But it only has "value" to the extent the government has created law that protects it. If the government refuses to enforce your "right to exclude", it's worthless. If the government will enforce your copyright for 50 years versus 25 years, it will change the value. And so on.

Further, the government defines what the "property" actually is. With something like land, we can all basically agree on what that is. But with something less tangible, it gets more difficult. Take a story, for example. What is the creator's "property"? The literal words? The plot? The basic story? Protect too much and you will stifle further innovation. What if Shakespeare continued to have a copyright on all love stories?

As molson pointed out, it's perfectly legitimate to want regulation in one area and not another. But it's a lot more difficult to actually figure out which areas we should have it, and how much we should have.

I've always considered them wrong on the limitation frankly, I don't believe ownership rights to created works should ever expire for so long as there is a successor to assign them to (a cavet I mention simply because there could be instances where inheritance of them was never assigned).


Not sure that I see it being as difficult as all that. Basically if I created it, catch you using it, and I find myself inclined to have you taken out back & shot like the thieving dog you are then I'm pretty sure there's a good case for a property claim.


Largely because we seem to have abandoned the use of common sense over the years & the skill has atrophied ... but that's a whole other philosophical topic that it's really too late in the evening to get into.

I dont think I can just move it from stock to stock though. I can stop buying stocks & put new contributions elsewhere but I dont believe I can just move it without penalty. Is that not correct?

But the gist of where I'm going is that me & 20M other people can easily be gamed by daring to invest by being the short guy on the totem pole. When the big guy moves out we fall down. Such is life I suppose.

But you really have avoided a difficult task: actually articulating how you'd define what exactly you've "created". Even if we lived in hypothetical JIMGA jurisdiction where your standard applied, people need some rules ex-ante to guide their conduct. And one thing I'm fairly certain we can agree on is that mind reading is something no one has created yet.

Worked for Potter Stewart ;)

You can move from stock to stock, fund to fund, bond to bond, etc. As long as you don't take it out of the actual IRA/401K, you don't pay a penalty or taxes on it.

This does depend a bit on who you have it setup through, but most offer a lot of options. And if you want nothing to do with the market, you can throw all your money into CDs or something uber-safe.

It's worth noting though that retirement accounts have been relatively safe and have a long history of bringing in good returns.

Yep...I know its relatively safe and I've done quite well since I basically stepped up my invest amounts in late 2008 (figuring if the world was going to truly meltdown, money wouldnt matter anyway :) ).

I'll have to check with my plan provider because I did not see a mechanism to transfer from stock to stock without fees...only a way to divert new money to different stocks.

I think much of the backlash could have been mitigated had they bailed out the companies but thrown the individuals responsible for trashing the economy in jail. Instead not only did they save the companies, but they allowed the responsible parties to PROFIT from what they had done.

Is your 401k really invested in individual stocks or by "stocks" do you mean mutual funds? Seems like it would be awfully dangerous to have retirement funds in a couple of individual stocks - at least the people who did it with Enron would think so.

Sorry, haven't kept up so ignore if asked already --

Make the prediction -- Shutdown or no Shutdown?

My prediction is shutdown and a quick compromise by end of next week.

Shutdown for a few days. That was the Democrats can say "See, they hate women" and the Republicans can say "See, they don't want to cut costs"

Can't remember if I mentioned this up the thread or not, and frankly I'm too lazy at the moment to look to see but ... my son's class trip to D.C. starts Sunday (well, travel day followed by Williamsburg on Monday). Needless to say the faculty are overjoyed at the prospect of several days in Washington spent walking around the city trying to describe what they would have seen inside if the doors weren't locked.

On a separate note, I read an interesting analysis last night (wish I remembered where) that talked about how the looming fight over raising the debt ceiling could make the past week or two look like an amusing appetizer to that main course.

Deal reached

None of them have the balls to fight the debt ceiling. Pretending to be small government is nice when you're doing it to people who won't call you on it, but risking the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling is something that impacts the real world.

