Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial??
The NDAA under Obama's term contained a portion that allowed indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. So far from arguing it, we can look at legislation.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial??
The NDAA under Obama's term contained a portion that allowed indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. So far from arguing it, we can look at legislation.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
The fact that a sociopathic lunatic like Donald Trump was able to hijack a political party is actually the best argument in FAVOR of parties exercising favoritism and control over the nominating process.
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
Taxation without representation is also one of the reasons, arguably the main reason, for the Revolutionary War. Rule by the majority was never the end result the revolutionaries were looking for.
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
I don't disagree with your 'Promote the General Welfare' statement. That's why I'm all for a flat tax. I'm convinced it will never happen due to the lawyer lobby. There's just too much money involved in our convoluted tax code...
To be fair, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the preamble is not legally binding. The preamble merely states the purpose of the Constitution. But the text of the Constitution does give the federal government the power to make and collect taxes.
Taxation without representation is also one of the reasons, arguably the main reason, for the Revolutionary War. Rule by the majority was never the end result the revolutionaries were looking for.
This assumes the wealthy are underrepresented in our current government, and I've not seen any argument to advance such a claim.
Taxation without representation is also one of the reasons, arguably the main reason, for the Revolutionary War. Rule by the majority was never the end result the revolutionaries were looking for.
This assumes the wealthy are underrepresented in our current government, and I've not seen any argument to advance such a claim.
In our current government you are correct. They would be underrepresented in a true democracy, however. There is no way you can dispute this. That's why some kind of compromise would be best. The majority has no right to dominate a minority no matter who the minority is.
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial??
The NDAA under Obama's term contained a portion that allowed indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. So far from arguing it, we can look at legislation.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
The fact that a sociopathic lunatic like Donald Trump was able to hijack a political party is actually the best argument in FAVOR of parties exercising favoritism and control over the nominating process.
You don't actually believe this, do you? That it is a good thing for wealthy and powerful insiders to rig the system against all others?
In this particular case, I don't think taxing an $11 million inheritance qualifies as unfair domination.
You don't think so mainly because you don't have an $11 million inheritance to leave your children. If you do, hats off to you. You're like my dad giving 10-15% to his church. Of course he does this voluntarily not because he's forced to.
On your tax return there is an option to give as much more as you want to if you really want to do that. That goes for anybody filing a return. You can voluntarily give as much to the f'ing government as you want...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet even if the entire government was run by people you agreed with, you wouldn't contribute a dime more than you absolutely had to by the tax code...
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial??
The NDAA under Obama's term contained a portion that allowed indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. So far from arguing it, we can look at legislation.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
The fact that a sociopathic lunatic like Donald Trump was able to hijack a political party is actually the best argument in FAVOR of parties exercising favoritism and control over the nominating process.
You don't actually believe this, do you? That it is a good thing for wealthy and powerful insiders to rig the system against all others?
I believe Donald Trump won the Republican primary because it was a free for all in which 80% of the canidates were running so they could secure a book deal and future punditry jobs. I don't believe primaries are the same as general elections. For one thing, in most cases, you can't even PARTICIPATE in the primary if you aren't registered as a member of said party. No one seems to be suggesting that is inherantly undemocratic. I have no interest in telling Republicans how to choose their candidate. I'm interested in the binary choice between the two we get at the end.
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial??
The NDAA under Obama's term contained a portion that allowed indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. So far from arguing it, we can look at legislation.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
The fact that a sociopathic lunatic like Donald Trump was able to hijack a political party is actually the best argument in FAVOR of parties exercising favoritism and control over the nominating process.
You don't actually believe this, do you? That it is a good thing for wealthy and powerful insiders to rig the system against all others?
I believe Donald Trump won the Republican primary because it was a free for all in which 80% of the canidates were running so they could secure a book deal and future punditry jobs. I don't believe primaries are the same as general elections. For one thing, in most cases, you can't even PARTICIPATE in the primary if you aren't registered as a member of said party. No one seems to be suggesting that is inherantly undemocratic. I have no interest in telling Republicans how to choose their candidate. I'm interested in the binary choice between the two we get at the end.
I agree. I also think we need more than two parties. Desperately!!!
To be fair, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the preamble is not legally binding.
Man, I love learning new things. I was not aware of that.
In which case I'd argue a slightly different tack: democratic government exists by the consent of the governed, and I doubt many would consent if there were no benefits.
In our current government you are correct. They would be underrepresented in a true democracy, however. There is no way you can dispute this. That's why some kind of compromise would be best. The majority has no right to dominate a minority no matter who the minority is.
It's the old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting who to eat for dinner, yes.
The constitution provides powerful means to protect from 'the tyranny the majority', vested mainly in the judiciary. Wealth, unlike race or sex, has not been deemed a protected class and subject to such protections. I'd be fascinated to see arguments for its inclusion.
If there are roughly 75 million or so liberals in the country if they all contributed. $100 extra dollars to the government that would be $7.5 billion more in the coffers. Imagine what that could do for the downtrodden regardless of what the rich did. A real sacrifice of $1000 or $5000 could do even more. What are you waiting for???
@Balrog99: Not $11 million, I don't think, but still a lot, actually. But I was never under the impression that I particularly deserved it. And even my dad, who earned his wealth by saving human lives (he's a radiologist), never believed that he "deserved" the money he got, despite the fact that he's very much a self-made man who grew up the son of poor missionaries and became wealthy on his own.
No, I wouldn't pay more than taxes than I had to. Not when other people are paying the normal amount (call me selfish). But I would support my wealthy family having to pay more in taxes if other wealthy families had to make the same contribution.
@Balrog99: Not $11 million, I don't think, but still a lot, actually. But I was never under the impression that I particularly deserved it. And even my dad, who earned his wealth by saving human lives (he's a radiologist), never believed that he "deserved" the money he got, despite the fact that he's very much a self-made man who grew up the son of poor missionaries and became wealthy on his own.
No, I wouldn't pay more than taxes than I had to. Not when other people are paying the normal amount (call me selfish). But I would support my wealthy family having to pay more in taxes if other wealthy families had to make the same contribution.
Fair enough. I applaud your convictions then. That still doesn't convince me that people that don't agree with you should be forced to. I'm fiercely independent partly because of how I was raised and partly due to my inherent disposition. Chaotic Good fits me to a tee. I just don't expect anything from anybody but myself but that seems to be a big minority these days.
Your dad seems like the selfless person that my dad is. Whether or not their wealth was better spent elsewhere than their family is the question. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that question unfortunately...
I thought as much. What does he think the answer is? I doubt I'll disagree with him much.
Unlike my dad, I wouldn't mind some kind of compromise on healthcare. As a chaotic type of personality, I actually think insurance itself is a big scam. I don't think the healthcare providers or the Big Pharma companies could charge what they do if it wasn't for insurance companies. They'd go out of business if common people had to pay out of pocket for their services...
Can anyone imagine the political disaster that would have ensued if Obama, the first African-American President, had proposed nationalizing health care and eliminating insurance companies a year into his first term?? Whatever the faults might have been, he was famous for saying he was "agnostic" on how to get more people covered. And was willing to use a conservative plan as a template to do so. Whether or not it was the best solution (which it wasn't) is irrelevant. It was the only remotely politically viable one. And it STILL cost him Congress for the rest of his Presidency.
Can anyone imagine the political disaster that would have ensued if Obama, the first African-American President, had proposed nationalizing health care and eliminating insurance companies a year into his first term?? Whatever the faults might have been, he was famous for saying he was "agnostic" on how to get more people covered. And was willing to use a conservative plan as a template to do so. Whether or not it was the best solution (which it wasn't) is irrelevant. It was the only remotely politically viable one.
I would have respected him more if nothing else. I was not under the illusion that health 'insurance' was ever insurance. Its really a subsidy, not insurance. Eliminating the 'insurance' companies would need to be explained to the common people in a way they understand. I'm not sure that's possible in this age of fake news.
See, even conservatives can be aware of reality. That's why I fit in more as a moderate, even if I have conservative leanings...
Healthcare subsidies would also allow for reducing automobile insurance. Why auto insurance should be anything more than insuring the value of your car is also ridiculous in my opinion...
Can anyone imagine the political disaster that would have ensued if Obama, the first African-American President, had proposed nationalizing health care and eliminating insurance companies a year into his first term?? Whatever the faults might have been, he was famous for saying he was "agnostic" on how to get more people covered. And was willing to use a conservative plan as a template to do so. Whether or not it was the best solution (which it wasn't) is irrelevant. It was the only remotely politically viable one.
I would have respected him more if nothing else. I was not under the illusion that health 'insurance' was ever insurance. Its really a subsidy, not insurance. Eliminating the 'insurance' companies would need to be explained to the common people in a way they understand. I'm not sure that's possible in this age of fake news.
See, even conservatives can be aware of reality. That's why I fit in more as a moderate, even if I have conservative leanings...
I would have respected him more too, and I already respect him quite a bit. His problem (Democrats problem in general) is that they don't know how to wield power like Republicans do (no one since FDR and LBJ).
Republicans don't either in my parents' opinion. Nothing short of getting everything you want is acceptable in today's political climate. In Trump's own words... 'Sad'.
Republicans don't either in my parents' opinion. Nothing short of getting everything you want is acceptable in today's political climate. In Trump's own words... 'Sad'.
Any Republican candidate besides Trump with the House and Senate would have been able to repeal Obamacare.
Republicans don't either in my parents' opinion. Nothing short of getting everything you want is acceptable in today's political climate. In Trump's own words... 'Sad'.
Any Republican candidate besides Trump with the House and Senate would have been able to repeal Obamacare.
I don't disagree. Whether that would have been a better outcome or not is debatable though...
@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
I don't disagree with your 'Promote the General Welfare' statement. That's why I'm all for a flat tax. I'm convinced it will never happen due to the lawyer lobby. There's just too much money involved in our convoluted tax code...
It sounds better but there are problems with a flat tax. Rich people don't earn a salary like us poor working schlubs.
They get dividends and interest and stuff. How do you flat tax that?
I just had to take a look at my healthcare allocations this year. For roughly $250/month I get pretty decent healthcare through my corporation. If you apply this this to approximately 30 million people with no health insurance, that's roughly $7.5 billion. With our GDP that equates to approximately a rounding error. Why there can't be some compromise on this issue just boggles my mind. I realise that my company foots some of the bill but if that's even half of the total then $15 billion can take care of everybody. What am I missing here?
Maybe instead of $15 billion it should be presented as $0.015 trillion instead...
Sorry, forgot to multiply by 12 months. Even at $0.18 trillion it's still not exceptionally high compared to GDP.
Why auto insurance should be anything more than insuring the value of your car is also ridiculous in my opinion...
There's more than just your car on the road. A poor person could insure their beater for all $100 of it's value but it wouldn't cover the Ferrari or building they hit.
Why auto insurance should be anything more than insuring the value of your car is also ridiculous in my opinion...
There's more than just your car on the road. A poor person could insure their beater for all $100 of it's value but it wouldn't cover the Ferrari or building they hit.
Sorry, I live in Michigan. No-fault insurance here...
Comments
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
So with Nancy Pelosi saying she is not interested in the rigging of the democratic primary we can probably call into question the integrity of the next one unless some outside force changes the rules on the DNC, because they are surely not willing to be democratic themselves. I wonder how many times this has happened, and what forms it has taken, before things like Wikileaks and "Russian hackers" gave us info we weren't supposed to know about.
I also think it's worth nothing Trump is just as much an outsider to the Republicans, if not moreso, than Sanders was to the Democrats.
The fact that a sociopathic lunatic like Donald Trump was able to hijack a political party is actually the best argument in FAVOR of parties exercising favoritism and control over the nominating process.
You don't actually believe this, do you? That it is a good thing for wealthy and powerful insiders to rig the system against all others?
On your tax return there is an option to give as much more as you want to if you really want to do that. That goes for anybody filing a return. You can voluntarily give as much to the f'ing government as you want...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet even if the entire government was run by people you agreed with, you wouldn't contribute a dime more than you absolutely had to by the tax code...
I believe Donald Trump won the Republican primary because it was a free for all in which 80% of the canidates were running so they could secure a book deal and future punditry jobs. I don't believe primaries are the same as general elections. For one thing, in most cases, you can't even PARTICIPATE in the primary if you aren't registered as a member of said party. No one seems to be suggesting that is inherantly undemocratic. I have no interest in telling Republicans how to choose their candidate. I'm interested in the binary choice between the two we get at the end.
I agree. I also think we need more than two parties. Desperately!!!
In which case I'd argue a slightly different tack: democratic government exists by the consent of the governed, and I doubt many would consent if there were no benefits. It's the old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting who to eat for dinner, yes.
The constitution provides powerful means to protect from 'the tyranny the majority', vested mainly in the judiciary. Wealth, unlike race or sex, has not been deemed a protected class and subject to such protections. I'd be fascinated to see arguments for its inclusion.
No, I wouldn't pay more than taxes than I had to. Not when other people are paying the normal amount (call me selfish). But I would support my wealthy family having to pay more in taxes if other wealthy families had to make the same contribution.
Your dad seems like the selfless person that my dad is. Whether or not their wealth was better spent elsewhere than their family is the question. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that question unfortunately...
If your dad is still alive I'm curious what he thinks of Obamacare. If he's not, I'm sorry.
I only ask because I have friends who are doctors. They're not particularly fond of Obamacare but thought that 'something' had to be done...
"A poor compromise."
Unlike my dad, I wouldn't mind some kind of compromise on healthcare. As a chaotic type of personality, I actually think insurance itself is a big scam. I don't think the healthcare providers or the Big Pharma companies could charge what they do if it wasn't for insurance companies. They'd go out of business if common people had to pay out of pocket for their services...
See, even conservatives can be aware of reality. That's why I fit in more as a moderate, even if I have conservative leanings...
Healthcare subsidies would also allow for reducing automobile insurance. Why auto insurance should be anything more than insuring the value of your car is also ridiculous in my opinion...
They get dividends and interest and stuff. How do you flat tax that?
Maybe instead of $15 billion it should be presented as $0.015 trillion instead...
Sorry, forgot to multiply by 12 months. Even at $0.18 trillion it's still not exceptionally high compared to GDP.