Politics

[PraetorianND]

So you are fine with a legislature elected by the people enforcing a code of morals on people? Do the terms tyranny of majority or religious persecution, or freedom of conscious resonate with you?

So you want a new government or what? I don't get it.

 

[PraetorianND]

Yea...kinda the purpose of my opening staement...In your own words "I think" or "I don't Think" would appear to be you giving your feel for it...your opinion, and that I asked for it...I was just trying to acknowledge all of that...Thanks for the clarification though...I think.



You said " I don't think this is the sentiment that many are implying (although some do). I think people view it more as it is the more fortunates' duty to help the less fortunate..."

uhm...while I used your view to jump to what I think the logical conclusion of that view might be...taxing the "rich"....Its not like I started talking about freakin Tulips here. If you think it isn't a valid jump...I can see that argument...but yea it does have "something" to do with what you said.

Here's what you did. You asked a question (set the up the tee). Got the exact response you were looking for, and the one that is freaking obvious as hell (set the ball on the tee). Then you took that answer and used it to spin it into the point you wanted to make all along. (then you took your tennis racket and drove it directly to left field). If you actually want to engage in dialog why not discuss my response rather than setting up your argument (however badly). If you have a point you want to make just say it.

 

[Downinthebend]

Ok, nobody is trying to say that all business is bad and that we should pull everybody down to the same level. Let's make sure we're crystal clear as to what mainstream politicians are debating:

a) Marginal tax rates on the highest earners of about 35% vs 39%
b) Capital gains taxes of 15% vs 20%
c) Estate taxes on inheritances worth over more than (1 or 5) million dollars...

This is not communism. The wealthy still keep lots and lots of money even if the democrats get there way on everything.

The justification for this is that wealthy people have clearly benefited greatly from the structure of our society (everything from military and police protection to the interstate system to the FAA etc...) and thus have an obligation to pay a higher percentage of their earnings the more money they make. In return for living in an awesome society that's given them an opportunity to thrive, they pay a toll that is then used to make life better for everybody.

This is the theory of progressive taxation. I would love to stay and chat, but I have a war to go fight. Go Irish!

I'm not opposed to those with a higher income paying more, I just don't think its a very good solution to give the people that mismanaged our money... more money.

 

[PraetorianND]

I want the government mandated by the constitution. I don't think any of this enforcing one's religion over someone else is allowed by the constitution in the slightest. Not to mention its a bad idea in almost any sense.

I agree. I'm not sure what religion the government is attempting to force on you though. Morality and religion are different things.

 

[PraetorianND]

What type of morality are you trying to enforce? (if its things like don't harm other people/don't steal, I don't have a problem with it). Morality doesn't seem to be that universal to me, I think its akin to a religious belief.

Having the government enforce people wearing seat belts is a morality/paternalistic act. They (the government) believe that they know better than the people, and thus are forcing the people to act in a certain way on pain of violence.

Seat belt laws are state laws though. Are you saying that states shouldn't make laws like this either or just the federal government?

 

[PraetorianND]

Government was the term I used. Be that federal or state or local.

The Constitution does not prohibit the government from imposing paternalistic laws.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So you are fine with a legislature elected by the people enforcing a code of morals on people? Do the terms tyranny of majority or religious persecution, or freedom of conscious resonate with you?

Our entire criminal code is nothing but a set of morals.

And "tyranny of the majority" is hollow -- there's no way to know where democracy ends and tyranny begins. It's all just a matter of perspective.

I would prefer a Libertarian state myself, out of my own preferences, but there's nothing philosophically right about any particular form of government. It's just a bunch of people wanting a bunch of different and equally valid things.

The best we can do is say that the majority wins, so the most people are happy and we don't have revolution.

 

[PraetorianND]

Our entire criminal code is nothing but a set of morals.

And "tyranny of the majority" is hollow -- there's no way to know where democracy ends and tyranny begins. It's all just a matter of perspective.

I would prefer a Libertarian state myself, out of my own preferences, but there's nothing philosophically right about any particular form of government. It's just a bunch of people wanting a bunch of different and equally valid things.

The best we can do is say that the majority wins, so the most people are happy and we don't have revolution.

Oh good Lord - I can't get into the utilitarian, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau stuff again.

Basically, I agree with your entire post.

 

[PraetorianND]

"Let justice be done, though the world perish."

Can anyone name the author? No Googling cheaters.

 

[PraetorianND]

uhm, if it matters at all...I didn't ask the original question...I said I thought it was a sentiment spun up by election politics, but I was wandering if there was a rational answer beyond that...

edit: ok I reread, I was more provocative in my "wandering"



dude...I saw what you said...wasn't without merritt...its your opinion...so what else was there to talk about in your response...I responded with what came to my mind, something I'd thought about before, sure, but wasn't the reason I was in the thread...just because someone takes a thought in a tangential direction doesn't mean it was to spring a trap...come on now...you've been on here...happens. I'll try not to do the tangent thing, but come on man...really, a setup?