Ah, Jon, never change. (actually, we both know that line is moot, you WILL never change :))

The Founding Fathers actually got it right in the Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

The key word being Limited. Of course, these days, limited means "Until Mickey Mouse is threatened, and then extended"

No, they are blended funds. Some of them being more narrow than others but those dont tend to be the bulk of investments. That is really what I was referring to...not individual stocks. But certainly if you invest in a banking fund, a run on the banks that are being invested in would certainly be more damaging.

Fuck off hypocrite.

lol

Campaign For Liberty — Obama "Regrets" Debt Ceiling Vote

.

I'm pretty sure what Obama meant was that he wouldn't utilize signing statements unless he disagreed with some or part of the proposed legislation. You just need to learn to read that guy. ("I will close GITMO" = "I may or may not be able to close GITMO, but I'd like to in a perfect world, so if it doesn't happen, blame everybody else!")

Obama's previous vote on the debt ceiling was retarded and political posturing. Same goes for anyone threatening to vote against raising it today.

It would destroy our financial system overnight. Worse than what we saw years ago. The credit rating for the U.S. would go in the toilet and Social Security and Medicare payments would be cut dramatically. Like I said earlier, despite all the tough talk, not even the most extreme guys in Congress have the balls to vote against raising it if there is a legitimate chance of their vote impacting it.

Hey, kids, watch the dollar no longer be the reserve currency overnight. What would happen would make the fall of 2008 look like a picnic.

I know the GOP hates Obama but enough to fry every incumbent in office as they ushered in the second great depression?

SI

Also, after reading through the past 2 pages, I want to see lcjjdnh and SportsDino in a "Finance Off". I'm not sure what that would entail and it probably should be broadcast on, say, NPR so everyone can suitably fall asleep but it would be a sight to behold.

SI

For JIMGA (and others) David Byrne enforces his copyright against Charlie Crist in a unique way:

Charlie Crist, Still Getting Kicked Around | Talking Points Memo

+1

And I'm sure there'll be some folks who I generally agree with or even praise who won't be able to resist the temptation to do it. I understand why it'll happen, but I'll generally be rolling my eyes at them while they do it.

We didn't get in this mess overnight, we ain't getting out overnight either.

I must have missed where I've stated where I agree with everything Obama says. He's been a great disappointment to me in a number of ways. If he proposes to gut SS or Medicare tomorrow he'll have lost my enthusiasm. I'll probably still vote for him, but only because the GOP looks likely to nominate a complete nut job.

As for the debt limit vote, I don't mind when the minority makes a symbolic vote. They probably should be more responsible, but it's not a big deal. The problem comes when it's more than a symbolic vote. If the GOP were in the minority they could vote as a block against the debt limit.

Prepare to rage:

The Real Housewives of Wall Street | Rolling Stone Politics

My brother told me about that article. Angry.

But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!


So have all the rich that fled the confiscatory 26% rate moved back now that there's a 17% rate? Or is 17% still too high?

Seems low - I guess we should vote for a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses to change that then, huh? (And if they fail to accomplish change, let's just keep voting for them and sending them money.)

FYI: I can disagree with both the GOP and Dems.

I'd love a Clinton to step forward and say all tax brackets need to be raised, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.

As I've stated before, if the gov't is really all that serious about taxing the top 1%, dump all these silly deductions and credits and go to a flat tax. The more you make, the more you pay.

I've noted that I'm one of the 'top 1%'. I just filed my taxes for our family. We ended up paying around 12% on our income tax if you just take our tax amount as a percentage of our total income. I pay an accountant to get all of the tax breaks I can, and it appears to be well-worth it. Oh, and I also get a deduction for his services as well.

That's the thing, they're not serious about it, not even elected Democrats, because they're guaranteed votes for life anyway because of the "party war" they've tricked everyone into picking a side for. It's amazing, they get credit for wanting to "tax the top 1%" but can not actually have to do it and just blame republicans - and their followers will continue to send them money and votes.

If there was ever a time for a real, proactive liberal faction to emerge, this was it - with fractions in the other party too, with an ineffective president (from the perspective of the liberal promises and rhetoric he had before taking office) but that opportunity has been blown. It's just about D and R now and that keeps everyone in elite fat and happy. And everyone is afraid to step outside those roles in the fear that the other side will "take over". That fear guarantees the status quo.

If you read these message boards its like Bush is still in power, it's still the same complaints. What was the point? I thought that the best part about Obama winning would be finally, these American liberal ideas would be something more then hypothetical theories in this country, we can actually get a track record going to evaluate it (after 8 years of "we know how to do this better if we just had the chance"). But we STILL get the "we know how to do this better if we just had the chance". How many "top 1%" speeches to we have to endure before we actually hold our leaders accountable?

molson: How exactly am I supposed to change things? In a Presidential election we're given two choices, so it's almost always a case of voting for the least bad option. I'll admit I'm disappointed with Obama, but how would voting Green and letting McCain win benefit me?

And am I supposed to suddenly decide that issues I find important should no longer be important because a guy I voted for didn't push them to the top of his agenda? I think the middle class is getting fucked. I thought that in 2000 and I think that now and, yes, nobody is doing anything about it. How is that only about D and R?

If it were me, I'd sit out the presidential election or vote 3rd party (or even write-in), not send democrats a penny, not register as a democrat, and only support candidates whose views (and more importantly, actions) I actually support. I wouldn't take part in the "party wars", and I would publically be more upset with the party who defrauded me, rather than the party who I'm nominally opposed to by philosphy. You, as one person, can't make a change (just like your one vote for Obama doesn't make a difference), but if millions did this, there would be change.

I think Republicans are a little better at this. If a Republican is seen as "too moderate", a lot of the big money jumps ship. A lot of the voters stay home. Democrats seem to rely more on party loyalty (and keeping "the enemy" at bay), which is a curse to the bigger picture. I know some Democrats kind of whisper that Obama is too moderate and/or ineffective, but if they're not really willing to speak up on that or act out, it's on them.

Have a conscience and actually try and do something about it yourself instead of allowing the problem you admit is occuring to continue. Otherwise carry on with your partisan bickering

Wait, did MBBF just claim to be in the top 1% in the nation in income?!

His wife is a specialist doctor(i think), so I'd easily assume top 1% of the US.

Millions did this in 2000 and we got Bush instead of Gore. Now Gore is pretty far to the right of where I am and would've annoyed me by being too pragmatic just like Clinton and Obama have done, but I think the country would be a helluva lot better if he won.

Furthermore, I have no illusions that what I want done is supported by a majority of voters and thus I'm fine with supporting weak kneed moderates who will at least get something done (healthcare, DADT) instead of tinfoil hat wearing Green Party morons.

I think it's only like $250,000 so I don't find it completely implausable. (I say only somewhat loosely at I am nowhere close to it)

Until everyone is taxed 17%, yeah, it's too high.

I must have missed when any real healthcare reform or gay rights measures occured. I know the Democrats all capaigned on these talking points but just like the Republicans and abortion they don't ever seem to follow through with anything.

If you only need to have 250k income to be in the top 1%, then color me ignorant and say I jumped to conclusions.

That may be accurate, but I would have guessed a number far higher than that.

Huh, according to Wiki..

1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.

But still, that tells me top 1% is quite a bit higher than that likely?

From an old NYTimes article..


So that tells me top 1 percent is now over $350k fwiw.

Anyway, I'm digressing...

From a 2010 report that references 2008 IRS data


Where Do You Rank as a Taxpayer?

Repeal of DADT was pretty real and significant to alot of people. As I've stated before, I would've preferred single payer or the public option, but Obamacare is better than the status quo and light years better than what McCain would've done.

Also, as I've said, Obama isn't my ideal candidate by a long shot, but another Nader 2000 situation would've been disastrous. With McCain, we wouldn't have got DADT repealed, the health care situation would be worse, and the courts would be even more tilted to the right.

I wish this country was more left leaning than it is, but it is not, so I am stuck with supporting a bunch of pussies because I think they are the best option. Wake me when someone like Howard Dean has a chance to win.

Thansk Jon. That seems to line up a bit more with what I had in my head.

I think he did once but the Dems turned on him because he yelled funny or something. But why can't Dean (or anyone) challenge Obama in the primaries? I know that's just not done anymore, and I guess the thinking is that primary challenges caused Carter and Bush I to lose (I don't think that was it in either case0, but it would be nice to see Democrats challenging Obama and not just settling for this one vision, this one really ineffective way of dealing with aggressive republians. It'd be nice to see Obama have to justify and explain his first term to Democrats - especially to popular, electable Democrats who might have different ideas about how to get things done. Instead he can just coast to the presidency again yapping about philosophies and ideals that won't be turned into actions. (A lot of the 1st campaign was slaying the Bush boogeyman about terror, GITMO, domestic wiretapping, etc. - just talking about all that is enough when you're only opposition is Republicans - they're not going to call you out for acting...just like they have. He won't have to answer to anyone. And he knew it, and he lied to you.)

In today's climate you can't primary an incumbent because there's no money left. The challenger has no chance and the only outcome would be to swing the election to someone even worse than the incumbent.

Voting third party sounds great, but they won't ever win. FDR isn't walking through that door as an independent, so while I might be able to say I stuck to principles I'm also going to have to deal with four years of Santorum or Trump as President. And then when I complain Molson will bitch about me not doing enough to get a third party candidate to win.

You asked me a question, you can do what you want.

At the very least, you could direct your "1%" venom to the people in power (that you vote for), and not whoever is saying "But, we're TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!", and that the rich will flee (whoever those people are).. If people didn't at least bitch about that inconsistency, this forum would still just be a Democratic hand job. There is so little anti-Obama sentiment amongst most of his followers, you basically have challenge people to even acknowledge it. It's still just the Republicans responsible for all the world's problems.

Edit: And you're sensible about this, I'm sure you're not running around town with an Obama sticker on your hat. But come election, Obama will get millions in contributions, he'll have rallys about hope, he'll have hysterical supporters and funny signs blaming the bad guys for stuff. Shouldn't that make a person with real liberal values enraged? I'd love to just see more of that, form everywhere, and it frustrates me that he'll never be called on his deceit. That's all.

He was never a strong liberal to begin with. I said many times I saw him as a pragmatist and guess what, that's what he is.

And I could turn your whole argument back on you. Why don't you leave this forum and start directing your anger at the elected officials. Why not write all of your posts to the White House?

Yes, you're correct. I think it runs right around $375K now. My wife is a doctor as someone mentioned.

My intent with my personal example was to point out how stupid the laws are. If we're going to say the top XX% is taxed at a certain percentage, make sure they're taxed at that percentage and stop pretending otherwise.

Just got back from a Commerce Lexington luncheon with Rand Paul as speaker. I kinda like the guy.

The difference between marginal rates and effective rates is one of the big scams in the system. Most people don't understand the difference so when people say they pay 50% in taxes or corporations have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world that's taken to mean effective tax rates.

I'd love to see the gap between marginal and effective reduced, but the big money guys that rigged the tax code sure aren't going to let that happen without a decrease in total taxation.

Normally I would agree, but I just don't anymore. I posted an article a couple posts up that talks about how we gave a $200 million interest-free loan to a wife of a guy who ran an investment firm so she could loan it back to us at a higher interest rate. If I felt the money was going to build a real healthcare system, better roads/schools/infrastructure, or anything else that would make the country better, I'd be more than happy to pitch in some more. But it's not going to happen.

Which is the problem I have. It's like having a family member who is addicted to drugs and needs some money to get back on their feet. I'd love to give it to them if it was going to go to rehab and to get a fresh start. But I'm not going to give it as long as I know they'll just blow it on drugs.

There really aren't a lot of breaks and loopholes out there. Sure an accountant can help with certain things and position money a certain way, but there is this notion that wealthy people can somehow avoid paying taxes or have some secret laws in place. In fact, most of the credits out there don't even apply to people making over $100k (student loan interest, Roth IRA, etc).

I think you have successfully summarized my view of government and why I don't believe giving more to it makes anything better. It simply rewards the behavior.

This is why I am ok with the local levels of taxation, states rights, even the ability for states to combine resources and to leverage efficiencies in bargaining power when it comes to things like healthcare & products/services. There can be many minor inefficiencies along the way(like duplication of services) coupled with minor corruptions as well, to be sure. But these can be followed/monitored/corrected by the directly involved local societies much easier and the minor aforementioned issues are never majorly impacting to the greater society.

The concept of brilliant, well-intentioned people operating from a centralized and streamlined (dare I say...efficient) standpoint with the level of responsibility and power that this implies is simply too much to risk in the hands of those who do not find ways to "earn it". Absolute power corrupts absolutely (and even the shades of power underneath the absolute level).

In my opinion...the federal government's focus should be on the protection of citizens from foreign threats and in recommending methods and solutions to problems that states & localities can adopt or implement. There are likely a few other things one could put in there, but generally speaking...that would cover 90% of it. The rest should be localized competition for businesses & citizens to the extent the localities wish to attract.

Whatever you want to say about the federal government, it's a helll of a lot less corrupt and more efficient than the NY state government.

It's enough to turn a southern democrat into a northern republican. :) I realize its both sides but I just come back to stop "feeding the beast" and eventually it dies of hunger.

While NY is corrupt...I'd say its a very close call. Either way, the decisions of NY state wouldn't impact the rest of the country immensely so NY citizens would be free to protest such corruption by either removing such corrupt leaders or leaving the state for areas with less perceived corruption(as happens already to degrees).

To appeal to your progressive side...look at like this. The levels of inefficiency created by duplication of services & local management would actually employ more "regular" people. You can still operate the "thinktank" in Washington to set standards & recommendations but you don't need to give them actual authority to force the adoption of such standards, thus reducing (though never eliminating) the level of corruption. But at least this level of corruption can be interrogated, interpreted, and determined to be such and not adopted locally.

I'm all for a whole lot of government reforms(which won't happen in my lifetime), but I really don't think there's any reason to think state governments are more efficient and less corrupt that the federal government. That's not to say the Feds are clean, but the states are often worse. And don't even get me started on local governments that are often filled by the worst sort of incompetent party hacks.

I wouldn't say more efficient in the pure human numbers sense but I would say less corrupt. Less apt to continue being corrupt due to natural forces might also be the way to say it.

State governments have a lot of dynamics at play today. But because of the influence of national parties, due in (large, imo) part to the large role at the fed level...they tend to be puppets for the rest of their party and try to pull in a few things to their locale so they can claim some accomplishments...thus requiring more feeding of the beast.

But what if their accomplishments weren't awarded based on their willingness to cooperate/vote on a national party basis? What if they only got business, bridges, and other projects sponsored because of their ability to help shape a viable business/people climate that attracted these entities to their state? Without the federal government being the authority & source of cronyism, the only thing left is meritocracy for these people. The dynamics would change for them, as would (imo) the type of people who pursue these offices (for the better). It simply would not be as beneficial to associate to 1 of 2 lines of thought any more.

I know it sounds like pie in the sky stuff...but I honestly believe we won't get rid of the 2 party system (and all of the negative consequences I believe are associated) until we stop contributing to its primary cause...the large concentration of federal authority & power. And we won't get to a point where corporations have more vested interests in states & communities until we make them bribe the citizens...and not the ringmasters.

And yet nearly half of Americans pay ZERO (or even get more back than what they paid in) in federal income taxes.


+1

The problem I have, being an upstate resident, is we are ruled by whatever downstate/NYC wants. I wish we could get some independence to do things our own way.

Just thinking aloud here, but is it possible the state and federal governments are "corrupt" in two different sort of ways? State and local governments seem to manifest corruption in the more traditional way-bribes, cronyism, etc. Federal government seems to manifest "corruption" in more of an "elite bubble" sense. That's not to say there isn't traditional corruption (I'm sure we could all point to many examples), but the more troubling thing is the many bright, capable, well-educated federal employees that don't even think they're being "corrupt" by entering and exiting the revolving door. They just believe, rightly or wrongly, it's the typical way of trying to be a good citizen and spending some time in the public sector.

I also wonder if some of our efforts to root out corruption actually help lead to it. Presumably many governments have very rule-like programs for handing out grants, receiving bids, etc. Although this cuts down on the discretion which could lead to corruption, it also cuts down on discretion that could battle it. People that know how the system is setup can use that knowledge to their advantage and we can't really stop it, because we have a rule-like-rather than a standard-like-system.

But almost all of them are paying @15% in FICA taxes, so the overall federal tax burden is very close to the typical millionaire.

Thanks for pointing out again that Social Security and Medicaid are major problems for getting our budget straightened out:

Janitor = 9.5% income tax
Helmsley = 13.67% income tax

So repealing the Bush tax cuts is going to fix this discrepancy? The problem is in the taxes taken to help Medicare and Social Security, not in the income tax paid for everything else in government.

The point is you can't talk about tax burden without accounting for FICA taxes. Sure 47% don't pay income tax, but their overall federal tax burden isn't significantly lower than a millionaire's.

However, the part they are paying into (Social Security / Medicare) is also the part they are most likely to take advantage of.

So is the argument to increase income taxes to the rich to offset the extra FICA taxes paid by the poor? Or is it to increase FICA taxes paid by the rich?

But I do agree we should be talking about both.

As I've said before, I'd like to return to the Clinton taxation levels for everyone, which would mean both higher rates and fewer deductions/exemptions/credits. Not only can we survive higher rates, but the gap between marginal rates and effective rates is the source of most of the corruption in the tax code and that needs to be cleaned up. I'd be all for revenue neutral tax reform and then reexamining rates, but that's impossible in our current system.

I think they are. While perhaps there are other ways to address them, I think the fed level is more institutional in nature and can be best addressed by simply transferring responsibilities to the state level. As this occurs, in my mind, this nows transfers the responsibility, accountability, and ultimate "blame" (or praise FTM) to the local/state level. This will partially dissolve the 2 party duopoly on thought and lead to more independent candidates (independent from party...they could be far right/far left certainly).

I believe this will lead to getting better candidates with more noble reasons for being in politics. It will never be perfect, but it can be much improved, imho.

If anyone wants to analyze the Obama household's income tax liability, here 'ya go:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...OTUS_taxes.pdf

If we don't go the Fair Tax route (i.e. just scrap our current tax code and start over), I'm okay with this, but either way I also want to see meaningful cuts in spending. The spending curve is getting awfully vertical.

Federal agencies reported an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2010. (And that's just what was reported) I didn't look into it deep in enough to see whether that's high or low from past years. And we have S&P warning about U.S. debt levels and credit ratings. What is the breaking point to where this stuff is taken seriously? I think we have to have a tangible crash that impacts everyone. We've put that off for a while, and we'll try to keep putting it off for a while longer, but we're not getting out of this with tricky accounting or even Clinton-era tax rates.

U.S. GAO - Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments and Remaining Challenges

I'd guess that states have a better record on government waste and corruption, if only becaues they're smaller entities, and most of them are more transparent.

At least at the state level, we actually have a shot at throwing these guys in jail.

Oh, so he'll put up his tax forms, but not his birth certificate?!? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Please tell me my sarcasm detector isn't working.

Yes.

Ok, I thought he may have actually been serious, but, wasn't too sure. :)

It's hard to convey whether you're being serious or sarcastic on message boards -- if you could see the foam all over my mouth, you'd know.

Absolutely. I can't even tell you how many arguments my ex-wife and I got into because of an incorrectly interpreted text message.

Employers (the rich millionaires) also pay payroll taxes on their employers as well.

Not really, it's just passed on to employee salaries.

