XtremeSpeakFreely

To each his own....We're just sharing our thoughts.

I'm entertained by his avatar. Suitably so.

I believe the feds shouldn't be running any welfare programs. That should be the domain of states and NGOs. States could provide all manner of welfare models and people could vote with their feet. States can study each other and adopt practices that promote the desired outcomes.

That said, I don't believe there is anything to be gained by vilifying welfare moms. They're an easy target. Easier than the corporate giants who have their own federal welfare programs which dwarf anything that seen by welfare recipients.

I won't question your hatred of welfare people and gays since I have to little to no experience with them. Obviously you must have a lot since you're an expert on the subjects.

I'm with Reptide on welcoming back your classic Dingdong avatar.

I'm not in favor a pure flat tax. That's why I used the word flattened. I'm not sure where exactly I would set the poverty line or where the top rate would start but its something that should be considered before it written off as a fantasy. I'm not proposing a flattened tax be turned on like a light switch either. Change can come (and usually does) in incremental steps. Please don't paint me into a corner by assuming I'm in lockstep with anyone or any paint by the numbers agenda. I'm only trying to engage in the conversation on the subject not "pretending we can bitch enough to make it happen" or trying to get anyone to shut up.

I'm in complete agreement with you on the cuts. They have to happen. And they need to happen to the largest programs or they won't make much difference.

I suppose this is real core of debate. I'm not sold on the idea that the tax code should be used to promote economic equality. I find it the idea of promoting economic equality laughable unless its by an individual for themselves, by themselves.

I appreciate your thoughtful post and you so make a compelling argument for the status quo. But the status quo is a system that has everyone, rich, poor and everyone in the middle thieving from each other in order to subsidize their lifestyle. Its a system that makes politicians more powerful as each group tries to take advantage of each other using those politicians as their instrument.

No poor person is entitled to free room and board. No middle class person is entitled to have their home subsidized by tax breaks. No rich person is entitled to hide their income. The current system encourages all those ideas.

I'm not saying a restructured tax system is a panacea for all that ails us. I would never use the word utopia related to anything to do with taxes. I would go so far as to say that I can see of the consequences from change would not be completely positive for all because human nature does not always lend itself to positive outcomes for all. But I would take that possibility over the current system that promotes pursing economic self interest through politicians. To those that ask the question "If politicians aren't any good for pursuing one's own economic self interests, what are they good for?" I would answer ... "Good question!"

I'm not looking for complete change overnight. Just baby steps in the right direction.

Every Capitalist system needs some poor people to survive. Relatively poor. That is a non debatable fact. I'll say it more clearly: Capitalism needs some unemployed and poor people. The reason been that in any economy where everyone is wealthy or gains wealth fast you end up with fast rising inflation that erodes the wealth of everyone and the economy then spins into 'overheat'. Overheat is bad. It adds stress to labour market, money supply and if any external factors are to play (there always is) it will lead to a fall in competitiveness and finally a crash depending on what else is been effected.

Ireland was a textbook case of this very recently. No more then about 3 years ago we have virtually Zero unemployment. 10% of our population were Polish, just so that we had enough workers to get things done. You couldn't hire staff for love or money at one stage. Our mains Streets had the highest rental value in the world. The price of houses and property rocketed meaning that we had the 2nd highest Net Worth per Capita after Japan. F***, we could have bought South Carolina and turned into a Theme Park. I remember telling people in work NOT to rush into buying 3 bedroom semi's for 300-400K Euro. (Euro's not dollars). My own exclusive bars and clubs were been overrun by Rolex wearing plumbers and Electricians. lol Now look. The stupid cnuts that ignored my advice are defaulting on their 110% mortgages, Car repayments etc. Unemployment is gone past 10% and people are leaving. Lots of Polish have disappeared.

Anyway, my point is that there will always be poor, and some unemployed people for any system to work. It keeps the natural balance and is perfectly in line with the Guassian Curve of Human populations ability. Its how the others treat the poor and unemployed is the question. My opinion is the curve should be maintained within the margins of human dignity. BUT, politics is politics. To raise money a politician will milk the group that will least effect him in terms of mass votes. And that is normally the small number of rich. IN this case it seems the 250K+ crowd.

You're talking about entitlement programs which don't have anything to do with tax codes. That is about how the government spends the money, not collects it. You seem to be philosophically opposed to the idea of a progressive tax while theory and practice show that it works for society's and the economy's best interest. It does more for the economy and raises the living standards for a vast majority of people than a flat tax. I think we can agree that is a good thing.

I look at tax credits and deductions as entitlement programs. If you actually read my post you can clearly see I leave room for a progressive tax. Did you read the part of no tax below the poverty line? I'm not even against rich people (whatever that is) paying more but not based on a higher bracket, but rather them losing their tax shelters, deductions and credits. Same for the middle class.

