I wouldn't call taxing innovative, hard-working people who took risks and became heavily skilled an extra 15% on everything they make over $100k an easy solution. Just gives less motivation to be succesful. I just don't understand this notion that we want to go out of our way to punish those who we should be praising. Fuck you Google guys, your ability to innovate how we all live our lives in a positive way is grounds for you to pay for thousands of people's retirements.

Maybe I'm just overly competitive, but shouldn't there be an element of society that says that if you want something, you should have to work for it? If you want to retire in comfort, make more money and save.

I used the wrong terminology. What I meant was the Federal Income Tax deduction from the paycheck. Even though I get thousands back in refund each year, that doesn't come close to what I paid out. Does the 47% apply to lower to lower middle income brackets?

As pointed out in the CNN article I posted earlier, it also includes many who get money back BEYOND what they paid in taxes, thus making up for much of their FICA, Medicare, etc costs. That's what's so insane, we're using our tax code to pay people, rather than collect.

Yes, it means that their refunds wipe out or exceed what was withheld from their paycheck (if any) over the year.

Back when I made $50,000 per year, I worked harder, learned new skills (I'm in IT) and paid more attention to business processes; and now I make considerably more.

Maybe those making the average income should budget better.

There are exceptions no doubt, but by in large, if you're making over 100k, you've probably done something right along the way. You found a valued skill, went to school, or have a mind that is sought after. There is a reason a brain surgeon makes more than a janitor.

And it's 15%. 7.5% is paid by the employer which is just an extension of your salary. If the Cavs need to pay an extra 7.5% on Lebron's $20 million dollar deal, that's money out of their pocket and all NBA teams have to lower their salary scale. Just as if a surgeon makes $250k working for a hospital, his salary goes down if his employer needs to pay an additional 7.5% on an extra $150k.

The reason the SS is going to be hurting has nothing to do with basic standards of living, it has to do with the fact we are all living longer. As our life expectancy continues to increase, so will the burden on the social security system.

The current system is setup so that everyone pays in as they go along into a sort of government controlled IRA/401K. With the cap at around $100k, no one is really left taking the burden of hundreds of people's retirement accounts. They more or less are paying for themselves and maybe a little for another person or two if they hover around that max.

What you are proposing is for people like Bill Gates to pay for tens of thousands of people's entire retirement because he just so happen to have been a smart guy who innovated the way we live our lives. This isn't some pro-rich rant either. I just hate this narrative we setup where people are first looking to mooching off people like Bill Gates instead of aspiring to be him.

In a harsh way, yes. Lebron James makes $20 million while some undrafted rookie makes the minimum is because Lebron is a better basketball player. He sells more tickets, more merchandise, and is more valuable.

And nothing in this world says "too bad". That average income person can work harder, gain new schools, acquire knowledge, and become more valuable. A brain surgeon makes what he makes because he didn't want to be average and we shouldn't be striving to tell everyone that average is good. We should have a society of people who strive to be much more than average and work hard to do it.

I read the link. I just happen to think it's BS. In just about every category I spend less than the link's fantasy person. The person's financial decisions are at best "average" and that's being generous.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think everything should be redistributed. I don't think the guy who worked his ass off in medical school to become a brain surgeon and saved lives everyday should be paying for the retirement of a guy who dropped out of high school to work in a factory for 40 years.

What's funny is that Ron Paul pretty much created the Tea Party. (And I am not talking an Al Gore created the internet thing but actually created the tea party protests) Of course the corporate media won't acknowledge this because he is their worst enemy. Anyways on to your point... :) No doubt that a lot of these "tea partiers" are Johnny-come-lately's and would never vote for Paul in a million years but its kind of ironic that the big government they bitch and moan about is what Paul wants to get rid of and the people they will vote for (like Palin and Romney) will make it bigger.

With regards to Social Security: He believes there is a group of Americans who are now dependent on social security and he isn't about cutting them off. He also believes the system is out of control and needs to be fixed, one way to do that includes younger people deciding to "opt out" and not pay or receieve benfits. Not sure what is so radical or crazy about that.

With regards to Medicare: I honestly don't know his view on this is, so fill me in on what is crazy. I have always heard him say (just like social security) that there are people who are dependent on entitlement programs and you can't just sweep them away but you also have to start trying to stop the new generations from being dependent on them because one day we will run out of money. At that point who is less "compassionate" the guy who tried to avert the crisis or the Republicrats who spent so much that eventually the government went bankrupt and everyone got cut off? One seems to be a lot more drastic than the other.

I think where he is most interesting is his feelings about racism and helping the poor. He says that he is one of the few politicians that want to end the drug war and end the wars around the world that consist of front-line soldiers who are generally poorer/less educated/minorities. The Republicans are obviously the worst but a lot of the Democrats really don't help the poor much more.