It's generally accepted that even though the tax is split between employee and employer that it can be considered as totally on the employee since the tax paid by the employer is considered to come out of the employee salary just as withheld income taxes.

I give President Obama a lot of credit for upholding the National Day of Prayer and his remarks at today's Easter Prayer Breakfast. “As busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there is something about the resurrection ... of Our Savior Jesus Christ that puts everything else in perspective.” Obama then recounted Christ’s march to Calvary, the crucifixion and the resurrection. He spoke of an “unfathomable grace” on the part of Jesus, for assuming the sins of the world. It’s a grace, he said, that “calls me to reflect, and it calls me to pray.” He credited his wife and children for helping him to maintain perspective but said Scripture guides him even more.

Well said.

Man, that Muslim sure does a good job pretending to be a Christian!

Can't we get these religious nutjobs out of our government!?! He's getting guidance from SCRIPTURE people! This guy is our most religious president since Clinton.

Funny that the National Day of Prayer has been declared unconstitutional since it violates the 1st Amendment and Obama continues to violate it for the second year in a row. There you go Replublicans, here's your chance to impeach him and get him out office. I dare you.

A lower court had ruled that way, but they were reversed, and the National Day of Prayer was recently upheld by the 7th circuit. “A feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury,”

On Appeal to Higher Authority, National Day of Prayer Upheld - Law Blog - WSJ

Oh well. Sorry republicans. I tried.

One thing, and the biggest thing, I don't about understand about the GOP is why the keep pushing the social conservative stance when in the long-term it's going to see them sitting on the sidelines as my generation (Generation Y) starts to take the torch so to speak.

There's a lot of money that gets fed into the party from church members and churches. As long as that money is there, the GOP will continue to pander to them and the longer you will see topics like abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc...continue to be brought up when they really have little to no impact on society as a whole. And by impact, I mean, it affects so few people, that abortion being legal, gay marriage being legal and birth control being legal, doesn't affect anyone other than the people participating in those things.

EDIT: "affects so few people" means, that it very rarely affects anyone other than those actually involved.

It's even more simple than that. The base of the GOP is passionate about those issues and cutting them out of the party would make the GOP a more well known Libertarian party. Last time I checked the Libertarians weren't exactly good at winning elections.

I think if the libertarian platform would ditch or modify a few things, it may be a bit more palatable to more voters. As it is now, I think it's a bit too tree huggerish/hippyish. I'm all for abolishing the IRS or at the very least, an extremely scaled down version of it, but, there still needs to be some form of taxation. And I don't really agree too much with what appears to be an isolationist policy towards foreign affairs. Just my opinion though.

I think we've (the royal "we") have been over this before but I'll do the condensed version. For the sake of discussion, we'll work from your premise that Gen Y is more socially liberal.

One of two things will eventually happen: you'll come to your senses or you won't. If you do, then you've been shown the way to some extent. If you don't, then we're fucked anyway. Given that, where's the loss in trying to accomplish as much good as possible in the meantime? Compromising on the issues that matter most makes us (the current social conservatives) little to no better than what we're fighting against, not to mention a pretty decent argument that it makes us worse since we'd be selling out our principles for some theoretical hollow victory.

McCain in Libya. Wonder if Obama and him coordinated this together or is this a non-sanctioned visit? I agree about regime change but not leading (we don't want to PO the French ;) ). Nevertheless, his candor is refreshing.

McCain travels to Libya to meet with rebel forces - CNN.com

:lol:

Unless you've incorporated your wealth. Then there are a crapload of loopholes.

SI

Jon, they have said that about every generation of youth since WW2, esp. us boomers growing up in the 60s and 70s. All generations eventually grow out of it - not becoming more conservative - but becoming less idealistic, naive and inexperienced.

But generations have become more socially tolerant. Interracial marriage, women working, stay at home dads, etc. were all seen as taboo at some point in the twentieth century, but now are common. The same will eventually apply to gay marriage. The kids in my college classes generally have no problem with homosexuality and can't understand why old geezers make such a fuss.