Christine O'Donnell
Offline O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
By BEN EVANS
The Associated Press
WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
___
October 19, 2010 10:13 AM EDT
Seriously, this is up for discussion now? I wasn't a fan of her from her previous idiotic statements, but she keeps opening her mouth. She should seriously think really hard before she speaks.
All that I know, there was no god for me - Fear Factory - Resurrection
http://theoracleofjames.wordpress.com/
- Login to post comments
What about taxes, subsidies, laws, mandates, policies, programs, benefits, favoritism towards certain companies and corporations, and other federal, state, and local government interferences? People are certainly responsible for their actions, but we don't live in an entirely free-market society. The government inevitably has a major influence on the economic situation of its citizens.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
With cancer you are simply dealing with the results. It would be like saying we should pay to reimburse someone who is robbed or paying for the funeral of someone who was murdered. Your paying to treat something that already is happening. I see governments role as protecting people from other people not repairing whatever damage is caused by other people or, in the case of disease storms etc, nature.
The idea of punishing murder is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Which certainly isn't perfect, but at least before someone commits murder they might consider that they will spend a long time in jail. Also, I would submit that a person who commits and gets away with one crime is far more likely to commit another. Even though many murders are committed by family members, the person who commits one is far more likely to do it again. Look at people who get divorced 3 or 4 times, instead of divorce you kill your first wife (much easier than divorce) and being a fool get married again. When your second marriage breaks down, well the precedent is already set. Basically, I am saying a person willing to commit murder is a danger to society and should be removed even if there is no specific evidence that they will commit another murder.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So would you be OK with the government being responsible for prevention of disease and injury, just not treatment of disease and injury? And wouldn't that make the government responsible for medical care in situations were disease spread was likely, like control of vaccinations, or treating any disease that might be transmittable?
I'm not sure how a life damaged by aggressive cancer is different from a life damaged by murder? In one case the government could have possibly prevented it with the police system, in the other the government could have possibly prevented it with early screening and treatment, or a vaccination.
What is the purpose behind the government protecting people from other people? The basic purpose? How does that differ from the purpose the government would have in protecting people from disease and illness?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
If a disease is transmittable the government definitely has a role. I wouldn't think so for say the common cold but for things such as polio it is the governments role to aid in quarantining, vaccinating etc. I know I lose a lot of my libertarian allies there but by not vaccinating for such diseases you are putting others at risk simply by walking around. So while you are not consciously murdering anyone you are having the same effect.
Now for things like fat people being more likely to have diabetes or heart problems the government has no role. They got fat on their own through their own choices and aren't posing a danger to anyone except for the possibility of falling on top of them.
In one case the person could have possibly prevented it themselves through early screening or vaccination. In the other it is caused by another person.
Thats where the theory of government comes in. I believe government should be minimalist and solely protect us from the actions of other people. The more the government becomes involved in the more power and the more corrupt it becomes so I don't see a reason to give it any more roles than are strictly necessary to maintain society. Granted, at this basic level there is nothing other than my political opinion based on my desire for freedom.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
This isn't really part of the conversation and I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just asking your opinion as an atheist Libertarian: For things like obesity or smoking, when you can show a causal link between parents having a negative behavior and the kids picking it up, how do you justify the government not getting involved? I just ask because there are a lot of situations where not believing in classical free will seems to make the Libertarian argument less tenable. Pulling numbers out of my butt: If obese parents are ten times as likely to raise obese children, isn't the state in the same situation as with transmittable disease? Basically, why treat destructive behaviors or memes differently than traditional diseases, if the real health impact is the same?
This is an easier question (possibly), but what do you think about parents who knowingly pro-create when they know there is a high risk of defect?
So, couldn't the citizen just buy a large dog, get some guns, locks on the doors, pay some private guards...and get rid of the cops? In both cases the citizen and the government have the opportunity to minimize potential harm.
I know what you believe, I want to know *why*. Why should the government reserve action to protection from other humans?
Are you prepared to deal with the consequences of actually making the responsibility strictly limited to humans, or would you soften your language to say, "mostly"?
My opinion is that health care is just as important as crime prevention. More important. I think citizens likely have more preventative capability against crime than they do against disease, and the results of disease impact life and liberty more often than crime does....crime usually impacts property, which disease impacts too, usually.
(Fun discussion though, I appreciate your even tone.)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You have gotten me thinking Brian, how would one go about shrinking the pay gap if one were to accept your premise that it is a problem (which I don't but I will pretend I do). It seems to me there are two ways, you can decrease the income going to the top or you can raise the income going to the bottom. It seems to me the most obvious mode government has to do either is the tax code. So suppose you increased taxes only on those making over 250k. For discussion purposes lets say you raise them to 60% although any number would work. What is the result?