What I am philosophically opposed to is the degree to which everyone seems to have accepted the role of the feds as the arbiters of (as you put it) "economic equality" whether they use the tax code or social programs.

But isn't income equality linked to standard of living? What about the articles I posted about the homicide rate and level of happiness of middle class people?

LOL. Yes it would be nice if we could have a large happy middle class, but not at the expense of rich and poor. Maybe the middle class are the worst offenders when it comes to thinking they are entitled to the "American dream" and if it isn't handed to them on a silver platter they start crying like babies. The same puss1es who freaked out and spent trillions to make sure there were no bad men with box cutter under their beds. Wooo .... I feel a arguably OT rant coming on. I see it as all being connected to attitudes people hold without questioning them.

Speaking of connecting, we don't seem to be doing much of that thunderstruck. You whip out phrases like "income equality" as if it has some automatic cache, as though its something everyone is concerned with. I don't want to be lazy and respond with a dingdongish cheap shot regarding your age, but you do seem somewhat myopic. We really don't share a vision of a better society through more government social and economic engineering. I would have thought the young would be especially open to the idea that any improvements in society will come through people working individually and together in movements and power structures that succeed in making things better in spite of the feds, rather than because of the feds.

Get a load of this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/opini ... ef=opinion



-SS

lol Yes, 41 Senators can paralyze the country through filibustering. Give me a f*cking break. I wonder what color the sky is in his world?

Some historical perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opini ... ugman.html

Indeed...some historical perspective might be in order.

http://mises.org/daily/3788

or

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880

I find it amusing that the Krugmeister fills the role as the lefts Sarah Palin - Demagogue divider.

I'll just note that the next weeks column doesn't change the nature of his criticism of administration policy but simply attempts to assign the blame - more demagoguery.

A complete shutdown of government doesn't sound bad at all. Most of what they do isnt authorized by the constitution any way and that goes for nearly all Pubs and Dems a like. To adapt on a 'Krug quote'; The truth is the way the house and senate operated is not consistent with an operating constitutional republic and hasnt been for quite some time.

Obstructionism (and the mass vote etc) is the civilized alternative for what should be happening.

-SS

What specific things does Obama want to do that isn't 'authorized' by the Constitution? The Constitution isn't something that provides answers on how to govern, it just tells you what line you are not allowed to cross. The constitution doesn't predict the problems we as a country may face, so looking at it for solutions doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Jesus...

Where to even begin.? The Constitution tells precisely, exactly, with very little ambiguity, just how to govern. It provides for very specific individual rights and delegates very specific and limited powers (with considered checks and balances) to the government to UPHOLD those rights and nothing else, NOTHING! The problems are for US to solve with our states.

Our problems and the entire government is centered solely around our failures to heed it and our time is now consumed with now how to solve the problems stemming of the LAST government intervention. Whether it be foreign policy, or wars, or healthcare, taxation, regulation, sound $, fiscal prudence or whatever All the while it utterly fails to do the simplest of its responsibilities for the people.

Its the corporatism the administration proposes. The unchecked growth of government. The theft from future generations for today's problems. The idea that the solution to our problems lies in taxing this guy more and spending it on some one else whether its the rich/poor, or coal/solar panels. Its the outrageous hubris of a government that attempts to use its power to in order to pursue any number of policies because in the end, it presumes to know what we want and is in all of our best interests, and to force those policies upon the whole.

-SS

Where in the Constitution does it say the government's sole responsibility is to uphold it as a doctrine of law and stop there? It doesn't say anything about how our government should fix our economic, health, education and energy problems--does that mean the government can't tackle those? Where does it say the government can't pass a cap and trade program (to give an example)? You paint a picture of the Constitution as something to consult to address the problems I listed and if a specific solution isn't spelled out then it's a non-starter. I disagree.



Do you philosophically believe that the government can do no right because government action in the first place is considered wrong or the problem, not the solution? In that case, we simply disagree on the function of government. You seek to arbitrarily limit it because no matter what, less is good. On the other hand, I think that the government can do things that serve the interest of the people, like provide a competent health care system or improved infrastructure or address climate change or even bail out a few reckless banks to prevent a financial armageddon. These are things that individual taxpayers can't do on their own and that's where the government comes to play.

It doesn't presume, people vote these guys into office. If the people are slacking on the job then it's not the fault of government, but of the public. The government malaise is simply an inevitable consequence. Democracy still works, we just need a better informed and engaged populace. Then the rest will naturally follow.