The difference is want and need. There are a lot of things I want, but I don't always put out the effort that is necessary to accomplish it. But if I needed something, I would.

Put us back in the simplest of times. You live in a cave with 10 people and they bring you back a portion of their kill everyday. Sure you may want to go out and kill your own animal for various reasons (power, sex, etc), but you don't need to. But if they don't share, you need to kill your own animal. You need to make yourself a good hunter and you need to work hard enough that you do bring home that food.

I'm saying that this society works too much on want and not enough on need. Need drives a better society.

I would argue that a couple making $50K grand total might want to think about having that second child, or possibly the first. That is a HUGE financial decision.

Of course there is the whole "$45K was a 20% down payment on a house" deal, which means a $225K home. My wife and I made considerably more than that before we bought our current home for the same ballpark. Before that we were living in a $125K home. Perhaps that $50K family should have thought of that. Maybe they could even afford the 2 kids then.

Of course, $50K/year and 2 kids, I'd like to know how they saved the $45K down payment in the first place.

I'm in a pretty average place to live (I think it came out slightly above when I last checked salary survey / cost of living stuff), and a $225K home is a pretty nice one. You can buy very reasonable housing for half that. In an average place to live.

They can't plan because they don't need to. If they needed to, they would. If it was engrained in our heads at a young age that if we don't put away 15% of our paychecks in some form of retirement savings, we will literally be homeless, people would start.

Two worlds is all I have to say. I agree with you that young people might not be the best at planning for the future but if the solution is that everyone pay taxes because of that I am afraid me and you will never come to an agreement. I may come across as a multi-millionaire old guy with my views sometimes but I actually am a 35 year-old teacher who makes about 60K and was taught to be responsible finanicially. I hate unions (even though they probably do benefit me) and I hate living in a modest house in a modest neighborhood while people get their asses saved who couldn't think logically about why one bank will only give them a 100K loan and another will give them 250K. Sorry but that's just stupidity and doesn't need to be saved by the government. If the best we can come up with is that young people just won't do it then either our country really sucks or some people need a swift kick in the ass.

Sometimes I can see the other side of things like health care and unemployment benefits but the "Young people don't save" argument for more taxes is insane.

That analysis is very flawed and the discussion about the house is a perfect example.

A family earning the median income should only be buying a median priced house if every family at every income level was buying houses which isn't true. Home buyers are going to come disproportionately from the higher incomes (poorer people rent, live with others, etc). This hypothetical family should be buying a house half that price.

I have no qualms with disability or even health care. I don't think people should be punished for things of that sort and as a society I think we should help those who are disabled.

I would say it's better as well. However labor laws and such don't really have anything to do with this conversation. Those are primarily issues with human rights and safety.

I'd also argue that we've lowered taxes dramatically on the richest people over the last 50 years and seen massive strides in technology, medicine, etc.

if their mortgage is only $750 bucks a month then their rent wouldn't likely be much of a savings over that if they couldn't afford a 125k house either. so saying 'well they should just rent' isn't likely to make much of a difference.

We have the financially irresponsible and our sense of entitlement for things we can't afford to thank for that scenario, and our still-high real-estate values.

Our grandparents would never have dreamed of financing a car. Many, including much of the working class, wouldn't think of financing a house. They just knew how to live within their means. We've shot way above our means with debt, and now consider it some kind of hardship if we lose those things we could never afford in the first place.

I recently bought a $93k house. I'm a cheaper part of the country, but even by the standards here, it's a cheap house. And it's small. At a salary close to $60k, I have plenty to save, blow, make improvements to the house over time as I can afford them. Both my real estate agent and my lender both suggested I could "afford more", and both reacted with surprise that I fell in love with this house. It's just expected, still, that I get into a situation I can't afford, or one that doesn't give me a lot of breathing room for the unexpected. And that sense of entitlement drives up prices, when free money is so easily available. But I'm way too conservative for that. I have a chance to be in a really good situation in 10 years if real estate values recover AT ALL (this house actually sold for $168k just 3 years ago).

Smart people would. Look at our rates of college graduates now to what they were 50 years ago. People have slowly realized that they need a degree to achieve more. If you have to watch your grandpa struggle mightily to pay his bills because he didn't save into retirement, you're probably not going to go down that path.

You can say this about a lot of stuff. Take smoking or HIV for example. After seeing the negative health effects of both, our generation is much less likely to smoke or have unprotected sex.

I would like to see everyone have a basic standard of living. I just want them to earn it. You want them to be handed it.

What's your idea of a basic standard of living?