Well it is safe to say that a certain percentage of people who are making 260k are going to find ways to cut their income since at 260k they are paying a lot more taxes than at 249k and it wouldn't be a very big lifestyle change for them. Of those who make say 500k + they would have a choice. They would have to pay 300k in taxes and only have 200k to live on if their income stayed the same. Since they currently pay 175k and their new tax would be 300k they are looking at a radical lifestyle change. Some might find ways to make up the difference by bringing in more income. Others will throw up their hands and say it isn't worth the time and retire. And the guy who makes say $2 million a year also experiences a radical lifestyle change and will decide either to make more money or quit. Now Bill Gates is going to pay the bill and he has enough his lifestyle doesn't really adjust.
But here is another critical component. Suppose you are the guy making 200k and considering opening a new store. Is it worth your while to expand? Well with the higher tax rate it is less likely you will try unless you can expect to make substantially more than 300-500k because you aren't really improving your life until you are in the millions.
So what is the result? All of those at the high end of the lower tax bracket and those at the lower end of the high tax bracket have additional incentive to make LESS money while those at the high end of the high tax bracket are going to continue trying to make more money. You have just increased the pay gap. Fewer people are in the highest bracket trying to make more money and those in the middle are now in the lower tax brackets because they decided it wasn't worth it.
So here is my proposal, rather than creating a disincentive to make more money we turn the tax brackets upside down. We tax the poor at 35% and 28% the middle class at 20% and 15% and the wealthy at 10%.
That way, when you make more money you are given the additional incentive of a lower tax rate. For example, if the line is at 250K and earning less you are taxed at 20% but earning more it is only 15% there is a huge benefit in getting over 250k. At 240k you would bring home 192k, by making an effort to make a mere 10k more your take home pay would be 212.5k. People will go through a lot of effort for a 10k bonus. The result of this tax code is that expanding business would always be directly rewarded by the tax code. Rather than creating disincentives to making more money you are creating incentives for those at the bottom to move up.
The point is that those at the very top will always work to make more money. They are in the highest bracket and will always be there. By raising taxes on the highest bracket you make it more difficult and create a disincentive for new people to make that kind of money. Everyone has a line where they will say "It isn't worth it because I wont get enough return for my effort". Raising taxes will always be the straw on some of those camels backs. Turn it upside down and you encourage the poor to make more money.
I'm not saying we do it. But it would solve the "problem" you claim we have.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I don't think it is any of the governments business. True parents have a lot of influence on their kids as far as habits, attitudes and food consumption but once the kid reaches adulthood they can go their own way. It is the parents responsibility to raise and care for their children. A lot of parents are lousy parents in my opinion but that doesn't mean the government should get involved. The parents created the child and are solely responsible for the care of the child. I believe the government only has a role if the child is suffering severe abuse.
And I don't think the government has any business telling anyone they can't procreate.
I realize that the results of my beliefs are not always the "best for the majority" in that many people might lead unhealthy lifestyles that lead to early deaths. And unfortunately might pass their unhealthy lifestyle to their children or in the saddest cases some children might die of health issues before they are old enough to know they should lose weight to be healthy. But the basis of my beliefs is a love of liberty. And with liberty comes a responsibility to take care of yourself. Some people will not take that responsibility and that is sad, but I believe it is more important for those willing to take on the responsibilities of liberty get it than for the government to take care of those who won't.
In a rural area highly recommended since there are probably not enough cops to respond to your call for the next hour anyway. The main problem you run into though is vigilantism. Which can work great on a personal level if you are trained and physically able. On a society level it becomes a problem because how do you tell the difference between a vigilante and a criminal? We need internal police and courts to help resolve conflicts between people whether they are physical conflicts in the case of assault, murder or theft or non-physical as in the case of fraud or breech of contract. We need some sort of system we can agree to use to resolve conflicts and live with its decisions. Without it you have a case of the Hatfields and McCoys.
My main basis is my love of liberty. I want to be free to succeed or fail, to live or die, to make mistakes or not on my own without interference. The vast majority of people who become involved in government are doing it because they want to control people. I do not like being controlled (which was a constant issue with my parents as well
) Throughout human history, there have always been people who want to control others for their personal gain. Hence why we need police and military. The more areas of responsibility government has the more areas of your life the controlling type has to meddle in. Not that their intentions are bad. Quite the contrary, many actually believe they are trying to help you. I'm sure many people out there trying to ban cigarettes or ban transfat and salty food started with the best of intentions. I want the freedom to eat whatever I want and smoke whatever I want. If I make poor choices and end up with bad health that is my responsibility.
If someone wants to shoot heroine, they are destroying their life. It makes me sad, but it is their freedom to make that mistake. If they come to me later and say "I really want to kick this habit can you help me?" I will help them. I don't think it benefits anyone to take that heroine addict and throw them in jail.
As for diseases that really aren't caused by the lifestyle of the person who gets them I feel for them. But I don't think government is the best solution. Obama raised $1 billion for his election alone in the last cycle. Imagine a world where people took that billion and donated it to charity hospitals. What we have now is a growing attitude that government can and should take care of everything. So when someone sees a problem they say "someone should do something we need a government program" when we know and can demonstrate that only pennies on the dollar actually reach those the program is intended to help. I dream of a country where when someone sees a problem they say "this needs to be fixed, are you with me" and sets up a charity to solve it.
