Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Oct 6, 2014 17:49:53 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It is known as question begging.  Or the petitio principii fallacy.

And it is precisely what you are guilty of when you inquire why I might oppose "doing what is best for the college and the nation."

I would argue that the government--at all levels--should get out of the marriage business entirely.  The only sort of marriage that should exist is the religious institution of marriage.  Nothing else. 

You have just admitted that most Republicans "won't" vote in favor of providing government benefits for same-sex marriages. (Well, you actually stated that they won't vote for "allowing same-sex marriage"; and that is not quite accurate, since many states already "allow" it, and fully recognize it.) So why would the alternative I proposed be "far less likely" to happen, if this simply will not happen, according to your own words?

Deism was indeed a popular form of religion in the latter part of the eighteenth century. (So, by the way, was Christianity.) But Thomas Jefferson's actual religious views remain a matter of debate among serious people. Some of his statements--especially as concerning organized religion--have (quite understandably) been taken to indicate a real hostility to Christianity. On the other hand, on April 21, 1803, Jefferson said the following: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."  And on January 9, 1816, Jefferson noted:  "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian..."

No, "racism and oppression" (I despise that word, "oppression"; it sounds positively Marxist) are certainly not "completely acceptable" to me, absent "any compelling evidence for conviction." But without such evidence, there is really nothing that can (reasonably) be done about it.  As a rough analogy:  If we are reasonably certain that many women are actually raped who never report the crime, does that mean that men in general should be (somehow) penalized for this?  (By the way, I see no evidence of "oppression" in the denial of a job to a well-qualified African-American, in favor of a less-qualified white person.  Any employer who engages in that sort of arbitrary discrimination is hurting himself (or herself, as the case may be) far more than he (or she) is hurting the would-be-employee, who may simply take his skills and talents elsewhere.)

If the bigwigs at some Fortune 500 companies believe that affirmative-action policies actually "benefit" their respective companies, so what?  Why should that be taken to mean that such preferences (which amount to reverse discrimination, regardless of you personal distaste for the term) are just hunky-dorey?

Suppose American consumers purchased no goods whatsoever that are Chinese-made.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  Would that effectively mean that the US was becoming no more indebted to China each year--monetarily--in your opinion?

If you personally believe in the "pay it forward" philosophy (which strikes me as being a most awkward phrase; it blithely overlooks the idiomatic nature of "back" in the phrase, "pay it back," which has nothing whatsoever to do with physical direction), then you are certainly free to arrange your own life accordingly.  But you should not wish to force others to do the same.  (I think that is what the left typically refers to--pejoratively--as "imposing" upon others one's own values; but that same American left evidently feels no compunction about trying to impse its own values upon society.) 

If you "didn't have" community colleges in the African-American communities in 1967--almost half a century ago--how might you be able to find a Wayback Machine, get into that machine, and go back and rectify the situation?  

We almost agree. You state that the government should get out of the "marriage" business and on that we agree. We have a minor difference in that you believe "mariage" should be religious while I believe it should be contractual. I would argue for it being contractual because it is a financial partnership that requires it be addressed under contract law. It doesn't matter if it's religious but it does matter that it is a legal partnership established under contract laws because it is unquestionably a financial partnership where incomes, assets, and liabilities are shared between the partners. The "contract of marriage" would exist by default because of the financial partnership created regardless of whether it was a verbal or written contract and it would exist regardless of whether those involved have or don't have religious beliefs.   

Of course that ending the government institution of marriage is unlikely to happen as most politicans would oppose ending the government institution of marriage and I personally believe the greatest resistance would be among Republican politicans. In any case it isn't likely to happen so pragmatically simply using the broad definition of "marriage" as it refers to a "partnership" under the law is the next best thing.

Why on earth do you believe the government can't do anything to mitigate the effects of discrimination? There's a lot it can do that doesn't create  the so-called "reverse discrimination" you so fear.

You worry about college admissions where "affirmative action guidelines" were applied and when I reviewed several cases pointed out iby "racists" I found that there was no discrimination against "whites" at the colleges based upon the enrollment of African-Americans. The number of "seats" occupied by African-Americans was insignificant when I looked at the racial demographics of the student body. There was absolutely no discrimination agianst "whites" at the colleges I looked at. Seriously when I see that the African-American student body only represents between 4% and perhaps 8% of the entire student body it would impossible for anyone to argue that they're preventing whites from attending college.    

