01 AM
Ok. Ok. I said I'd bow out. I shall, with this.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 01:05 AM
That's my planet.

On Planet BEP/TJ, there was clearly some kind of huge clerical mistake made in there somewhere, and we really ought to just hit a big reset button and go back to the Articles of Confederation because the Constitution isn't even valid. And then we'll all live happily ever after in this la-la land.

Don't forget that they will of course finish that argument with some sort of toothless homage to defending the Constitution and getting back to our Founding Fathers.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 01:11 AM
It's a real shame that you and BEP keep trying to redefine commonly understood words as you WANT them to be, as opposed to how 99% of Americans uniformly agree that they ARE.

Hardly. The television and public educated masses do not think of liberalism today as the John Locke limited government liberalism that laid the foundation for our libertarian democracy to be born -- though they should.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 01:14 AM
John Locke:

"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."


Toothless indeed. I'm not cofused about the roots of my arguments. 3:1 or 50:1, I know I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 01:16 AM
P.S. Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 01:19 AM
Hardly. The television and public educated masses do not think of liberalism today as the John Locke limited government liberalism that laid the foundation for our libertarian democracy to be born.

It's a strange thing how broad theories continue to be developed. Liberalism as a political philosophy did not end in 1776. It continued with people like John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hill Green, John Rawls, and Conrad Russell (Bertrand's son). It's not monarchical mercantilism, it's not communism, it's not even communitarianism. It's liberalism.

orange
02-15-2010, 01:23 AM
John Locke:


P.S. Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2


'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it". (John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

Taco John
02-15-2010, 01:26 AM
It's a strange thing how broad theories continue to be developed. Liberalism as a political philosophy did not end in 1776. It continued with people like John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hill Green, John Rawls, and Conrad Russell (Bertrand's son). It's not monarchical mercantilism, it's not communism, it's not even communitarianism. It's liberalism.


Yeah. Like I said:

I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years. Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 01:30 AM
John Locke:

"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."


Toothless indeed. I'm not cofused about the roots of my arguments. 3:1 or 50:1, I know I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

Of course. We all are. Let's not be confused about the totality of the roots of your arguments, though. Locke put a lot of stock into representatives of the majority, including the power to tax.

Slapping a quote down you got from a second hand source is always an entertaining route to pretending like you have some great understanding of John Locke, though.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 01:32 AM
Yeah. Like I said:

I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years. Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. I have no idea why this is important to you. It shouldn't be a shame at all, as if meanings have been lost, and we can't understand what the Founders were. Word meanings change. Get over it. It doesn't really mean knowledge has been lost.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 01:43 AM
'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it". (John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 11).



"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." ~ John Locke (1690)



It's a quote-off bitches.

orange
02-15-2010, 01:45 AM
140. 'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?



119. Every Man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient Declaration of a Mans Consent, to make him subject to the Laws of any Government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present Case. No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entring into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a Subject of that Government. The difficulty is, what ought to be look'd upon as a tacit Consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any Government, where he has made no Expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every Man, that hath any Possession, or Enjoyment, of any part of the Dominions of any Government, doth thereby give his tacit Consent, and is as far forth obliged to Obedience to the Laws of that Government, during such Enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his Possession be of Land, to him and his Heirs for ever, or a Lodging only for a Week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the Highway; and in Effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the Territories of that Government.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 04:14 AM
Chapter 5. Sec 27

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 07:38 AM
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]

Reaper16
02-15-2010, 07:48 AM
Is it really theft, TJ? You said that you bought a house knowing that the property taxes would be going towards local fire service and that because you willingly entered into that agreement anyway that it does not constitute theft. But you're willingly living and working in the United States of America, knowing that there is a Federal income tax. Your willing participation in American business should mean that you aren't being stolen from, right?

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 07:56 AM
Is it really theft, TJ? You said that you bought a house knowing that the property taxes would be going towards local fire service and that because you willingly entered into that agreement anyway that it does not constitute theft. But you're willingly living and working in the United States of America, knowing that there is a Federal income tax. Your willing participation in American business should mean that you aren't being stolen from, right?

No. Income witholding with a graduate income tax used for wealth redistribution makes it theft.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:15 AM
Uhh...not exactly. For me to properly answer the poll question, I needed more information. I waited for it. I didn't get it.

But carry on with this nonsense, though...it would be a waste of time for me to get involved.

I answered it properly without having someone give me a definition. Just pick the answer that seems right to you and explain yourself in a post if you think it's necessary.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:16 AM
Welcome to the party, but we're already well into the brawling phase of it.

Stake out your territory and insult someone.

:LOL:

orange
02-15-2010, 08:28 AM
123. IF man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name- property.

124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

Firstly, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them. For though the law of Nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures, yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

125. Secondly, in the state of Nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law. For every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of Nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat in their own cases, as well as negligence and unconcernedness, make them too remiss in other men′s.

126. Thirdly, in the state of Nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offended will seldom fail where they are able by force to make good their injustice. Such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive to those who attempt it.

127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of Nature, being but in an ill condition while they remain in it are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this that makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing to be exercised by such alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them, and by such rules as the community, or those authorised by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power as well as of the governments and societies themselves.

128. For in the state of Nature to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers. The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the law of Nature; by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures, and were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations. The other power a man has in the state of Nature is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into any commonwealth separate from the rest of mankind.

129. The first power- viz., of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of Nature.

130. Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, which he might before employ in the execution of the law of Nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit, to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require. For being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies from the labour, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength, he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require, which is not only necessary but just, since the other members of the society do the like.

131. But though men when they enter into society give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of Nature into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative as the good of the society shall require, yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse), the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one′s property by providing against those three defects above mentioned that made the state of Nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees, by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.



Why do you even bother? You haven't - and CAN'T - post one single thing that suggests Locke disapproved of taxes or expenditures. He only wrote about WHERE government derived its rights and powers to govern.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:36 AM
I've got a new definition for those who are craving help in this area. If you can't recognize the inherent immorality in our current income tax laws, you think socialism is OK.

For example, you have two men whose income profiles are identical over the course of a lifetime. One man spends his entire income on wine women and song, living a grand lifestyle and arriving at retirement penniless and a ward of the state. The other man lives the lifestyle of a miser, saving every possible penny so that he builds enough of a nest egg to finance his entire retirement. A tax code that takes more from the second man than the first man is immoral, IMO.

Another example. Two men make the same lifetime income. One makes his money in a steady stream year after year. The other has a few very productive years (very high income) and many less productive years (low income). Our tax code taxes the second man at a higher lifetime rate than the first man. Again immoral, IMO.

And that leaves aside the fact that we've constructed a system where a majority can raise taxes on a minority which is the worst characteristic of our system of all.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:39 AM
Why do you even bother? You haven't - and CAN'T - post one single thing that suggests Locke disapproved of taxes or expenditures. He only wrote about WHERE government derived its rights and powers to govern.

Does Locke define what types of taxes he finds acceptable or does he just acknowledge that some form of taxation is OK? For example, would he approve of a tax only on people whose names start with the letters S-Z of the alphabet? How about a tax only on people who vote for the losing candidate in an election? Is there no point at which Locke or Orange would find a tax system morally objectionable?

orange
02-15-2010, 08:49 AM
p.s.

Chapter 5. Sec 27

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

orange
02-15-2010, 08:53 AM
Does Locke define what types of taxes he finds acceptable or does he just acknowledge that some form of taxation is OK?

Certainly. It must apply to everyone. And it must not be arbitrary. It must be in laws - as stated in the quote above - passed by the legislature by majority rule, as repeated throughout his Treatises.

And before you go there, graduated taxes are clearly acceptable to him, as in my very first quote of Locke (which is probably the only thing you'll find in which he directly speaks about taxes), repeated here:

140. 'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?


You might say he opposed "taxation without representation" if you were inclined to.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 09:08 AM
Certainly. It must apply to everyone. And it must not be arbitrary. It must be in laws - as stated in the quote above - passed by the legislature by majority rule, as repeated throughout his Treatises.



I could care less unless he's one of the Framers of our Constitution. Majority rule, my arse. The Constiution protects rights to property and restrains the Federal govt pure and simple. Madison spoke out against the danger of the majority as mob rule. A good example of that was the French Revolution.


Locke's views are not the law of this land.

mlyonsd
02-15-2010, 09:12 AM
I've got a new definition for those who are craving help in this area. If you can't recognize the inherent immorality in our current income tax laws, you think socialism is OK.

For example, you have two men whose income profiles are identical over the course of a lifetime. One man spends his entire income on wine women and song, living a grand lifestyle and arriving at retirement penniless and a ward of the state. The other man lives the lifestyle of a miser, saving every possible penny so that he builds enough of a nest egg to finance his entire retirement. A tax code that takes more from the second man than the first man is immoral, IMO.

Another example. Two men make the same lifetime income. One makes his money in a steady stream year after year. The other has a few very productive years (very high income) and many less productive years (low income). Our tax code taxes the second man at a higher lifetime rate than the first man. Again immoral, IMO.

And that leaves aside the fact that we've constructed a system where a majority can raise taxes on a minority which is the worst characteristic of our system of all.
This.

orange
02-15-2010, 09:23 AM
I could care less unless he's one of the Framers of our Constitution. Majority rule, my arse. The Constiution protects rights to property and restrains the Federal govt pure and simple. Madison spoke out against the danger of the majority as mob rule. A good example of that was the French Revolution.


Locke's views are not the law of this land.


Were the writers of this Framers of our Constitution?

(the majority through their representatives) ... shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

patteeu
02-15-2010, 09:27 AM
Certainly. It must apply to everyone. And it must not be arbitrary. It must be in laws - as stated in the quote above - passed by the legislature by majority rule, as repeated throughout his Treatises.

And before you go there, graduated taxes are clearly acceptable to him, as in my very first quote of Locke (which is probably the only thing you'll find in which he directly speaks about taxes), repeated here:

140. 'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

That quote doesn't suggest support for the kind of graduated tax we have in our progressive income tax. By proportion, he might mean a flat tax, but it sounds like he might even mean something more like a head tax.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 09:28 AM
Were the writers of this Framers of our Constitution?

(the majority through their representatives) ... shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

That line is meaningless absent other parts of the Constitution that monitor it. Our system is not based on majority rule alone. It protects the rights of minorities, protects property and primarily restrains the Federal govt. The notes of the Framers at the original Con-Con show that as well. Besides that your cherry-picked selection doesn't address the type of taxes I mentioned.

Dave Lane
02-15-2010, 09:29 AM
I said NO for balls out full bore pure socialism. We already have had a lot of socialism in the US and so far I'm fine with it. Since the 1930s really. Some would say since 1911 when income tax first started.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 09:31 AM
I said NO for balls out full bore pure socialism. We already have had a lot of socialism in the US and so far I'm fine with it. Since the 1930s really. Some would say since 1911 when income tax first started.

See, people. Dave Lane figured out how to answer the poll without having a definition spoon fed to him. Clearly his answer should have been YES based on his explanation and on any reasonable definition, but that's OK. ;)

By my unofficial count, we now have 7 democrats who believe socialism is OK (but a few who don't think extreme socialism with gulags is the way to go) and one democrat who will say anything in order to fit in as best he can with both sides at once.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 09:32 AM
I said NO for balls out full bore pure socialism. We already have had a lot of socialism in the US and so far I'm fine with it. Since the 1930s really. Some would say since 1911 when income tax first started.

1913

banyon
02-15-2010, 09:39 AM
No. Income witholding with a graduate income tax used for wealth redistribution makes it theft.

I note that you declined to meet this query, unsurprisingly.

You can do some humanitarian things at the state level to assist the poor without a progressive income tax or redistributing wealth or witholding income too. I wouldn't call that socialism.
It does not centralize more power at the national level.


How? Be specific.

orange
02-15-2010, 09:40 AM
That quote doesn't suggest support for the kind of graduated tax we have in our progressive income tax. By proportion, he might mean a flat tax, but it sounds like he might even mean something more like a head tax.

I make no claim to what he preferred or supported. Only that it was acceptable - that is, he says nothing to rule it out. Just like he says nothing to rule out taxes. Totally opposite Taco John's claims to the contrary.

orange
02-15-2010, 09:46 AM
See, people. Dave Lane figured out how to answer the poll without having a definition spoon fed to him. Clearly his answer should have been YES based on his explanation and on any reasonable definition, but that's OK. ;)


Where on earth do you get that?

The question - the ACTUAL question in the poll is: "Is socializing America OK?" Any "reasonable definition" of that means "going forward."

Dave Lane says that there's enough.

I guess the meaning of the poll wasn't clear to you. Or else Dave Lane - like at least three other self-identified Democrats -

By my unofficial count, we now have 7 democrats who believe socialism is OK
is the victim of the very sort of arbitrary pigeon-holing Banyon et al have pointed out is the objective of the poll.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 09:48 AM
Is it really theft, TJ? You said that you bought a house knowing that the property taxes would be going towards local fire service and that because you willingly entered into that agreement anyway that it does not constitute theft. But you're willingly living and working in the United States of America, knowing that there is a Federal income tax. Your willing participation in American business should mean that you aren't being stolen from, right?