I know your question. How is there going to be enough charity. Granted, it is something we need to transition to slowly. We got where we are over the course of 100 years. Our generations have grown up expecting social security and the "safety net" to be provided by the government. I used to do fundraising for a hospital and it was sad how many people would say, "I'm already paying taxes for that". We have to change the entire mindset of the country. And I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people with my next statement.......I gave up hope of it ever happening and removed myself from politics which I was deeply involved in financially and with my time, but one person has come forward pushing the same message and just might have the influence to move things forward. Glenn Beck. I know many, especially on this website, flip out because of the religious views he wears out in the open, but the thrust of his argument over the last couple months is that Americans must return to charity. He gets it. He realizes that a real effort to reform government won't be successful unless there is a solid charitable foundation to help take care of those who can't care for themselves. I still have my doubts, it is much easier for voters to vote to have someone else take care of problems than it is to take care of problems themselves. But maybe there is hope.
(I appreciate the questions. The best way to flesh out your own beliefs is to have them questioned honestly.)
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Hmm, I still don't see the separation between crime and disease, besides the arbitrary choice to say they are not the same. Or how availability of healthcare from the government damages liberty. But anyway, we're going to start circling the drain.
What happens when all the data we have points to liberty not being linked with happiness? Freedom by itself doesn't seem to make people happy or successful...is the ideal worth any cost? How do you justify that particular value as being so weighty?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
i'll take a crack at the healthcare question
the govt doesnt have any money, it can only give what it first takes from someone else, its a violation of someones liberty, someones property
someone had to work and save that money
if its not taken directly in taxes its borrowed which only means it has to be paid back, which is future taxes, and huge govt borrowing crowds out private borrowing
or the govt simply prints the money, which is just another form of theft, its a hidden tax that steals the standard of living of the people, the inflation tax is a regressive tax, it hurts the middle class, the poor, those on fixed incomes the worst, so if you are worried about those groups you must address the monetary issue
but govt providing health, especially when its construed as a right, means that the beneficiaries of that healthcare have a right to someone elses property, they have a right to someone elses time and work
thats not even talking about the terrible economic consequences of such a program
That's fine, and I get it, but you can't use that argument and accept *any* taxation and be consistent. Even if you only accept taxation for national defense, you're saying taxation is OK as long as it is part of a social contract you happen to agree with. Then we're back to arguing about what the social contract *should* consist of, which is what we were already doing.
Economically, other nations have healthcare systems and they are no worse off than the nations with private care. Many are superior. I think you can argue about if it is better or worse economically, but calling it an inevitable disaster just doesn't match reality.
--------------------
Atomic, how do you suggest we build a Libertarian society when we don't have any existing examples? What makes you so sure things will be better with a system that has never been used at the scale of a modern nation? I said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again...I'm always confused about how Libertarians are so sure their system will work when they don't have any examples of what a working Libertarian society looks like.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
There is a good chance I'll be out till Monday, just FYI. Have a good weekend all!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
My justification is solely my personal beliefs. I don't really care whether or not liberty makes someone else happy, it makes me happy and that is enough for me to want to pursue it. I think there is some historical evidence that shows that a higher level of liberty tends to benefit a society economically and technologically. Happiness on its own is kind of hard to measure outside of my own. As for how much the ideal is worth, I don't know exactly. Obviously, I am willing to give up certain liberties that I believe I should have. I am willing to sacrifice my ideal to pay Social Security tax for example. Because while social security really bugs me on an ideological level it isn't worth going to jail for. At what point is my liberty so infringed that I am willing to turn to breaking the law or outright violence?
Well, banning money transactions to internet poker was enough to get me to break the law. Granted, a minor law with no real possible consequences to me personally. The healthcare law requiring me to purchase health insurance is enough to make be break the law. I won't purchase it. (But don't worry, I have systems in place to assure you won't have to pay for it if the worst happens to me, already had that discussion with cj)
Outright violence would require something pretty extreme, say for example Obama declaring himself dictator after being unelected. (I'm not saying it is a possibility just that something that extreme would have to happen before I go militia.)