I believe health care is more about luck and genetics in many areas while retirement is based on your efforts in life. Sure there are people who treat themselves horribly and I don't have a problem with not covering them. But I don't think that someone should be punished because they happen to be more genetically predisposed to getting cancer. Or because they slipped and fell on some ice and broke their hand.

If someone is unable to save anything for retirement, it's on them. Whether that's for not saving, not working more, or not becoming skilled enough to get a better job. And remember, without social security payments, most people are going to get an extra 15% in their salary that they weren't getting before.

I think safety regulations is a completely seperate topic and has nothing to do with our discussion. But I don't believe in forcing employers to pay more or guaranteeing overtime pay. I believe that a company should pay an employee what he's worth. Forcing them to pay more means that those who did make more because they earned it will now make less.

Again, a totally unrelated program you're talking about. College loans and grants are good things because they help level the playing field by making it fair for everyone to go to college. It's also a good investment because giving a kid a loan will be a net positive because a college graduate will make more money and thus pay more taxes over their lifetime. The government doesn't lose money on these programs in the long term, they make money.

It also helps create a smarter, more innovative country which helps benefit us all. Smarter people create more jobs and help this country lead the world in many industries.

Because we're taught that there is something romantic about working in a factory for 40 years after dropping out of high school. There isn't. It's a lazy way out in this world and takes no skill, innovation, or talent.

HUGE +1. Why did this family decide to buy a 225k house? Why do they have two kids? Hey kids are great but they are a MASSIVE expense. In places where you cannot possibly find a house less than 225k I would be willing to bet that a car isn't mandatory either, you probably live in an area with public transit. Why are you deciding in an area with public transit when you've had more kids than you can afford and bought a house that you can't afford that you have to have a car too?

For that matter, why are you living in an area where you can't find a house for less than 225k? In all my experience, cost of living doesn't scale with salary well at all. Why not try to find employment and move somewhere cheaper, even if that means another state/region?

We all know more than 2 or 3 people who had families of 4 in two bedroom apartments or lower cost 2 bedroom houses right? I shared a room with my only sibling for years because we were in the nicest place that my parents could afford. Less kids/less house/less entitlement lowers lots of those expenses all at once.

Maybe live well below your means for awhile, live with your parents and save up so that you can provide your kids with these things 5 years down the line. That way maybe an extra job can be picked up for extra income while less money is being spent at the same time. What, no family support structure? With no support structure why are you putting yourselves in a situation where you have no breathing room!?


These just don't seem like new problems to me at all. These seem like problems that people have had going way back but either we have an artificial rosy view of the past, or we have an insane sense of entitlement. Probably both.

I like this retirement plan (it's completely unrelated, I'm not making any political or economic point with this article, I just thought it was funny):

From The London Times:
A Well-Planned Retirement

Outside England 's Bristol Zoo there is a parking lot for 150 cars and 8 buses. For 25 years, its parking fees were managed by a very pleasant attendant. The fees were 1 for cars ($1.40), 5 for buses (about $7).

Then, one day, after 25 solid years of never missing a day of work, he just didn't show up; so the Zoo Management called the City Council and asked it to send them another parking agent.

The Council did some research and replied that the parking lot was the Zoo's own responsibility. The Zoo advised the Council that the attendant was a City employee.. The City Council responded that the lot attendant had never been on the City payroll.

Meanwhile, sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain or France or Italy .... is a man who'd apparently had a ticket machine installed completely on his own and then had simply begun to show up every day, commencing to collect and keep the parking fees, estimated at about $560 per day -- for 25 years.

Assuming 7 days a week, this amounts to just over $7 million dollars ...... and no one even knows his name

how about if it's a single mother who had a kid before she finished college, had to drop out and start working as a secretary, never went back to school because she wanted to not have a latchkey-kid and by the time he was old enough it was too late, so she never becomes more than that, and gives all of her time & money into giving her son the best possible life and because of that and thin margins, doesn't manage to get anything saved.

should she just be discarded when she retires because she chose to be a good mom?

or what about if her son dies in a car accident after she's helped put him through college and she ends up without the potential of him to take care of her (which then would be a drag on HIS income and perpetuate that cycle again)?

Who are you to pass judgment on somebody else's decision, or what they may have been forced to do due to circumstances you have no knowledge of?

I fucking hate when people think they're justified in passing judgment on other people's decisions. I chewed the SHIT out of my sister and mother on Thanksgiving at dinner when she pulled the same thing about some personal decisions a family friend made.

Doesn't take that much talent to be one of the guys creating these elaborate CDO's that were full of risky mortgages and blew up. And those guys pocket MILLIONS.

I'm the person being asked to pay for it. Ask nothing of me, I'll ask no questions of you.

Of course, social security and Medicare pay for a heck of a lot more than the 40-year worker being thrown about here. Yes, someone who worked their pants off all their life, even if just in a lowly manufacturing job, earns a lot of respect from me. That only describes a portion of where social security goes, however.

I believe many of us are on record as stating those guys should be in jail.

DEregulation is rarely a good thing. Typically the regulations were put in place for some reason or another - it's the height of folly to think that they're not needed anymore at any given point.

That's pretty much my general feeling about deregulation of any kind (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

That's what I was thinking - that's really more of a criminal justice issue.

I don't think anyone can (or usually does) make the argument that every single poor person has no talent and can't contribute anything more to society. Life just doesn't have smooth lines like that. But you do have to balance the desire to help those people (which any decent person does on their own dime to some degree), with the need to create a society that greatly rewards and encourages talent, the fulfillment of that potential, and accomplishments. I think the government should be aggressive in finding the brilliant, the genius, the talent that are born into poverty, to help give them the chance to succeed.

Just as a micro-example, if you imagine an average high school reunion, the people that accomplished/contributed more in the last 20 years should be dramatically better off than the slackers and dummies who accomplished nothing, and are a net loss to society. That means society is working.

I am the guy paying 15% of my income up to $100k (with Steve wanting me to pay more) to support them. I don't give a shit what anyone does and I don't pass judgement on them for their decisions in what they want to do in life. But the minute you start asking for people to pony up money to support them, you bet they have a right to pass judgement.

And I think that's the same thing DT and others were saying in that gay prom thread. That since the rich north is supporting the poor south through the federal government, that the north should have a say in how the south governs. The analysis seems to be different if you replace an entity deemed "bad" (the south) with entity deemed "good" (individual poor).

I hate this black or white stance on issues. Regulation is sometimes good and it's sometimes bad.

Deregulation in my opinion is good on moral grounds. As a business owner, why should I have to pay a guy who is only worth $3/hour, $7 hour? Not only does that hurt my bottom line, but it hurts those who have skills. Because the guy who has a skill and makes $25/hour, now has to take a $4/hour cut because some bum needs to hit the minimum wage. The moral issue is punishing those who better our society.

Regulation is bad when it's used to dumb down society too. I'm sorry, but if you signed a shitty mortgage, that's on you. If you picked up a credit card that has 30% interest, that's on you. When you start telling society that they don't have to be smart enough to read a piece of fucking paper before they take out a $300,000 loan, then you're hurting it as a whole.

On the other hand, regulation is good when it betters society. Banks should not be allowed to get too big where their failure destroys our economy. A business should not be allowed to control so much marketshare that it dramatically hurts most of its citizens. They shouldn't be able to create unsafe working conditions.

It's not about whether regulation is good or bad, it's about whether this particular one is good or bad for the country.

Exactly. Good comparision.

Unfortunately, this would require some common sense by our elected officials. Sadly, the common sense pool is rather shallow when it comes to those people.

This is where we disagree. The business owner has a skill, probably has education, and has taken all the risk to create a business and provide jobs for the community. But you want to punish him and take from his income to support someone who has no skills, no education, and no talent.

When did bankers begin to be trusted? Why the hell would you trust some complete stranger with a $300,000 loan? I'm sorry, but if you walk into a meeting with a banker and they say "don't sweat the details, just sign, trust me it's a good deal", then you deserve to get ripped off. That's just stupid.

And don't get me wrong, it happens to us all. I got stupid with credit cards at one point in my life and I learned a tough lesson from it. But at no time did I ever sign something that important without reading the fine print.

You are wrong for saying that and you have lost whay tiny respect that I had in listening to you. I'll play your stupid game and say, "In other words, how dare I strive to make more than the average, that can only come at the expense of those making less than the average." Listen, I gave more monies and donations last year than the net federal income tax that I paid. And such monies did far more tangible good to help those in need than someone contributing pennies on the dollar to the federal bureaucracy and arrogantly saying that makes a difference. If you want a system to where everyone trends toward the average, then that's all you are going to get.

How do you quantify class mobility? Middle to upper class, by definition, has to be hard, but it's not at all far fetched for the brilliant and talented in this country. I would say those people are "found" by our system and elevated from the middle class pretty effectively. (though we could use some work in finding them in the poorer classes)

And ya, do the people in the European paradises you cite so often borrow $100k+ to attend mediocre colleges, and "own" property worth five times their annual income with no money down? Do they consider two or three children sharing a bedroom to be living in poverty?

Assume? Not when I paid for prescriptions, groceries, utility billsand rent relief. But that was stupid and selfish of me being in the position to be able to do that.