When government holds a gun to your ribs and says "your money or your life," that's theft. This is exactly what income taxes do. If I have a choice at the point of purchase, that's a different matter.

banyon
02-15-2010, 09:51 AM
Chapter 5. Sec 27

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

To understand the context of this, you'd have to have read the treatise to know that he is talking about how property derives its connection to man (as opposed to say a Communist view). He hadn't even begun talking about the social contract yet, or the other quotes that you failed to address in your rush to have a flippant-i-haven't-read-the-book-but-can-furiously-google-quotes quote-off.

Here's how the book is organized, since you don't know:

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.

banyon
02-15-2010, 09:53 AM
No. Income witholding with a graduate income tax used for wealth redistribution makes it theft.

Why? Because you say so? What makes graduated taxation theft as opposed to flat or no taxation if it is agreed to in a representative government?

patteeu
02-15-2010, 09:56 AM
I make no claim to what he preferred or supported. Only that it was acceptable - that is, he says nothing to rule it out. Just like he says nothing to rule out taxes. Totally opposite Taco John's claims to the contrary.

A progressive income tax is not a proportional tax so while he said nothing to rule it out, he said nothing to give any of us a reason to think he might support it.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 09:57 AM
How about this?

If you really don't like our tax structure, move. :shrug:

I hear Haiti, parts of Russia, Bangledesh, and Somalia have nice weather this time of year.

If you're just a whiner, and insist on staying...get Congress to embrace your ideas.

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:02 AM
I've got a new definition for those who are craving help in this area. If you can't recognize the inherent immorality in our current income tax laws, you think socialism is OK.

For example, you have two men whose income profiles are identical over the course of a lifetime. One man spends his entire income on wine women and song, living a grand lifestyle and arriving at retirement penniless and a ward of the state. The other man lives the lifestyle of a miser, saving every possible penny so that he builds enough of a nest egg to finance his entire retirement. A tax code that takes more from the second man than the first man is immoral, IMO.

So, Social Security is immoral? Doesn't the first guy still just have to subsist with the minimum safety net while the second guy can live in relative luxury? What's the alternative? Just let him die impoverished, as we used to let 30-40% of elderly people go?

Another example. Two men make the same lifetime income. One makes his money in a steady stream year after year. The other has a few very productive years (very high income) and many less productive years (low income). Our tax code taxes the second man at a higher lifetime rate than the first man. Again immoral, IMO.

This just results from having an annual taxation rate and someone not being lucky. What do you propose? Taxation by the decade? Depending on how low his income is in the other years, he can take EITC's or record a loss.

And that leaves aside the fact that we've constructed a system where a majority can raise taxes on a minority which is the worst characteristic of our system of all.

What do you want here? The Polish Diet? Not accomplishing anything? What society in history has raised taxes unanimously?

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:03 AM
When government holds a gun to your ribs and says "your money or your life," that's theft. This is exactly what income taxes do. If I have a choice at the point of purchase, that's a different matter.

It doesn't say that. Like Kotter just said, you're free to go if you want. Or stay and work to get people with your views elected to stop it.

What thief gives you that option?

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:04 AM
1913

Actually 1861.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 10:05 AM
Why do you even bother? You haven't - and CAN'T - post one single thing that suggests Locke disapproved of taxes or expenditures. He only wrote about WHERE government derived its rights and powers to govern.


Because at the end of the day, Locke was talking about banding together to protect life, liberty, and property -- NOT to provide handouts and disrupt markets. Even in his talk about taxes, Locke talks about the fundamental laws of property, and about securing property. He does not talk about redistributing property.

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:07 AM
Because at the end of the day, Locke was talking about banding together to protect life, liberty, and property -- NOT to provide handouts and disrupt markets. Even in his talk about taxes, Locke talks about the fundamental laws of property, and about securing property. He does not talk about redistributing property.

but he supports Theft11!111, just like the cartoon, aw snap!

orange
02-15-2010, 10:12 AM
A progressive income tax is not a proportional tax

A classical definition of "proportional" - not yours:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Where on earth do you get that?

The question - the ACTUAL question in the poll is: "Is socializing America OK?" Any "reasonable definition" of that means "going forward."

Dave Lane says that there's enough.

I guess the meaning of the poll wasn't clear to you. Or else Dave Lane - like at least three other self-identified Democrats -

is the victim of the very sort of arbitrary pigeon-holing Banyon et al have pointed out is the objective of the poll.

Don't worry, I didn't need this poll to pigeon-hole anyone.

As for your first point, I concede that that's a fair interpretation, however Dave's support of Obama and other democrats undermines his stated position.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:23 AM
A classical definition of "proportional" - not yours:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776

That's my definition. That's describing a flat tax (aka a proportional tax).

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 10:26 AM
That's my definition. That's describing a flat tax.

:spock:


a goal of taxation should be to "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."


Are you drunk....at 10:25 in the morning? :shake: Then again, maybe it's your day off.

That's as strong an endorsement for progressive taxation as we'll see, IMO. Duh.

I know...I know...what does Adam Smith know, right? :rolleyes:


Alas...we are back to:

How about this?

If you really don't like our tax structure, move.

I hear Haiti, parts of Russia, Bangledesh, and Somalia have nice weather this time of year.

If you're just a whiner, and insist on staying...get Congress to embrace your ideas.


:hmmm:

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:32 AM
So, Social Security is immoral? Doesn't the first guy still just have to subsist with the minimum safety net while the second guy can live in relative luxury? What's the alternative? Just let him die impoverished, as we used to let 30-40% of elderly people go?

My post was about the taxation issue. The alternative is obvious to me. Tax both people who have identical earned incomes the same. Better yet, tax consumption instead of income and put the heavier burden on the guy who lives it up and ends up being a ward of the state.

This just results from having an annual taxation rate and someone not being lucky. What do you propose? Taxation by the decade? Depending on how low his income is in the other years, he can take EITC's or record a loss.

The other culprit is the progressive rate structure. My solution is to get rid of the progressive rate structure.

What do you want here? The Polish Diet? Not accomplishing anything? What society in history has raised taxes unanimously?

Getting rid of the progressive rate structure would eliminate this problem. If the majority decided to raise rates, their own taxes would go up. If they decided to give themselves a tax cut, they'd be giving everyone else one too.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 10:36 AM
How about this?

If you really don't like our tax structure, move. :shrug:

I hear Haiti, parts of Russia, Bangledesh, and Somalia have nice weather this time of year.

If you're just a whiner, and insist on staying...get Congress to embrace your ideas.
None of those countries produce wealth to tax for the poor because they are the furthest from natural law. The legal system that a country has is related to how much wealth can be produced. That would be how much it's based on natural law. Countries without that are risky to invest in because they don't protect property as much. We're only in 4th place these days as we slip away from our original principals. Russia has not really liberalized her markets that much but still has much socialism in it, despite what's been promoted. Hait is socialist too. So I don't understand why you recommend two places that are worse on the scale regarding socialist features.

Hong Kong was one of the wealthiest and has the most natural law in it. At least before China had it back.

We have a right in this country to dissent our tax system. Only authoritarians and socialist leaning despots tell people to leave.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:38 AM
:spock:


a goal of taxation should be to "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."


Are you drunk....at 10:25 in the morning? :shake: Then again, maybe it's your day off.

That's as strong an endorsement for progressive taxation as we'll see, IMO. Duh.

I know...I know...what does Adam Smith know, right? :rolleyes:


Alas...we are back to:

How about this?

If you really don't like our tax structure, move.

I hear Haiti, parts of Russia, Bangledesh, and Somalia have nice weather this time of year.

If you're just a whiner, and insist on staying...get Congress to embrace your ideas.


:hmmm:

The phrase "in proportion to their revenues" wouldn't have been used if he were endorsing progressive taxation.

Are you still trying to make a case for the argument that low pay attracts incompetent teachers? If so, well played!

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 10:39 AM
None of those countries produce wealth to tax for the poor because they are the furthest from natural law. The legal system that a country has is related to how much wealth can be produced. That would be how much it's based on natural law. Countries without that are risky to invest in because they don't protect property as much. We're only in 4th place these days as we slip away from our original principals. Russia has not really liberalized her markets that much but still has much socialism in it, despite what's been promoted.

Hong Kong was one of the wealthiest and has the most natural law in it. At least before China had it back.

The question remains: why not just move? Somewhere of your own choosing, if it's so despicable here.

Otherwise, convince Congress of the wisdom of your view. Just like those of us who are trying to convince Congress of enacting a variety of our ideas.

Seems to me you have two options. What's the real problem.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:40 AM
We are never going to get rid of a progressive tax. Nor should we.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 10:41 AM
The question remains: why not just move? Somewhere of your own choosing, if it's so despicable here.

Otherwise, convince Congress of the wisdom of your view. Just like those of us who are trying to convince Congress of enacting a variety of our ideas.

Seems to me you have two options. What's the real problem.

I have moved. I left Massachusetts.

I am trying to convince congress as well as people. I vote, I write congress I post my ideas and speak about them to others. I was also one of the original members of the Fair Tax movement.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 10:41 AM
We are never going to get rid of a progressive tax. Nor should we.

Never say "NEVER!"

No one thought the American idea, as stated by our founders and revolutionaries, would ever happen either.

banyon
02-15-2010, 10:43 AM
My post was about the taxation issue. The alternative is obvious to me. Tax both people who have identical earned incomes the same. Better yet, tax consumption instead of income and put the heavier burden on the guy who lives it up and ends up being a ward of the state.



The other culprit is the progressive rate structure. My solution is to get rid of the progressive rate structure.



Getting rid of the progressive rate structure would eliminate this problem. If the majority decided to raise rates, their own taxes would go up. If they decided to give themselves a tax cut, they'd be giving everyone else one too.

Clearly, you're for a flat tax. that's a reasonable policy position you've advocated before, but you haven't established the moral wrongdoing that would rise to "theft" unless your purpose is just to make a point about equitability, which i disagree with, but it is at least a tenable position.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 10:43 AM
The word "proportion" wouldn't have been used if he were endorsing progressive taxation.



YOUR proportion....and my proportion are obviously, NOT the same.

Proportional taxation describes the principal of progressive taxation to a "T."

A flat tax cannot be described, accurately, as "proportional."

Duh. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 10:44 AM
Never say "NEVER!"

No one thought the American idea, as stated by our founders and revolutionaries, would ever happen either.

a goal of taxation should be to "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."


From Adam Smith himself...

Heh. :)

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:46 AM
Clearly, you're for a flat tax. that's a reasonable policy position you've advocated before, but you haven't established the moral wrongdoing that would rise to "theft" unless your purpose is just to make a point about equitability, which i disagree with, but it is at least a tenable position.

Yes, it's a point about equitability as I see it. I don't expect you socialism lovers to agree. :p

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 10:47 AM
a goal of taxation should be to "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."


From Adam Smith himself...

Heh. :)

I have said before Adam Smith was wrong about certain things which allowed the Marxists to get their foot in the door.

The goal of taxation is to fund the necessary role of govt as stipulated in the US Constitution. It says nothing about repairing income inequality. That's socialism.Your post shows you're a socialist at heart. No wonder you weren't that critical of Bush.

Your answer to this thread is: Socialism is okay.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Yes, it's a point about equitability as I see it. I don't expect you socialism lovers to agree. :pJust like tax cuts across the board are equitabile. It's a pie in the sky plaitude that in reality doesn't exsist.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:55 AM
YOUR proportion....and my proportion are obviously, NOT the same.

Proportional taxation describes the principal of progressive taxation to a "T."

A flat tax cannot be described, accurately, as "proportional."

Duh. :rolleyes:

Wow. I hope this is an act.

From the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_tax) (quoting a book called "Concepts of Taxation"):

A proportional tax is a tax imposed so that the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

You can find the same definition all over the web. It's pretty standard lingo.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 10:56 AM
I have said before Adam Smith was wrong about certain things which allowed the Marxists to get their foot in the door.

The goal of taxation is to fund the necessary role of govt as stipulated in the US Constitution. It says nothing about repairing income inequality. That's socialism.Your post shows you're a socialist at heart. No wonder you weren't that critical of Bush.

Your answer to this thread is: Socialism is okay.

Ah, I see; I cite my authorities selectively, and cherry-pick what I like. And discard what I don't like.

See, ideologues are just like everyone else afterall, right? LMAO

patteeu
02-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Just like tax cuts across the board are equitabile. It's a pie in the sky plaitude that in reality doesn't exsist.

In our progressive taxation environment, I don't consider across the board tax cuts equitable. In order to achieve equitability, tax cuts for the rich would have to be much deeper than those for the poor (and there would have to be a tax increase on those who get away without paying income tax at all).