So it isn't worth any cost. But on the vast majority of political questions I am going to be on the side of more liberty as opposed to less even if it harms me. For example, I work as a property tax appraiser. If we eliminated property taxes I would be out of a job, but I would be ecstatic because property taxes destroy liberty. You don't own your home, no matter how much money you pay, you are simply renting from the government. If you don't believe me, stop paying your property taxes and see what happens.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
well the constitution says certain forms of taxation are acceptable as well as other things that would get revenues
im opposed to the direct taxation of incomes, i think its unconstitutional, uneconomic (is that even a word? lol), and immoral
not sure by what estimates you saying they are better, hopefully not the same estimates michael moore uses to claim cuba has a better system than we do
but i agree there are alot of problems with our healthcare system (which used to be the envy of the world), almost all of which have to do with govt meddling where it shouldnt, incentivizing the overuse of insurance, price fixing, tax structures, regulations, etc
i think to fix the problem we need to ask the right question, and the right question is why did healthcare get so expensive to begin with
we dont have any existing examples because the natural order of things is for liberty to give way to govt power, early america was a good example of a libertarianish socierty, the times when we grew the fastest and the govt was very small
we build a libertarian society by first and foremost recognizing the rights of the individual and to not look at each other as merely a means to our own ends, realize that people have dreams, hopes, and goals of their own, when we no longer look at people in the former manner you realize that goodwill and cooperation is possible, and you might find that people you may disagree with you actually like, but also recognize that liberty means responsibility, that it isnt someone elses mandatory duty to take care of you if you make poor choices, that help given must be voluntary
we need to recognize that our obligation to one another is more than just a few penmarks on a tax form but any form of charity or philanthropy should be voluntary, or else it isnt philanthropy or charity at all
we need to have a govt that protects those individual rights, that doesnt violate them (patriot act, direct income taxation, assassination, etc etc)
we need to make sure people learn the truth and stay vigilant (how many people have heard real american history and not this 6th grade civics textbook version of it?)
we need to embrace the principles of local self govt (the reason the revolution was fought), so the people that are directly effected by changes have more of a say on those challenges and fight the de-humanizing insistence that 300 million people should all be ruled by 1 city
it used to be customary to say that the united states ARE a nice place, with the emphasis on the plurality, the emphasis on the voluntary union of local self govering states and communities
we need to insist the govt stay within the confines of the constitution, to provide low taxes, low regulations, sound money, courts for disputes, upholding of voluntary contracts, etc
i think this would be a major start, but first we need to shatter the common wisdom that we cant live without govt programs, that we wouldnt know how to care for each other and ourselves, educate our children, etc without the govt dictating to us
we need to get our imaginitative inertia going and think about how much better it would be without these insulting and dehumanizing assertions made by people whos only concern is the power they can get to tell other people how to live
Sounds nice on paper, but that depends on those at the top not abusing and exploiting the others. Blackmailing the government and buying the government off and insisting on no speed limits doesn't help your utopia idea.
And I hate to tell you this, but if it were not for the mandates of government prior to WW2 getting industry to change their structure and products, America would not have been able to be a force in WW2.
We do need some mandates here to change our manufacturing structure and fund ways to get off oil and bring new technology jobs back to America.
If people are going to go around with the mantra "do it on your own" fine, but it means all of us, not "every man for themselves". If you want less taxes and less regulation, I think that is a good goal, but that requires those at the top providing more for those who do the work to make them rich and buy their products. If they would do that on their own, government would not step in so much and it would, long term, be less expensive for everyone.
But if all big business is going to continue to do is say "fuck you, we don't want any speed limits" what do you expect the middle class and poor to do?
America is "of the people and for the people" not "of the rich and only for the rich".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Which they mostly do through the government. When you have a lot of power up top it makes it easier for the rich to buy influence and blackmail the government. What good does it do to blackmail a government that has limited power?
Really? Have you any evidence for this rather bold claim? What mandates were so important that if we didn't have them we couldn't have fought the war? And what about all the other wars we fought and continue to fight?
Ok, so what is your solution? For the last 100 years we have followed the path of increasing government power, increasing taxation and increasing government benefits. The result has been an increasing government debt obligation, increasing corruption between government and business and the pay gap you are so worried about has increased. So how do you justify that increasing regulation, increasing taxes and increasing government benefits is going to change anything?
What should we do and where is your evidence it might work? Or do you only have vague class warfare arguments?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I disscussed before what I think we should do.
1. Mandates that get us off of forgein oil, and utimately off oil all together.
2. Decrease the pay gap, rase wages, consider wages vs profit and not always profit over wages.
3. Build manufacturing jobs here. Build new technology here.
4. Put money back into health care and education. If it cannot be done cheaply by the private sector then it needs competition from a public option.
But, again, if we continue down the "no rules" "no tax for the rich" road that you seem to want to continue down, we will become a third world contry.
Republicans have had the wheel for 30 pluss years and all they do is create massive bubbles and stick the tax payer with the bill.
So if you have a solution other than the same old anarchy approach, I am all ears. I DO think smaller government is ideal, but not in practice with big business driving.
I see no difference between a dictator like Kim Jong ill and a Classtocracy. A monopoly in the hands of a few deciding the rules for the rest of us just because they have power and money.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes but how? Put the government in control of setting wages? Tax the poor? And I'm still waiting for some explanation of why the pay gap is a problem that is worth putting effort in to fix.
The biggest obstacles to manufacturing in the US is unionization and corporate income taxes that are higher than other countries where the manufacturing can be done. Yet despite that America remains the largest manufacturer in the world. Does it matter if we manufacture more? Why? How does that necessarily help the economy as a whole? You seem to imply that a manufacturing job is more valuable to the economy than any other job. Why should we manufacture something that can be manufactured cheaper overseas? What economic benefit does that create for us?
