Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?

I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, so I cannot provide a complete "program" right now. Here are a few highlights of what I would like to see enshrined in a constitution, with the society that reflects these points. My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

[GRH]

I'm not sure what you find so unconstitutional about a 100% tax rate on income in excess of $200,000. Read the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That precious Constitution of yours was amended (through mechanisms set up by the document) to include the ability for Congress to tax incomes. Where in the Amendment does it make any mention of specific tax rates (or limits thereon)? It reads pretty broadly to me.

That said, I wouldn't support taxing income in excess of $200,000 at 100% because I feel this would put America at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, I WOULD support taxing such excess wages at MUCH higher rates than at present. Our country saw some phenomenal periods of growth when the top marginal rates were at 70%. I'd also nix the lowered capital gains rate for capital gains in excess of a certain threshold.

[Trogdor]

Why not just get rid of the income tax, we were a country long before we had one, and just make the fair tax....that way it effects the rich and poor fairly. And these businesses will have no excuse to keep sending jobs overseas...none that anyone will believe, anyhow. And we'd have more control over our money once we get that 800 pound gorilla known as the income tax off our backs, and can use that extra money, that is rightfully ours to begin with, on what we need, or paying off debts, investing, and so on. Can't fix an economy if no one's buying anything. Also, I'd love to see us getting a refund of our taxes, since the tax money goes to our politicians and government services, and so many people are so unsatisfied and have no faith in the government, we outta get a refund for unsatisfactory service.

Besides, I am sure that there are people, besides myself, that would LOVE to see a sign in front of the IRS building that says, "Gong Out of Business" and it becomes a strip mall or a coffee house or something.



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Why not just get rid of the income tax, we were a country long before we had one, and just make the fair tax....that way it effects the rich and poor fairly. And these businesses will have no excuse to keep sending jobs overseas...none that anyone will believe, anyhow. And we'd have more control over our money once we get that 800 pound gorilla known as the income tax off our backs, and can use that extra money, that is rightfully ours to begin with, on what we need, or paying off debts, investing, and so on. Can't fix an economy if no one's buying anything. Also, I'd love to see us getting a refund of our taxes, since the tax money goes to our politicians and government services, and so many people are so unsatisfied and have no faith in the government, we outta get a refund for unsatisfactory service.

Besides, I am sure that there are people, besides myself, that would LOVE to see a sign in front of the IRS building that says, "Gong Out of Business" and it becomes a strip mall or a coffee house or something.



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~

If by "fair tax" you mean the national sales tax advocated by FairTax.org, you need to revisit the meaning of the word "fair." Taxes are either regressive or progressive. The so-called "fair tax" is regressive, and hence there is nothing "fair" about it.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by smc

If by "fair tax" you mean the national sales tax advocated by FairTax.org, you need to revisit the meaning of the word "fair." Taxes are either regressive or progressive. The so-called "fair tax" is regressive, and hence there is nothing "fair" about it.

Having more money in the long run.


And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Having more money in the long run.


And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

Yours is a non-answer. I did not claim to be an "expert," but calling me that is a good attempt at dodging the question. I already wrote what I would do about taxes, only a few posts above. Will you answer the question I asked, by inference? Clarify what you mean by "fair tax," and explain how it means "having more money in the long run."

[Enoch Root]

Halloween Party at the foreclosure mill, Steven J Baum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/op...veal.html?_r=1

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, so I cannot provide a complete "program" right now. Here are a few highlights of what I would like to see enshrined in a constitution, with the society that reflects these points. My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

First of all, who's gonna pay for these new rights (healthcare, housing, and education)? If we have the government providing everyone with a job [your right to work], it should be something physically demanding with little ay (like digging ditches for $2 an hour), to provide incentive for getting a better job.

Originally Posted by paladin68

You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

I agree 100%

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, who's gonna pay for these new rights (healthcare, housing, and education)? If we have the government providing everyone with a job [your right to work], it should be something physically demanding with little ay (like digging ditches for $2 an hour), to provide incentive for getting a better job.

You have to adopt a different way of thinking about this country in order to understand the answer. We grow up in the United States being told that it is "the richest country in the world." That's true. The problem is how those riches are spent. In general, spending protects the interests of the ruling rich, with some social spending at a level deemed minimal to maintain social peace. But imagine a different set of priorities. Do you really think that this country cannot afford a first-class education for free for everyone? Free healthcare? Government-paid jobs doing things that only governments do, such as infrastructure improvements (or, in the U.S. case, maintenance of infrastructure just before the coming collapse of bridges, etc.)?

As for the guarantee to a job, it is a matter of the polity adopting a perspective that puts human needs first, and then enforcing that perspective. I'm no big fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but a quote from a speech he gave in 1932, accepting the renomination as a presidential candidate, speaks volumes: "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."

Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities.