Sorry bro. I shouldn't have come at you like that. I have no business being in this thread haha. It gets too crazy in here!

 

[Downinthebend]

Our entire criminal code is nothing but a set of morals.

And "tyranny of the majority" is hollow -- there's no way to know where democracy ends and tyranny begins. It's all just a matter of perspective.

I would prefer a Libertarian state myself, out of my own preferences, but there's nothing philosophically right about any particular form of government. It's just a bunch of people wanting a bunch of different and equally valid things.

The best we can do is say that the majority wins, so the most people are happy and we don't have revolution.

I can't disagree with you more about forms of government. How can a state that authorizes violence against arbitrary views be better than a government that does not do that?

 

[ND NYC]

As far as private equity goes, you're clearly out of your element on this one. Each vehicle is owned by a different set of partners, let alone the entire company. smh

apologize for posting an article there, Mr Gecko.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

apologize for posting an article there, Mr Gecko.

Thanks. FYI, Rolling Stone generally isn't a great source for financial information. If you're in to magazines, probably The Economist or Forbes are better bets.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I can't disagree with you more about forms of government. How can a state that authorizes violence against arbitrary views be better than a government that does not do that?

It's better to you and me in the regard that we would prefer a less violent government. But it can't be objectively "right" or "better", in a philosophical sense, because no preference can be objectively superior to another. All gov'ts and laws are just reflections of the preferences and tastes of the decision-makers, making them all objectively equal.

For example, it is true that a more limited gov't has a lot of argumentative support for certain preferences like economic growth, peaceful cohabitation, tolerance, etc. But some people just don't want these things. Some people put income equality above these other things, for example, and thus want a less limited gov't. That's not "wrong", per se, it's just their preference.

 

[BobD]

I'm not going to start a new political thread, so I'll ask here......are we going over the cliff? Is it the democrats, the republicans or just our system that seems to be failing us?

Many of my republican friends don't seem too happy with their party right now. What are your thoughts?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Hope we don't, but the middle class is being held hostage so that the super wealthy can be taken care of.

 

[Corry]

Nate Siler had a nice write up that states, that due to gerrymandering, compromise doesn't make sense politically. Most districts are very safe, you can only be attacked with in your own party.

 

[Old North State Irish]

Hope we don't, but the middle class is being held hostage so that the super wealthy can be taken care of.

It has nothing to do with the "super wealthy," it has to do with entitlements. The so called super wealthy would only run this government for 8 days. We have to reign in out of control entitlement spending and the fraud that is rampant. And furthermore, quit giving free cell phones to people on food stamps, medicare, etc.

Go into a local grocery store or gas station and watch what a lot (not all by any means) of folks purchase with the EBT cards (food stamp).

P.S. So much for me getting away from politics after the November elections letdown (for me)!!

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

It has nothing to do with the "super wealthy," it has to do with entitlements. The so called super wealthy would only run this government for 8 days. We have to reign in out of control entitlement spending and the fraud that is rampant. And furthermore, quit giving free cell phones to people on food stamps, medicare, etc.
Go into a local grocery store or gas station and watch what a lot (not all by any means) of folks purchase with the EBT cards (food stamp).

That doesn't happen.

 

[enrico514]

As Ron Paul recently explained to a CNBC talking head...

"We have passed the point of no return where we can actually get our house back in order," Paul begins, adding that "they pretend they are fighting up there, but they really aren't. They are arguing over power, spin, who looks good, who looks bad; all trying to preserve the system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends and print money when they need it." With social safety nets available to rich and poor, there is no impetus for change and "the country loses"

 

[Old North State Irish]

That doesn't happen.

I repect your opinion or anyone's that differs from mine. If you are referring to the cell phone portion-it does. They run commercials everyday where I live about how to get free cell phones if you qualify. Also, I am not bashing the poor, as I grew up very poor. I am the first in the history of my family to earn a college degree. I was just trying to make a point about out of control government spending.
As far as the "free phones," you can verify this by going to assurancewireless.com and reading for yourself

 

[IrishSteelhead]

My ignorance of bigger issues is part of the problem, but reading posts in here is why I watch ESPN and stay away from news outlets, newspapers, and news websites.

Seems like every story casts an ominous shadow over our country and its too depressing to follow on a daily basis IMO.

 

[BobD]

My ignorance of bigger issues is part of the problem, but reading posts in here is why I watch ESPN and stay away from news outlets, newspapers, and news websites.

Seems like every story casts an ominous shadow over our country and its too depressing to follow on a daily basis IMO.

