|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 12999 Registered: Feb-05 | Hear, hear! I recognize all workers debt to those who were willing to pay with their blood so that we could have the opportunities we have today. So many folks look to turn back the progress made for workers rights, often from misplaced jealousy relative to their own income and benefit packages or out of just plain greed. I say let's all work together so that everyone has the opportunity to work for a living wage and so that all of us have protection from medical bankruptcy. Basic health benefits and retirement with dignity should be a no brainer in a country as rich as the U.S. And no, I don't think Unions are the problem with AIG, B of A and the rest of the crooks! Sorry...opinions were asked for. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1433 Registered: Oct-07 | ART, by any and all means, chime in ANY time. I have no heartburn at all. Union at AIG? Yeah, they got one. It's the YLISTI union. short for 'You Lie, I'll Swear To It.' One thing you hear is that public service is supposed to have roughly equal pay to the private sector. One measure of this is the number of (college) graduates seeking public sector employment. I saw the numbers a few days ago, but can't lay eyes on 'em, right now. The 'hook' may be, and is a personal gripe, that many government workers are NOT in Social Security. They have exclusive, single payer plans for which tax payers are on the hook. Right now, here in California, several City of Bell 'employees' receive some pretty huge salaries. Link to Bloomberg story:: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/california-official-s-800-000-salary-in -city-of-38-000-triggers-protests.html Maybe they should ALL be in SS? Privatize at least part of SS contributions? The other beef, of which I've heard little, yet, is the Government's Medical plan. There should be NO special plan for those guys. What's good enough for me, should be good enough for THEM too. Bread machine just beeped. Nothing like fresh, hot bread with some real butter. Jan, please feel free to chime in with any relavent data. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15103 Registered: May-04 | . Leo, I do wish you'd post solid links. When I copy/pasted your url to another screen and did a search I got first a page which began with "New Finding: Obama Closed Car Dealerships Based on Race" and the second url provided "Rep Jerry McNerney: Pelosi puppet". I'm not impressed by the Peasanton Weekly's reporting. Nothing on the Bloomberg story though. Rules have changed in many states regarding SS and state pension funds. My best friend has worked in the private sector for all of her life (she's 62), mostly as a medical transcriptionist. A few years ago the private hopsital she was working at was absorbed into the Parkland system (you know, where JFK is still hanging around in the basement). Parkland is a County hopsital so her benefits package changed. Then, a year or so later, her job was absorbed into the UT SouthWestern Univ. system which put her in, believe it or not, the Texas Teacher's Union. Remember, she's a medical transcriptionst. Though she has paid into SS for the last forty + years it looks like, when it comes time to retire in a few years, she'll have to decide between accepting the Texas Teacher's Pension funds or SS. Either way, whichever she chooses, she'll loose whatever she's paid into the other fund and that money will revert to the general slush fund. Pensions are very controversial in Texas (and other states), due largely IMO, to the Conservatives running Texas for the last two decades. Previously, a teacher could actually double dip by working the last week of their retirement year in a non-teacher type job (say, driving a school bus) which then provided them with both SS and the Teacher's Pension. Now, the new wave of Conservatives in Austin have swung the pendulum in the opposite direction and they are taking money from non-teachers when those people might never see anything coming back from what they've paid into. Similarly, a teacher who has left the profession after a dozen years on the job would be forced to decide the same issues of SS or Teacher's Pension if they had moved to the private sector after leaving teaching. Sh!t rolls downhill is about the only thing you can still count on. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1437 Registered: Oct-07 | She Can't 'double dip'? Rip Off. Every politician out there sure seems to. Military....then SS from a civilian job, than Gov Pension or multiple gov. pensions....from having held state than federal office. My neighbor, a military vet and now a state employee talks nothing but business. Boring. He talks about 'pools of money' from which to draw. IRA / 401k. /Roth.......SS......Military.........State Pension and who knows how many other pools. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1438 Registered: Oct-07 | \http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/gs.asp |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1439 Registered: Oct-07 | When I right click and highlight, I choose 'go to address in new window'...... No problem..... the site link system is worse than DOS..... |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1440 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/gs.asp |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1441 Registered: Oct-07 | I give up. ridiculous. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 13000 Registered: Feb-05 | So here's the deal, Leo. If you work for a company that provides a retirement account and then later work for another company that provides different retirement benefits you will likely chose between consolidating or drawing from both later on. Why is it wrong for public employees to do the same. Public employees have taken lower pay in exchange for benefits for decades with the promise that those benefits would be available to them. Now states want to rollback the promised benefits. The recession is just an excuse for many states to do what they have wanted to for years. Some retirement funds were fundamentally flawed such as Oregon's PERS where retirees in Tier One were sometimes retiring with better income than they worked for. No one has retired under that system and with that kind of retirement income for quite sometime. I've worked for the State of Oregon for nearly 12 years and our retirement system has been scaled back twice in that time. There comes a time where low pay and benefits means you will get less talented recruits to public service...these are not easy jobs. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1442 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.usajobs.gov/EI/benefits.asp Here is federal benefits summary. Pretty choice, too. Can't answer to Oregon...or any of the remaining 49 states, plus Puerto Rico. How do the Federal people....mainly Congressmen and Senators get away with the Double Dip Tango? States are apparently going broke financing benefits and increased consumer demand. Look up via Google, both City of Bell and Orange County financials. Both are poster child cases of retirement gone wild. I'll be posting on 'growth of government' pretty soon. There is a lot of data to go thru and at least one very interesting study. I simply won't believe the 'less talented applicant' argument without (gasp!) some data. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 13002 Registered: Feb-05 | Congressmen/women and Senators are just a few hundred of the hundreds of thousands of public employees. Most of whom work hard and live humbly and many of whom earn so little that they are eligible for public assistance. As for the less talented argument that you won't believe without data...do you have a bottom line, Leo? Is their a wage under which you feel you are worth more? Why is it so hard to believe that others do? Like I said, time to move on. Common sense has left the building and has been replaced with the usual rancor for public employees. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1445 Registered: Oct-07 | Art, What is distribution of pay by age and length of service? How many is 'many' getting public assistance? How do those numbers compare to the population at large? I lived in Medford for about 4 or 5 months when I was in my 20s and had a part time job while I lived the summer with my parents. Nice and green with Ashland, to the south, a real garden spot. The exterior, Frat Row shots from Animal House were done there. Botttom line? Government has used the 'equal to private sector' argument for quite a while. Originally, gov employment apparently was awful enough, and perhaps stigmatized, that they had trouble getting capable, talented people. That era has passed. What does the federal GS pay schedule show for Oregon? Some places are higher paid....maybe hazardous duty? or hardship? Less desirable? I don't think any of those apply to Oregon. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1446 Registered: Oct-07 | Art, Working in the private sector, I had a few 'disadvantages'. 12 hour days. Worked 26 weekends per year and 26 more Saturdays. This means I had 26 saturdays off per year. Worked Christmas and NewYears over half the time. If I worked one, I ALWAYS worked the other. Most times there was NO bonus paid for these days. Worked ALL Monday holidays for over a decade. Had to schedule my one NFL game per year, well in advance. Worked many 'shutdown' days to help turn the factory off or back ON. Our 'holiday' and vacation and sick time was lumped into a category called PTO....Paid Time Off. While this last is expected, getting time off was a federal case. Getting say.....3 weeks off, for a long trip somewhere is nearly impossible. Take 'sick time' and you can get written up. 3 absences in a rolling 6 month period gets you a write up. Exceed 5 points and you get a counseling and 7 or 8 points gets you walked out. No union protection. Now, everybody complains about there job. I'd have welcomed a union to come between management and staff. While we were in the middle of 'lean' and trying to get everyone to do more with less, the board of directors decided they needed some help and added a board member. I don't think they got the 'lean' memo. A board member with (built in) bonus, car and severance bennies would pay for a lot of manufacturing help......labor/parts/service. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 13003 Registered: Feb-05 | Choices, Leo, choices. I could've made a lot more money had I taken any of the other jobs I was offered out of college or when I left Hewlett-Packard. I've been offered leadership positions by the bunches since I've been with the State. I chose a schedule that allows me a life outside of work while still providing the services that mean so much to me. I get the time off that I need to process the vicarious PTSD that is a natural part of my job. I don't ask my employer for anything more than what they promised when I signed on the dotted line. I love every day I work and am grateful. I also love every 3 day weekend that I have. As an aside, line staff aren't allowed OT in my agency. You are expected to do 60-80 hrs work in 40 hrs and if you don't you have to answer for your performance. Not a problem for me, but since we applied RPI to social services here in Oregon we have lost a number employees who can't keep up with the new demands. Fortunately for me it fits me like a glove and I perform quite well under pressure. BTW RPI (Rapid Process Improvement) is part of our "lean" process...Oregon is leading the country with it's fast benefits processing times and with our innovative approach to process improvement. Tomorrow the State "lean leaders" will be visiting our office. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1447 Registered: Oct-07 | Yeah, in addition to 'lean', and the associated internal stuff, including 6 sigma and the rest, we are ISO. This means that periodically somebody from somewhere shows up to Audit us. That is a 3 and sometimes 4 day process where they go over all the records. Than, a 'team' spends the day in the manufacturing space.....a 'fab'. NOT fabulous, but fabrication. A FACTORY by any other name. I was one of the go-to guys for this part of the audit and was able to dance pretty darn good. An auditor once said she was auditing a Tire Company. I asked if she was an auditor for Firestone. You could'a heard a Pin Drop. She thought it was funny, thank goodness. She (the external auditor) also told us about getting tires 'in advance of release to the public'. I had the RARE good sense to NOT ASK if this was a conflict of interest. The company rep on the audit thanked me later with a nice lunch, for NOT bringing that up. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 13004 Registered: Feb-05 | We have a PME audit next week....I feel your pain! |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 13005 Registered: Feb-05 | Oops...the PME audit is actually September 1. Just to make sure that we haven't limited access to services and are meeting our civil rights obligations. We also have business audits, travel audits, security audits, safety audits...you get the drill... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15109 Registered: May-04 | . Why any Consitutional challenge to the health care "mandate" is likely to fail. Case Law; JACOBSEN v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905) In 1796, a British doctor discovered a vaccine for smallpox, which was a deadly disease. In 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law forcing everyone in the city to receive a smallpox vaccination. Henning Jacobsen refused to be vaccinated and was charged with violating the law. At his trial, Jacobsen offered evidence that the vaccination did not really protect people against smallpox. He also offered evidence that he and his son experienced harmful reactions to vaccinations. The trial court rejected Jacobsen's evidence and convicted him. Jacobsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that forcing him to be injected with a vaccine violated his liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Jacobsen said it violated the "right of every freeman to care for his own body and health" and was "nothing short of an assault upon his person." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed Jacobsen's conviction. The Court said liberty does not prevent the government from deciding how people should take care of their health. http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/whalen-v-roe "Herd immunity"; http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1...ssachusetts.pdf . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1452 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, you asked me, after one of my posts about 'how big is TOO big for the Federal Government'. I am working on that, looking at a few studies and stats. I will return the question. If the gov. can control health care, what CAN'T they control? What is the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments? Who were the Supremes when this decision was rendered? Was it a 'progressive' court? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15111 Registered: May-04 | . "Jan, you asked me, after one of my posts about 'how big is TOO big for the Federal Government'. I am working on that, looking at a few studies and stats." leo stierer Post Number: 1386 Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 11:48 pm "Let me ask a few leading questions. Use any scale for answers: How would you rate Congressional performance? Do you feel comfortable with the gov's new, expanded role in health care? Does the Federal Gov follow the Constitution? (opin, brief is good) Do you feel 'entitled'? :: do you have a 'right' to a house? or a job? or medical care? Are there rights without responsibilities? I never asked that question, leo. I'm not interested in any back and forth over opinions without facts. I thought I had made that clear by now. You're the one who hates and distrusts any form of government. I would have no reason to try to engage you in an opinion based rant, particularly with such a leading question which already presupposes the conclusion I've reached. You're researching your own biased questions, leo. I'll tell you now I am not interested in your opinions on this matter. Facts are why I began this thread and I prefer to stay with facts. What I just posted above is a fact anyone can use or discard as they prefer but it is case law and therefore a precedent under which the Health Reform Bill can be defended. I drew this case law from a segment on this AM's "Washington Journal" on CSPAN in which the attorney general of Oregon spoke to its use. You can go to the CSPAN website if you'd like more information. "If the gov. can control health care, what CAN'T they control? What is the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments? Who were the Supremes when this decision was rendered? Was it a 'progressive' court?" You can research "who" the Court was at the time of the decision with a simple search engine. I'm rather tired of the term "progressive" being used in any manner other than as a description of personal interests. I would say I am a liberal progressive. I have heard others describe themself as such. For me to say anyone else is anything is IMO insulting and absurd. But it has become the new battering ram since the right has succeeded in demonizing "liberal". Call someone a "progressive" and those Pavlovian juices start flowing. Reason leaves the room and hatred steps right up to take its place. As such I find your words to be insulting in their prejudice, leo. As to what can and can't the Government control? I find it interesting you only chose what "can't" be controlled. Throughout this thread leo, your hatred for government has lead you to make ever more ridiculous rants against any form of central decision making. Throughout this thread I've told you denouncing government without having an alternative is nothing more than an@rchy which leads to the downfall of everyone. To tell me you simply want to be rid of the government the majority voted into office in a democratic show of preference takes me right back to you being a chronic malcontent being driven by ideology rather than facts and reason. If what can be controlled were already decided and not being overturned by an activist Robert's Court with 8 out of 10 decisions, then there would be nothing to discuss. We would all just repeat the propoganda we've had implanted in our heads and that would be the end of it all. Of course this is headed to the Supreme Court and with the corporatist Court that exists under Roberts, anything is possible. Their respect for precedent and the intent of the Law has been underwhelming to say the least; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/i..._its_virginity/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html If all those words bore you; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/07/25/us/20100725-roberts-graphic.html Come up with facts as to why the Health Reform provisions cannot be upheld in Court and leave the rest of your rants off the thread, leo. I'm not interested. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1453 Registered: Oct-07 | I'll look up the caselaw. But, provisionally, how a finding of an individual being remiss in the care of a child morphs into a 'right to health care' for all is anyones guess. The Constitution clearly enumerates Federal powers, all others being given to the various states, or people. Healthcare is not mentioned. In an 'end justifies the means' society all is possible, indeed. Of course you are not interested in 'size of government' discussions, even after you asked me how large was TOO large. The argument over Federal health care goes right to the heart of the 'size of government' discussion. The TWO main schools of thought on the matter appear to be 'Citizen over state' OR 'State over citizen'....... That the combination of State and Federal spending per capita exceeds 12000$ per citizen is a matter of just doing the math. Even the subtraction of Defense, the number only drops maybe 1500$. Healthcare will add an unknown amount to this already huge total. Federal only expenditures are well over 7000$ per person, W/Defense. We can't forget that the number of Presidential Cabinet positions has DOUBLED since the end of the WWII. From 8 to 16 departments, including Veterans affairs.....not part of Defense? Education, the EPA and others. When I get to that point, I'll make a somewhat longer post on the subject. When the discussion gets to the point of reference to the Constitution being a 'rant'.......... That federal spending has increased wildly, since the passing of the 16th amendment is generally NOT seen as coincidence. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15112 Registered: May-04 | . "Of course you are not interested in 'size of government' discussions, even after you asked me how large was TOO large." Awwww, for crimeny sakes, leo, read my post. I did not ask you that question. And I'm not interested in your rants about government. "The Constitution clearly enumerates Federal powers, all others being given to the various states, or people. Healthcare is not mentioned." Neither are corporations or their ability to contribute freely to political campaigns. So, where did the Robert's Court find Constitutional precedent for their ruling? You are merely repeating talking points again, leo. Certainly the Originalists cannot forget, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Tough to have any of those when the insurance corporations canel your policy because of "pre-existing conditions". On the other hand, are not my rights to those three virtues being denied to me when some idiot who decided to by a motorcycle instead of insurance and decided not to wear a helmet because he wanted to be "free" comes into the emergency room with massive head trauma that, due to lack of insurance, will now cost me for the rest of his life as a vegetable? Come up with facts as to why the Health Reform provisions cannot be upheld in Court and leave the rest of your rants off the thread, leo. I'm not interested. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1454 Registered: Oct-07 | There are no FACTS on this issue. Plenty of opinions. That's why the Supreme court hands down 'Opinions', not 'facts'. The case you cited? I'd like to know how my obligation to get some health treatment....morphs into a RIGHT to get healthcare, or my obligation to pay for everyones? Should certain vaccinations be provided at public expense to those who can prove need? Almost assuredly. My question is germane to the 'size of government' question. At the 2 polar extremes, government is either limited and we must decide where the limits are, OR government is not limited and it is onlly a matter of time before nobody has any responsibilities, but only the 'right' to xxx....fill in blank. Either people demand more service from the government, the 'People over government' model OR, the government provides on an involuntary basis, more services... the 'Government over People' model. Plenty of middle ground to go around. I believe corporate contributions have been ruled upon? I think the basis was the equal protection portion of the 14th amendment. I know, another one of those pesky amendments. I'm not 100% clear on this, but aren't corporations considered 'citizens' for this purpose? I'll ask around. My buddy in federal prison can get at a computer for monitored e-mail once a week. He was a lawyer. I'll ask. Those nasty 'founders' again. More sense in there than the 'beneficent' leaders of today will admit. Imagine!..... A country founded on equality of OPPORTUNITY rather than Equality of Outcome! Individual responsibility rather than the leveling of the group. Can insurance companies sell policies across state lines yet? Didn't think so. More legislative pandering. I'd think that with appropriate targeted law, rather than a sledge hammer, coupled with the insurance companies ability to 'pool' people, rather than be restricted to state lines, some of your concerns may have been addressed. As an aside, a former neighbor of mine has been advertising for a husband with health insurance. She has a condition.....and after being her neighbor for about 5 years, I can vouch for her having MORE than 1. PM me thru Nuck and I'll provide a name. She was in the news....local at least, and maybe it went national. She is pretty, telegenic and well spoke. She can hide her nuttiness from the interviewer well. Great kids, too. I did some photography for her daughter. She wanted to be a model and needed some 'head shots' in b&w. Made me some wheat-free cookies as a reward. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15113 Registered: May-04 | . "I'm not 100% clear on this, but aren't corporations considered 'citizens' for this purpose?" If the term "corporations" did not appear in the Consitution or any amendments, how did corporations attain the same rights as individuals? An activist judge (or Court) perhaps? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1455 Registered: Oct-07 | Maybe yes. That once a corporation is considered a 'citizen', 'it' can contribute to political causes. In this case, PAC, Special interest, Party and Individual contributions are 'on the table'. The 'tilt' this applies to the polity is certainly a valid point to discuss. Data is quite available on how much, to whom and when such contributions are made. Jan, why don't you find some objective data for us? I'm sure the data will answer all questions and negate the need to discuss this issue any further. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1456 Registered: Oct-07 | 'Big Daddy' Unruh once said, 'Money is the mother's milk of politics'. Certainly no potential for corruption, there! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15114 Registered: May-04 | . You're missing the point either by neglect or by construction. " ... once a corporation is considered a 'citizen' ... " Now a corporation is considered a "citizen"? That woud mean a corporation has the right to vote. No? Tell me how an entity never mentioned in the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence), ie; a "corporation", attained the rights of an individual. Your argument against Health Reform boils down to "Healthcare is not mentioned ..." in the US Constitution. Neither are corporations, yet you seem to be saying something never mentioned in the document (health care) cannot be Constitutional at the same time you are saying entities not mentioned in the document (coporations) can be granted the exclusive Constitutional priviledges of an individual. Those being priviledges of both individual rights and of citizenship even though they are located outside of the US and are not subject to US laws. My question to you is; how did a "corporation" become an "individual" if the term "corporation" does not appear in the US Constituion or any of its Amendments? If a corporation is a US citizen as you claim, wouldn't that make the corporation subject to US jurisdiction which would then impose US laws and regulations? Regulations such as minimum wage? Regulations such as residency? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1457 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, your argument is not correct. You are comparing the legal fiction of the 'corporate citizen' to the enumerated rights, responsibilities and obligations of the Federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. Now, on to something more fun....How about Milton Freedman? I believe this may be a paraphrase of what he wrote in 'Free To Choose', a book about libertarian economics. 1. You spend your own money on yourself - You shop in a supermarket, for example. You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollar you do spend. 2. You spend your own money on someone else - You shop for Christmas or birthday presents. You have the same incentive to economize as in the first case but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient. You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like--provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort. (If, indeed, your main objective were to enable the recipient to get as much value as possible per dollar, you would give him cash 3. You spend someone else's money on yourself - lunching on an expense account, for instance. You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money's worth. 4. You spend someone else's money on someone else - You are paying for someone else's lunch out of an expense account. You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your guest the lunch that he will value most highly. However, if you are having lunch with him, so that the lunch is a mixture of case 3 and case 4, you do have a strong incentive to satisfy your own tastes at the sacrifice of his, if necessary. I think we know into which category the government falls, now don't we? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1458 Registered: Oct-07 | I may have used the wrong term. 'Corporate Personhood' is the correct term.....and is related to various issues raised in lawsuits and settled with reference to the 14th amendment, as I wrote. Corporate Citizenship is perhaps a related term, but has a different set of connotations. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1459 Registered: Oct-07 | One of the root cases or perhaps THE root case for corporate personhood. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad I'm not about to try to post a link, but that's one of the starting points in this debate. So, you see, by court decision, corporations ARE mentioned in the Constitution. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15115 Registered: May-04 | . No, leo! Words do not get put in the Constitution by way of the courts! The "enumerated rights" are the first eight amendments to the Consitution which do not mention corporations. The Constitution is the original document and all amendments pertaining to it, nothing more. If you're so gung-ho! on the Constitutionality of something you dislike, you should know this - unless you've been fed a bunch of lies by the talking heads. Case law is what follows and what settles many issues not mentioned in the original document or its amendments. However, a judge or a court has no ability on their own to insert words into the Constitution, to amend the Constitution or to bestow Constitutional rights upon anyone or any thing other than those items mentioned in or implied by the Constitution. The 14th amendment had virtually nothing to do with corporations - in fact, you would be hard pressed to even imply it had anything to do with corporations - but was intended to deal with slavery and to bestow citizenship and civil rights to former slaves and their descendants. That the decision you mentioned was based upon the 14th Amendment is nothing more than a judicial contrivance which is not based upon any wording found in the Constitution or any Amendment. It is based upon money and its influence in politics. Courts deal with issues not mentioned in the Constitution - as does Congress. Therefore, ""Healthcare is not mentioned ..." is just another talking point filled with little truth - it is not mentioned in the Constitution anymore than is the word "corporation" - and even more falsehood - courts and Government take up issues not mentioned in the original document. Case law settles whether there is precedent for decisions made in either branch of the Government. For instance, abort!on is not mentioned in the Constitution yet the right to personal privacy is an "implied right" within the Amendments (personal liberty) and therefore sets a precedent for the establishment of Roe v. Wade as what is widely accepted (even by conservative nominees to the Supreme Court while they are being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee) to be settled law. "Article XIV 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,15 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. affects 2 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Not a word about corporations and due process is limited to those individuals who are citizens of the United States. Congress shall have the power, not the courts. "The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." By way of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights as "Constitutional", courts would include the aforementioned life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - all of which are provided by good health. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15116 Registered: May-04 | . Milton Friedman is also not in the US Constitution. I'm not interested in your rants, leo. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15117 Registered: May-04 | . Wikipedia, if you don't mind; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate "The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394). In that case, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[9] Thus, at the outset, the Waite Court assumed that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court did not specifically address the matter of whether corporations could be considered 'persons' with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment as the decision made such a finding unnecessary (being was based on less expansive law). Author and radio/TV talk show host Thom Hartmann has argued that the court was reluctant to establish precedent in that decision. Chief Justice Waite wrote in private correspondence that, "we avoided meeting the [Constitutional] question." Hartmann's book "Unequal Protection" cites the correspondence between Waite and Davis (available in the Library of Congress) which he says demonstrates that Waite did not intend to create a legal precedent ... Ralph Nader and others have argued that a strict originalist philosophy, such as that of Justice Antonin Scalia, should reject the doctrine of corporate personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti." . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1460 Registered: Oct-07 | So, you agree. The Supreme Court issues Opinions, not 'facts'. Opinions which have the force of law, but which are opinions nonetheless. Such opinions are reversed periodically......by a later version of the same court. BTW, even no less than Al Gore has Disagreed with the original Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, agreeing more closely with the the later case you cite. You still have to answer for 16 cabinet departments in the Executive. 8 of which have been created since about 1952. I'd love to see a law passed where new laws are required to have some kind of 'certificate of Constitutional traceability'. And while words do not get put in the Constitution by courts, it is clear that this is another null argument since it IS clear that court decisions which interpret the constitution have the force of that document. This is what I meant in one of my early posts when I referred to the Constitution being 'tortured'. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15118 Registered: May-04 | . "You still have to answer for 16 cabinet departments in the Executive." No, I don't. Why would I since you only have your rant to go on? You've presented no facts indicating there has been anything illegal, un-Constitutional or just plain immoral about adding Cabinet positions. You don't like Government but I don't have to answer to anything some factless talking head has told you is wrong. "And while words do not get put in the Constitution by courts, it is clear that this is another null argument since it IS clear that court decisions which interpret the constitution have the force of that document." Interesting way you keep score, leo. You're proven wrong but that counts as a tie in your book. Just as interesting as how you interpret what the courts do. By mandate the courts are to use facts in order to render "decisions", not opinions. "Opinions" may be used to come to a decision but they are not the final say on the issue before the court. Dissenting and supporting opinions are just that, they carry no legal weight. Such opinions merely serve to instruct other legal professionals how a particular judge reached their decision. Courts should not be issuing "opinions" as binding judgement though it is clear each judge may have their own personal opinion regarding the interpretation of any specific law or the Constitutionality of a law. Obviously, from the correspondence mentioned above, the Supreme Court did not address the Constitutionality of corporations possessing the rights of an individual, "Chief Justice Waite wrote in private correspondence that, 'we avoided meeting the [Constitutional] question.'" This is a convenient way for judicial ideologues to avoid debate. "Bush v Gore" in 2000 also avoided the issue of Constitutionality saying the decision was to have no precedent on any other case. In general, the Courts set precedent through case law. It is up to Congress in constructing a new law or revising an old law to use those boundaries of (settled) law to create a useable, workable law which can be enforced without contention. If the decision of the court was to have the force of the Constitution, then no decision could be overturned without a super majority vote in Congress and a 2/3 majority vote by all States in a Federal case. That's obviously not how the system works. You are wrong again. If a court finds a law to be un-Constitutional, the court itself has no power to write law, that is the job of the Legislative branch. The court can, in some instances, instruct the Legislature to amend a law to suit the Constitution but it cannot order the Legislature to amend the Constitution outright. If you remember any of your civic classes, leo, the three branches of the US Government are co-equal partners and Congress can, at their discretion, ignore the Judicial branch's instructions. I believe what you are doing to logic is what is being tortured here, leo. And, once again, no, I do not agree with your interpretation. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1461 Registered: Oct-07 | Even the Supreme Court website calls 'em Opinions http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx Please try a copy / paste. I still have trouble w/the 'link' verb. As for the court writing law....or not, I'm sure those who disagreed with 'court ordered bussing' would have issue with your claim. No time right now to track down other 'court orders' which had the force of law. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1462 Registered: Oct-07 | I didn't say or judge the new cabinet positions. You are getting ahead of things. That these new cabinet posts became available after the 16th amendment is probably not a coincidence. I'll provide a reference for that statement in a coming post. I'm still not done plowing thru the paper.....from the St Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. There are a dozen or more papers there which I'd love to read. http://stlouisfed.org/ Cut/ paste and have a browse. This is what I meant mucho earlier about data being not all it's cracked up to be. Data driving informed opinion is more attractive to me. Thanks, though, I haven't read a good research paper in quite a while and this was a good excuse. Happy data mining! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15119 Registered: May-04 | . I didn't say the Court did not have "opinions". In fact, leo, if you would go back and read my post, you would see I did say the Court has opinions, supporting and dissenting opinions and they are released to the public. These opinions either support or fail to support the final decision of the Court. These opinions are used by others in the legal profession to examine the thinking and rationale of a judge or an entire Court. Oftentimes these opinions are used to base a new legal argument in yet another case where a decision has yet to be rendered. In such cases those pleading the case will be hoping to sway the decision of the court by presenting existing "opinion" of a jurist in a similar case. That is the concept of "case law". Had you actually read any of the "opinions" you linked to? If you had, you would have found something like this, "Justice Scalia chides the court ... " and, "It is for the State Court - and not for either this Court or even Justice Scalia ... ". What you've linked to are the opinions I mentioned which support or dissent from the majority decisions. This is not another "null" argument, leo. Decisions are handed down by the courts. Those decisions are typically backed up by written "opinions" explaining the decision making process. The opinions in and of themself have no legal weight. They sit and are silent until they are used by another court in hopes they will push a decision in one direction or the other. COURT OPINION "A statement that is prepared by a judge or court announcing the decision after a case is tried; includes a summary of the facts, a recitation of the applicable law and how it relates to the facts, the rationale supporting the decision, and a judgment; and is usually presented in writing, though occasionally an oral opinion is rendered. Court opinions are the pronouncements of judges on the legal controversies that come before them. In a common-law system, court opinions constitute the law by which all controversies are settled. Attorneys analyze prior opinions on similar legal issues, attempting to draw parallels between their case and favorable court opinions and to distinguish unfavorable opinions. Judges study relevant opinions in rendering their decisions." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Court+Opinion Now go back and read what I posted. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15120 Registered: May-04 | . "Please try a copy / paste. I still have trouble w/the 'link' verb." Here's how to do a link on this forum; enter "\" (backslash) Immediately follow that with "link" Immediately follow that with "{" (bracket) Enter your url insert a "," (comma) repeat the url Close the link with a "}" (bracket) When it is all placed together you get; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/642674.html . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15121 Registered: May-04 | "As for the court writing law....or not, I'm sure those who disagreed with 'court ordered bussing' would have issue with your claim. No time right now to track down other 'court orders' which had the force of law." LEO!!! The more you post, the more I uderstand why you have such a hatred for government. You do not understand how it operates! You have allowed others - specifically those with an agenda they wish to impose upon others - to place words, phrases and thoughts into your head without any facts being there in the first place to crowd them out. You do not ask the common sense questions which would lay to rest the lies they are imposing on your thinking in a clear attempt to short circuit your thinking. You accept "fair and balanced" only because it preys upon your fears and prejudices and then constantly reinforces those base instincts. The propogandists do so by suggesting you are being "fair and balanced" by blindly accepting their "fair and balanced as advertised" input and then they proceeed to repeat the same porpoganda over and over to reinforce just how "fair and balanced" their listener's are for believing them without question. This is the same shell game played by Limbaugh and all the other propogandists, they lure you in by telling you that you are the reasonable one and all who oppose you are being unfair and imbalanced. Do this, leo, place "legal definitions/force of law" into a search engine and see what comes up. Did you find a legal definition for "force of law"? I didn't. It is a concept placed into your head by those who use words to manipulate your emotions. Now, either you have the common sense facts to realize what is being done to you or you have the will to ask questions which will provide you with the facts you need to up end their lies. Or, you just allow them to continue telling lies and filling your skull with their BS. I don't know if you were not paying attention during civics class or you have simply forgotten what was being taught or you have allowed those facts to be supplanted by the rhetoric of the propogandists. But somewhere along the line you have acquired an astounding amount of misinformation about your own Government. In brief, when a court accepts a case it is hearing arguments between two parties, the aggrieved party - the plaintiff - and the opposing party - the defendant. There are lots of other actions a court can take but let's just stay with hearing a case for now. During the course of the hearing the two parties present their evidence, their arguments and their rebuttals along with a summation of those parts - they plead their case. In due course, the court renders a decision which is in favor of one of the two parties and against the other. Just like on Judge Judy when she finds in favor of the girlfriend and against the boyfriend who had another three girls in the girlfriend's bed and didn't pay rent. OK? The decision is accompanied in many cases by a written or oral opinion which outlines why and how the decision was reached. While a decision has been reached, the decision is only in favor of one of the two parties. The "decision" does not instruct an action, an inaction or a halt to action to be performed by either party. That comes when the court issues an "order" which is based upon its decision in favor of one party. Go back to your link to the Supreme Court homepage and look at the link to "Orders and Journals"; http://www.supremecourt.gov/ Click on "Orders of the Court" and read a few of the "orders". You'll see what course of action was enacted by the decision; a stay of execution or action, a reversal of judgement, a petition is granted, etc. None of those orders have "the force of law" behind them as the judiciary is not the branch of government in the US which enforces law - and the phrase does not exist outside of the partisan BS being promulgated by the propogandists and their one sided denunciations of "activist judges". In the case of your "court ordered bussing", first of all, there were many cases heard which revolved around bussing as a means to integration. However, in most of these cases the argument, the decision and the subsequent order were not really about bussing. It was about segregation, integration and discrimination and the explosiveness of