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:01 AM
Wow. I hope this is an act.

From the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_tax) (quoting a book called "Concepts of Taxation"):

You can find the same definition all over the web. It's pretty standard lingo.

Then we'll have to disagree on what "proportional" infers to the idea of taxation. Proportional is not flat.

FWIW, if we are talking a truly flat tax across all income....with no loop-holes or exemptions to be manipulated by tax attorneys and accountants, I say bring it on. I'd also be open to the idea of a consumption tax. But, as yet, we are far from consensus on either of those ideas.

:)

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:01 AM
Ah, I see; I cite my authorities selectively, and cherry-pick what I like. And discard what I don't like.

See, ideologues are just like everyone else afterall, right? LMAO

You're simply projecting now. Anyone who says taxation is for income equality is professing a belief in the fundamental tenet of socialism. You're an ideologue too. NTTAWWT. In my book it just depends on the ideology. I became a freedom advocate because it works not just on moral grounds. You advocate theft as a Christian. I call that immoral.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:04 AM
Then I guess we'll have to disagree on what "proportional" infers to the idea of taxation. Proportional is not flat.

FWIW, if we are talking a truly flat tax across all income....with no loopholes or exemptions to be manipulated by tax attorneys and accountants, I say bring it on. I'd also be open to the idea of a consumption tax. But, as yet, we are far from consensus on either of those ideas.

:)

You can disagree if you want to continue to be wrong. This is something we can't agree to disagree on. There is a clear cut answer and yours isn't it. Proportional is definitely flat. A proportional tax = a flat tax. There is no ambiguity here. They are two names for the same tax concept.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:05 AM
You're simply projecting now. Anyone who says taxation is for income equality is professing a belief in the fundamental tenet of socialism. You're an ideologue too. NTTAWWT. In my book it just depends on the ideology. I became a freedom advocate because it works not just on moral grounds. You advocate theft as a Christian. I call that immoral.

Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 11:07 AM
You can disagree if you want to continue to be wrong. This is something we can't agree to disagree on. There is a clear cut answer and yours isn't it. Proportional is definitely flat. A proportional tax = a flat tax. There is no ambiguity here. They are two names for the same tax concept.

Remember the days when Kotter couldn't associate himself with Democrats because they were too far left radical for his tastes. LMAO

HonestChieffan
02-15-2010, 11:07 AM
Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.

Allowing them opportunity to improve is a good thing. The welfare state ensures the least among us is kept in that state forever.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Allowing them opportunity to improve is a good thing. The welfare state ensures the least among us is kept in that state forever.

So, let's allow the least among us to die in the streets if need be. Nice.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.
How much do you give of your own money to charity then?
As opposed to wanting to use other's money to help others.

I agree but that's based on how individuals treat others. See my above questions. I also never said there couldn't be things done at the state level for humanitarian relief which would be Constitutional without using witholding of income. ( stealing) I already know the "it's not enough" argument but that's the whole idea. It prevents permanent dependency. That and with the economic growth less money to such strata creates, it shouldn't be a problem. No system is perfect...some are better than others.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 11:09 AM
So, let's allow the least among us to die in the streets if need be. Nice.

I bet I have a good zeroing in on the number of homeless people you've taken into your house to support.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:10 AM
So, let's allow the least among us to die in the streets if need be. Nice.

People die in a socialist system too. Even with socialist health care. Heck! In Holland the doctors now pull the plug on the useless eaters because they cost too much. That's the humanitarianism of socialist help. Help as betrayal.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:11 AM
Remember the days when Kotter couldn't associate himself with Democrats because they were too far left radical for his tastes. LMAO

They still are mostly too radical for my tastes; heathcare being the one exception. I'm simply arguing the philosophical point here.

For example, patty is insisting on a mathematical definition for "proportional" as applied in a civic setting....when "proportional" is clearly in the context of income/wealth/ability to pay, rather than a rigid and strict mathematical application.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:12 AM
I get around that by advocating no income tax period.

BIG_DADDY
02-15-2010, 11:12 AM
I bet I have a good zeroing in on the number of homeless people you've taken into your house to support.

Well there was this one time a long time ago when he was younger. There was attractive young blonde 16 year old girl who was on the street and had nowhere to go.............................

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:13 AM
Well there was this one time a long time ago when he was younger. There was attractive young blonde 16 year old girl who was on the street and had nowhere to go.............................

Kotter has morals. He wouldn't do that. :);) Naughty! Naughty!

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:14 AM
We can put you down in the "okay" column in this thread then right?
I'll answer for you. Yes! Yes! Yes!o:-)

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:15 AM
I could care less unless he's one of the Framers of our Constitution. Majority rule, my arse. The Constiution protects rights to property and restrains the Federal govt pure and simple. Madison spoke out against the danger of the majority as mob rule. A good example of that was the French Revolution.


Locke's views are not the law of this land.

You don't even care about that. All you care about is Jefferson and Madison. No one else.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
Did you say something?

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:20 AM
The phrase "in proportion to their revenues" wouldn't have been used if he were endorsing progressive taxation.

:spock: err....what?

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:21 AM
I have moved. I left Massachusetts.

:shrug: FWIW, Massachusetts is now in the bottom half of states in total tax burden.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 11:23 AM
Huh?

banyon
02-15-2010, 11:23 AM
Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.

Well put.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:26 AM
:spock: err....what?

Never mind. I see what you're saying. It's an arguable point either way.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:26 AM
Remember the days when Kotter couldn't associate himself with Democrats because they were too far left radical for his tastes. LMAO

Yeah, the funny thing is that he sees his lack of a philosophical compass or any kind of principled underpinning as a positive.

The not so funny thing is that he won't even let himself be tied down by universally accepted definitions. He seems to be as rudderless as a guy can be unless the topic involves gay marriage and then his lone principle is based on the icky factor.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:34 AM
Never mind. I see what you're saying. It's an arguable point either way.

No it isn't. You could come up with some crazy concept about a tax in proportion to the joy a man gets from life in an effort to stretch the meaning of "arguable" I suppose, but the fact that a proportional tax is defined as a single rate tax is standard terminology. A flat tax is proportional to a dollar value of the tax base (income or property for example). A progressive or a regressive tax is not proportional.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:35 AM
Yeah, the funny thing is that he sees his lack of a philosophical compass or any kind of principled underpinning as a positive.

The not so funny thing is that he won't even let himself be tied down by universally accepted definitions. He seems to be as rudderless as a guy can be unless the topic involves gay marriage and then his lone principle is based on the icky factor.

Lack of rigid and dogmatic ideological allegiance does not equal a lack of philosophical compass or principles. And since when is morality synonymous with an "icky factor?" Patty, you really need to keep up. Those of you at the lunatic fringe always have had problems with T.R. conservative types who embrace government solutions to coerce the elite and powerful in society to do the right thing....when greed and human nature would lead us too far down that road of self-centered and myopic narcissism. Must be lonely there.

mlyonsd
02-15-2010, 11:41 AM
Lack of rigid and dogmatic ideological allegiance does not equal a lack of philosophical compass or principles. And since when is morality synonymous with an "icky factor?" Patty, you really need to keep up. Those of you at the lunatic fringe always have had problems with T.R. conservative types who embrace government solutions to coerce the elite and powerful in society to do the right thing....when greed and human nature would lead us too far down that road of self-centered and myopic narcissism. Must be lonely there.

What a bunch of crap.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:50 AM
Lack of rigid and dogmatic ideological allegiance does not equal a lack of philosophical compass or principles. And since when is morality synonymous with an "icky factor?" Patty, you really need to keep up. Those of you at the lunatic fringe always have had problems with T.R. conservative types who embrace government solutions to coerce the elite and powerful in society to do the right thing....when greed and human nature would lead us too far down that road of self-centered and myopic narcissism. Must be lonely there.

When you're a myopic, self-centered narcisist, there's no such thing as lonely because all you really need is yourself!

That's just one way in which your post was, as mlyonsd has pointed out, a bunch of crap.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:53 AM
What a bunch of crap.

You could have just said: "Uh, I don't get it." or "What's he sayin'?"

Heh. :)

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 11:59 AM
What a bunch of crap.

I'm a bit surprised you don't like Teddy. :hmmm:

Teddy was the man.

mlyonsd
02-15-2010, 12:14 PM
You could have just said: "Uh, I don't get it." or "What's he sayin'?"

Heh. :)

No I get it. Get out your Ouiji board and ask Teddy what he thinks about our projected debt on just our entitlements for the next 10-20 years and if he'd kindly like to come back and govern us out of this mess.

I'm guessing he'll pass.

Doing 'the right thing' is objective and different depending on the circumstances. The reality of today is nothing like when Teddy was making a name for himself.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 01:34 PM
:spock:


a goal of taxation should be to "remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."


Are you drunk....at 10:25 in the morning? :shake: Then again, maybe it's your day off.

That's as strong an endorsement for progressive taxation as we'll see, IMO. Duh.

I know...I know...what does Adam Smith know, right? :rolleyes:


Alas...we are back to:

How about this?

If you really don't like our tax structure, move.

I hear Haiti, parts of Russia, Bangledesh, and Somalia have nice weather this time of year.

If you're just a whiner, and insist on staying...get Congress to embrace your ideas.


:hmmm:

KC Native was kind enough to point out that Adam Smith did indeed endorse a progressive income tax (in a less than kind rep comment I might add). However, this is how he does it when he specifically endorses a progressive rate tax:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Why "not only in proportion to their revenue" and "more than in that proportion"? Because "in proportion to their revenue" would be a flat rate tax.

Proportional taxation is single rate taxation. Period.

Mr. Kotter
02-15-2010, 02:19 PM
KC Native was kind enough to point out that Adam Smith did indeed endorse a progressive income tax (in a less than kind rep comment I might add). However, this is how he does it when he specifically endorses a progressive rate tax:



Why "not only in proportion to their revenue" and "more than in that proportion"? Because "in proportion to their revenue" would be a flat rate tax.

Proportional taxation is single rate taxation. Period.

Proportionality in mathematical terms isn't the same as proportionality applied to a civics discussion.

wild1
02-15-2010, 02:23 PM
Yeah, the funny thing is that he sees his lack of a philosophical compass or any kind of principled underpinning as a positive.

The not so funny thing is that he won't even let himself be tied down by universally accepted definitions. He seems to be as rudderless as a guy can be unless the topic involves gay marriage and then his lone principle is based on the icky factor.

this post could have been written about almost any "swing voter".

Inspector
02-15-2010, 02:27 PM
Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.

That judgement might even be more meaningful if the treatment we provide the less fortunate was done on a volunteer basis instead of it being forced.

Well, seems that way to me anyway.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 02:27 PM
Proportionality in mathematical terms isn't the same as proportionality applied to a civics discussion.

Proportionality has a definition that is applicable in mathematics, taxation, and civics. I've used it. You've ignored it. Even the Adam Smith you quoted, a man who endorsed a progressive scheme like you do, used the word "proportional" the way I use it.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 03:16 PM
I just sit here amazed that a public school teacher who teaches government of all things is being taken to school to learn the word "proportion," and is still getting it wrong.

Wyndex
02-15-2010, 03:36 PM
Not enough poll options, where is the option for "I'd like to keep police departments, fire stations, public libraries, highway workers who fix our highways and build them and other socialist programs that make up a great portion of this government of ours. Universal healthcare would not be good however a government ran insurance option would be good because there are quite a few people who can not afford insurance. (switching low income families over to a very very affordable insurance plan is better than keeping them on 100% expense paid / no co-pay coverage)"

mlyonsd
02-15-2010, 03:39 PM
Not enough poll options, where is the option for "I'd like to keep police departments, fire stations, public libraries, highway workers who fix our highways and build them and other socialist programs that make up a great portion of this government of ours. Universal healthcare would not be good however a government ran insurance option would be good because there are quite a few people who can not afford insurance. (switching low income families over to a very very affordable insurance plan is better than keeping them on 100% expense paid / no co-pay coverage)"

Yes we've covered all that.

The thread is now at the 'I know you are but what am I stage".

banyon
02-15-2010, 03:48 PM
I just sit here amazed that a public school teacher who teaches government of all things is being taken to school to learn the word "proportion," and is still getting it wrong.

you get taken to the woodshed on all manner of topics from what "republicanism" means to what John Locke or the Constitution says about taxation, abandon those topics when they don't go the way you thought they would, use terms in any way you please whether the meanings are outdated or not, lecture others about your moral superiority, and come back to snipe at Kotter about some perceived aberration in the way he uses a term? That's amazing.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Not enough poll options, where is the option for "I'd like to keep police departments, fire stations, public libraries, highway workers who fix our highways and build them and other socialist programs that make up a great portion of this government of ours.
Those are not socialist programs. Those are not done by the central govt but local. Socialism centralizes power—the main problem with it.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Not enough poll options, where is the option for "I'd like to keep police departments, fire stations, public libraries, highway workers who fix our highways and build them and other socialist programs that make up a great portion of this government of ours. Universal healthcare would not be good however a government ran insurance option would be good because there are quite a few people who can not afford insurance. (switching low income families over to a very very affordable insurance plan is better than keeping them on 100% expense paid / no co-pay coverage)"

I can help you, but first tell me whether you typically vote democrat/green or Republican/libertarian/constitution party.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 03:50 PM
you get taken to the woodshed on all manner of topics from what "republicanism" means to what John Locke or the Constitution says about taxation, abandon those topics when they don't go the way you thought they would, use terms in any way you please whether the meanings are outdated or not, lecture others about your moral superiority, and come back to snipe at Kotter about some perceived aberration in the way he uses a term? That's amazing.



:LOL:

Whatever you say Comrade VonCantadmitimsocialist.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 03:54 PM
O.M.G. banyon's having a meltdown!

banyon
02-15-2010, 03:59 PM
O.M.G. banyon's having a meltdown!

Did you say something? :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 04:05 PM
LMAO

orange
02-15-2010, 04:28 PM
Not enough poll options, where is the option for "I'd like to keep police departments, fire stations, public libraries, highway workers who fix our highways and build them and other socialist programs that make up a great portion of this government of ours. Those are not socialist programs. Those are not done by the central govt but local. Socialism centralizes power—the main problem with it.

http://www.i-85-hotels.com/maps/USA_Interstate-85.jpg

http://jpllmusicnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/library-of-congress.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/medtour/images/smithsonian.jpg

http://blogs.abcnews.com/.m/photos/uncategorized/ap_fbi_building2_nr.jpg

http://www.fws.gov/fire/news/wa/blue_goose_2008_clip_image002.gif

ClevelandBronco
02-15-2010, 04:36 PM
Man, and society, should be judged by how we treat the least among us. Period.

There's no reason to bring up teachers in this thread.

orange
02-15-2010, 04:41 PM
Proportionality has a definition that is applicable in mathematics, taxation, and civics. I've used it. You've ignored it. Even the Adam Smith you quoted, a man who endorsed a progressive scheme like you do, used the word "proportional" the way I use it.

No, not the stilted and monolithic way you use it.

For example, Smith speaks admiringly of a tax proportional to the benefits obtained beyond what competition would produce:

V.2.137 The emoluments of offices are not, like those of trades and professions, regulated by the free competition of the market, and do not, therefore, always bear a just proportion to what the nature of the employment requires. They are, perhaps, in most countries, higher than it requires; the persons who have the administration of government being generally disposed to reward both themselves and their immediate dependants rather more than enough. The emoluments of offices, therefore, can in most cases very well bear to be taxed. The persons, besides, who enjoy public offices, especially the more lucrative, are in all countries the objects of general envy, and a tax upon their emoluments, even though it should be somewhat higher than upon any other sort of revenue, is always a very popular tax. In England, for example, when by the land-tax every other sort of revenue was supposed to be assessed at four shillings in the pound, it was very popular to lay a real tax of five shillings and sixpence in the pound upon the salaries of offices which exceeded a hundred pounds a year, the pensions of the younger branches of the royal family, the pay of the officers of the army and navy, and a few others less obnoxious to envy excepted. There are in England no other direct taxes upon the wages of labour.


He also recognizes the unfairness of a flat tax in some circumstances:

V.2.58 The tithe, and every other land-tax of this kind, under the appearance of perfect equality, are very unequal taxes; a certain portion of the produce being, in different situations, equivalent to a very different portion of the rent. In some very rich lands the produce is so great that the one half of it is fully sufficient to replace to the farmer his capital employed in cultivation, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. The other half, or, what comes to the same thing, the value of the other half, he could afford to pay as rent to the landlord, if there was no tithe. But if a tenth of the produce is taken from him in the way of tithe, he must require an abatement of the fifth part of his rent, otherwise he cannot get back his capital with the ordinary profit. In this case the rent of the landlord, instead of amounting to a half or five-tenths of the whole produce, will amount only to four-tenths of it. In poorer lands, on the contrary, the produce is sometimes so small, and the expence of cultivation so great, that it requires four-fifths of the whole produce to replace to the farmer his capital with the ordinary profit. In this case, though there was no tithe, the rent of the landlord could amount to no more than one-fifth or two-tenths of the whole produce. But if the farmer pays one-tenth of the produce in the way of tithe, he must require an equal abatement of the rent of the landlord, which will thus be reduced to one-tenth only of the whole produce. Upon the rent of rich lands, the tithe may sometimes be a tax of no more than one-fifth part, or four shillings in the pound; whereas upon that of poorer lands, it may sometimes be a tax of one-half, or of ten shillings in the pound.

Smith, like Locke, was clever enough to not be an ideologue like the ideologues like to paint him/them.

Give BEP some credit - at least she honestly admits her disagreement with them instead of trying to rebrand them.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 04:56 PM
Hmmm...

Locke's brand: "Wrote the most famous and influential defense of limited government and property rights ever published."

Rebrand: "The champion of generating tax dollars from the rich."

Indeed.

banyon
02-15-2010, 05:00 PM
Hmmm...

Locke's brand: "Wrote the most famous and influential defense of limited government and property rights ever published."

Rebrand: "The champion of generating tax dollars from the rich."

Indeed.

no one "rebranded" him that way. You must've been looking at the posts through a funhouse mirror or something.

He did, however, advocate the use of taxation as a way to secure societal benefits. He did not, for example, as you do in this thread, brand it "thievery" and demand only the most absolute view of property rights.

Your perpetual need is to frame your discussion opponents view's as the most extreme opposite view is a pretty deep flaw in reasoning that has permeated many discussions.

orange
02-15-2010, 05:20 PM
Hmmm...

Locke's brand: "Wrote the most famous and influential defense of limited government and property rights government by the consent of the governed ever published."

Rididulous and Utterly Unsupportable Rebrand: "The champion of generating tax dollars from the rich "taxation equals theft.""


Indeed.

Wyndex
02-15-2010, 05:20 PM
Those are not socialist programs. Those are not done by the central govt but local. Socialism centralizes power—the main problem with it.

so we don't pay local taxes?

dipshit

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 05:20 PM
You know what I was talking about Orange. No one was talking about federal police when they mentioned fire and police. They usually mean local. And the interstate highway is one exception I knew about but that's not vital for the central govt either nor is an FBI. Those are considered socialist by some too. Still many more roads are state/local. The federal ones are more centralization true, are signs of big govt but not exactly for redistribution of wealth either.

Once again for those who have short memories: social security, medicare, medicaid, budget for dept of ed, social programs for the poor and needy, subsidies for business large and small etc.
Welfare from cradle to grave for everyone. Let the govt take care of life for you.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 05:21 PM
so we don't pay local taxes?

dipshit

The point is way over your head. Please read the thread and stop wasting other poster's time if you didn't see what they posted earlier.
No need to repost for those who don't know what kind of taxes make them socialist taxes.
Nice projection there "dipshit" since you don't know the difference.

orange
02-15-2010, 05:33 PM
You know what I was talking about Orange. No one was talking about federal police when they mentioned fire and police. They usually mean local. And the interstate highway is one exception I knew about but that's not vital for the central govt either nor is an FBI. Those are considered socialist by some too. Still many more roads are state/local. The federal ones are more centralization true, are signs of big govt but not exactly for redistribution of wealth either.

Of course I know what you were talking about. Just as YOU know that anything that crosses State Lines MUST be handled by the Feds - even simple tasks like roads, police, fire protection et al.

Once again for those who have short memories: social security, medicare, medicaid, budge for dept of ed, social programs for the poor and needy,

Hooray for all that!


subsidies for business large and small etc.

Now, you lose me.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 05:37 PM
Of course I know what you were talking about. Just as YOU know that anything that crosses State Lines MUST be handled by the Feds - even simple tasks like roads, police, fire protection et al.

They don't all have to be. Roads were being built with money provided by businesses because they wanted people to come to their shops. It just can bet unwieldy if a lot of them are with at toll on every corner. And adding more and more federal agencies is not a good thing either for the same reasons.

Hooray for all that!
Well you admitted you thought socialism was okay but those are clearly socialist.


Now, you lose me.
We have corporate welfare and small business welfare too. That's also socialist. It takes from some to give to others for their private enterprise.

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 05:46 PM
Orange did you know John Locke urged families to put their children to work at age three? Otherwise, they would have only "bread and water, and that very scantily too." If that.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 05:57 PM
Orange did you know John Locke urged families to put their children to work at age three? Otherwise, they would have only "bread and water, and that very scantily too." If that.

I didn't know that. But I did know he had a lot of stock investments in the slave trade.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 07:58 PM
No, not the stilted and monolithic way you use it.

For example, Smith speaks admiringly of a tax proportional to the benefits obtained beyond what competition would produce:

V.2.137 The emoluments of offices are not, like those of trades and professions, regulated by the free competition of the market, and do not, therefore, always bear a just proportion to what the nature of the employment requires. They are, perhaps, in most countries, higher than it requires; the persons who have the administration of government being generally disposed to reward both themselves and their immediate dependants rather more than enough. The emoluments of offices, therefore, can in most cases very well bear to be taxed. The persons, besides, who enjoy public offices, especially the more lucrative, are in all countries the objects of general envy, and a tax upon their emoluments, even though it should be somewhat higher than upon any other sort of revenue, is always a very popular tax. In England, for example, when by the land-tax every other sort of revenue was supposed to be assessed at four shillings in the pound, it was very popular to lay a real tax of five shillings and sixpence in the pound upon the salaries of offices which exceeded a hundred pounds a year, the pensions of the younger branches of the royal family, the pay of the officers of the army and navy, and a few others less obnoxious to envy excepted. There are in England no other direct taxes upon the wages of labour.


He also recognizes the unfairness of a flat tax in some circumstances:

V.2.58 The tithe, and every other land-tax of this kind, under the appearance of perfect equality, are very unequal taxes; a certain portion of the produce being, in different situations, equivalent to a very different portion of the rent. In some very rich lands the produce is so great that the one half of it is fully sufficient to replace to the farmer his capital employed in cultivation, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. The other half, or, what comes to the same thing, the value of the other half, he could afford to pay as rent to the landlord, if there was no tithe. But if a tenth of the produce is taken from him in the way of tithe, he must require an abatement of the fifth part of his rent, otherwise he cannot get back his capital with the ordinary profit. In this case the rent of the landlord, instead of amounting to a half or five-tenths of the whole produce, will amount only to four-tenths of it. In poorer lands, on the contrary, the produce is sometimes so small, and the expence of cultivation so great, that it requires four-fifths of the whole produce to replace to the farmer his capital with the ordinary profit. In this case, though there was no tithe, the rent of the landlord could amount to no more than one-fifth or two-tenths of the whole produce. But if the farmer pays one-tenth of the produce in the way of tithe, he must require an equal abatement of the rent of the landlord, which will thus be reduced to one-tenth only of the whole produce. Upon the rent of rich lands, the tithe may sometimes be a tax of no more than one-fifth part, or four shillings in the pound; whereas upon that of poorer lands, it may sometimes be a tax of one-half, or of ten shillings in the pound.

Smith, like Locke, was clever enough to not be an ideologue like the ideologues like to paint him/them.

Give BEP some credit - at least she honestly admits her disagreement with them instead of trying to rebrand them.

1. He's not using the word any differently than I did. If someone says "in proportion to the number of marble tiles on the floor of his residence" it means a single rate applied to the number of tiles. Such a tax may end up as a progressive tax wrt revenue, but that would only be because of some coincidence such as a situation where the poor live on dirt floors whereas all rich live on marble tiled floors. But if someone just says "proportional tax" they are most definitely talking about a flat rate tax. The base of the tax is what the proportion is drawn from.

2. No one is disputing that Adam Smith was ultimately a proponent of a progressive tax, it's just that he wasn't a proponent of a proportional tax. Instead, as I've pointed out in Smith's own words, he favored a tax "not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

3. How did the focus drift to Adam Smith from Locke? For all I know, Locke favored a progressive tax too at some point, but the quote you offered earlier in this thread wasn't that point.

NewChief
02-15-2010, 08:21 PM
I think we need a little fuel for this here fire:

http://salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_political_culture

Mythological politics
The key to understanding the populist right's accusations that Obama is a socialist
BY MICHAEL LIND

Salon
The tea party movement may have been started by Washington lobbyists, but it has tapped into a powerful strain of American political culture — a strain that has always presented an obstacle to reform in the United States.

American political culture was British before it was American. During the English civil war of the 17th century, two themes crystallized — and have influenced American public discourse to this day. One was the idea of the Ancient Constitution. The other was the idea of the True Religion.

Many British opponents of the Stuart monarchs claimed that they were defending an ancient, unwritten English constitution against corruption in the service of tyranny. Sometimes this ancient constitution was identified with the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Alfred, and contrasted with the "Norman yoke" imposed on freedom-loving English people by William the Conqueror and his despotic successors after the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066. As history, this was nonsense, but as political mythology this narrative had enormous appeal. History was viewed as a gradual decline into tyranny, a long fall following a golden age of English liberty in the distant past.

This myth of primordial English liberty rhymed neatly with radical Protestantism. According to dissenting Protestants, the true church was the earliest church. Christianity had been corrupted over time, and Reformation required a restoration of the early, pure practices and beliefs of the apostles.

Put the myths of the ancient constitution and the early church together, and you have a view of history as decline from an original state of perfection, in politics and also in religion. Innovation is equated with tyranny in politics and heresy in religion. Virtue consists of defending what is left of the old, more perfect system and, if possible, restoring the original government or church. Progress is redefined as regress — movement away from the wicked present toward the pure and uncorrupted past.

This way of thinking is more or less extinct in Britain, its original home, but it became an important part of the political culture of the British North American colonies that won their independence from the mother country. Having become Americans, the former British colonists found it easy to replace the ancient constitution of the virtuous Anglo-Saxons with the 1787 constitution of the virtuous Founding Fathers, who were quickly elevated to the status of demigods like the legendary King Alfred.

Anglo-American Protestants viewed Catholicism as the chief enemy of the "true religion" of Protestant Christianity well into the 20th century, and some still do. But in the mythology of the reactionary right, the United Nations has long since replaced the Vatican as the center of global conspiracies, and the alleged Catholic threat to Protestantism has been replaced by the alleged "secular humanist" threat to the "Judeo-Christian tradition."

This is the key to understanding the otherwise inexplicable accusations by the populist right that Barack Obama is a socialist or fascist or whatever, as well as fantasies about a global secular humanist conspiracy. We are dealing with a mythological mentality, based on simple and powerful archetypes. Contemporary figures and current events are plugged into a framework that never changes. "King Charles (or King George) is threatening the rights of Englishmen" becomes "Barack Obama is promoting socialism" — or fascism, or monarchism, or daylight saving time.

As in other cases of mythological politics, like messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you are part of the conspiracy. Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are totalitarians to change their mind.

Nevertheless, progressives cannot cede the high ground of debate over first principles to this kind of reactionary, paranoid populism and fight instead in the swampy terrain of utilitarian social science. In a debate for the hearts and minds of the American people, Ron Paul will defeat Peter Orszag every time.

Against this backward-looking version of Americanism, rooted in early modern British fantasies about the ancient constitution and true religion, progressives must deploy a counter-narrative that is equally rooted in American values. The ideas of natural rights and popular sovereignty are, if anything, more fundamental to American political culture than the idea of political or religious golden ages in an idealized past. But natural rights and popular sovereignty can be invoked on behalf of reform. The history of basing civil rights on natural rights is one of improvement over time, not one of decline. The abolition of slavery by the 13th Amendment and the nationalization of civil rights by the 14th improved the U.S. Constitution, and Franklin Roosevelt's notion of economic rights marks a further advance.

Likewise, the idea of popular sovereignty, though it dates back to John Locke in the 17th century, need not inspire reactionary reverence for existing institutions, much less a desire to restore an alleged golden age. On the contrary, the sovereign people have the right to remake their political and social order every generation or two, in order to achieve their perennial goals in changing conditions.

This was the view of Abraham Lincoln, who said in his Second Annual Message to Congress: "As our case is new, we must think anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country." And it was the view of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 in his Commonwealth Club Address: "Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, faith in ourselves demand that we recognize the new terms of the old social contract."

At the high level of public philosophy, the debate between the tea party right and progressives boils down to this: Do we think that fidelity to our predecessors means mindlessly doing what they did in their own time, even though times have changed? Or do we think that we should act as they would act, if they lived in the 21st century and had learned from everything that has happened in America and the world in the past 200 years?

To put it another way: The American Revolution was a beginning, not an end. The real equivalents today of the American revolutionaries are those who view the republic, not as an 18th-century utopia to be restored with archaeological exactitude, but as a work in progress to which every generation of Americans can contribute.

Let the debate begin.

Michael Lind is policy director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 10:09 PM
I think we need a little fuel for this here fire:

http://salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_political_culture

The first paragraph already starts on a faulty premise. Not worth reading past it. The guy clearly has an agenda, and part of that agenda is to distort the truth.

Taco John
02-15-2010, 10:18 PM
Washington Lobbyists did not start the tea parties...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DKZmIzEMUN8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DKZmIzEMUN8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
02-15-2010, 10:21 PM
Tea Parties were not started by Washington lobbyist. They started with the Ron Paul campaign.

Lind sounds like a typical socialist.....get rid of the liberties the American Revolution brought and return to the Old World way of govt's running people. It's making a deal with the devil.

NewChief
02-16-2010, 08:08 AM
I would imagine the author is referring to this.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_tea_party_movement_whos_in_charge.php
The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?
Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real.

They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August's oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities. Armey will appear at a major rally in Atlanta, FreedomWorks said.

All three groups vehemently deny that the movement is a product of AstroTurfing--fake grassroots activism organized from the top down--as some on the left have claimed. They will tell you that citizens-turned-activists, upset with President Obama's economic agenda and the financial bailout, have been calling them, asking for help and how they can organize protests on Wednesday. The movement, they say, is entirely organic: they are mostly providing help and resources to this new class of outraged conservative free-market populists, some of whom are their own members and some of whom are outsiders to politics with whom they've never communicated before--not even on an e-mail list.

FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website www.taxdayteaparty.com in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events.

The movement is not tied to the Republican Party, group spokesmen said, despite a report that at least 10 House Republicans will be speaking at events across the country. Eric Odom, founder of dontGO, has infamously turned down a request from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to speak at the group's Chicago event.

Spokesmen for all three groups said they are not aware of any contact (other than the Steele incident) between their groups and federal-level Republican politicians, at the national level at least; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), however, will speak at an Americans for Prosperity-organized event in Wisconsin, a spokesman for that group said. His appearance was organized by the group's Wisconsin chapter, Policy Director Phil Kerpen told me.

The three groups each want something different out of the protests.

FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon sees them as an opportunity for the right to catch up to the left in terms of grassroots activity, incorporating the activist-network model used most effectively by MoveOn.org.

"Activists in general have learned a lot from the last election," Brandon told me. "You'd see 50 MoveOn.org people standing outside a gas station. We feel just as strong about our issues."

Progressive groups have employed that strategy in support of the same economic agenda the tea party protests seek to overturn: groups like ACORN and Americans United for Change have utilized their e-mail lists of supporters to organize field events across the country in support of the stimulus.

And in copying the left's model, Brandon says, FreedomWorks is no more guilty of AstroTurfing than MoveOn is.

"If you look at MoveOn's model...if you consider that AstroTurfing, I'd probably have to say that we're AstroTurfing," Brandon told me. But if critics assume the organization is top-down, he said, "they're gonna underestimate us."

FreedomWorks will place volunteers at some of the events to collect e-mail addresses and try to grow the group's network of activists. In the same way the Iraq war helped liberals recruit new activists, Brandon hopes Obama's economic agenda will fill conservative e-mail lists and coffers with new support.

dontGO founder Odom, on the other hand, does not see a parallel between his group and liberal ones like MoveOn. His vision for the movement is much more libertarian and revolutionary

"Their agenda was to get these individuals elected. Our agenda is to declare war on incumbency and long term power," Odom told me.

Hence the rejection of Steele's request. The goal is "not to promote Republicans at all," Odom said. "I voted for Bob Barr."

"I think April 15th is going to provide an environment in which a completely new movement comes out of that [conservative response to Obama's economic agenda]...new networks, new groups...the birth of a completely new base," Odom said.

As far as Fox News's promotion of the tea parties, promising coverage on Tax Day (and Glenn Beck's encouragement of viewers to attend), Odom said: "I love it. I think it's a very wise business plan. It's about ratings, that's what's going on now. Many people are looking for coverage."

(Indeed, the tea party protests have generated an epistemological problem for observers: most of the coverage has happened on conservative blogs, and it's always hard to tell whether the accounts are accurate, given that the bloggers back the protests, and there's a seed of doubt, sometimes, as to the authenticity of photos. Of course, now the same is true of Fox News, but at least they will have video cameras spread out across the country.)

Americans for Prosperity says it mostly wants to call attention to Obama's economic policies; ostensibly, at least, it does not have broader designs for the conservative movement or the size of its own e-mail list.

"We just think it's a great opportunity for average Americans to show up and make our voices heard," spokesman Erik Telford told me.

All three groups acknowledge that the reported energy behind the tea party movement doesn't have a particularly narrow focus. They're protesting the stimulus, the budget, the financial bailout (signed by President Bush), and more, they say. They also acknowledge that some will show up not out of economic rage, but out of pure opposition to Obama.

When Fox News's cameras start rolling on Wednesday, we will finally find out what the

stevieray
02-16-2010, 08:12 AM
Socialism has a great track record.

banyon
02-16-2010, 10:00 AM
Tea Parties were not started by Washington lobbyist. They started with the Ron Paul campaign.

Lind sounds like a typical socialist.....get rid of the liberties the American Revolution brought and return to the Old World way of govt's running people. It's making a deal with the devil.

Great response.

"I don't agree, therefore he must be a socialist"

"I saw Lizzie Proctor sleeping with the devil, I did!"

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:09 AM
Great response.

"I don't agree, therefore he must be a socialist"

"I saw Lizzie Proctor sleeping with the devil, I did!"

She and many others seem intent on becoming modern day Joe McCarthys...

Their definition of socialist? Anyone who dares to disagree with their ideological dogma spoon-fed to them by either (a) incendiary talk radio blowhards, or (b) ideologically myopic libertarian types from the Mises-Rockwell stooge gallery. Makes for an odd alliance. "Tea parties," indeed. Astroturfing 101. LMAO

Then again, politics makes strange bedfellows...as they say. heh

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 10:17 AM
I see the socialists are acting very defensively emotionally. Especially when correctly labeled. No wonder their is so much denial.

NewChief
02-16-2010, 10:17 AM
Great response.

"I don't agree, therefore he must be a socialist"

"I saw Lizzie Proctor sleeping with the devil, I did!"

From the article:

As in other cases of mythological politics, like messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you are part of the conspiracy. Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are totalitarians to change their mind.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 10:20 AM
Progressivism = indirect socialism ( overbearing regulation which is more the fascist model)

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:21 AM
From the article:

Good Article, NP. From Salon, even. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Heh. ;)

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:24 AM
Progressivism = indirect socialism ( overbearing regulation which is more the fascist model)

Libertarianism/"Real" Conservatism = anarchy (radical individualism that leads first to Plutocracy, then to chaos and violent, bloody revolution)

Fun game, ain't it? :)

Power in the hands of the people, including in a republic that has free and periodic elections, is no dictatorship--regardless of how much you disagree with the "people."

Taco John
02-16-2010, 10:46 AM
From the article:

As in other cases of messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you believe "I gots mine, everyone else can fuck off!" Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are baby killers to change their mind.

Reaper16
02-16-2010, 10:53 AM
As in other cases of messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you believe "I gots mine, everyone else can fuck off!" Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are baby killers to change their mind.
i c wut u did ther

orange
02-16-2010, 10:56 AM
It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are baby killers to change their mind.

LMAO

It's hard to find people who even know who Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are.

Pretty much everybody knows Social Security, though.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:04 AM
Libertarianism/"Real" Conservatism = anarchy (radical individualism that leads first to Plutocracy, then to chaos and violent, bloody revolution)
Actually it is not anarchy....it's mini-anarchy depending on how far one want to take things. Libertarianism is facet of true conservatism though libertarianism is more extreme in terms of less govt. ( not left libertarians who are socialist anarchists aka communists) But we're so, so extremely far away from such scenarios they're useless to rely on. They become absurdities. I'd wager that someone calling even moderate libertarianism "anarchy" like many on the left, is more an indication of how far left ( as in big govt) they are.

One has to bring up those extreme arguments though, because of how the dialectic works. Then you have a better chance of ending up in the right place. That's how the left took us so far over into gargantuan govt. Thesis - anti-thesis with the compromise in the middle which always moves leftward. That's Fabian incremental socialism, until one day we are completely socialist.

Even Reagan said:

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Transcript of interview with Regan by Reason Magazine (http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan)


Power in the hands of the people, including in a republic that has free and periodic elections, is no dictatorship--regardless of how much you disagree with the "people."
Ever hear of the term the "tyranny of the majority?" That's mob rule...and that is just the opposite extreme of a dictatorship.

You're claiming that if the "people" are a "majority" and want to lynch a black man that it's okay because it's the "people" with this argument. Or if someone wants the right to just go into another's wallet because he needs money it's okay. And if by extension you want to empower politicians to engage in legal theft it's still the same thing by proxy.