The Federal Affirmative Action guidelines only require a federally contracted enterprise (and sub-contracted enterprises) with more than 50 employees to implement policies and procedures that mitigate against racial or gender prejudice in employment. In short the enterprise has to attempt to ensure that race and gender is not a determining factor in employment.  It doesn't provide preferential treatment for anyone based upon race or gender and, in fact, if it granted preferential treatment for "minorities" or "women" the company would be in violation of the Federal Affirmative Action guidelines.

Federal Affirmative Action literally does exactly what you've repeatedly stated you'd like to see. It attempts to remove any racial (or gender) prejudice related to employment.  As you've also stated this actually benefits the enterprise because it does result in "the best candidate for the job" receiving the job which is why major corporations support Affirmative Action policies. There is no discrimination at all because the entire purpose and goal of Affirmative Action is to remove all forms of discrimination by the enterprise so that employment is based upon the qualifications of the person where prejudice is mitigated against. 

Why would you oppose a federal program designed to remove all forms of prejudice from employment so that employment is based upon the merits of the person and not the color of their skin or what gender they might be? Affirmative Action is opposed to all forms of invidious discrimination based upon prejudice including discrimination against white male Americans.   

The laws can also make it easier for a person to file a lawsuit that addresses discrimination. For example the "equal pay for equal work" legislation would have provided grounds for a lawsuit based upon performance and compensation. A woman would still have to prove in a court of law that she was performing at the same level of a man that was receiving more compensation before she would win compensatory damages but today she can't even file a lawsuit based upon wage discrimination in employment. Why do Republican politicans oppose allowing the lawsuit to address wage discrimination against women?

There are very positive things that the government can do such as "affirmative action" guidelines that, when properly followed, help eliminate all forms of prejudice in employment and education. The government can make it easier for a person that suffers from discrimination to bring the matter before the courts. Neither of these actions result in any "discrimination" against anyone while both help mitigate the effects of prejudice and address the problems of discrimination in America.... and Republicans oppose both of these measures.  

Oct 7, 2014 20:35:30 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your reasoning--such as it is--seems to go something like this:  Since African-Americans are represented in American colleges and universities at a rate lower than their percentage in American society, colleges and universities must be discriminating against black people, and in favor of whites. 

But even if it were true that blacks, as a group, were being discriminated against--and this is not necessarily the case; other (social) factors could easily account for lower average grade-point averages and/or test scores for African-Americans--it would not vitiate the central point I am making, viz.:  If even one white person is denied admission to a specific college or university, on the basis (in part, at least) of skin color, that amounts to racial discrimination. No group statistics can possibly alter this fact.

Gender discrimination has been against the law in America for over 40 years now.  Those who have been victimized by it can currently bring a lawsuit.  But I would certainly not support the plaintiff's position, if all she could offer is statistical "evidence," rather than something more concrete.  (The same goes, also, with "evidence" or racial discrimination.)

Since you have previously stated that you actually favor racial preferences, it seems downright strange that you might now be arguing in favor of affirmative-action plans on the basis of their (supposedly) not "provid[ing] preferential treatment for anyone based upon race."

Yes, I agree that it is most unlikely that the government will ever agree to get out of the marriage business altogether; although I would not blame Republican politicians for that anymore than I blame Democrats. In fact, I have never heard a single politician from either major party proposing that government should get out of the marriage business.

To view marriage, however, as a mere contractual arrangement (as you appear to do) is far too cynical for my own tastes.  I view it instead as the ultimate act of selfless devotion--with each partner loving the other wholeheartedly and unconditionally, without any thought of material benefits--and therefore, something that simply should not be governed by the ordinary dictates of materialism (as with contractual law).      

An addendum:  I do not recall if it was in this thread or another that we recently discussed the philosophical makeup of the professors at Harvard University.  But I found this quote from the late William F. Buckley Jr.; and I think it is quite appropriate:

Although the quote is from 1962--more than 50 years ago--I believe it is still appropriate today... 

There was no evidence that I'm aware of where a white person was denied admission to a college due to skin color. They might have been denied admission because they didn't fall into the discretionary group of the top 20% (or whatever percentage), based upon admission testing, that are assured admission at many universities and colleges. Remember though that this guarenteed admission based upon admission test scores is only assured for a percentage of those applying and not everyone that applies. The colleges and univesities never go through the list of applicants and say, "This person is white so they cannot attend." Discrimination based exclusively upon skin color (i.e. against blacks) used to exist but it doesn't under Affirmative Action guidelines. This is not to claim that AA guidelines have not been violated under attempts to implement affirmative action but those cases are rare and anecdotal. There are always "exceptions" to virtually everything and AA is no exception to that rule.