I don't mean to be a doomsayer, but I do think we are be getting dangerously close to imploding. I think we can still be fixed and have a lot going for us, but if we don't change soon that saying "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" will be our epitaph.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Debt and changing the current health care system is killing our economy- there is a time to make changes however not in this economy that is being artificially propped up by printing money. Then sprinkle ppl that take advantage of welfare system and you do have doomsday scenario.
What ever happen to hard work? To many ppl are looking for handouts.

 

[phgreek]

I don't mean to be a doomsayer, but I do think we are be getting dangerously close to imploding. I think we can still be fixed and have a lot going for us, but if we don't change soon that saying "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" will be our epitaph.

...we tanked already...when printing money and raising taxes is the "solution"...when rich people can move their money and businesses w/o issue...and that approach got re-elected, what did you think was going to happen?

The question is, did those in our history who've built this country have it wrong...Are we evolving into something better? regardless of my opinion on that...I think we are about to find out...as we are no longer that America, and we can never go back.

 

[phgreek]

Nate Siler had a nice write up that states, that due to gerrymandering, compromise doesn't make sense politically. Most districts are very safe, you can only be attacked with in your own party.

...the hilarity here is...anyone think this is a gem of data mining...he , and most people engaged in the political scene already knew this to be the case...but somehow this observation comes floating out now...like its new, and of course it will be spun as a Republican invention to supress the will of the people. Like there is this uh-ha! moment.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi...they've known this to be the case...and w/o a super majority, or changing congressional rules, they won't get much done...

good news is the class warfare is almost over as most everyone will have an equally ****** and dependant existance as compared to our parents and grandparents...progress I guess.

 

[Rizzophil]

Guys, prepare for super inflation. Prepare for the economy to tank. Get ready, prepare for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

It's just a matter of time.

 

[pkt77242]

Debt and changing the current health care system is killing our economy- there is a time to make changes however not in this economy that is being artificially propped up by printing money. Then sprinkle ppl that take advantage of welfare system and you do have doomsday scenario.
What ever happen to hard work? To many ppl are looking for handouts.

I am actually going to make a counter arguement. First I think that businesses and rich abuse the handouts as much if not more than the poor abuse the welfare system.

Secondly if we wanted to fix the economy, we should be spending money on things that create jobs (infstructure, moslty fixing our current bridges, dams and roads that are crumbling) and borrowing what we can at low interest rates to do it while cutting our entitlement spending, defense spending and raising new revenue by raising tax rates on the rich. A nice balanced approach that helps get the unemployed people working would be a great way to fix the issue. Too bad our politicians (both sides) don't know what the word compromise means or how to do it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Guys, prepare for super inflation. Prepare for the economy to tank. Get ready, prepare for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

It's just a matter of time.

Well, I am not so sure of this. There are two things that we need to look at here. Total debt (private and public) and money velocity.

First, velocity is VERY low. So, even with the large purchases, money is not flowing quickly throughout the system. So, without all this easing, we would really be in deflation mode. This could reverse, but I really think we are a really long way away from high inflation. If you believe, like I do, that it takes 10 years to "fix" credit bubbles, we have about another 6 years before we have to worry about high inflation.

As far as debt is concerned, you can see here that the increased public debt has come as private debt has been reduced as a % of GDP. What we really need is growth. We can talk about spending cuts and higher taxes until we are blue in the face. When push comes to shove, it is mostly hot air. Until we fix growth, we are going nowhere. What really needs to happen is we need to establish targets and caps for spending and revenue as a % of GDP as well as a do not exceed annual deficit % of GDP. Until we get to this point, we are going to continue to have these issues. We need to stop the politics and discuss how we are going to get true economic growth that is sustainable and not temporary.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

I am actually going to make a counter arguement. First I think that businesses and rich abuse the handouts as much if not more than the poor abuse the welfare system.

Secondly if we wanted to fix the economy, we should be spending money on things that create jobs (infstructure, moslty fixing our current bridges, dams and roads that are crumbling) and borrowing what we can at low interest rates to do it while cutting our entitlement spending, defense spending and raising new revenue by raising tax rates on the rich. A nice balanced approach that helps get the unemployed people working would be a great way to fix the issue. Too bad our politicians (both sides) don't know what the word compromise means or how to do it.

Businesses and a high % of the rich (assuming they own businesses) create jobs that helps the economy grow and get ppl to work. So now you want them to pay more? Create jobs and pay more taxes.....I have many friends that are business owners and they will have to lay off employees and cut hours to "afford" to stay in business.

Agree that we need to spend more money on how you say above "things that create jobs" so if we agree on that how does debuting our country more to provide a nationalized health care system create more jobs? I agree that a balanced approach is needed however both sides are way to the right or left-