I still don't understand how European countries can pay higher, but not extreme, taxes for all this free stuff, and we have to pay infinity billion dollars for a shitty health care plan that doesn't even cover close to everyone. And I still don't understand how THAT isn't the real issue.

If we provide Norway-level services in the U.S., how much would that cost us here? 99% of everyone's income?

The defense budget effects things on the whole, but the health care plan is a separate entity. Based on what we're spending on health care, alone, we should have the greatest government health care services in the world, by far. And we're not even CLOSE, we're below-average, we're an absolute embarrassment and a disaster in that area.

The second point I agree with. Our federal government is rotten. Shoveling them more money isn't the answer.

"Norway's economy consists largely of oil revenues, allowing taxes and spending levels that, in other countries, would probably destroy the very economy that makes the welfare state possible."

Did I? Actually I was mostly too young to know what was going on back when the conditions that allowed this to happen occurred (the roots of this go all the way back to the late 80s when Salomon Brothers created the mortgage market).

Even Ron Paul has said you are not going to kill Social Security and Medicare over night. No doubt the propaganda will say he's going to throw granny out on the street to the wolves, but if anyone paid attention to the guy he makes a calm and well reasoned argument... it might not be one you agree with, but I have to say he seems to show a lot more class than his opposition.

As far as I've heard, his plan for Social Security and Medicare is to phase them out over time. Given they are likely to collapse from their own weight by the time most 40 year olds are due to collect, it might make sense to set up a gradual transition rather than let the programs just explode (they will because all those FICA taxes have been pirated to fuel spending and pork so instead of building up an investment, the accounts are all IOUs).

I'll be the first to counter some of Paul's arguments, but at the same time a number of things he is saying are based on real facts that the 'party' (Republicrats) deliberately ignores.

I'd also venture that Paul isn't quite the party that Jon supports, he promotes a platform he considers 'traditional Republican values' which have never truly been embraced by the real party which is really a shadow puppet for big money in the modern area (under the facade of religious populism). Paul is essentially a pure libertarian platform, socially liberal (under the guise of state rights) and fiscally conservative (in the classical sense of the term, not the Reagonomics sense).

Its really quite annoying that his own party tries to treat him like he is garbage when he at least presents himself with class and true conviction at all times. All they need to say is that they don't agree with his policies, the problem is they don't have a platform of their own (until their lobbyists write it for them) so they just resort to namecalling and playing to their Fox News handlers. I lean Democrat but after the most recent disgrace I'd vote for Paul, Kucinich, or any 'party-rebel' type in a heartbeat before another party stooge candidate. I'm sick of the smug two party hollow puppets and their low class, low honesty personalities.

One thing that I would love is for every interview with every national politician to begin with the following question/statement:

"It is impossible to do all of the following three things:
(1) balance the federal budget;
(2) not raise taxes;
(3) not make cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Do you agree or disagree?"

And the interview/press conference/whatever could not progress until the politician either answered or expressly declined to answer the question. And I would have some sense about how seriously to take that politician.

i don't like the fact that Paul is socially liberal under the guise of state's rights though. i disagree fundamentally that that is the best way to accomplish that.

it creates social disparities and issues - what about the married gay couple from MA who want to travel to TX on vacation and one of the partners gets critically injured - all of a sudden his husband doesn't have the same rights with regard to making medical decisions or visiting him in the hospital that he would have in MA? That's just a mess, and just one simple example of the issues with that.

You can't leave basic Civil Rights up to the individual states discretion. If you could...well...we all know where that sentence would go. That's why we're a Federal Republic. If you leave basic Civil Rights up to the individual states then you might as well dissolve the Federal government entirely and create smaller nations regionally.

I think "isn't quite" is probably understating it considerably.

I don't believe most people have enough sense for libertarianism to be remotely desirable, and without the social conservatism aspect there'd be no chance I'd have become a GOP supporter. As fiscally conservative as I may be, those issues take a tremendous back seat to social concerns for me.

Yeah, I mean if Jon has no say in what you get to do in your personal life, what's the point?

While I myself am pro-choice, I don't see how this is inconsistent. Murder laws are not a state's rights issue.

*nods*

... which he obviously doesn't. I would imagine that if he feels abortion is murder, then he wouldn't be inconsistent in thinking it a federal issue.

The example he showed where 50K leads to only 100-200 a month in marginal spending was a pretty tight budget (just a mortgage and the most basic expenses you would expect a family to live off of).

I'm a big fan of taking a tight budget approach and reducing your debts down to zero as quickly as possible. Even as a single man making more than 50K at the time, it can be a pretty boring life. With all the taxes and expenses you pay in that bracket you can easily have trouble keeping afloat or building up savings. This isn't 50K back in the good old days you may remember where it was a lot of money... inflation has been ticking up higher than wages for a while now (even faster if you use better statistics than the gamed CPI). If any of you are making more than 50K and have debt beyond your mortgage you should just shut up about average incomes budgeting better, you have more resources and you still can't do what you just assume everyone else should.

-----

As for removing the cap on the social security and medicare taxes, I'd be fine with just removing the tax on everyone. Turn social security into an individual retirement account backed by government bonds (i.e. the supposedly 'no risk' investment portfolio). You pay as much money into it as you want (but you have no control over the investment) and it is tax free until you take it out. If they want to mandate some percent of your salary up to 100K is required, so be it. The problem with this 'pool' approach is its so easy to steal from and it doesn't compute mathematically so they keep bumping the age in the hopes of people dying off or penalizing them to reduce costs. It is another example of negative incentives plaguing a system. If it was all individual based there would be no need to set an age limit beyond 55 or 60.

You have to figure out how to clean up the mess they already created, but you don't make any progress by burning money at full speed and pointing to demographic statistics to explain the failure of a bad system design in the first place.

-----

I don't consider Social Security a 'redistributive success', it has some nice side effects and a good goal in theory... help take care of old people who have worked their whole life but probably don't have investment skills. The problem is it has been raided by Congress repeatedly, the funds were not truly invested like they should have been, and its built to extract just from the working class to handle an obligation that stresses the working class economy.

People are expected to save for retirement, properly raise a family, and oh ya spend enough money to keep our consumption crazed economy alive. The math doesn't add up, and its even worse when you put on tax burdens to take a lot of that money right off the top (10% FICA, 20-30% income tax on the middle class). Social Security, as structured, is a weight that is slowing down the sector of the economy that is the most important for sustained economic growth (the middle class).

Not to mention its a failure because the only options it has to reduce costs is to increase human suffering (penalties for early withdrawl, increasing the age limits to collect higher and higher, decreasing what is covered for Medicare, donut holes and what not). It means we are paying in a ton of money with an expectation that the quality of service we receive in return will be crap. I'd rather have people have 10% more of their money throughout their life, than forced 'savings' they cannot collect until they are 80, and benefits that don't cover anything.

I believe that was in the context of determining the criminal penalty for the breaking of the law. I don't see that as the same as the federal government determining murder is illegal.

DING DING DING!!!

As a business owner, if you pay any employee more than they are worth, you fire the employee. That is stupidity on your part. A reasonable minimum wage is fine, if you don't have the brainpower to process basic cost/benefit analysis please get the hell out of business, there are enough of you clogging the arteries as it is (e.g. Wall Street).

Regulations are useful for creating systems, you want systems with positive incentive mechanisms that have minimal inhibition to growth. This usually means limited but powerful regulations that have teeth.

If you want to fight minimum wage, you make a claim that it reduces lower class employment since it unreasonably sets the price of labor at a point where many jobs don't provide net benefit. The argument that you reduce payments to skilled workers because of it is logically corrupt. The argument that you pay more than a job is worth is logically moronic. If the job is necessary for you to create product (i.e. a veggie pickin migrant to get your product out of the field) than it is a cost of doing business. If your product isn't worth all of its costs, you don't have a business anymore, liquidate the situation to whatever gets you the most money.

Nothing wrong with supporting the platform you want, I at least appreciate that you understand what you want most of the time and have some backbone. I just wish more Republicans would attack Paul on platform grounds rather than names like 'paultards', it demeans the attackers more than the attacked.

Actually, no?

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Agree or disagree, I think he's perfectly consistent.

Don't let the facts get in the way of SteveBollea trying to discredit Ron Paul on one issue out of 1000's. He nailed him! Obviously then Paul is just as bad as McCain and Palin. So back to partisan potshots and simple arguments about Fox News and racist tea party attendees.

+1

I found a candidate that articulates how I truly feel like no other candidate ever has. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But he has views that appear to care about individuals before business and corporations. (I agree with you that Kucinich has different views than mine but also seems to be consistent to trying to help people before corporations) That is why the corporations have such hatred for both. Why individual people do is beyond me?

This is why free markets "fix" such things. If a state does not support gay marriage/couples to this extent then it will be losing a significant share of business & ancillary spending from this group. This decreases demand, which decreases the revenue for the local businesses.

It may take longer than you prefer, but such is the way social change occurs naturally. But I really think you (figuratively) should strongly think of the consequences of imposing federal mandates on every state. It may be fine when you agree with them principally...but what happens when you (and your state's majority) don't? Just sayin...

the free market can't fix the idea of "oh no's we were driving through state x when my (gay) spouse had a massive heart attack and now i can't make their medical decisions for them."