Not so, our republic protects inalienable rights and the majority is not allowed to trample them. You cannot just take life OR property without due process. Davy Crocket even said " It's not yours to give.". It's unethical and immoral.


James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

So much for the people. The people slaughtered one another during the French Revolution and in Communist revolutions too. This is why our Framers did NOT give us a democracy. Madison was highly critical of that form of govt.

This reasoning is not valid in our republic. It is for a social democracy which we are not.

Move to Europe if that's what you want. This is America! I'd like to keep it that way. ( back atcha' on that one, Kotter Heh!)

King_Chief_Fan
02-16-2010, 11:05 AM
As in other cases of messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you believe "I gots mine, everyone else can **** off!" Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are baby killers to change their mind.

I do have mine and everyone else can fuck off.......If all they want to do is lay on their backside with their handout asking me to give them mine.

Our socical programs are necessary but need some radical reform. It should be temporary in nature and not a life long profession.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 11:09 AM
Actually it is not anarchy....it's mini-anarchy depending on how far one want to take things.

Yes. I'll just put you down as a "YES!" for anarchy. Your reasoning, qualifications, and explanation aside....you are still an anarchist. You just can't see it. You want plutocracy first; then total anarchy. That's what you really want, even if you refuse to admit it. Yep.

FWIW, our "people" are restrained by a multitude of checks and balances, first among them the Bill of Rights.

(As an aside...Hegelian dialectics has never been too useful in explaining the complexities of politics; except to the less ambitious intellectuals among us. You should really set it aside, leaving it to clowns like TJ.)

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:10 AM
LMAO

It's hard to find people who even know who Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are.


Depends on what circles you travel in. Lew's site is the most highly read libertarian site on the internet based on the tracking of hits. Not only that but there's been former progressives that have written in, saying how his site has changed their minds because the schools and the media have never made certain arguments to them.

Do you realize that Nobel Prize* winning- economist Hazlitt was a Marxist at first? His mind was changed by Mises making certain arguments to him.

It just takes one step at a time until critical mass is reached....no different than how the progressives, socialists and other leftist gained ground eventually dominating universities and our media.


* Not that I think this is a great indicator of truth it's primarily a leftist-peer award, but it's credible when arguing with lefties.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:14 AM
Yes. I'll just put you down as a "YES!" for anarchy. Your reasoning, qualifications, and explanation aside....you are still an anarchist. You just can't see it. You want plutocracy first; then total anarchy. That's what you really want, even if you refuse to admit it. Yep.

That just reveals hos far left of the center you are though if you categorize my stands like that. That's even more a sign of how far left the arguments and environment have shifted. Because I advocate a return to our original center ( mostly) that our Framers set since their whole problem to be solved was how much govt is necessary. Further, I've posted before that govt should grow as society grows and expands but that growth should be proportional. That has not happened. Your stands want even more.

And as a former Democrat who leaned liberal, plutocracy is the last thing I want. That's what socialism and mercantilism as well as a mix of the two are bringing us. The market's tendencies democratizes things because it makes more goods and services available to more people because of mass production. This allows more of the small guy to enter into the business game and the poor to climb up. It levels things. It's not perfect but it sure beats the socialism you're calling for because that bars entry for more people to be a player. That is the cause of the healthcare crisis which has made it more expensive while it pushes more people off of their healthcare insurance. That I have personal experience with having been self-employed a number of years.

I am for it because it works.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:21 AM
I do have mine and everyone else can **** off.......If all they want to do is lay on their backside with their handout asking me to give them mine.

Our socical programs are necessary but need some radical reform. It should be temporary in nature and not a life long profession.

This! That's why it's important to not give govt too much money. They will misuse it. A good way for welfare to be dealt with is locally or at the state levels so it's never too many people to take from ( such as nationally) creating a permanent system.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:23 AM
Yes. I'll just put you down as a "YES!" for anarchy. Your reasoning, qualifications, and explanation aside....you are still an anarchist. You just can't see it. You want plutocracy first; then total anarchy. That's what you really want, even if you refuse to admit it. Yep.

FWIW, our "people" are restrained by a multitude of checks and balances, first among them the Bill of Rights.

(As an aside...Hegelian dialectics has never been too useful in explaining the complexities of politics; except to the less ambitious intellectuals among us. You should really set it aside, leaving it to clowns like TJ.)

Hegelian dialects is the reality and cannot be ignored. It just is.

You have four kids and can't afford to protect them with insurance so you want a bailout. That's what really underlies your stand. So your reason has been put into suspended animation while you argue as a special interest. When it doesn't affect your interests you call your fellow democrats "commies." Sorry Kotter, hate to get personal but that's how I see your stand on healthcare. I can't say I blame you. I'd like to see hc just be affordable so you can cover them. But you do work for the state which has more than adequate benefits, more than many small companies give to employees. You could always work a summer job or start a small summer business like a teacher I know to pay for his 7 kids. It makes quit a bit for him. He waxes cars.

I had one kid. Why should I pay for your choices in life? Now get to work on something for extra income.

banyon
02-16-2010, 11:30 AM
As in other cases of messianic Marxism, this kind of thinking is resistant to argument. If you disagree, then that simply proves that you believe "I gots mine, everyone else can **** off!" Inconvenient facts can be explained away by the true believers. It's hard to come up with arguments that would persuade people who think that Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are baby killers to change their mind.

Except that it's accurate to people who make blanket, absoultist statements like "No one has any rights to my property" and "all taxation is theft".

People however who don't make blanket statements advocating socialist policies and don't see things in binary code, though, not so much.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 11:31 AM
wha?

banyon
02-16-2010, 11:35 AM
Is someone speaking?

Calcountry
02-16-2010, 11:36 AM
clearly worded questions bother left wing people.:clap:

Taco John
02-16-2010, 11:36 AM
People however who don't make blanket statements advocating socialist policies and don't see things in binary code, though, not so much.


You think you count? I can't remember the last time you advocated that individuals should be able to opt out of social security.

orange
02-16-2010, 11:37 AM
Do you realize that Nobel Prize* winning- economist Hazlitt was a Marxist at first? His mind was changed by Mises making certain arguments to him.

When exactly did Henry Hazlitt win a Nobel Prize?

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/
http://mises.org/about/3233

* Not that I think this is a great indicator of truth it's primarily a leftist-peer award, but it's credible when arguing with lefties.

It would be even more credible if it were true. I suspect these "lefties" you're arguing with are just petting you on the head and saying "that's nice, now how about some tea."


..........

I do want to thank you for reinforcing how very little impact the Libertarians have by demonstrating that even true believers don't know them. I couldn't have said it better.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 11:38 AM
Except that it's accurate to people who make blanket, absoultist statements like "No one has any rights to my property" and "all taxation is theft".


For the record, I've never once said "all taxation is theft."

Banyon's lies aside, I have said "Income tax is theft."

Taco John
02-16-2010, 11:39 AM
Banyon: "I'm not an absolutist. I just don't believe anybody should be able to opt out of any of the socialist schemes that we have set up."

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 01:06 PM
I'd like to know what part of the word "limited" in the phrase "limited government" is not understand by those using the misnowmer "anarchy?" I never said "no" government. I just advocated "smaller" government. As in the basic math terms "lesser than" as opposed to "greater than" which progressives keep pushing.

orange
02-16-2010, 01:10 PM
I'd like to know what part of the word "limited" in the phrase "limited government" is not understand by those using the misnowmer "anarchy?" I never said "no" government. I just advocated "smaller" government. As in the basic math terms "lesser than" as opposed to "greater than" which progressives keep pushing.

If you can understand the difference between "limited government" and "no government," why can't you understand the difference between "social programs" and "state ownership of the means of production?"

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:19 PM
If you can understand the difference between "limited government" and "no government," why can't you understand the difference between "social programs" and "state ownership of the means of production?"


As though there's no industry around retirement planning?

orange
02-16-2010, 01:24 PM
As though there's no industry around retirement planning?

613. Private Pension Plans--Summary, by Type of Plan *

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/613_private_pension_plans_summary_by_type.html


* 696 696k available as of 1996 - the latest date in the graph

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:27 PM
.


613. Private Pension Plans--Summary, by Type of Plan *

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/613_private_pension_plans_summary_by_type.html


* 696 available as of 1996 - the latest date in the graph


That's great. Let people opt out of social security so they can participate.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:27 PM
Awww ****!

I guess your absolutist views won't allow for that. (...and I'm the radical here)

orange
02-16-2010, 01:29 PM
That's great. Let people opt out of social security so they can participate.

Total Participants - 92 million. Out of a Civilian Labor Force of 133.9 million (1996). http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/644_civilian_labor_force_and_participation_rates.html

Obviously, THEY ARE participating.


I did make a mistake above. It's not 696 plans. It's 696,200 plans. Sorry.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:29 PM
Awww ****!

I guess your absolutist views won't allow for that. (...and I'm the radical here)

You're calling someone else an absolutist?

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:30 PM
Banyon: "I'm not an absolutist. I just don't believe anybody should be able to opt out of any of the socialist schemes that we have set up."

Can you point me to where he said or alluded to the not opting out part?

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:30 PM
You're calling someone else an absolutist?

Absolutely.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:33 PM
Can you point me to where he said or alluded to the not opting out part?

It was back in the days when you were on this side of the fence arguing for limited government.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:36 PM
It was back in the days when you were on this side of the fence arguing for limited government.

Specifically what kind of opting out programs? He was against opting out of social security?


Banyon, thoughts?

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:45 PM
Total Participants - 92 million. Out of a Civilian Labor Force of 133.9 million (1996). http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/644_civilian_labor_force_and_participation_rates.html

Obviously, THEY ARE participating.


I did make a mistake above. It's not 696 plans. It's 696,200 plans. Sorry.


I think it's great that 30% of our population is able to overcome the social security system drain and participate in private plans. It's unfortunate that the government controls the means of retirement production for the other 60%, owning the greatest marketshare for such services.

Even more unfortunate that another 30% aren't allowed to opt for private plans and join the other 30%, and swing this balance back in the favor of the market and a better economy.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 01:47 PM
I do have to say that I think it's funny, Orange, that you think 30% having retirement plans outside of social security is a number that favors your argument.

orange
02-16-2010, 01:53 PM
I think it's great that 30% of our population is able to overcome the social security system drain and participate in private plans. It's unfortunate that the government controls the means of retirement production for the other 60%, owning the greatest marketshare for such services.

Even more unfortunate that another 30% aren't allowed to opt for private plans and join the other 30%, and swing this balance back in the favor of the market and a better economy.

:doh!:

You do realize that CHILDREN are not part of the Labor Force? Don't you?

They ARE part of the Population, though. When they grow up, they WILL join the Labor Force and participate in PRIVATE pension plans at about the same rate as current adult workers.

As for adult NON-WORKERS - they DON'T GET Social Security, which is fine because they DON'T PAY IN either.

What the numbers above show ABSOLUTELY (being I'm an "absolutist" and all) is that there is NO government monopoly over the pension/retirement industry. Try again.

orange
02-16-2010, 01:55 PM
I do have to say that I think it's funny, Orange, that you think 30% having retirement plans outside of social security is a number that favors your argument.

92million/133million = 69.2%

Additionally, not OUTSIDE for most but IN ADDITION TO social security.

I do have to say that I think it's funny, Taco John, that you think people here don't know the difference between workers and non-workers.

And NO ONE is "prevented" from joining private plans. It's THEIR CHOICE where they want to put their money. Many are satisfied with SS or have other needs that take priority.

The mandatory savings via FICA taxes means that when they retire, their FLOOR will have been payed for - and not pissed away on dotcoms or derivatives or whatever the next bubble will be to come along.

banyon
02-16-2010, 02:07 PM
Specifically what kind of opting out programs? He was against opting out of social security?


Banyon, thoughts?

I think it's impractical, and that it was a disservice when Ron Paul said he was going to "save social security" when he basically meant "eliminate it". That was what my post was about. Second guess the gospel of Paul though = you're a socialist absolutist.

Social security is in dire straights, I am open to all manner of suggestions on how it can be repaired. Opting out, if done in a way that doesn't render the entire system null, is not out of the question, nor can he find anywhere where I said that.

It's just a compulsion of his to affix the extreme opposing view onto his opponents in a discussion, whether that has merit any basis in reality or not.

banyon
02-16-2010, 02:09 PM
For the record, I've never once said "all taxation is theft."

Banyon's lies aside, I have said "Income tax is theft."

I offered you the chance to conceptually distinguish why income taxes were "theft" and not property taxes, but you declined to do so.

Even limited to income tax, though, it remains a thoroughly silly way to conflate the issues.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:17 PM
For the record, I've never once said "all taxation is theft."

Banyon's lies aside, I have said "Income tax is theft."