Oh, and those are all capitalist countries.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

You have to adopt a different way of thinking about this country in order to understand the answer. We grow up in the United States being told that it is "the richest country in the world." That's true. The problem is how those riches are spent. In general, spending protects the interests of the ruling rich, with some social spending at a level deemed minimal to maintain social peace. But imagine a different set of priorities. Do you really think that this country cannot afford a first-class education for free for everyone? Free healthcare? Government-paid jobs doing things that only governments do, such as infrastructure improvements (or, in the U.S. case, maintenance of infrastructure just before the coming collapse of bridges, etc.)?

As for the guarantee to a job, it is a matter of the polity adopting a perspective that puts human needs first, and then enforcing that perspective. I'm no big fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but a quote from a speech he gave in 1932, accepting the renomination as a presidential candidate, speaks volumes: "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."

Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities.

Oh, and those are all capitalist countries.

I onderstand what you have to say, and see value in it. However, you must remember that I am a strong believer in State's Rights (thanks to my dad), I would like to see the Federal government scaled back to its constitutional limits.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by tslust

I onderstand what you have to say, and see value in it. However, you must remember that I am a strong believer in State's Rights (thanks to my dad), I would like to see the Federal government scaled back to its constitutional limits.

Yes, it appears that the 10th amendment is being ignored, especially by the current administration.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by paladin68

Yes, it appears that the 10th amendment is being ignored, especially by the current administration.

Between the recently passed (I'm not sure if it's been signed into law yet.) National Deffence Authorization Act and the upcoming Stop Online Piracy Act, there's not much of the Constitution left.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

... Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities...

What countries should we look to here? Europe? They're about to sink under their own weight of even worse fiscal mismanagement than we are going through. Europe's track record in the industrial revolution was 1: quickly eclipsed by the US and 2: was built largely on the backs of the working poor. Then, after nearly wiping itself out in The Great War, Russia went to communisim / stalinism & Germany, AFTER disarming its citizens (done by the Prussian elitists during the Weimar years) fell into nazism. France & Britain buried their heads in the sand and the resulting 20 year rematch was even worse. Are you also suggesting the eurozone's unemployment rate is lower than that of the US??? I haven't checked on this, but I would be surprised. I checked, It's 10.3% worse, as i expected.

I don't think we need to look to Europe.

Well, what about Japan? Sure. Japan, who's emperor was until 2 Sep 1945 was a Divine Being, has been in recession for well over 20 years straight.

There isn't much left, you're not suggesting China, are you???

No, we need to fix our own house and a good start is a change in the administration next year.

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

What countries should we look to here? Europe? They're about to sink under their own weight of even worse fiscal mismanagement than we are going through. Europe's track record in the industrial revolution was 1: quickly eclipsed by the US and 2: was built largely on the backs of the working poor. Then, after nearly wiping itself out in The Great War, Russia went to communisim / stalinism & Germany, AFTER disarming its citizens (done by the Prussian elitists during the Weimar years) fell into nazism. France & Britain buried their heads in the sand and the resulting 20 year rematch was even worse. Are you also suggesting the eurozone's unemployment rate is lower than that of the US??? I haven't checked on this, but I would be surprised. I checked, It's 10.3% worse, as i expected.

I don't think we need to look to Europe.

Well, what about Japan? Sure. Japan, who's emperor was until 2 Sep 1945 was a Divine Being, has been in recession for well over 20 years straight.

There isn't much left, you're not suggesting China, are you???

No, we need to fix our own house and a good start is a change in the administration next year.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was quite clear about the social safety net. I said nothing about the European unemployment rate. Europe's problems are the result of global capital competition, not overspending on what makes Europeans have a better social safety net than the United States by orders of magnitude, the result of a social solidarity that Americans have been quite deliberately taught (falsely, to serve the interests of the ruling rich) is some kind of affront to their "liberty."

You presume that recessions, etc., are caused by social spending, and point to your examples. But something precedes those recessions, which is putting profits of corporations ahead of human needs and organizing government around ensuring that priority.

Finally, things like the Emperor of Japan being a Diving Being, etc., are clearly red herrings in a serious debate. Such an approach is transparently an attempt not to discuss the core of my post.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

Don't put words in my mouth. I was quite clear about the social safety net. I said nothing about the European unemployment rate. Europe's problems are the result of global capital competition, not overspending on what makes Europeans have a better social safety net than the United States by orders of magnitude, the result of a social solidarity that Americans have been quite deliberately taught (falsely, to serve the interests of the ruling rich) is some kind of affront to their "liberty."

You presume that recessions, etc., are caused by social spending, and point to your examples. But something precedes those recessions, which is putting profits of corporations ahead of human needs and organizing government around ensuring that priority.

Finally, things like the Emperor of Japan being a Diving Being, etc., are clearly red herrings in a serious debate. Such an approach is transparently an attempt not to discuss the core of my post.

Europe's social safety net will disintegrate if they continue to spend themselves into disaster.

You state you didn't say anything about the European unemployment rate, yet this phrase is an allusion to that: "and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages".

Europe (especially western Europe, but eastern Europe as well) ) owes its existence and relative problem free past 65 years to the United States. And I'm sure the 30-40 million who died at the hands of tyranny in WW2 would agree.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by paladin68

You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

Do you know who you're talking to?

Originally Posted by smc

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced.