Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

[TracyCoxx]

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy Movement:

They dare feed themselves breakfast (the food having been grown by CORPORATIONS) before setting of for Liberty Park. Also, they dare piss, shit and drink water in/from machines made by CORPORATIONS. And they cut their hair with scissors made by CORPORATIONS. These people should know better, the fucking HYPOCRITES.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

I guess you must spend a fortune! drinking nothing but bottled water instead of commie government water.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

This is the same kind of asinine crap I've heard over the years from people who, in response to hearing that someone identifies as a revolutionary socialist, calls that person a "hypocrite" because that person has a job at a profit-seeking company.

We live in the world and must partake of what the world offers. Only utopians and hermits would be able to "avoid" what the cartoon implies.

This is not serious, but it is -- unfortunately -- typical.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

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. But to call that "fringe" is to employ the same approach as you have with the use of the word "mob" -- at least it seems so to me.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.