I referred to you in my FFs thread but I think I'll keep this here.

How can you be constantly pro-Constitution - that is, wanting to go back to the good ole days of the Constitution as a bare-bones working document - and consider income tax theft when the document you hold up gives Congress the authority to tax?

How do you reconcile that?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
I referred to you in my FFs thread but I think I'll keep this here.

How can you be constantly pro-Constitution - that is, wanting to go back to the good ole days of the Constitution as a bare-bones working document - and consider income tax theft when the document you hold up gives Congress the authority to tax?

How do you reconcile that?

The original constitution with it's bill of rights (which were essentially a part of the original) had to be amended to support the income tax. Any manner of crazy-assed, anti-freedom amendments could potentially be tacked onto the document, but that doesn't mean that a person who approves of the original version has to approve of all the additions. Taco has also spoken out against direct election of Senators which is in the amended constitution but not the original.

I'm with what I assume is his position that both of those amendments were mistakes.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:31 PM
The original constitution with it's bill of rights (which were essentially a part of the original) had to be amended to support the income tax. Any manner of crazy-assed, anti-freedom amendments could potentially be tacked onto the document, but that doesn't mean that a person who approves of the original version has to approve of all the additions. Taco has also spoken out against direct election of Senators which is in the amended constitution.

I haven't heard of an amendment with respect to income tax. What number was it?

Taco John
02-16-2010, 02:37 PM
...there is NO government monopoly over the pension/retirement industry. Try again.

There IS a monopoly on the money that they confiscate. I don't have the liberty to invest that money for my retirement the way that I see best for me. I'm forced to participate against my better judgement that I could get a more profitable return for my future if I managed it myself.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 02:37 PM
The original constitution with it's bill of rights (which were essentially a part of the original) had to be amended to support the income tax. Any manner of crazy-assed, anti-freedom amendments could potentially be tacked onto the document, but that doesn't mean that a person who approves of the original version has to approve of all the additions. Taco has also spoken out against direct election of Senators which is in the amended constitution but not the original.

I'm with what I assume is his position that both of those amendments were mistakes.


If you support the ORIGINAL document, the original document included provisions for amendment (not at all an easy process.) Thus, to say you supported the "original document" when one opposes the result of a process included in that original document would be a lie. Not that we are suprised by those sorts of lies from people who never really supported the original document---but only make that specious claim.

orange
02-16-2010, 02:39 PM
The original constitution with it's bill of rights (which were essentially a part of the original) had to be amended to support the income tax. Any manner of crazy-assed, anti-freedom amendments could potentially be tacked onto the document, but that doesn't mean that a person who approves of the original version has to approve of all the additions. Taco has also spoken out against direct election of Senators which is in the amended constitution but not the original.

I'm with what I assume is his position that both of those amendments were mistakes.

... And away we go again...

The Income Tax was NEVER ruled unconstitutional.

EVER.

The S.C. decision that threw out a Bill which included an Income Tax stated specifically that Income Tax was not unconstitutional - echoing a previous decision which left a previous Income Tax Bill intact.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 02:39 PM
I think it's impractical, and that it was a disservice when Ron Paul said he was going to "save social security" when he basically meant "eliminate it". That was what my post was about. Second guess the gospel of Paul though = you're a socialist absolutist.

Social security is in dire straights, I am open to all manner of suggestions on how it can be repaired. Opting out, if done in a way that doesn't render the entire system null, is not out of the question, nor can he find anywhere where I said that.

It's just a compulsion of his to affix the extreme opposing view onto his opponents in a discussion, whether that has merit any basis in reality or not.

Yeah, of course. It's "impractical." It's not that he's in favor of forcing everybody at gun point to throw their money in the pool and hope for the best, it's that it's impractical NOT to force them to.

Such is what passes for a moderate these days.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 02:43 PM
I offered you the chance to conceptually distinguish why income taxes were "theft" and not property taxes, but you declined to do so.

I didn't decline. You apparently missed it. Not that anyone with half a brain can't inherently see the difference between a compulsory tax just for earning money, and a tax that you volunteer for when you participate in a purchase. But I'm sure someone with your talent for wanting to tax people will manage to conflate the two to your own masturbatory satisfaction.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 02:56 PM
I referred to you in my FFs thread but I think I'll keep this here.

How can you be constantly pro-Constitution - that is, wanting to go back to the good ole days of the Constitution as a bare-bones working document - and consider income tax theft when the document you hold up gives Congress the authority to tax?

How do you reconcile that?


Income tax is inherently theft whether it's legalized or not. Legalizing immorality doesn't make it moral. If I steal tires from you and give them to the guy down the street so he can get to work, despite my good intentions, despite the fact that you can afford to buy new tires, I've still committed an immoral act. I've stolen from you. If I do the same thing wearing a government hat, the fact that it's legal doesn't change the fact that I'm stealing from you. The fact that the mob agrees that me stealing from you is admirable because the guy really needs the tires to get to work and make a living doesn't change the fact that I'm stealing from you.

There are better ways to collect taxes than to steal from people just for the fact that they have generated the income. Using the tax code to discriminate against people isn't any different than any other form of discrimination. The government shouldn't be discriminated people for how much is in their pocketbook any more than someone should be discriminated for their choice of religion.

And besides that, a Constitutional government would be cheaper to maintain. There is no authority in the Constitution to force people into government based retirement plans. Chaining people to government in this way is not what the founders had in mind.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 02:58 PM
You're dumb.

:spock:

"Your mom wears combat boots!"

LMAO

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:06 PM
... And away we go again...

The Income Tax was NEVER ruled unconstitutional.

EVER.

The S.C. decision that threw out a Bill which included an Income Tax stated specifically that Income Tax was not unconstitutional - echoing a previous decision which left a previous Income Tax Bill intact.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that locking up all Catholics for attending mass without due process is unconstitutional either, but we all know it is.

The Constitution originally banned direct taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to population. The current income tax would not pass muster under that prohibition. I'm not sure what kind of income tax would, but it would be quite different than the abomination we have today.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:07 PM
I haven't heard of an amendment with respect to income tax. What number was it?

16

orange
02-16-2010, 03:13 PM
The current income tax would not pass muster under that prohibition. I'm not sure what kind of income tax would, but it would be quite different than the abomination we have today.

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Being of opinion that so much of the sections of this law as lays a tax on income from real and personal property is invalid, we are brought to the question of the effect of that conclusion upon these sections as a whole.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/case.html


Anything that doesn't involve taxes on income from real estate/investments. That's what.

orange
02-16-2010, 03:15 PM
The Supreme Court has never ruled that locking up all Catholics for attending mass without due process is unconstitutional either, but we all know it is.


Utterly specious analogy. Unlike your example, the Supreme Court HAS ruled Income Tax constitutional, even though "you all" know otherwise.

"You all" seem to know a great many things that simply aren't true.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:17 PM
If you support the ORIGINAL document, the original document included provisions for amendment (not at all an easy process.) Thus, to say you supported the "original document" when one opposes the result of a process included in that original document would be a lie. Not that we are suprised by those sorts of lies from people who never really supported the original document---but only make that specious claim.

I apologize for saying "you're dumb" without a better explanation, but in my weakness your idiocy drew it out of me.

Your premise is ridiculous and makes me wonder just how low the standards for becoming a teacher are. I don't have a religious reverence for the constitution as if each new iteration is a new divinely inspired revelation that I automatically accept as the new perfect formulation. I can respect the fact that the constitution exists as it does today and insist that our government continue to operate within the current bounds while at the same time disagreeing with some of it's provisions. In fact, I can "support" the vast majority of the original formulation without supporting the entire thing. For example, I don't support the 3/5ths compromise that was included in the original document for enumeration purposes.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 03:20 PM
A progressive income tax is a discriminatory income tax. A proportional income tax is an income tax that at least steals from everyone proportionally. A proportional income tax would be a nice step. But income tax in itself is a poor governmental practice. When you take people's money just for the fact that they've earned it, you turn people into outlaws who do what they can to protect their property, while draining a huge portion of the economy into a government plutocracy.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is not a founding statement of ours.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:21 PM
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

Being of opinion that so much of the sections of this law as lays a tax on income from real and personal property is invalid, we are brought to the question of the effect of that conclusion upon these sections as a whole.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/case.html


Anything that doesn't involve taxes on income from real estate/investments. That's what.

That's absurd. It's almost like I'm talking to Mr. Kotter here. Our current income tax is a direct tax not an excise tax.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 03:22 PM
I apologize for saying "you're dumb" without a better explanation, but in my weakness your idiocy drew it out of me.

Your premise is ridiculous and makes me wonder just how low the standards for becoming a teacher are. I don't have a religious reverence for the constitution as if each new iteration is a new divinely inspired revelation that I automatically accept as the new perfect formulation. I can respect the fact that the constitution exists as it does today and insist that our government continue to operate within the current bounds while at the same time disagreeing with some of it's provisions. In fact, I can "support" the vast majority of the original formulation without supporting the entire thing. For example, I don't support the 3/5ths compromise that was included in the original document for enumeration purposes.

:eek:

That's what I get for assuming that subtle sarcasm was clear (given BEP's ridiculous devotion to original intent)...and one of the rare occasions I didn't include an appropriate smiley or TIC asterick.

:banghead:


:shake:

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 03:24 PM
A progressive income tax is a discriminatory income tax. A proportional income tax is an income tax that at least steals from everyone proportionally. A proportional income tax would be a nice step. But income tax in itself is a poor governmental practice. When you take people's money just for the fact that they've earned it, you turn people into outlaws who do what they can to protect their property, while draining a huge portion of the economy into a government plutocracy.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is not a founding statement of ours.


Your side lost. The decision has been rendered.

Either get Congress to agree with you, and amend the Constitution....or move to Somalia.

:rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 03:27 PM
16

Definitely one of the Amendments I'm least familiar with, obviously.

I'm still not sure an Amendment was needed, though.

Going by a strict Constitution view point, if Congress has power to tax, it doesn't really matter what tax they choose to enact.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:30 PM
:eek:

That's what I get for assuming that subtle sarcasm was clear (given BEP's ridiculous devotion to original intent)...and one of the rare occasions I didn't include an appropriate smiley or TIC asterick.

:banghead:


:shake:

If you were being sarcastic, it wasn't apparent to me but I apologize for going off on you. I don't think that's really a fair take on BEP's approach to the constitution either though.

orange
02-16-2010, 03:31 PM
That's absurd. It's almost like I'm talking to Mr. Kotter here. Our current income tax is a direct tax not an excise tax.

That's the ACTUAL LEGAL DECISION I quoted.

The very judges who threw out the Wilson-Gorman Tariff conceded the constitutionality of income tax not on income from real estate
/investments - "and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

I guess it's "absurd" to actually refer to the actual text of the actual decision to show what the actual decision was in rightyland.

Here is Spinger vs. United States - which they did NOT overrule:

All these cases are undistinguishable in principle from the case now before us, and they are decisive against the plaintiff in error.

The question, what is a direct tax, is one exclusively in American jurisprudence. The text writers of the country are in entire accord upon the subject.

Mr. Justice Story says all taxes are usually divided into two classes -- those which are direct and those which are indirect -- and that "under the former denomination are included taxes on land or real property, and, under the latter, taxes on consumption." 1 Const., sec. 950.

Chancellor Kent, speaking of the case of Hylton v. United States, says: "The better opinion seemed to be that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution were only two, viz., a capitation or poll tax and a tax on land." 1 Com. 257. See also Cooley, Taxation, p. 5, note 2; Pomeroy, Const.Law 157; Sharswood's Blackstone 308, note; Rawle, Const. 30; Sergenat, Const. 305.

We are not aware that any writer, since Hylton v. United States was decided, has expressed a view of the subject different from that of these authors.

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const.Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.

Against the considerations, in one scale, in favor of these propositions, what has been placed in the other, as a counterpoise? Our answer is, certainly nothing of such weight, in our judgment, as to require any special reply.

The numerous citations from the writings of foreign political economists, made by the plaintiff in error, are sufficiently answered by Hamilton in his brief, before referred to.

Judgment affirmed.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/case.html

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:33 PM
Definitely one of the Amendments I'm least familiar with, obviously.

I'm still not sure an Amendment was needed, though.

Going by a strict Constitution view point, if Congress has power to tax, it doesn't really matter what tax they choose to enact.

Pre-16th, if they choose to use a direct tax that fails the test of apportionment by state according to population, it's unconstitutional. That means the current income tax wouldn't be constitutional.

orange
02-16-2010, 03:39 PM
Pre-16th, if they choose to use a direct tax that fails the test of apportionment by state according to population, it's unconstitutional. That means the current income tax wouldn't be constitutional.

The only "direct taxes" being those on real estate or capitation.

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate;

But since there IS a Sixteenth Amendment, even those direct taxes don't need to be apportioned - so they're not. Why should current law have to conform with restrictions that no longer apply?

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 03:39 PM
Definitely one of the Amendments I'm least familiar with, obviously.

I'm still not sure an Amendment was needed, though.

Going by a strict Constitution view point, if Congress has power to tax, it doesn't really matter what tax they choose to enact.

That Amendment overturned a Supreme Court decision that had ruled income tax unconstitutional.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 03:39 PM
Pre-16th, if they choose to use a direct tax that fails the test of apportionment by state according to population, it's unconstitutional. That means the current income tax wouldn't be constitutional.


The amendment fixed that though, didn't it? We do know what an amendment is, don't we? ;)

Heh

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 03:40 PM
Pre-16th, if they choose to use a direct tax that fails the test of apportionment by state according to population, it's unconstitutional. That means the current income tax wouldn't be constitutional.

Based on what? SC ruling?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. It doesn't say what kinds are illegal or bad. It says they have the ability.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:41 PM
That's the ACTUAL LEGAL DECISION I quoted.

The very judges who threw out the Wilson-Gorman Tariff conceded the constitutionality of income tax not on income from real estate
/investments - "and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

I guess it's "absurd" to actually refer to the actual text of the actual decision to show what the actual decision was in rightyland.

Here is Spinger vs. United States - which they did NOT overrule:

All these cases are undistinguishable in principle from the case now before us, and they are decisive against the plaintiff in error.

The question, what is a direct tax, is one exclusively in American jurisprudence. The text writers of the country are in entire accord upon the subject.

Mr. Justice Story says all taxes are usually divided into two classes -- those which are direct and those which are indirect -- and that "under the former denomination are included taxes on land or real property, and, under the latter, taxes on consumption." 1 Const., sec. 950.

Chancellor Kent, speaking of the case of Hylton v. United States, says: "The better opinion seemed to be that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution were only two, viz., a capitation or poll tax and a tax on land." 1 Com. 257. See also Cooley, Taxation, p. 5, note 2; Pomeroy, Const.Law 157; Sharswood's Blackstone 308, note; Rawle, Const. 30; Sergenat, Const. 305.

We are not aware that any writer, since Hylton v. United States was decided, has expressed a view of the subject different from that of these authors.

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const.Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.

Against the considerations, in one scale, in favor of these propositions, what has been placed in the other, as a counterpoise? Our answer is, certainly nothing of such weight, in our judgment, as to require any special reply.

The numerous citations from the writings of foreign political economists, made by the plaintiff in error, are sufficiently answered by Hamilton in his brief, before referred to.

Judgment affirmed.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/case.html

OK, I stand corrected. I'm Mr. Kotter. *sigh*

It's a ridiculous ruling and if it is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the clause that prohibits non-apportioned direct taxes, they were wrong too.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 03:41 PM
That Amendment overturned a Supreme Court decision that had ruled income tax unconstitutional.

I don't see how the SC could come to such a decision.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:42 PM
The only "direct taxes" being those on real estate or capitation.

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate;

But since there IS a Sixteenth Amendment, even those direct taxes don't need to be apportioned - so they're not. Why should current law have to conform with restrictions that no longer apply?

I wasn't ever suggesting that current law was currently restricted.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:45 PM
Based on what? SC ruling?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. It doesn't say what kinds are illegal or bad. It says they have the ability.

No, the constitution originally gave congress a limited ability to tax. They weren't allowed to levy a direct tax that was not apportioned among the states by population. Perhaps you're reading a post-16th amendment version of Article I.

banyon
02-16-2010, 04:50 PM
When you take people's money just for the fact that they've earned it, you turn people into outlaws...

Whose rationale are you pretending that is?

banyon
02-16-2010, 04:53 PM
Yeah, of course. It's "impractical." It's not that he's in favor of forcing everybody at gun point to throw their money in the pool and hope for the best, it's that it's impractical NOT to force them to.

Such is what passes for a moderate these days.

It's impractical because it doesn't consider why we wouldn't have the same problems we had in the early 30s prior to the program and what we do with the people who don't have a floor of income security. Not that you want to consider those problems either. It's ideological, so it's all going to work out swell this time...somehow.

banyon
02-16-2010, 04:54 PM
No, the constitution originally gave congress a limited ability to tax. They weren't allowed to levy a direct tax that was not apportioned among the states by population. Perhaps you're reading a post-16th amendment version of Article I.

Yeah, but the apportionment/nonapportionment disctinction doesn't have anything to do with whether they were taxing income or something else.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 05:32 PM
Whose rationale are you pretending that is?

Does it matter? I mean, what part of it is wrong? People earn money, and for the fact that this event happens, government takes it. What does it matter if someone tries to rationalize this event differently than what it is?

Taco John
02-16-2010, 05:36 PM
It's impractical because it doesn't consider why we wouldn't have the same problems we had in the early 30s prior to the program and what we do with the people who don't have a floor of income security. Not that you want to consider those problems either. It's ideological, so it's all going to work out swell this time...somehow.


So I don't get to opt out under your absolutist ideology, right? I'm forced to participate or face jail time, right? This is what passes for practical, right?

Taco John
02-16-2010, 05:43 PM
Banyon, is it your contention that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 06:04 PM
The amendment fixed that though, didn't it? We do know what an amendment is, don't we? ;)

Heh

Yeah but it still contradicts part of the Bill of Rights. It's still immoral and it's repealable too.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 07:14 PM
No, the constitution originally gave congress a limited ability to tax. They weren't allowed to levy a direct tax that was not apportioned among the states by population. Perhaps you're reading a post-16th amendment version of Article I.

It is certainly possible. Is there a pre-16th version floating around? Is it common?

Banyon, is it your contention that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

That's what I'm guessing. And I would contend that, if so, SS isn't worth saving on that point alone. I think Banyon and I would disagree there.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 07:49 PM
That's what I'm guessing. And I would contend that, if so, SS isn't worth saving on that point alone. I think Banyon and I would disagree there.


Indeed. It's not a trick question - the question is genuine - but any way that Banyon answers, he loses the moral high ground in the debate. Which is why he won't dare to answer the question, but instead seek to further rationalize why the question isn't valid, or ignore it altogether.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 10:41 PM
It is certainly possible. Is there a pre-16th version floating around? Is it common?

See Article 1, Section 2 (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html).

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:43 PM
...

You have four kids and can't afford to protect them with insurance so you want a bailout. That's what really underlies your stand. So your reason has been put into suspended animation while you argue as a special interest. When it doesn't affect your interests you call your fellow democrats "commies." Sorry Kotter, hate to get personal but that's how I see your stand on healthcare. I can't say I blame you. I'd like to see hc just be affordable so you can cover them. But you do work for the state which has more than adequate benefits, more than many small companies give to employees. You could always work a summer job or start a small summer business like a teacher I know to pay for his 7 kids. It makes quit a bit for him. He waxes cars.

I had one kid. Why should I pay for your choices in life? Now get to work on something for extra income.

I almost blew this off, BEP...but I decided to answer. If only you knew how FOS you were, even you would be embarrassed. Seriously.

First, I don't need a bail-out. All I, and most Americans, want is reasonably-priced and affordable healthcare coverage for all of us. There was a point where that may have been selfish, but FTR....we have been blessed enough to avoid the precipice that too many Americans have had to face. Our family is fully covered and protected; and, fwiw, to date...we have no outstanding medical bills. FTR, I work about 50-60 hours per week--during the SUMMER too (Driver's Ed/Sumemr School 'On-line'; I also write on the side. My first book just sold 50K, w/another printing due next month.) I'm fine.

However, what I have witnessed in the system, and what I see happening to colleagues....coupled with what my own experiences took us to the brink of....yeah, I understand their pain and suffering. So, no....I am no special interest in this discussion. I'm merely one of the voices of millions who are FINALLY beginning to say, the insanity must end.

WTF is the deal, when consumers don't KNOW, up-front, the "price" of the care they receive, OR their portion of it? What other business operates that way? Seriously? Cost-shifting? Why the heck is that the problem of those of us who pay? Double-digit inflation, sustained over a twenty year period...has anyone bothered to ask those of us who PAY, do you really want to pay for this? No; they haven't. Yet we are still expected to pay. If it takes government intervention to slow this runaway train....does that make us socialist? No way. Get the fugg out of here.

The real problem is all the smoke and mirrors the industry puts between consumers and payment for services. And I said....that the INDUSTRY puts between us, and them. It's NOT the other way around. No matter what you think.

Fixing this problem doesn't mean I'm a "special interest" lobby, or a socialist. It only means I'm tired of bending over for an industry that insists that they don't need to be held accountable. Ever.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 10:51 PM
The insanity must end. Everybody must be forced to buy insurance from mega-insurance companies or face the IRS and jail time.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 10:51 PM
:shake:

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:55 PM
The insanity must end. Everybody must be forced to buy insurance from mega-insurance companies or face the IRS and jail time.

EVERYONE will, at some point, need healthcare; healthcare insurance....a responsible adult's reaction to that reality (to purchase coverage) should be mandated.

Because, otherwise....YOU/THEY are robbing those of us who do the responsible thing. Period.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 11:08 PM
The insanity must end. Everybody must be forced to buy insurance from mega-insurance companies or face the IRS and jail time.

WTF is the deal, when consumers don't KNOW, up-front, the "price" of the care they receive, OR their portion of it? What other business operates that way? Seriously? Cost-shifting? Why the heck is that the problem of those of us who pay? Double-digit inflation, sustained over a twenty year period...has anyone bothered to ask those of us who PAY, do you really want to pay for this? No; they haven't. Yet we are still expected to pay. If it takes government intervention to slow this runaway train....does that make us socialist? No way. Get the fugg out of here.

Taco John
02-16-2010, 11:14 PM
Government intervention is why prices have run amok. Forcing people to become customer slaves of the insurance industry is not a worthy solution.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 11:23 PM
Government intervention is why prices have run amok....

Link? :hmmm:

Taco John
02-16-2010, 11:51 PM
You don't need a link. What you need is logic.

What do you think happens when government mandates what must be covered in an insurance policy? Do you think prices go up or down in reaction?

Are you aware that medicare regulations exceed 130,000 pages? How much money is drained from the healthcare system to make sense of this?

Do you think HMOs were a market reaction - like the market thought it was a great idea to put a bunch of bearacrats in between doctors and patients? Do you know that they were created to help curb health care costs? Do you know what has happened to health care costs since HMOs were forced on the industry?

Do you think it's a coincidence that health care costs have done nothing but explode since the HMO act of '73?

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 11:56 PM
You don't need a link. What you need is logic...

Heck, the industry doesn't NEED lobbyists when it has folks like you, patty, and BEP to propagandize and demagogue the big-ole government "boogie-man" for them....

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:24 AM
Heck, the industry doesn't NEED lobbyists when it has folks like you, patty, and BEP to propagandize and demagogue the big-ole government "boogie-man" for them....

I'll ask you the same question then, Kotter. Do you contend that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 01:38 AM
Link? :hmmm:

You need a link for THAT! THAT's Economics 101. All you have to do is apply that knowledge and use some critical thinking or logic.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 01:38 AM
Heck, the industry doesn't NEED lobbyists when it has folks like you, patty, and BEP to propagandize and demagogue the big-ole government "boogie-man" for them....

As I recall, you were doing that at one time too. But THAT's not an argument.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 01:42 AM
If you can understand the difference between "limited government" and "no government," why can't you understand the difference between "social programs" and "state ownership of the means of production?"

Because wealth transfers for those programs are the same thing as being "owned." The "means of production" is you and I not just industry. Ownership means the right to control. We're controlled through the income tax. I went into this earlier. Go find it.

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 05:46 AM
See Article 1, Section 2 (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html).

I'm not a legal scholar, obviously, but I fail to see anything in there that limits their powers - other than who they can and cannot tax.

Also, this nugget which we violate now a days:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand

patteeu
02-17-2010, 06:42 AM
You need a link for THAT! THAT's Economics 101. All you have to do is apply that knowledge and use some critical thinking or logic.

He's just a teacher, cut him a little slack.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 06:49 AM
I'm not a legal scholar, obviously, but I fail to see anything in there that limits their powers - other than who they can and cannot tax.

OK. Maybe the 16th amendment was just makework on a slow day or something.

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 07:56 AM
You need a link for THAT! THAT's Economics 101. All you have to do is apply that knowledge and use some critical thinking or logic.

He's just a teacher, cut him a little slack.

"Government intervention is why prices have run amok...."

....is not a maxim in economics. Yes, it is, all too often true; however, there are exceptions and times when it becomes necessary. I harbor no illusions that government action/intervention holds all the answers. There are times though, when nothing else seems to be working that the serious threat of such is enough to move things along--too bad that hasn't been the case in health care.

Absolute blind faith in the "free" market and unfettered capitalism is just as foolhardy as socialistic idealism of a government coerced Utopian society. Don't fool yourselves.