Plus - what if somebody has a very specific job and could only live in one of a few places. Are you trying to say they should have to choose between being able to make a living and support themself, and denying a fundamental part of who they are? :rant:

All of the things that I would impose on every state are focused on inclusion, treating everyone equally, and basic civil rights. That's a fundamental belief that I have. As long as those federal mandates are focused on inclusion and treating folks equally I won't disagree with any of them. Regardless of my personal feelings about say Muslims (for example).

That's the difference between a society focused on equality and basic rights and one focused on exclusion and denying rights to classes of people. I don't have to be afraid of everybody being equal and having basic rights.

Such an impatient society we are. I bet another 50-75 years would've done the trick.

I don't want to argue semantics...but having enough power & leverage to discriminate would mean the law would not pass. I also think we have a much different world than the 19th to mid 20th century as well.

Maybe federal law is the appropriate forum for this. I'm just of the opinion it would also correct itself at some point due to outside pressures, dependencies, & influences that would not have existed years ago.

Of course they'd have to be reminded that the Articles of Confederation were tossed out for a reason ;).

Serious question for the liberals in the thread - is there ANY law that you would support, that you would vote for, that you DON'T feel Congress has the authority to apply uniformly across the United States? I mean, is that part of the argument, the thing that the constitution was based on, now just completely dead?

I wish we could have a constitutional convention, and a new constitution. To me, that would beat just ignoring the old one.

It is not up to Congress to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That is the duty of the Supreme Court. And in several decisions, the Supreme Court has granted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress a lot of leeway.

Yes, I know how that works. OK, from the perspective of the Supreme Court then. If you were a justice, would you EVER find that a law, that you felt was a good law, exceeded the constitutional authority of the federal government. (Not that it violated the 14th amendment or anything, but that it utilized powers reserved for the states) Is that even on the table anymore?

You actually think this has never happened before? I thought you passed the bar?

You're not answering the question so I'll assume that you don't understand it and/or that you're just being a jackass for some reason.

Anyone else? How far does this go? How about a federal ban against not picking up after your dog's shit? I'm sure we can connect that to interstate commerce somehow, because the shit came from food that was probably manufactured in another state.

You are speaking in vague hypothetical terms, with the underlying inference that the Supreme Court would never find a law unconstitutional. Since this has happened many times in our nation's history, I guess I don't understand what you are asking.

Fair enough, but I always wondered then - why do we need a constitution if it's "living"?

Why stretch the commerce clause 8 ways from Sunday? Why do we insist on pretending we're bound by these things?

I'm not asking what the Supreme Court did. I'm asking what liberals feel now about what the Supreme Court should do, and what their opinion of the state of constitutional law is now. In particular, is the federal government limited at ALL from regulating things that were once considered the domain of the states.

why does it have to be one or the other?

Should do now about what, exactly? Or are you trying to say the "liberals" would never find something unconstitutional?

But why do we need the 14th amendment to give the Court the authority to strike down laws, if the federal government has the power to just make federal laws that can tell what the states to do anyway?

I just think the system is obsolete. We gave citizens in states rights so that the federal government would have the power to reign in states from violating those rights. That power is irrelevant now, because the federal government can do whatever it wants. The Court doesn't need the 14th amendment to find that a law violates a constitutional right. The federal congress can just pass a law that superceeded anything the state does.

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily a bad thing - it's just changing.....

The Court finds things unconstitutional all the time, but only very, very rarely on the basis that it has exceeded its constitutionally-given powers.

Or to put it another way - there could be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry. But there's no need to do that, if the federal government just passes a law that creates the same right. The constitution is obsolete in that way (in that view).

And maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. It just all seems silly to me to pay lip service to this document that can be changed at a whim.

I guess the worst-case scenario is the constitution continues to fade into irrelevance, and the legislative and judicial branches kind of merge together and control everything. Even that's not necessarily bad I guess, since we have some power to vote legislators in and out. It's just a very different country than the one they teach in high school government classes.

100% agree here.

Wasn't if Jefferson that said every generation should rewrite the constitution from scratch (or something like that?)

Isn't by definition "unconstitutional" the finding that the act was not allowed by the Constitution?


If you feel that a law carries the same legal weight as an amendment to the Constitution, then there really isn't anything more to say. The Constitution can't be changed on a whim. It has only been amended 27 times since 1787.

No, though I'm a big fan of constitutional amendments. I think they should be pursued more often. Remove all doubt.

The federal government does have the authority to do all sorts of things, pass all sorts of laws. But not quite as much as they actually carry out (IMO).

Things that used to be considered for constitutional amendments, can simply be passed as federal laws today. I just don't think that's desirable, and it's certainly not what's intended.