emotions which accompany those words. The court found in favor of the existing law (as written by Congress) and against the argument which had been, essentially, that segregated schools were un-Constitutional by virtue of the fact no or few whites were being bussed into black school districts. In other words, bussing blacks into white districts was un-Constitutional because whites were being "put upon" while not having the same and equal representation in the drive toward integration. Where the whites were being integrated into black districts, the whites were at a disadvantage due to the historically poor level of education being taught in those black schools. Here the argument was an adnission that black schools historically underperformed but by integrating whites into substandard schools, the whites were being disadvantaged. There was no true resolution of fairness for both parties only for those whites who were being dragged down by function of integration. The various cases revolved around a trial of bussing used as a means to integrate schools. But it was a simple ploy used by those opposing integration which relied on the concept that bussing was at fault; ie, un-Constitutional, because it forced children to be both displaced from their community and forced children of segregated communities to be with those who had to be bussed in order to fulfill the desgregation laws which were then in place. By doing so, the whites were disadvantaged despite the fact no remedy for the blacks was typically presented. In other words, if it could be shown that shipping black children into white school districts (predominantly increasing the number of blacks into white districts) was harmful to the Constitutional rights of equal and fair treatment to the whites, then bussing could not take place and, therefore, integration could not take place at the rate which bussing attempted to enact. This was the beginning point in many ways of the race baiting sham which says it is the person claiming discrimination who is actually the racist. If bussing could not take place, then integration would be stopped or at best significantly slowed. You got the picture here? The Court had already decided school segregation was un-Constitutional and had ordered there needed to be a remedy to the situation. In this case the Supreme Court instructed Congress - the branch of Government which makes laws - to come up with a remedy and to create laws which outlined how that remedy was to take place. To speed the process of desegregation, bussing from one location to another had become the norm and the law as written by Congress. What "court ordered bussing" refers to is the decision to uphold the law as written by the Congress. Of course, the wording of "court ordered bussing" is being used as a political tool which implies and instigates a fear based reaction (to what "might" occur) by many whites who fear or are prejudiced against the integration of black society (with all the burdens that would impose upon one race and only one race) into the whole of America. It is the hoped for Pavlovian response to assume what "might" occur has been imposed by that famous "activist judge" you are told to fear and hate. The bussing had been in place as was described by laws enacted by Congress but the whites sought to stop the law by way of subverting the action of bussing or, as they would have put it, proving the law itself was un-Constitutional. What the Court "ordered" was the continuation of integration by way of bussing after the decision in favor of the the existing law. There was no "court ordered bussing", only a continuation of the enforcement of existing laws. If you accept the non-sequitor that "court ordered bussing" took place, then you allow yourself to be manipulated by those opposed to such Constitutional actions as school integration. You play into the fears and prejudices of those who would accuse the black race of being the real racist for complaining about their lot in life as second class citizens of the United States. If you accept words and thoughts which have no logical - but only a purely emotional - intent, then you abrogate your responsibility to be an informed citizen. This is how the modern porpoganda game is played, leo. The Republicans have employed Frank Luntz to create poll tested "concepts" (http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599) which will hopefully provide the edge in propoganda techniques. Not surprisingly, Luntz claims he got the idea for "words that work" after hearing Clinton speak and to his way of thinking employ words which he thought were "effective" in swaying public opinion. Over the last decade or so, Luntz's poll tested contribution to the dialogue we "hear" has made a large difference in how propoganda is spread to a busy populace who hear and see only a small percentage of what is put in front of them. If your world view is taken from the inside of an echo machine, then you hear only those words which reinforce your already set in stone beliefs. If the words are "effective", it's not the thought that enters the listener's mindset, it is the Pavlovian implications which are based upon decisions or sometimes lack of decisions already made by the listener. Fact and common sense have no room in such fear based, hate infused and prejudiced partisan monologues. The more the citizen listens to the same manipulative words and ideas, the less informed they become and the more partisan their beliefs become as there is nothing there to question the legitimacy of those emotions. You become a lemming unable to finally think beyond your planned destruction and you react to those things which are against your best interests. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15127 Registered: May-04 | |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15128 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08sun3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt Richard Nixon, the gift that keeeps on proving "be careful what you wish for". Do click on the audio link. And while we're on the dual topics of Nixon and school bussing, why not Google Nixon's "Southern Strategy" just for a good history lesson in bigotry. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15129 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.thedailyshow.com/ |
|
Bronze Member Username: DwpLeicesterEngland Post Number: 21 Registered: Apr-10 | If you total up all the increases they add up to nearly 25% increase in jobs since the war. How stupid do they think we really are? I'd say the figures don't make sense no matter what president's in power. [url=http://thehifisite.com]The HIFI site[/url] |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1468 Registered: Oct-07 | Just looked at the youtube of Meet the Press...... 'Pay for tax cuts' is Washington doublespeak for raising the same amount of money.....just from somebody else.....It's a shell game supported by both parties. It would never occur to Washington to simply CUT SPENDING. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15130 Registered: May-04 | . I knew I could depend on you, leo. You been talking to Dave P, haven't you? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15131 Registered: May-04 | . "It's a shell game supported by both parties." Actually, if you go back to the information I linked to at the top of the page, you'll see it's not really a game supported by "both" Parties, leo. At least not for the last three decades. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney, 2002 "Tax cuts pay for themself" is one Party's mantra. Yet Reagan had to eventually raise taxes, Bush Sr. had to raise taxes, Clinton raised taxes on the top few % (though still not close to their historic highs) and the economy had a projected surplus in 2000. Greenspan warned about paying down debt too fast. Now, go look at the last few decades of debt to GDP and reconsider your statement. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1469 Registered: Oct-07 | What could possible be controversial about saying that Congress wants to 'pay for tax cuts' by shifting the burden? Isn't that what the code phrase 'pay for tax cuts' means? You NEVER see meaningful spending cuts. This Forbes article may be on to something, but did he get to the bottom of it? http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bru ce-bartlett.html We don't agree that the Tax Code is periodically up for sale? Or that the tax code is used to influence public policy? Or that the Tax Code is used as punishment / reward? Using the GDP / DEBT chart, I see that the Debt % has been under 20% for only a few years after the passing of the 16th amendment. Clue? Hint? Gee, once the Federal Government got the OK to tax pretty much everything is when we began the roller coaster ride. Or is that just an unfortunate coincidence? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1470 Registered: Oct-07 | or how about....from the Cato Institute. Within the first couple pages is a box with 6 bullet points, the Congress will NEVER have the will-power to do..... http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-4.pdf |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1471 Registered: Oct-07 | figured out what was wrong with 'link' verb. When I would rightclick to paste, the curser BACKED UP 1 space...... |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1472 Registered: Oct-07 | On page 56 of the Cato Institute report is an indicator as to why spending doesn't decrease. The report concludes with there OPINION of which spending can and should be cut. quoted from report: The BEA imposed annual dollar caps on discretionary spending and ''pay-as-you-go'' rules on entitlement programs, which required that the costs of program expansion be offset elsewhere in the budget. The very definition of ShellGame.....or maybe Ponzi? You remember the Ponz? Big TV star. The BEA? That's the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This act replaced the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15132 Registered: May-04 | . The CATO Institute? Lordy, leo, why not just quote Limbaugh directly? You don't think the CATO Institute has an agenda? If they are your information base, I even more clearly see why you have no use for facts. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1475 Registered: Oct-07 | Dissing the source, rather than what is presented............. Now, opinion questons: no right or wrong answer. How big a government is TOO big? At what % of government consumption of GDP do you draw the line? The report from Cato has lots of facts. One of the first things I said to which you didn't respond.....That facts in and of themselves have no meaning. Meaning is assigned thru context and analysis. Putting the pieces together is what it's all about, not a bland recitation of fact. I do not agree with all the report's conclusions, or all the premises. |
|
Silver Member Username: Blade1Post Number: 127 Registered: Jul-09 | . haha look i'm Jan! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15133 Registered: May-04 | . HaHa! you can only hope to be 1/4 as much. |
|
Silver Member Username: Blade1Post Number: 128 Registered: Jul-09 | . Well considering the other 3/4 is whining and being a stuck up woman who thinks she knows it all - 1/4 isn't too much! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15134 Registered: May-04 | . Yet another misogynist chimes in from the right with a brilliance even his mother would deny. I take back my vision for you, you are hopeless and cannot rise above the lowest worm having a bad day. The thread is about facts. I'm going to ask that you either constrain your posts to real facts or not post at all. There's no need for insults just because we disagree about politics, particularly if you have no facts to back up what you say. If I had wanted uninformed opinions, I would have titled the thread to indicate such. There are plenty of political forums where you can spit on whomever you prefer. Just don't do it here please. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15135 Registered: May-04 | . "That facts in and of themselves have no meaning." Hardly the case, leo. Facts are what we base our lives upon. Fact: Lincoln was assasinated. No room for interpretation of "context and analysis". Statistics require context and anaysis, facts do not. Facts require no more than a knowledge of who is providing the facts and how they may have bent them to their own meaning. The CATO Institute is a notoriously partisan think tank whose primary job is to publish and promote partisan BS and which has little non-partisan truth in its "facts. Tucker Carlson is a Senior Fellow at CATO for godssake! Hannity relies on CATO the way Limbaugh relies on the Heritage Foundation. If I have learned not to trust Carlson, Hannity or Limbaugh, it's partially because I do not trust CATO or Heritage to be "fair and balanced". The CATO Institute according to outside media watch groups: " A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations. The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries. Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html and ... CATO supports privatization of Social Security, "The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of 'national allies' ... In March 2007, Cato, along with the Institute for Justice, called for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures ... Cato claims that the market regulation of water use that will develop if water rights are treated as property rights will lead to much greater efficiency and fewer problems with water scarcity. Critics point out that this market based approach to water policy concentrates the rights to use water in the hands of a few powerful people, who become even more powerful by controlling the public's use of something as essential as water. Privatization of water could also lead to corruption and loss of local authority ... Patrick Michaels, a former Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken global warming skeptic ... Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are[66], but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming ... In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. 'Early on', they wrote, 'Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation' ... In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters ... Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato ... " http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute If you want to be involved with the CATO Institute, leo, that's your business. But the thread is about facts and not partisan BS. I haven't introduced opinion from MoveOn.org or any left leaning blogs. If the reader is not aware of the partisanship involved in such organizations as CATO, they can be seriously misleading with their deliberate manipulation of their "facts" and half truths running all the way to balatant distortions of reality. To repeat from above, "Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion". I'm willing to take facts presented by confirmed non-partisan groups and newspapers of record. Beyond that, leo, introducing anything from a group such as CATO is just another baseless rant on your part. I won't even respond to anything that comes from such group as they are unworthy of being included in a thread based around the use of facts to combat the very unwashed tripe CATO and others push on an unwitting public eager for red meat. Stick to actual facts which you can back up with research beyond blogs and think tanks. Please, we've been through this before. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15136 Registered: May-04 | . "It would never occur to Washington to simply CUT SPENDING." From your Forbes article: "Therefore, it is simply stupid and a waste of time to say that massive budget cuts are the answer to our problem without taking account of inevitable congressional resistance." OK, leo? Can we put an end to these rants of yours? If you have facts to present, do so. Otherwise, stop with the pundits who are paid only to present opinion - and hyper-partisan opinion at that. I'm not going to debate spending with you. For the however many-ieth time, that is not why I began this thread. And really, leo, if all you're about is the 16th Amendment, you've made your point. There's just no reason to keep beating a horse that isn't going to change direction. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15137 Registered: May-04 | . More from Forbes ... "Last year, we spent $456 billion on Medicare, and it is the fastest growing major government program. How likely is it that the people protesting Obama's Medicare cuts will stand with Republicans if they propose cutting that program even more to balance the budget? They will switch sides in an instant. The elderly will fight anyone who tries to cut their benefits even as they hypocritically demand fiscal responsibility and rant about the national debt. The elderly are the reason why we have a national debt. Unfortunately, the ranks of the elderly are rising. In 1980, those over age 65 constituted 11.3% of the population. Today they represent 13%, a figure that will rise to 16% in 2020 with the aging of the baby boomers and increasing longevity, 19.3% in 2030 and 20% in 2040, according to Census Bureau projections. Furthermore, the elderly are a rising portion of the electorate. Back when Medicare was established, those over 65 constituted 15.8% of voters. Last year, they made up 19.5%. This is due to the rising percentage of elderly in the population and their increasing propensity to vote. In 2008, 72% of those between the ages of 65 and 74 reported voting while only 48.5% of those between the ages of 18 and 24 did. When I raised these facts with a prominent Republican recently, he countered that Reagan had cut spending. But he didn't. Spending rose from 21.7% of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983 before declining to 21.2% in 1988. And that improvement came about largely because favorable demographics caused entitlement spending to temporarily decline from 11.9% of GDP in 1983 to 10.1% in 1988. (Last year it was 12.5% of GDP.) When I noted these facts, my friend pointed to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as someone who showed that spending could be slashed. But she raised spending from 42.4% of GDP when she took office in 1979 to 46% of GDP in 1985. Only in her last years in office was spending cut to 38% of GDP. But keep in mind that Thatcher was in office for 10 years, longer than a U.S. president may serve, and had compete control of Parliament the whole time--something Reagan could only dream about. In short, there is no evidence that it is politically possible to cut spending enough to make more than a trivial difference in our nation's fiscal problems. The votes aren't there and never will be. Those who continue to insist otherwise are living in a dream world and deserve no attention from serious people." http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bru ce-bartlett.html Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action andImpostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is available for pre-order:The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1476 Registered: Oct-07 | Blade:: Buzz off...(get it?) You are not helping. I totally disagree. Facts do not speak for themselves. Interpretation and relationships are what count. Facts mean different things to different people. The same 'fact' can be used to bolster arguments which lead to different or even opposed conclusions. My saying to cut spending.....is sheer wishful thinking. Once the flood gates of spending were opened, that was the end. This is part of my earlier contention that 'the experiment is about over'..... The facts you raise about senior voting behavior have implications. The 'grey panthers', a pretty well off group, statistically (if I remember correctly) can be counted to vote for more stuff or for those who promise them more stuff. The Bush prescription drug plan? Sheer vote gathering, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know the current status, but can you still get less expensive drugs from Canada? Look at every other bloc of voters standing around with there hands out. QUOTE:: Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. Thomas Jefferson. QUOTE: The legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions. Thomas Jefferson. (This is in the roots of the idea of 'force of law') Just try disobeying a peace officer and you'll see what I mean. QUOTE: I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition. Thomas Jefferson. I toss in this last just to stir the pot. I have not gotten even a mediocre answer to my questions about the limit of federal power. None other then Thomas Jefferson realized the problem with the accretion (right word?) of power to the Federal Government. Of course, by now, people are so accustomed to be led by the nose (pick your favorite nostril!) that going back to a system emphasizing individual responsibility over group-think would be nearly impossible. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15138 Registered: May-04 | . Facts do speak for themself, leo. The people abusing facts seldom use real facts when attempting to sway public opinion. The propgandist knows not using facts correctly works so much better. Facts are facts, liars seldom tell facts. Fact; Lincoln was assasinated. Half fact; Lincoln died in a bed that was too short. Barely true fact; Lincoln served as Commander in Chief of the Union Forces and did not serve a second term. False "fact"; Lincoln died when slaves were free. Pants on Fire; After Lincoln was assasinated Negroes lived as free men. You can see how each level of manipulation of facts leads the reader further down the rabbit hole. Facts are facts which should require no context or analysis if the reader is a thinking and well informed person. The persons providing the "facts" are what will require context and analysis as people lie to benefit themself or their cause; ie, the CATO Institute. You like quotes so take these two and consider how they would work if facts were not facts. "You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts." "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." I'll repeat for I don't know what number of times it is now, that is why I began this thread. You've done your best to rant and you've done your best to inject opinions not even relevant to the facts being presented, leo. And this IMO is why facts are important to have in your possession. It is far too simple to distract from the truth and to sway opinion by not presenting facts honestly and with as little context and analysis attached. Here's the fact, if you care to be informed, look up why it is a fact and not an opinion. I'm not here to argue policy or ideology. I'm here to give facts the reader can then take and use as they see fit. I can't control how anyone uses these facts, they can be just as dishonest about their motives as the person telling the Pants on Fire lie. However, when confronted with a Pants on fire lie, the intelligent person will seek out facts to prove or disprove what they are being asked to accept without question. They will not go down that rabbit hole without first thinking of the consequences. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15139 Registered: May-04 | . "My saying to cut spending.....is sheer wishful thinking." "I toss in this last just to stir the pot. I have not gotten even a mediocre answer to my questions about the limit of federal power." You admit to wishful thinking when you use (or hear) the buzz words "cut spending". You have no factual basis for crying about government spending, you simply respond emotionally and irrationally - as you admit. Yet you continue to rant on about the size of government. Do you not see the two are interlinked? If one proposal is irrational, then the other is just as irrational when there is no solution you are offering other than "cut spending" and "smaller government". As Bartlett states when discussing the impossibilites of cutting spending, "Those who continue to insist otherwise are living in a dream world and deserve no attention from serious people." Ever since Reagan - who was literally a product of government and in reality a proponent of enlarging the powers of government and increasing spending (as Bartlett points out) - virtually every politican has claimed they are for smaller government and government that does not spend. Most politicians - even those inside government - run as outsiders and yet incumbents have something on the order of a 9:1 advantage over their challengers. (Check the facts of gerrymandering if you want to gather some truly useful facts.) For Republicans of the last three decades the mantra has become tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts as if that were so easily accomplished and without repercussions - which as Bratlett proves in the article you provided it is not. Every Republican President and for the most part every Republican led Congress has increased taxes and spending and the deficit to go along with those actions. You can check the facts at the top of this page. Every one of those politicians promising small government and decreased spending is telling you a lie - as Bartlett points out. Every one seeks to have their hands on the reins of government along with government spending and power. Even uber-Libertarian Rand Paul, who wants to abolish parts of the Civil Rights Act among other public safe guards, has done this danse maccabre. In reality he dances to one tune and one tune only. The thinking is irrational as any rational person looking at facts must realize - as Bartlett points out. As there must be government, government in a growing nation must grow. Paul offers no solutions other than abolish this and that. He tosses red meat to those willing to eat empty words. He has no alternatives when he dispenses empty words. Quoting Jefferson out of context does not alter that fact, it simply supplies more empty words meant only to stir emotions and stifle rational thinking. That's why I will not go down a rabbit hole with you debating empty words and irrationalities. Facts are about reality and that's where we have to live. Talking points which stir emotions are useless as they offer no alternatives and are not based in reality. Their intent is to mislead the listener. You've not offered an alternative to your sound bite of "big government" and, if you read a sufficient amount of facts, you'll see it too is just as much pure wishful thinking as is "cutting spending". And, as Bartlett points out, the discussion of wishful thinking deserves no attention by serious people. So, I'm not about to engage in some hypothetical BS about words that are meant only to induce Pavlovian responses in irrrational listeners because facts quickly become irrelevant in such discussions. Now, leo, I've said that I don't know how many times in I don't know how many ways. If you are going to be so dense as to not accept that answer, then I suggest you begin another thread just for your own use. This one is about facts. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1477 Registered: Oct-07 | Oh, no, Jan, WADR, you misunderstand my misgivings. Spending will not be cut NOT because it isn't right thing to do, but because there is no political will. The solution would be a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Is the common wisdom correct that WWII, for example, saved us from the great depression? After all, it was a double-dipper of monumental proportions. But, Roosevelt declined the advice of Keynes and didn't run up huge federal deficits. It's in the record and numbers. See that chart you recommended in your very first post. The huge burst of spending helped the recovery. That, and the huge manpower pool available for duty in the armed services. Am I to take it you see NO limit to Federal Power? And what's wrong exactly with quoting Jefferson? My alternative to big government? How about people being responsible for themselves? How about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1478 Registered: Oct-07 | http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/GarrettRhine.pdf Than help me out here. Please read the linked study. It is from the St. Louis Fed. I think the word of Jefferson and others ARE germane to this 'chat'. Jefferson and others warned about just the very stuff that is going on today. Would anyone currently in the limelight do any better? I doubt it. Everyone is grabbing for the reins of power hoping for a piece of the pie. No people of PRINCIPLE exist in the public sector. The Principle to which I refer is that of the original intent, which while clear to readers of the Constitution and other 'founding' documents, apparently escapes you. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15140 Registered: May-04 | . "Am I to take it you see NO limit to Federal Power?" "The Principle to which I refer is that of the original intent, which while clear to readers of the Constitution and other 'founding' documents, apparently escapes you." F*** off, leo. This line of attack isn't geting you anywhere and is pushing me to the point where I will no longer respond to anything you rant. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15141 Registered: May-04 | . I'll read the Fed piece. Obviously, it will take some time to go through and consider. I'll tell you now it seems an odd combination of points to link me first to the CATO Institute and then to the Fed. For someone who pines on and on about the establishment/dangers/abolishment of the 16th Amendment I would think the Fed would be on your hit list of things to immediately do away with once the insurrection begins. Give me some time, this is a busy day or two ahead. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1479 Registered: Oct-07 | foad, yourself, Jan. That being said, please take as long as you wish. The Fed article is a lot to digest. I'm still working on it and have loaned a copy to my down the street neighbor who is a fresh graduate from college with a degree in business with a minor in economics. He'll give me a straight read. His father, with similar degrees will also have a look as time and dialysis allow. That the Founders intended a limited Federal system is without question a 'fact'. If you knew me better, you'd know that my choice of reading matter may be eclectic, but certainly not out of bounds. NOTE: I have not advocated the abolishment of the Fed. Though Jefferson was 'anti'. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1480 Registered: Oct-07 | The St.Louis Fed has a dozen articles I'd like to read. I wish I'd taken speed reading when I had the chance:: http://www.evelynwood.com.au/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15142 Registered: May-04 | . OK, I've read the article. Its authors' conclusions are that any or none of the theories it postulates can or will completely explain any or all of government growth. "Barely true fact; Lincoln served as Commander in Chief of the Union Forces and did not serve a second term." . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15144 Registered: May-04 | . Here's the "as possible" part ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/12/rachel-maddow/mad dow-claims-spending-more-stimulative-tax-cuts/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15145 Registered: May-04 | . "Jurisdiction" The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action. Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers that are independent of the federal and state governments. Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases." http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=legal%20definition%3a%20 jurisdiction&type= Any legal scholars out there? If an "illegal" is not under the jurisdiction of the US government or the individual state by way of being within the boundaries of the US or a state, what right does the US government or the state have to arrest and try the "illegal"? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1490 Registered: Oct-07 | I don't know how far the argument that 'YOU....(state of federal) have no jurisdiction over me because I am not here legally' would get you? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurisdiction The dictionary definition includes the concept of 'authority of a given geographic space or area'....... Is this what you had in mind? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1491 Registered: Oct-07 | The illegal argument makes as much sense as the real pundits did when they said the health care bill should not have been passed or is not legal because of the 'no representation' tack. After all, we know for a fact that every legislator poured over all 2000+ pages in great detail and took copious notes. Then, looking out for the good of the nation and no special interest, campaign contributor or special clause, voted the merits of the bill. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1492 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, one further question.....You didn't like the size of government article from the fed. Correct? I'm really curious why. they express NO conclusion as to pro or anti. They went over a reasonable recitation of the facts and history and presented several variations of the 2 predominant classes of theory...that of people over government or government over people. In any political science class I've taken, this would be considered a decent, middle of the road article and would be fair game to discuss. Nobody going back to the (extensive) list of primary sources for a quote would be looked down upon in the least. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15147 Registered: May-04 | . "The dictionary definition includes the concept of 'authority of a given geographic space or area'......." I am not understanding how the Republicans can be hanging their desire to "re-interpret" the 14th Amendment on looking at the wording of "jurisdiction" within the Equal Protection clause. What the Republicans are doing right now is ginning up their base with social BS - the same thing they do very election cycle. But this "jurisdiction" clause of the Amendment doesn't seem to be a good place to look. Either you have jurisdiction and you can arrest, try and detain someone in your geographic area or you do not. If "jurisdiction" makes the newborn child a non-citizen, then it would appear to me the authorities would also have to stipulate they have no jurisdiction to go arrest anyone here without documentation. The Republicans seem to want to have it both ways when they must actually decide on one or the other. I can't quite figure out how I can be smarter about this than someone like Lindsey Graham. There must be something I'm missing or else there must be a whole lot of not too bright folks out there buying this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Text_of_Section_1_of_the_Fo urteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15148 Registered: May-04 | . I didn't say I didn't "like" the article. I said the authors' conclusions were that all or none of the possible theories they discussed could account for growth in the US government. They didn't even make a decision between the two schools of thought to provide more weight to one than the other. It was an exercise and not much more IMO. They referenced numerous other articles and books, which probably to someone familiar with all of that material might have made their article more important but meant little to me. IMO the most significant point made was on pg. 21; "Sobel (2001) provides empirical evidence on the positive relationship between poltiical action committees (PAC'S) and Federal Government spending". The authors are using micro-economic trends to explain macro-economic cycles yet they totally ignore the various macro-economic influences on the US government/economy over the time period they examine. There's no real discussion of the multiple wars fought other than to say defense spending accounts for a significant amount of GDP and spending. They ignore the construction of the interstate highway system and the expansion of electrical and communciations grids across the nation. Nothing about expanding public education and health systems. They say nothing really of the space program and its influence on spending and GDP. If they mentioned the significance of heavy manufacturing both expanding and contracting within their studied time period, I don't remember it. They did not mention technology as a driving force in the economy nor did they mention the shift away from pensions to the bank based systems of retirement compensation. Nothing about the rise and fall of the stock market and its influence on social safety nets. I saw nothing that indicated they were aware of the great expansion of education across the board in the last half of the 20th c/. I don't remember a word about immigration (both legal and otherwise) and the growing population of the Nation. Etc, etc, etc. In other words, they accounted for philosophical "arguments" without once taking the results of those real world based issues into account. To then hang all of the "growth" on the 16th Amendment is exceptionally specious IMO. They were looking for an explanation of what they had already decided before they ever began writing. They could have just as easily - since they ignored the implications of most of the major events of the 20th c/ - claimed all of this expansion of spending came about by the acceptance of petroleum based fuels or man discovering flight. Since this is obviously a portion of a larger work, possibly the entire article makes more sense and ties together the loose ends I see in this portion of the article. I agree that the list of primary sources could prove useful. Lacking those sources and the entire article, I can't see much to quote from here. As I said, the authors seemed to have an ending long before they had a beginning. You brought it into the thread. What do you think is important about it? Just the fact the authors tied all of this growth to the 16th? You don't think their conclusions - as shown in this portion of the article - were no more than a strawman argument against taxation? "Barely true fact; Lincoln served as Commander in Chief of the Union Forces and did not serve a second term." . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1494 Registered: Oct-07 | I just lost everything I wrote! Trying to look up spelling of correlation! GRRR%$^&* Just one thing, than. I am not up to speed on all those arguments about the 14th amendment and citizenship. Has it ever been otherwise that someone born here is a citizen? My personal take.....I don't think I've ever heard or seen it in print, is that someone should NOT profit from an illegal act. The person who profits most is the woman who crossed illegally for the purpose of giving birth. She can:: Give up child for Adoption. If she wanted a better life for her child, she's got it. She can:: Be deported and take the child with her. At the child's majority, he/she can make there own decision as to where to reside. There may be other possibilities here.....It may also be possible that the child shouldn't even profit from an illegal act. Other articles in the St Louis Fed database....and there are bunches, may address some of your concerns. What is.....not in question, in my mind, are the 2 overriding models of government growth, without regard to the financing end. Either people DEMAND more services OR the Government FOISTS them on people. I suspect some combination is true, while interest groups attempt to get someone else to pay for stuff.....Perhaps...... 'Don't tax him.....don't tax me, Tax the man behind the tree'.....? 'Indisputable fact:: Lincoln is Room Temperature.' Do you know what Beethoven was doing 20 years after he died?? Decomposing. True fact. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15150 Registered: May-04 | . "Has it ever been otherwise that someone born here is a citizen?" The origins of the 14th Amendment lay with the freeing of slaves. Before Emancipation slaves were not citizens, they were property just as a mule or a shed was property. The 14th provided for US citizenship to the descendants of slaves who were themself born on US soil or property or from an American citizen as parent. This is the issue the "Birthers" refuse to settle. While the question of McCain's birth outside the US should have been even more troubling if you are going to stretch your imagination to the breaking point on the subject. "Give up child for Adoption." I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised. You immediately assume the woman giving birth is "illegal". But you deny you have issues with women. OK, leo, what if the woman is an American citizen and the father is not? Does that mean the woman must automatically give the child up for adoption?! Get real, leo. There is nothing in any US document which makes a child a criminal when they themself have committed no crime by their own freewill. There is nothing in any US document which provides for "freewill" to be assigned to a child in utero. Just as I find your suggestion a woman must choose to give her newborn up for adoption, so too do I find the use of "FOISTS" to be utterly in keeping with your myopic view of how things work. Once again you've ingored the questions I posed to you in the closing of my post. Yet you refuse to let go of the big government issue. Indisputable fact: After 150 years, Lincoln is not at room temperature, Lincoln is no more. I hope you have more "facts" to bring to the thread, leo. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15151 Registered: May-04 | . "Fox News contributor and host of Fox Business' new libertarian show Judge Andrew Napolitano said over the weekend that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should have been indicted over their administration's conduct around Guantanamo Bay. In an interview with Ralph Nader on C-SPAN, Napolitano blasted the former administration for suspending habeas corpus. "What President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the constitution was blatantly unconstitutional -- and in some cases criminal," Napolitano said. "They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted. For torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime." Napolitano added that "the evidence...is overwhelming...that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands, of human beings." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/andrew-napolitano-fox-con_n_645671.html I chose The Huffington Post not for their point of view but for their lack of such. You can find this posted elsewhere but most of the other sites I found were far more opinionated and unbalanced in their coverage. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15152 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/13/nancy-pelosi/nanc y-pelosi-says-state-local-aid-bill-fully-paid-/ |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1495 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, from a LEGAL perspective, what exactly is wrong with giving a woman who crosses illegally with the intent of giving birth in this country the boot? It happens often enough to be a real issue. She should always have the opportunity of giving such a child up for adoption or keeping custody.....just like any other woman. What are the current stats? about 1/3 of all births in the US are to single moms? That should gladden your heart. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1496 Registered: Oct-07 | LA Times article on ER care in the city. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1497 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, what is the point of the link to the Pelosi article? 'Closing corporate tax loopholes'. ?? More zero sum....robbing Peter to pay Paul, Washington mentality. Squeeky wheel getting the grease I guess somebody forgot to get there PAC money in on time or failed to make sure the 'candidate' got his 'contribution' check. Here is link to IRS page with enough data to last a lifetime. I recommend looking at tax rate and tax revenue generated tables to show who pays how much and from what income. There are separate pages for individuals and corporations. Your call as to who does or doesn't 'pay enough'. I'm continuing to look for this data broken down into 5ths. It is a little easier to visualize at the expense of ultimate resolution. ,id=133521,00.html, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15155 Registered: May-04 | . "Jan, from a LEGAL perspective, what exactly is wrong with giving a woman who crosses illegally with the intent of giving birth in this country the boot?" Well, let's start with no laws with which you could prosecute "intent". "Intent to commit birth"? How far do you think that's going to get you? "She should always have the opportunity of giving such a child up for adoption or keeping custody.....just like any other woman." As of the last 150 years and under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment a child born on US territory or to a US citizen is a US citizen themself. What law are you going to apply to make the newborn child a criminal and subject to either deportation (and to where?, they are a US citizen and no other country would necessarily claim them as such) or being taken from the parent? You really intend to make a newborn infant a criminal?! Why are you selecting the woman to suffer and say nothing about the father? What if the father is a US citizen but the mother is a citizen of another nation? The child has to be separated from one of its parents? Or you deport the father too just for screwing around with an "illegal"? Show me some law which you could stand on. Your conjectures never cease to amaze me, leo. My original point was the state or the US government either has sufficient "jurisdiction" to arrest an undocumented individual or they do not. If they do not, then they can't legally touch them unless they break some international law. If they do have jurisdiction by way of geography, then the child is a legal US citizen. The Republicans cannot have it both ways. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15156 Registered: May-04 | . "'Closing corporate tax loopholes'. ??" Good idea, leo, just allow the loopholes to go forward and soon there won't be any jobs here in the US other than servicing the top two percent. Apparently you didn't bother to read the entire article. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15157 Registered: May-04 | . Your IRS link doesn't seem to want to work on my computer. I can access the main page but no further. From what I see I don't understand what I'm supposed to get from "enough data to last a lifetime." . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1498 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, You are either intentionally misconstruing what I say or not reading completely. The CHILD born in this country or to American citizens, elsewhere is currently considered a citizen. However, the woman who crosses over the border illegally with the intent of giving birth is committing a crime, not the child. That is where the term 'anchor baby' came from. We'll.....(me, actually) will cross the 14th amendment bridge when I come to it. Glad to see the interpretation of the Constitution remains a conveniently 'moving' target. So, by extension, IF I rob a bank and can hide the money, but still be sent to jail for a decade or whatever, when I get out, I can dig up the money and be OK? I have committed a crime and thereby profit from it, after serving my 'time'. ?? Welfare cheats and other people are routinely penalized for taking advantage of something and are required to pay back money. Why should someone who comes here with the intent of birthing a child be any less guilty of fraud and immigration law violations? How is it now?....and I'll look up the numbers....the bottom 1/5th pay NO taxes, the 2nd 5th may or may not pay taxes and the TOP 5th pay the overwhelming majority. The top 1% hold about 24% of all assets.......in the Trillions of $. The government...and I'm not sure off hand if it is JUST federal or all government, continues to spend upward of 12,000$ PER PERSON on all items. The link was wacky, here, too. The page with all the LINKS have enough data to really choke anything but a supercomputer. The data is 'sliced' a bunch of different ways, so just plodding in is a recipe for boredom and confusion. I'll figure that out...but have to do the dishes now......one of my house jobs! I don't do windows. I'll try to link to a small chunk of the data showing who pays how much....and don't forget, there are 2 sets of data. One set for individuals and the other set for business and corporations. You didn't like my Beethoven joke? I've got a Mozart joke, too. Wanna hear it? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15158 Registered: May-04 | . I love the way you grab hold of those buzzwords and talkin' points and just won't let go. Your "by extension" logic is not. The mother is not going to "dig up" her child after being deported. Families are being broken apart on a daily basis due to immigration laws. Not just for Hispanics but for all immigrants. I asked you a few question in my last post. Why can't you just answer one or two questions, leo. They are pertinent to the point whereas your "big government" is not. Show me the living person - using facts not Republican/Libertarian talking points - who pays no taxes what so ever. Excluding those imprisoned and those confined to health facilities and so forth, everyone taking part in the economy pays taxes. Include "direct and indirect taxes" and "income vs payroll taxes" in your research and presentation. "No taxes" is pure Pavlovian Republican BS. This should be a good exercise for you, leo - if you stick to facts. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1500 Registered: Oct-07 | Here is link to who pays how much......and number of persons in each group...by # of returns. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html you OK with the Tax Foundation or are they too wacky for 'ya? I saw numbers by '5ths' which i intend to find again. Of course, everyone pays sales tax. Some call it 'regressive'. But here in California, the REAL regressive tax is the LOTTO, which is played in the greatest numbers by those who can least afford to. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15159 Registered: May-04 | . OK, so you ignore not only my questions but my suggestions now too. Payroll vs Income tax ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indirect+tax?qsrc=2446 . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1501 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, My wife informs me that Mexico is a dual citizenship country. The child born of a Mexican woman in this country illegally is not only a US citizen, but a citizen of Mexico as well. Working to confirm. I've had lots of fun with La Migra, helping several people with immigration paperwork and it can get pretty nutty. My first go-round was very educational. Up at the central place in LA, I started at the instructional help telephones. Went and stood in line.....not bad, so far, and got the paperwork I asked for. I went thru it all and concluded I got the wrong stuff. Went BACK to the phones and listened to some more helps. Better educated, I went back to the paperwork window and this time got the RIGHT stuff. Meanwhile, I listened to the lawyers and paralegals and started to learn the lingo. Also educational. I probably saved myself and others a couple grand in lawyer fees....just to fill out paperwork any reasonable person can wade thru on there own. The Trick.....GET THE RIGHT PAPERWORK. There are hundreds of forms, most of which don't apply to whatever YOU want to do. The trouble with all your 'facts' is that you can slice them any number of ways. Example: Tax Foundation data:: 1991/2004 for the top 5th of tax payers...by return. Federal Tax Share = 52.8% TOTAL tax share:fed, state and local =48.8% Total tax RATE: fed, state and local=34.5% I'm trying to find out what the total INCOME this is based on.... For the BOTTOM 5th, same numbers. 9.8%=Fed Tax Share TOTAL tax share: fed state + local=4.3% while the Total Tax RATE=13.0% including fed state + local. What do these facts tell you? Do you pay too much? Do you pay too little? Does 'progressivism' work? How much do people UNDER the poverty line pay? HOW is the poverty line computed? Against the Consumer Price Index? CPI is generally agreed to be lagging so that there is the effect of 'rate creep'. Should the poverty line be computed against inflation? Should Tax Rates be Indexed against inflation or perhaps the CPI? There are books and articles on the progressive system of taxation. And (nearly) as many conclusions as authors. Maybe, just maybe, government spends too much of the surplus wealth of this country? Just like there are no guilty people in prison, Everyone pays too much in taxes. Just ask'em. If you don't think you pay enough, you are certainly free to send more. The odd politician in the category of 'dollar a year man' turns all his wages back to the treasury. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15160 Registered: May-04 | . "My wife informs me that Mexico is a dual citizenship country. The child born of a Mexican woman in this country illegally is not only a US citizen, but a citizen of Mexico as well." Don't bother. With your myopic, xenophobic viewpoint on this entire immigration issue you've proven you have no facts on your side and moreover that you need no facts to kick a woman around for "intent to commit birth". "Mexican" is the key word here, the Pavlovian, get your saliva drooling and your guns locked and loaded word. Dislike "Mexicans", is that it? It's that simple, eh? This is simply more of your BS which began when you claimed the ability to spot illegals from across the parking lot or down the street, leo. You are a big0t of the first order, leo. Anyone with a skin color not like your own is both a "Mexican" and an illegal. Just drop the whole thing. I presented a question that was meant to be thoughtful and what I got was a response that ends at the word "illegal". I really do no want to hear anymore about this from your angle because it only confirms my less than stellar opinion of too many who engage in this debate without any facts at all on their side. Then you seemingly stand up for the top 5% while kicking the bottom - or as you call them, "the poor". It's not that the poverty line needs to be reassessed, it's that the poverty barrel has become so full. "Maybe, just maybe, government spends too much of the surplus wealth of this country?" Yes, leo, we are suffering through the greatest period of surplus since ... what? The government is taking too much of your money and giving it to "the poor" and the "illegals". People who do not look like you or speak like you or think like you. You can spot them from across the parking lot. Stop your d@mn lunatic rants, leo. Present facts and keep your undesireable opinions to yourself. My patience with your BS is wearing thin. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15161 Registered: May-04 | . "Show me the living person - using facts not Republican/Libertarian talking points - who pays no taxes what so ever. Excluding those imprisoned and those confined to health facilities and so forth, everyone taking part in the economy pays taxes. Include "direct and indirect taxes" and "income vs payroll taxes" in your research and presentation. "No taxes" is pure Pavlovian Republican BS. This should be a good exercise for you, leo - if you stick to facts." "The trouble with all your 'facts' is that you can slice them any number of ways. Example: Tax Foundation data:: 1991/2004 for the top 5th of tax payers...by return. Federal Tax Share = 52.8% TOTAL tax share:fed, state and local =48.8% Total tax RATE: fed, state and local=34.5% I'm trying to find out what the total INCOME this is based on.... For the BOTTOM 5th, same numbers. 9.8%=Fed Tax Share TOTAL tax share: fed state + local=4.3% while the Total Tax RATE=13.0% including fed state + local." Leo, my "facts" cannot be sliced in any way. They are facts and they remain facts until you or someone other than you comes along with competing facts. Then we can debate which set of facts are actually true because there is seldom any splitting of hairs when it comes to facts. I don't see that happening any time soon since you are more interested in rants than facts. You have a problem distingusihing between "facts" and "statistics". You have IMO a larger problem not seeing what is put in fromt of you unless it confirms your predetermined uninformed opinions. This is from the page I linked you to just above; ""How big are taxes in America?" ... One way of showing how important different taxes are to different Americans is to group everyone into five equal groups known as "income quintiles" and show how much in taxes each pays. Each one of those groups contains 20 percent of the U.S. population ... Using those five income groups, Figure 2 asks the following question: "Out of every dollar of tax paid by households, how many pennies go to each type of tax--federal, state and local?" ... For households in the bottom fifth of income, the single most burdensome tax is the type that falls on purchases: state and local sales and gross receipts taxes. Those make up 32 cents of their tax bill. Property taxes follow close behind (22 cents), followed by federal payroll taxes (21 cents). These three non-income taxes combined make up 75 cents of every tax dollar paid by the bottom income group, while federal income taxes account for just 4 pennies." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22287.html Check it yourself, I've already provided you the information you wanted, if only you had looked. Look at the figures and read the text. You'll see no one pays only "sales tax" if they are a part of this economy. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15162 Registered: May-04 | . Moving along ... Should someone tell you that US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the industrialized portion of the global economy, show them this; http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1503 Registered: Oct-07 | Haven't heard that one in a while. I'd believe corporate 'exodus' rates. They'd be voting with there pocketbooks, shopping the lowest net 'cost of doing business'.....of which corporate tax rate and structure is only a part. Everything is part of this expense. Jobless benefits, SS funds, insurance....the list is endless. Hi defection rate would indicate they think they can get a better deal elsewhere the total deal being important...not JUST tax rate, but everything entailed in 'cost of doing business'. If you believe the rust belt arguments, the US has been a net exporter of jobs, but not necessarily corporations for a couple decades. Does the US even, for example, make TVs any more? What %age of the US auto market is imported? What %age of parts and component assemblies for such cars as are built here are imported? Next time you go car shopping, read the 'foreign content' part of the label. The last company I looked into, Vishay, bragged about low labor costs and good margins. They were (briefly) in bed with the pirates I worked for. Nothing they manufactured was built any place you'd want to live. Can I revisit the nice lady crossing the border to have her baby? I LOVE being called what again? Myopic? Xenophobic? You can add 'law abiding'. Someone in this country without proper documentation is considered outside the law, or illegal. Intent doesn't come into it, unless you fall into the category of those fleeing a totalitarian state.....what are they called again>? At least I can distinguish what I FEEL from what is a matter of LAW. This is one of the problems with the current debate (global, not just us) on various subjects. So, you noticed that low income persons spend a higher proportion of there income surviving, rather than expanding there material base? What exactly are you trying to PROVE. The data has to SHOW something other than an empty recitation of 'fact'. You's say.....and I don't want to put words in your mouth....that the upper quint pays too little in federal tax? There total tax SHARE is nearly 50% of all revenue /state:fed+local. What is there 'fair' share? Now, let me ask a question I haven't a clue as to the answer to. HOW BIG a check could some of these 'rich' people write. Just stick a gun (or IRS summons) up to there head and tell 'em to empty there checking account. How big? 10% of net worth? 