And we do build new tech here. We are still the world leader in technological innovation.
All evidence seems to show that it can be done cheapest privately. Most healthcare and education in our country is not private right now. Education is a perfect example of how private education can be better and cheaper than government run. The only problem is that only government run schools get access to the money that is taken through taxes so private schools have to be paid for above and beyond property taxes which many families cannot afford. But I have beat the healthcare horse to death on this forum so I don't really see a point to rehashing it here.
Yeah, a free market. We haven't tried it for over a hundred years. We hardly have "no rules". Name the industry and I'll bet I can find several hundred if not thousands of pages of laws and regulations regulating that industry. The financial services industry in particular has a ridiculous amount of rules. You can easily fill up entire bookshelves with books covering the rules. The problem we have now is an excess of rules and large corporations making deals with politicians to exempt ONLY themselves from the rules. So rather than a free and fair market, you have a market that is rigged by politicians for their friends. You seem to agree with me that is a problem. What I am confused with is your solution is to have the government create more rules and become more influential. What makes you think that making politicians more powerful will in any way reduce political favoritism? It seems to me to be like giving an alcoholic whiskey to stop him from drinking beer and expecting that to solve his alcoholism. You aren't solving the problem, you are making is worse. For example, in the new healthcare bill certain companies are getting waivers from portions of the law. Do you think small companies that can't hire lobbyists are going to get the same deal? Of course not. We have simply created yet another tool for politicians to benefit single companies and another reason for those companies to bribe politicians.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I think you are confusing cause and effect. Countries that have a lot of natural resource available can afford to use these resources to pay for socialized medicine countries that don't can't. The countries that have it like Canada, Scandinavia have a low population relative to land area.
So if Canada needs money to pay for healthcare, they can just cut down more trees, mine more minerals, allow more fishing, etc... Not good for the environment. What can Haiti do if they wanted universal healthcare? They've chopped down all their forests and used up all their resources already.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
If it were not for government stepping in we would still have accidents like the one in NY where they locked the factory doors and hundreds died in the fire because they couldn't get out. Abuse was far worse 100 years ago and I really don't think you want to return to the abuses that existed 100 years ago.
But if we allow the Wal Mart class to continue paying off government, you will get what you want.
There IS free market. Having speed limits is not anti-car. But our free market is becoming increasingly a monopoly controlled by one class. Again, you cannot have an absolute free market, that is as bad as a planned market.
If the Wal Mart class wants government off their ass then they should take it upon themselves to do more for the middle and poor classes that work for them and buy their products. But if we go your way, certainly, we can become the old wild west if you want, but it wont be as pretty as you make it out to be.
We are becoming a Classtocracy and those at the top will not be happy until you and I make 30 cents an hour 16 hours a day working in sweat shops. THAT is where we are headed.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
First off, who said anything about taxing the poor or middle class more.
Secondly, I never said our tax codes and law codes were not convoluted. They are. But much of that is due to law makers protecting the rich and providing them ways around doing the right thing.
But again, as far as unions, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY EXIST? Because our country's top earners are great at finding loopholes around doing the right thing.
I think you watch FOX too much, and in recent years, I have seen many who say what you say now, suddenly turn tail when they lose what they have. I bet you think everything is hunky dory in your life. Maybe it is, but many in our economy who think like you have lost everything and are now learning that some things ARE beyond their control. I hope what happened to them doesn't happen to you.
Something we do agree on. But that isn't due to the middle and poor classes. The three card Monty is being done by big banks and wall street and big oil and every other business and classes are paying for this rigged economy you aptly describe it as.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I did a couple posts up. I explained how taxing the poor would help decrease the pay gap you are worried about. How would you decrease it?
Unions today exist solely for political power. Look at what they did to GM, it is quite obvious that (most) modern unions don't give shit about their members. I am not against unions in theory. I am against unions being able to force people to join them. Joining a union should be voluntary, and if you are applying for a job at a unionized workplace you should have a choice between negotiating your deal yourself or joining the union. Right now, you are required to join the union and pay the union dues to get the job, even if you believe the union is not representing you. The result? The union doesn't care about representing you. If workers join together and want to strike that is their business. When you are assaulting someone because they don't want any part of being in a union and are willing to work for a cheaper wage you are nothing but a thug and should be dealt with accordingly. The real practical purpose of unions was in the old days there might only be one employer in town such as a mine and the mine owner might take advantage of the monopoly on the workforce. The next town might be 30-40 miles away so if you wanted to work you didn't really have a choice. So it makes perfect sense to unionize and strike. You didn't really have an option to work elsewhere. Today, with cars and the internet there really is no such thing as a situation where you MUST work for a particular employer. You can commute or even work from home. So unions today are of far less value to the worker.
I've been high, I've been low. Sometimes life sucks. Get over it. I stayed consistent when I lost everything, I can't speak for others. Your in a country where if you don't like your employer you can start your own business. The only thing that might hinder you is the 145,816 pages of federal regulation (in our "no rules" economy). Yes some things are beyond your control. But when you lose your house and everything you own it is just another opportunity to make a new start. Do you think that people who are financially successful usually succeed the first time? Most small business owners I know have failed multiple times. Rather than whining about how mean their boss was they picked themselves up, put a bandaid on and found a new way to work. I think it is sad that so many people have your mentality and when things go bad they blame the "rich". If you think your employer is ripping you off you can go work elsewhere. It is that simple.
So are you going to address my questions about why we should focus on increasing manufacturing like you have said we should? And how that would help our economy?
Or my question about why the pay gap necessarily is a problem? If a person is running an honest business and both customers and employees are working with that person voluntarily, how is that person becoming rich harmful to anyone? It seems we agree that anyone getting rich from political deals is bad. So what about the honest ones?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I don't know how you ended up in black text but it is hard to read.
I do not need or want your advice on how to live my life any more than you want me to tell you how to live your life. FOR THE LAST TIME. I do not blame all rich people. I do blame the climate in this country that profits can explode with no end in sight while wages remain stagnant or fall. That is unsustainable and we WILL end up looking like a third world country if that continues.
We both agree that the game is rigged. GOOD.
However, you DO live in a utopia world where life seems to follow a script. It doesn't. If everyone owned a business, then who would do the work? Most people DONT own business. Those people should not be held hostage by your utopia ideas just because they don't have or want what you do.
No one is asking you to be poor. But there has to be a minimum standard to survive otherwise you will end up with two classes instead of three.
And if you really believe we should tax the poor more? Huh? Not only the poor but the middle class too has had to constantly compensate for the tax breaks of the rich and bail them out when they fuck up and they end up losing their jobs as a result, and your solution? WORK MORE WORK MORE, BE A SLAVE TO WORK!
If you don't want a welfare state, then start with big business that benefits the most from government handouts.
FOR THE LAST TIME
I AM NOT AGAINST WEALTH! I AM AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER AND MONOPOLIES OF POWER.
I am against the attitude that those who have have the only rights because they have the money to pay off government. Banks, car companies, drug companies, insurance companies and Wall Street have proven, when left to their own devices, they will rig the market to their own benefit at the cost of the rest of society.
Do not bitch after 8 years of economic anarchy and complain that the working class should just take it up the ass because of the bad behavior of the corporate class. Just because most of society do not own businesses should mean that they have no rights or that "fuck you" if you don't want to own a business.
That is a load of crap. There is room for everyone and everyone is important. But your scripted attitude is as bad as Kim jong ill's scripted market.
It is not either or. It is not "lets legislate the hell out of everything", or "lets not have rules at all".
Again, maybe if those at the top would do the right thing, the other two classes would not be calling on government to protect them.
Poor people are losers and deserve what they get. Ok. Keep that attitude up maybe we can look like India and China,
Thats it, I am done with you. You are so simplistic in your thinking and do not understand that because what works for you will work for everyone, LIFE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Survive and have large families that also survive or just survive for the present generation?
How is the next generation supposed to handle the population increase?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You don't blame the rich but you blame unlimited profits? How do the rich become rich without unlimited profits?
Not everyone wants to start a business. Not everyone wants to work that hard and that is ok. Are you denying that it is possible to start one if you want to? Why are they "held hostage" by my ideas? My idea is that they can do whatever makes them happy. If that includes owning a business that is fine. If that includes working as a burger flipper at McD's the rest of their life I am cool with that too.
By definition if you set a "minimum standard" and eliminate all the poor you only have two classes. You just eliminated one of them.
No I don't. I was offering that as a solution to the problem you claim we have. You are obsessed with the pay gap, the obvious way to eliminate it is to create incentives for people to make more money and disincentives to be poor. Personally, I don't care if people are poor, it is their choice. My solution has nothing to do with working more. If you want to work more fine, if you don't fine. I don't care. You are the one who seems all upset that people choose to be poor.
Now your just getting insulting. I have said repeatedly that I don't care if you own a business or not. I don't care if you are poor or not. How many times have I said it is YOUR choice. I'm not trying to script anyones life. I am saying do whatever the fuck you want. If you are unhappy with your current employer I simply suggested owning your own business as a potential solution. Either that or you could find a different employer or maybe not work at all. I don't care. Each has their consequences.
I never said poor people are losers. You are the one equating being poor as being a bad thing. I don't believe what works for me works for everyone. Where did I ever say that? I have said the exact opposite multiple times. What part of DO WHATEVER YOU WANT do you not understand?
And yes, this conversation has ran past its useful course. I have asked you multiple times to explain and defend your random claims from your unfounded attack on milk to your claim that creating manufacturing jobs should be our goal to your claim that the pay gap is a problem which the only evidence you have presented is that you don't seem to like it that people are poor and claims that it will lead to India and China with no evidence. Yet you constantly ignore my questions and accuse me of being anti poor despite me repeatedly pointing out I don't care if you are rich, poor or in the middle. It is your business. Your the one who seems to care.