There's no reason to amend the constitution if you can just pass a federal law that says the same thing. Especially when the federal law is easier to pass, and it acts directly on the citizens, instead of just the governments, like the constitution does.

Ya, I really think something like that was intended. Or at least, I'm sure a lot of the framers expected there'd be hundreds of amendments by now, and that many of the older amendments would be repealed.

That'd be a good college course assignment - design a new constitution.

I don't know if I qualify as liberal anymore, since I'm maybe not socialist/lemming enough to count, but my take:

One good reason for having power in the states is because proximity to power is somewhat important. The farther away the majority of your life is determined, the easier it is for a sneaky group of colluders to band together and ferret away your liberties.

In the ideal, the government is minimalist. Federal government worries about keeping other nations out of our hair, and making sure state governments don't fight too much against each other, and that the laws of one state are reasonably respected by other states.

National standards are pursued there as they relate to basic human safety and commerce.

State governments should be similarly minimal. They provide services that are best administered at a state level, as determined by public policy. So if a whole state is full of socialist wannabes, they can vote themselves a welfare state and most importantly, they have to make their state budget balance. So, infinite services, fine, collect infinite revenues and you are golden.

I won't determine here what the state should do, let a population decide and budget it and its none of my business except my home state.

The rest of everything, should be reserved to the citizens, as the Constitution and Founding Fathers intended. We shouldn't be a nanny state, or a police state, forcing people to do this thing or that thing, pay for anything and everything (or in the modern world, pay nothing and everything at the same time, yay debt).

I think the best way to solve gay marraige.... don't make it a concern of state or federal government, and move all the benefits into their own individual definitions. You want to share money with someone, apply for the 'single entity tax status' and be done with it. Stop making laws around a religious construct to begin with and you don't need to put stupid conditions on it.

Give people rights by default and take them away when you have a clear reason to, don't assume the government is all first and the people live by its mercy (the current interpretation of law it seems).

That said, start repealing any federal law that doesn't have a basis in the Constitution, a little at a time. Don't have to wait for the courts to do so btw, as we saw from repeal of Glass-Steagle for instance (boooo, though you gotta say corporate money knows how to get things done).

The less representatives I need to influence to get my local services straight, the better. I would love if about 50% of government didn't need to get past the municipal level... instead of 100% of everything is either a federal initiative or bust. I also think a less intrusive and more focused government could cost less and actually accomplish more.

Of course it is easier to pass a law than amend the constitution. That is why there have been thousands of laws passed by Congress, versus 27 amendments to the Constitution. The reason you pass an amendment is so that it becomes part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not subject to any judicial review.

That has a certain idealistic appeal, but could you imagine 24 hr coverage of the convention by Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann as well as the non-stop advertising to try and influence the new, "supreme law of the land"?

In this day and age, isn't this always the case anyway?

I looked into this further and basically Jefferson didn't believe the living should be ruled by the dead and said every 19 years the Constitution should be rewritten. Those were based on life expectancies from those times so it would be a larger gap in this day age between rewrites.

what??? what are you talking about??

So, what you're saying is that if we opened up a Harley factory in, say, Tehran and started a new Sturgis in the Middle East, say, in Mecca, 6 months opposite Ramadan, our terrorism problems would be a thing of the past?

Someone get on this! Stat!

SI

Steele has to be a DNC plant.

hahahah


that's funny

Amazing how much stuff changes in 5 years: ping SkyDog: Man of Steele (good article) - Front Office Football Central

My point was that if the Supreme Court is never going to find anything unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government is imposing on state soverignty (which is a view that many liberals feel the supreme court should have), then you don't need a constitution to be that "supreme law of the land" that all states must follow. A federal law has the same effect, because the federal law is now the "supreme law of the land".

Edit: This is even true, to a lesser extent, when you're talking about other elements of the constitution, like the protection of rights. If a constitution is "living", you don't really need it. The legislature can just decide what they think it says, and the "super-legislature" - the courts, can decide if they agree. "Judicial review" becomes just an extra-special legislative review.

Dola-

I think the Supreme Court was intended to operate, and had for years and years, as a check against federal power. But now that we seem to trust the federal government to always do the right thing (especially with regards to imposing their will on states), then what's the role of the Supreme Court? It certainly operates as an extended wing of the federal government to further strike down states' actions. And it decides what rights people really have under our "living constitution" - it basically has the power to amend the constitution however it sees fit. Things have definitely changed.

Interesting. I'll try to respond if I get a chance today, but it might have to wait for later/tonight.

Steele also said:

He's right, but I can't believe he said it.

Today's bad news for the GOP:

RNC Spent $340K On Hawaii Meeting

The good news? It doesn't appear any of that money was spent on hookers. This time.