5% of net worth? My take is that they couldn't write as large a check as you'd hope. All those pesky investments, money in the bank being loaned out and money stuffed into matresses. Article written by UC Santa Cruz professor detailing who owns what and how much:: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Somewhere buried in all the numbers will be a call out of disposable assets. The rest? Sitting around? Nope, money makes money, and for others as well due to job creation and other economic activity. The US is no longer the most mobile society in terms of 'getting ahead'. Attached report has much info and will provide 'food for thought'. http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15163 Registered: May-04 | . Well, leo, this is why I wish you'd end your constant rants. And I realize that just by saying this I am encouraging more rants from someone who has proven themself incapable of anything but rants. Rants quickly reach the point of your most recent post, a point where facts are not in use at all and only emotionally charged words are employed in hopes they will tip the argument in your favor. What you've posted above is nothing more than the tactic employed by far too many bloggers and all but a few of the 24/7 talking heads. You've distorted what was being said and then announced, "At least I can distinguish what I FEEL from what is a matter of LAW. This is one of the problems with the current debate (global, not just us) on various subjects." You cap your distortion with another false argument from authority - an authority which you do not possess, leo, because you do not have facts on your side. Let me correct you here, this is not about you being "law abiding" in any way. Nor is it about my "feelings". Here's what it is about. The point I had earlier raised had to do with the Republicans pandering to their base by tossing around declamations against, as you say, "Mexicans". This fissure regarding the 14th Amendment and the interpretation of the Equal Protection clause is at the heart of their discontent and my post. In my post I questioned the ability of the Republicans to stake out both sides of the fence on the issue of "jurisdiction". The facts is, you admitted you really do not know the issue, "I am not up to speed on all those arguments about the 14th amendment and citizenship", so, instead of informing yourself or saying nothing about something about which you know nothing - or even just staying on topic! - you plunged feet first into a diatribe against "Mexicans". You aimed your "boot" at brown skinned women - but never fathers and never any other immigrant group - while totally ignoring the fact I was asking only for information regarding the 14th Amendment's Equal Potection clause. This clause is being challenged by the right wingnuts to disavow citizenship to those born on American soil. It has nothing really to do with, "Someone in this country without proper documentation is considered outside the law, or illegal." Stating the obvious is not an argument against the not so ordinary. The fact here is without having a clue about the topic you have made an issue of "Mexican women" - and not fathers and not other immigrant groups. You didn't bother to answer yet another of my questions nor did you bother to do any research on the topic other than what your wife told you. Therefore, your "argument" about "Mexican women" is offensive in the same way your ability to spot "illegals" is offensive and a complete distortion of facts. I was not discussing the parent, only the citizenship of any child born on US soil. "I LOVE being called what again? Myopic? Xenophobic?" You forgot "misogynistic". Your rant does confirm suspicions of more than one deeply seated character flaw which you "LOVE" to display. "So, you noticed that low income persons spend a higher proportion of there income surviving, rather than expanding there material base? What exactly are you trying to PROVE. The data has to SHOW something other than an empty recitation of 'fact'." Having this "discussion" with you is quite a bit like training my dog to drive, he pays no more attention to my pleas to keep things out of the ditch than you do. I did not recite empty facts, I provide a refutation to this line you posted, " ... the bottom 1/5th pay NO taxes, the 2nd 5th may or may not pay taxes ... ". Clearly everyone pays multiple levels and types of taxes, so your "point" is incorrect (using data from the very source you introduced). Of course, if you don't bother to read the information I provide, you'll end up as @ss backwards on things as you have proven to be in your constant rants "You's say.....and I don't want to put words in your mouth....that the upper quint pays too little in federal tax? There total tax SHARE is nearly 50% of all revenue /state:fed+local. What is there 'fair' share?" Can we start with your abuse of "there" and "their"? It's basic English, leo, the language to which you were born. Please use it without abusing it. This "nearly 50% of all revenue /state:fed+local" is yet another "fact" which is based in half truths and misleading statements whenever it is used by the right - or you - yet you repeat this convenient strawman argument as if it had the weight of absolute truth, which it does not. Looking at figures which represent rather old data regarding income levels let's allow for some insight into the progressive US tax code where people who have higher income pay higher rates ... "The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world's total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth." "Income inequality: In 1999, the poorest fifth of the US population received less than 4% of the total income. The second poorest fifth received 9%. The middle fifth received 15%. The second richest fifth received 23%. The richest fifth received 49%." "The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997... The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth... Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997... 57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all... The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent ... " When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). By 1998, Gates was worth $59 billion; a year later, he was worth $85 billion." "President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers." "From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000." And, from the same article, one "fact" I find staggering due to the age of the data ... Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000." http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html So let's not cry for the rich, eh? I think we can all agree the top income bracket has done quite well since 2000. Using the information found on the Tax Foundation's web page, we can safely assume the super rich pay the same % in sales tax, gasoline and cigarette taxes, excise taxes, etc. They pay the same dollar amount as the poorest level when it comes to service/utility based fees. Most importantly, the top 20% bracket will pay the same amount in payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) as will an individual bringing in $100k per year. I've already shown you data and facts which support the argument the lowest and middle income brackets carry the heaviest tax burden when you look at direct and indirect taxes. "For households in the bottom fifth of income, the single most burdensome tax is the type that falls on purchases: state and local sales and gross receipts taxes. Those make up 32 cents of their tax bill. Property taxes follow close behind (22 cents), followed by federal payroll taxes (21 cents). These three non-income taxes combined make up 75 cents of every tax dollar paid by the bottom income group, while federal income taxes account for just 4 pennies." From your link above; "The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. That is the strawman being propped up by your "50%" figure. It doesn't take much research at all to find the rich are doing well even after they have paid "their fair share" of taxes. That anyone still buys into that line of BS is incredible. To think anyone using a ragged and disheveled, disproven strawman as a crutch when standing up for the super rich as being "burdened" by the per centage of their income allotted to taxes is, at this stage in the game, simply laughable. I've told you before, I did not begin this thread with the intent of debating strawmen or logical fallacies or, for that matter, tax policy - all of which you use to chock your rants full with nonsense. It doesn't seem to matter how often I ask you to stop the rants and stick to facts which can be proven. You have an agenda and you see this as an opportunity to spew. It doesn't seem to matter how often I disprove what you have posted. You refuse to accept facts when they are put in front of you if they go against your preconceived notions. You are incapable of halting your use of logical fallacies, arguments from a non-existing authority and strawmen galore. You use the same worn out language of the political pyromaniacs heard 24/7 on talk radio/TV who share your disdain for real facts. I'm going to ask one more time, leo, stop the rants. They are not proving anything other than you can rant long and often. Stop with the strawmen, stop with the logical fallacies and stop with the distortion of real facts for the sake of talking points. Stick to facts and make then provable to all not just those who want to buy into the distortions. Read the facts I've provided because, if you do, you'll see that most of your talking points have been addressed long before you get around to posting them. I'm not interested in another rant in response to this post, leo. Provide facts or say nothing. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1506 Registered: Oct-07 | The 'M' word....again? Who gives birth? Not men. And I don't blame the woman, but do hold someone who breaks the law responsible for doing so. If that makes me a misogynist, so be it, but you should likewise admit to a blindspot in this matter. I continue to have a lack of understanding about why you have trouble with this? If I stole a car, you'd want me taken out of circulation. If I robbed banks, you'd SURE want me gone. It is inconsistent to not want laws enforced equally. If woman comes to this country seeking asylum, that is certainly another matter. Mexico is a 'dual nationality' country. Someone born of Mexican parents in the US is a Citizen. But, they can also be considered 'of Mexican Nationality'. Certain advantages come with this status. For example, as an American, I am unable to own land in certain exclusion zones. Near the beach and border are the best examples. A Mexican National can own in those areas, even if a US citizen. Kind of an overview:: From a legalistic viewpoint, not completely trivial http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/3219-mexican-dual-citizenship |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1507 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, you are a wonder to behold. A rhetorical masterpiece is what you are! Critical of my misuse of 'there / their' is certainly germane to any argument you may make. I'm sure President Clinton was reading from your script when he asked 'what is is'? or whatever nutty thing he said. Than you launch into a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack without ever addressing the legal issue raised by someone crossing into this country illegally for any purpose. My Latina wife will be interested in your (implied) charges of racism, too. The cure for what you surely feel is over taxation of lower income earners, has never been addressed by you, either. Which answer? The politically infeasible solution of actually spending less! Everyone does it. At least those without other persons pockets to pick. Somebody takes an income hit and there goes cable TV movie channels and Netflix. Car needs repair? We'll skip eating at expensive restaurants 2x a week. Can't afford Broadway Tickets? Community Summer Stock.....like here in Vista, is terrific and CHEAP. Show up here in September and come see 'Miss Saigon'....I've always wanted to see this show. http://www.moonlightstage.com/onstage/events.cfm Jan, I love you! Wife'll want to meet you, too. Please bring me a copy of Strunk and White. I gave mine away a few years ago to someone with worse grammar / spelling problems than I. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15165 Registered: May-04 | . I understand dual citizenship, leo, and I already knew Mexico had such traditions. None of which went to answering my actual question regarding "jurisdiction". You continue to ignore the fact my question was not at all about the parents' intent and certainly not about just the mother's intent. To focus only on the mother when I have asked you several times about the father's role in this, does make you a myopic misogynist. So get your "Official Misogynist" button out of the dresser drawer and polish it up real nice because you get to wear it with self professed pride. In stating "boot her out" you are placing a burden upon the woman which is not shared by the man - a violation of the Equal Protection clause which the 14th Amendment intended to eliminate. (Yes, yes, I know you would "boot" out both of them even before you knew whether either or both were here without documentation - you're just that sort of a "law abiding" guy. I'm sure you have a button for that too.) While certainly only the mother gives birth, she couldn't have been placed in the situation with the father. You've narrowed down the issue to something where you "feel" you have this all figured out (which has nothing to do with law) and you do not even pretend to have any other situations you are willing to explore. My original questions was about the "jurisdictional" status the Republicans are trying to use as a political football. You admit you don't really know the topic but you then proceed to shift to a topic about which you have very strong (and as far as I can see very negative) opinions. You continue to accuse me of not caring about the law yet you cannot point to a statement I've made which indicates I am against any existing Constitutional law. I am against pandering and I am against knee jerk reactions. I am against anyone who has no law on their side saying "boot her out" using "intent to commit birth" as their only rationale. You claimed unConstitutional powers with that statement. Your insistence she give the child up for adoption should she not be willing to take the child across international borders is also beyond the powers provided by the Constitution. So, please, do not tell me you "can distinguish what I FEEL from what is a matter of LAW" when all you've managed to do so far is to rant on about what you feel without a shred of law behind your suggestions. You cannot make a criminal out of a child when that child has not committed a crime. And that is one of the many issues at stake with this pandering to the base who are against having "mexicans" in their backyard because they can spot them from across a parking lot or just down the street. If anyone is here without the proper documentation, I know of no one who is not willing to honor the laws of the land. On the other hand I do know quite a few people who are interested in not just upholding the law but also in seeing that justice prevails. The idea we should just "boot her out" does not serve justice but it does go to the myopic and misogynistic xenophobia of those shouting for such. The idea that any discussion regarding undocumented immigrants automatically must be only about "Mexicans" is xenophobic on your part. To automatically assume that one Nationality must be the topic of any discussion of immigration is what makes it so. Thank your wife for telling you Mexico has dual citizenship. Then ask her what to do about those millions of immigrants from countries other than Mexico most of which do not provide for dual citizenship. If you've been paying attention to the facts regarding immigration (and not just getting your information from the rightwing shouters), the problem which is most vexing to the US is identifying those millions who have overstayed their visas or no longer have proper documentation to allow them to remain here after their permits have expired. To simply assume "Mexicans" are the only problem the US faces in the struggle with immigration is unfair, unrealistic and, sad to say, big0tted. "Where do immigrants come from? Of the 28.4 million foreign-born people residing in the US as of March 2000, 51% were born in Latin America (Central America-34.5%, Caribbean 9.9%, South America 6.6%), 25.5% were born in Asia, and 15.3% were born in Europe. These foreign-born make up 10.4% of the total US population. http://www.tenement.org/immigrantexperience/history.htm#15 The original question I had posed was about "jurisdiction" and had nothing to do with your ability to spot "illegals" or "Mexicans", leo. . |