I demonstrated how your idea of raising taxes on the rich has the real effect of making it more difficult to become rich and therefore expands the pay gap you claim is such a problem and proposed a solution. A post which you have ignored entirely.
So I agree, it is pointless to continue this discussion unless you want to stop the constant ad hominem attacks and actually address some of the questions I have raised.
edit: is it my sig that has you all upset? The quote is critiquing the idea of being a "good" loser. Stu was quite familiar with being a loser from time to time as all poker players are. He was just very bad at it. Nothing wrong with losing, just don't be a good loser.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I resemble that remark. We are going to be in charge on the United States in two weeks. Deal dude.
=
I also need to mention that there are clips of this bitch on youtube advocating a ban on wanking one off. I have no idea how she planned to enforce that.
According to her logic, if the husband that she did not, at the time, have could take care of himself, he would not need her in the picture. In all honesty, if I was married to her, that might be the default option. Which fails to modify the fact that getting laid is better than beating off.
=
if people want to "decrease the pay gap" they probably should have a sound understanding of how real wages are raised to begin with, real wages are increased by marginal productivity
people act as if wages have no bearing on the economy and can just be raised by fiat
ask someone if they think the govt artifically raising prices above market level is a good thing and theyll probably see the issues and say no, but when it comes to wages the same logic doesnt hold for some reason, wages are after all a price
monetary policy has a boatload to do with the shrinking middle class as well
people need to not spend so much time worrying about nominal wages (the dollar amount) and focus on real wages (what you can actually buy with the money you have), productivity raises wages in 2 ways, it makes the labor more efficient and therefore more desirable by employers, therefore the bidding for said labor goes up, also productivity lowers the cost of all products, again in effect raising real wages
That came out a bit wrong. I meant that both groups have plenty of normal people, and plenty of nuts. I wasn't trying to say PETA/Greenpeace=Nuts, Tea Party=PETA/Greenpeace, Tea Party=Nuts.
More like Tea Party=Sort of nuts
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Fair enough.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
as far as im concerned a large part of the tea party can go fuck themselves, parts have been bought off and are nothing more than the regular "God, Guns, and Gays" crowd
the real tea partiers are the folks that are pro-constitution, pro-free markets, anti-federal reserve, etc
all in all the real tea partiers are a much more libertarian crowd (maybe not strict libertarian but def slanting that way)
I think your last sentence sums it up. I think the onus is on your philosophy to show the data to convince people like me that things would be better. I get lots of speeches about how noble Libertarianism is, but what I want is real examples that show, "If we do X, it will likely result in Y, because of data set A". Right now, I'd rather live in Singapore than modern America with government circa 1776, because even though I don't like everything in Singapore, I know what it looks like.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
well i could respond with pointing out that we have seen what doing what we are currently doing looks like, see france and greece for example
my main point is that i dont think its very hard to picture what my system would look like, alot of what could be done could be done at the state level, every state would probably be different and thats good
if you wanted a system where there were alot of programs like healthcare and such you could choose to live in cali or massachusetts or something, the states would be competing against one another in a sense, as to which system is the best, implementing things they see in other states that work, but most importantly reflecting the beliefs and ideas of the people that live in those states and any changes would be made by the people those changes most effect
Sorry, EXC, what was your point? I said that existing examples show socialized medicine does not always lead to disaster, and I can start listing countries if you want, but you can Google as easily as I can...plenty of nations have public health care, without being as rich in natural resources or having as low a population density as Canada. I'm not sure what you were trying to say? Are you saying no-one can have public health care because poor countries can't afford the same health care that rich nations can afford?
My point was exactly your point, cause and effect. Clearly, evidence shows there is no absolute causal relationship between socialized health care and economic ruin.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm sorry, but isn't this a No True Scotsman claim? I imagine the "Real" Tea Party will be whomever is left after the next presidential election cycle. I have a hard time seeing the organization surviving a presidential election in current form.
Will be interesting to see, either way.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
well i mean claiming your a tea partier doesnt mean you are
george bush claimed to be a conservative and a free marketeer, but if you actually look at what he did youll know that claim is non-sense
Yea, I know. I sort of get the vibe that saying everything will be states rights is a little bit of a hand wave though, isn't it?
The thing that would worry me is you'd have the East coast, the West coast, Texas, and the rest of the country would look like a wasteland, or even worse, Detroit. Again, it seems terribly drastic to make such a huge change without really knowing what would happen.