Personally, I think we are doomed from here on out as far as trying to conform to the constitution and public opinion at the same time. The future is gonna be an unknown from here on out... we can't base it on the past or predict the future. sure, Government has grown into this huge political process... no one can come along out of the blue and say how it should be fixed.. Sure, we can all make criticisms and suggested solutions.. but most of these are fantasies in our own mind, nothing more. the reality is the world is a much more complicated place now than it ever was.. and grows exponentially so every year.

for us (the individual) to come along and say this or that as an opinion is analogous to 'nothing but a grain of sand on a all the beaches of this planet'. Sure you can add up all those grains of 'like' sand and make a difference... but the challenge presented to you is to gather those grains of 'like sand' and distinguish themselves from the other grains of sand. once you can do that, you might be able to sway mass public opinion, and therefore action to your grain of of sand thinking...

is it fun to voice your opinion? yes.. does it make a difference? I doubt it. not unless you are powerful and persuasive enough to to move those 'huge dunes and beaches of sand'.

imo, the best we can hope for is to survive the tidal fluxes of civilization on this planet, and hope for the best of hopes that the end results in a better tomorrow.

Just my take on it. most of these xsf discussions mean squat in the grand scheme of things. they just serve to appease individual psychological needs.

just calling it like it is. and we all know from the old saying "It is What it is". We can either live our lives the best we can, or we can be bitter about how our lives were lived. Which do you want to be?

lol Jon is a selective Constitutional revisionist.

Really, what am I revising? Do you have a specific issue with any part of my post?

So, tell me, what does the Constitution say about fixing our current problems?

G'damn myself to talk constitutional law with a statist during an EMT anatomy class....

OK... The down and dirty of it real quick for the sake of education rather than arguement cause I just dont have the time.

The entire purpose of the government is laid out in plain terms in the declaration of independence. It superceeds the constitution and is the foundation of our government.

The constitution is an extension of this document detail precisely the hows and whys.

Article 1 sec 8 provides for 17 specific enumerated powers of the government - what it CAN do.

Article 1 sec 9 provide 8 things it is expressly forbidden to do - NO NO's

Article 1 sec 10 provides 6 things the States CANT do.

And finally the tenth amendment reserves all rights not delegated by the states to the federal government to the states exclusively.

Thats it in a nutshell. However I'm sure someone will throw up the "general welfare clause" so lets address that too.

Suffice it to say the general welfare clause was not intended to be some catch-all for government to determine the extent of its powers. This was not the prevailing interpretation until 1937 under FDR who wanted "special powers - war powers" and was granted them by the Dem controlled chambers. Then after most of his new deal was determined to be unconstitutional he declares: "we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself." and attempt to stack the court by appointing six new justices to help the older "justices with their case loads". This is referred to the revolution of 1937. However the political calculus provided the result he needed and the plan was never implemented. Justice Roberts writs in 1951:"Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge ... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government." Or effectively, "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court." This is the crux of the unconstitutional arguement in a nutshell, that the constitution has been expressly usurped without any amendment.

Thats the day all this started.

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless.

The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee, "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once."

I'm done.

-SS

I can't wait to see Jon's response to this.

No reason we can't do both.

Since SS and thunder are doing all the heavy lifting on the thread topic I'll jump on the OT wagon.

Seriously, you get my daily downer award for a vision of the regular people who promote ideas or hold opinions as powerless delusional fools unaware how they are completely subject to forces they can't begin to understand or influence. I believe we are in fact like lottery winners relative to almost all humans who came before us. We enjoy personal freedom and security that would be beyond the understanding of people born just a few hundred years ago. We have comfortable and luxurious lifestyles that would be beyond their understanding of the people who ruled as kings. We have access to information that is beyond any riches ever held. And we have just about about doubled our life expectancy so we have the time to enjoy it. The word lucky doesn't begin to cover what we have.

This "grain of sand" is sipping coffee grown half a world away and feeling the caffeine fueled Jesus spirit wash over me. At my finger tips I have a world of information on which to base my predictions for the trajectory of humanity. All signs are pointing to greater empathy and understanding and newer, better power structures supplanting old ones and giving even more power to people over their own lives. Even now, in some ways the romantic notion of the rugged individual is more alive than ever because of the expansion of social freedom and justice.

You are right that most come to the forum first and foremost for a bit of fun and wouldn't be here unless it was fulfilling a need we have as humans, the super social creatures. Its a good and healthy thing. Even some of the mischievous trolling. Lets not discourage the discourse. I even welcome your "its all pointless" world view even if I don't share it.

Though the forum numbers aren't growing, I think the members are. Forum members who were already fairly good at presenting ideas continue to hone their skills. Even the guys I had low expectation for will sometime step up with some good stuff. You may not have noticed that civility overall is headed in the right direction.

I have enjoyed your posts for their honesty and your obvious intent to help members better understand health care issues from a real world perspective, despite plenty of feedback from insensitive b@stards. You have even made your state sponsored car buying adventure entertaining, rather than a gut churning "in your face fiscal conservatives" socialist victory lap. I know recently you've made noises about moving on from the forums since at times things can get aggravating. I want to end this with a few encouraging words but my coffee buzz is beginning to fade ....

I feel like I got a few compliments in there... Thanks

Quick... get Karl another mug of hot chocolate. I want him to continue. And get Gundamit a double expresso!!