I really wish one of these big Libertarian commune projects would actually get off the ground. Get 20-50k of your together for ten years. No direct taxation, privatize everything you can, go nuts. Then we can all see how it works in practice (assuming you can get that many Libertarians to agree to how 'Libertarian' such a thing would be. One thing that is tough is getting people to agree on how limited the government should be, even among hardcore Libertarians.)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
well what is the alternative? it seems that this federalization project has been a complete failure no? if nothing else atleast my alternative is more humane and moral
i mean even in this climate of big govt, states that are less heavy handed have fared much better than those with large govts, see california and NY (where i live, unfortunately)
Yea, but what is a Tea Partier? Who is the arbiter of that term? Who defines it? The Tea Party originally started as a citizens movement with multiple groups. If a bunch of Evangelicals who want to pay fewer taxes wants to call themselves Tea Partiers, how can you say they aren't?
I am personally familiar with about three different Tea Party groups, and none of them are the same level of Libertarian...one is just full of "God, Guns and Gays", one is conservative religious folks who are mostly knowledgeable Libertarians, and another is more of the melting pot. Who is to say which group has the best claim to the original term?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
the group that actually started the entire movement, which was on Dec 16 2007 when Ron Paul Supporters raised 6 million bucks in a single day online for him
they can call themselves tea partiers but when you look at what some of them actually believe its no different from the pre-tea party neo-conservatives
Well, no matter what system you follow the government needs to spend within its means, state or Federal. States like Cali and NY were stupid and did not have anywhere enough reserves to handle the loss of tax revenue incurred in the meltdown. Montana, for example, had decent cash reserves (that are gone now, many of the states in 'not horrible' economic straights now are going to have to face severe debt and cutbacks next year now that they've burned through their reserves)
Part of that is getting voters to accept having a lot of cash reserves, then get the politicians to leave them the fuck alone. Usually when a government gets reserves someone will run on a platform of distributing anything built up, either through tax breaks or new social programs.
Of course, asking people with maxed out credit cards and no savings to vote a platform of economic intelligence is probably a losing proposition.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
well thats the problem, the federal govt never will do it, never
atleast at the state and local level you have much more of a chance at effecting change, and atleast if your state is stupid you can move to a state that isnt so retarded
a much smaller govt would help with this non-sense about special interests as well (btw the whole special interest money argument politicians are making is so stupid to me, all a scheme to pass the blame, companies lobby and spend the money because it works, the politicians are the ones that accept the money, they are the ones that are influenced by the money, they are the ones that cast the votes, if you voted in principled people and had a smaller govt the money would be a non-issue, the companies wouldnt spend it because it wouldnt have any influence)
Tell me the place I can got with no direct taxation and everything is privatized. That used to be the US, and it hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Heck, I'll make you a deal, move all the hollywood types and left wingers from California, make it exempt from all federal laws, and let us take it over. It is about to go bankrupt anyway, and about ready for a remake.
That is the problem with a strong federal government, it prevents us from conducting experiments on the small scale. Like health care. Several states have tried different approaches to health care. Why do we need a federal law? Why can't states just look at ideas that worked in states and adopt those on their own, or adjust them to try something that might work better? The same thing can be seen in thousands of other areas where federal laws and regulations prevent states from trying new things.
And to make it worse, rather than copying the ideas that seem to work, our federal government copies ideas proven to fail. If it fails on the small scale, why do we expect it to work at the federal level? When social democracy is failing all over Europe, why are we rushing to join them?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The FSP is as good as you'll get. Why not take them up on it? Don't ignore potential solutions forever because real possibilities aren't perfect.
Social democracy is failing all over Europe? Since when? Or do you just mean Greece being bankrupt and France having riots?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Germany, UK and Italy have also been forced to make radical cuts. Italy is experiencing union strikes as well but not as violent as Greece or France and we will have to wait and see if the cuts in the UK and Germany will cause similar riots. I think the UK will probably be ok because they were a wealthier country to begin with and the unions there are not as strong a political force as they are in France. And German politics are so messed up I wouldn't even attempt to predict what might happen there. Regardless, all of these countries are going to experience an economic correction that is long overdue. Even if violence isn't the result, a massive reform in the amount and probably types of benefits given out will have to take place. Given that Norway and Sweden both have economies that are heavily reliant on exports I will not be surprised if they find that they have to make cuts as well in the next decade or so unless somehow the US or China can fill in the gap left by the rest of the EU but since both countries have done a halfway decent job controlling debt they might miss out on the worst of the hardships.
"The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money." - Margaret Thatcher
All over the EU they are running out of other peoples money.
Edit: And the free state project runs into the problem of the federal government. It does little good to have a libertarian state when the vast majority of the problems in our country is passed down from the federal level. So while I appreciate their intent, I don't see it as a practical solution until we can do something about the feds. I have not yet reached the point where I think libertarians should move to a state and secede.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
1: Economic meltdown and drastic hit to tax revenue means states ran out of money, causing states to cut back spending. How is this a failure of socialist policy? That is governments doing what they need to do when their economies hit the crapper.
2. See, then people like me will remain unconvinced. You'll have a hard time convincing moderates and leftists to buy your solutions when you can't point to real examples. I'm not sure what the solution to that is though, if there is any.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.