Court cases for individuals are never based upon statistical evidence alone. A jury has to be convinced based upon all of the evidence and I don't believe that either you or I would be convinced by statistical evidence alone in an individual case of discriminate if we were on the jury. That doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't provide a solid foundation for a person to bring a lawsuit. We we address the "equal pay for equal work" legislation that Democrats introduce and Republicans reject it doesn't determine a case but instead provides the foundation for a woman (or man) to file a lawsuit if they have actual evidence that they're doing the same work but being underpaid for it. They still have to prove that in court to a jury. Today they can't do that even though it's against the law from what I understand. The current law is simply too vague for it to be enforceable. That is what the "equal pay for equal work" attempts to address and if Republicans actually supported "equal pay for equal work" there is no logical argument to oppose the bill.... unless they want the vaguely worded and unenforceable existing law to continue to allow wage discrimination. 

The Republican position is basically "We have a law that doesn't work so let's keep it that way because we can claim 'we have a law' (that allows employers to ignore it)".

There are certainly altruistic aspects of marriage that are of significant importance to the relationship but that is a matter of person concern and not one that the government or society at large has ever had any ligitimate involvement in. On the other hand the government is tasked with the protection of our Rights including the "right of property" and the financial partnership establishes an issue of property where potential disputes arise. The government must be involved in settling these disputes of property if those involved cannot. That is an issue of contract law and the issue of "property" is all that our current divorce courts really address (including child custody and support that is treated as an issue of property). The "partnership contract" always exists related to "marriage" because it is inherent. I don't disparate the altruistic aspects of marriage at all but they are not something the government or society should be involved in. The settling of potential financial disputes does warrant government interventionism if the parties involved can't work it out on their own. 

It is interesting because if a person reads many of William F. Buckley Jr. quotes they are more aligned with liberal political ideologies today than they are with social conservative ideologies. For example:

"There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance."

It's the liberals today that are calling for a "liveable wage" where people are not reliant on government welfare programs. The Democrats are trying to get people off of government welfare and it's the social conservatives that oppose that.

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."

It's the liberals today that are fighting to end the prohibitions against the use of marijuana and the social conservatives, in general, that oppose it.

"Fiscal conservatism is a politicoeconomic philosophy with regard to fiscal policy and the advocating of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reduction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets. Fiscal conservatives would also support pay-as-you-go financial policies."

Liberals, by advocating the collection of more tax revenues, support a "pay as you go" government which is fiscal conservatism. They support a "liveable wage" that would dramatically reduce poverty and government welfare spending which is fiscal conservatism. Social conservatives oppose "pay as you go" government today.

You have stated that you oppose increasing government revenues to fund the authorized expenditures (while also providing endorsement to my tax proposal that would fully fund authorized expenditures reflecting a self-contradictory opinion).  

Buckley didn't represent the social conservative political ideology of today and ironically a Harvard professor today is probably more aligned with Buckley's political ideology than the Republican Party.  

Oct 8, 2014 21:03:35 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Taking first the quotes you have cited from William F. Buckley Jr.: I enthusiastically agree with all of them!

First, as regarding the man's preference for "self-reliance" over "reliance on the state": I cannot imagine how I (or any other conservative, for that matter) might disagree. But I do not recall Mr. Buckley's having endorsed the idea of an increased minimum wage (let alone the exponential increase currently being proposed by the left) in order to accomplish that end.

As Mr. Buckley was imbued with a rather wide libertarian streak (others whom I have quoted, including John Stossel, are libertarians; and George Will, in recent years, has indicated that he is gravitating in that direction), it should not seem especially surprising that he endorsed the legalization of marijuana. Libertarians, like progressives, usually take this position.

Most conservatives (myself included) also favor "pay-as-you-go financial policies." But we do not favor promiscuous government spending.  A very strong case, I think, can be made that we should pay for what we have already purchased--no more deficit spending!--but we should then pare back that spending, significantly, so that we never again run a budget deficit.  (In fact, I would very much favor a balanced-budget amendment to the US Constitution--as was proposed about two decades ago, and as many states currently have as regarding their respective state constitutions.)

Obviously, you would prefer to ignore what Mr. Buckley said abour Harvard University, in favor of some other things he said.  I think that is what is known as deflection.

No, there is probably no American college or university whose decision-makers pontificate, "This person is white so they cannot attend." But if extra points are granted to others on the basis of the immutable characteristics of their birth (such as skin color), that still amounts to a preference on the basis of race (which you have previously said that you favor).  And that is, indeed, a sort of racial discrimination.  (Although the US Supreme Court has been all over the place on the question of affirmative action--sometimes seeming to side in its favor--a 2009 SCOTUS ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano went against affirmative action.  In it, some white Connecticut firefighters were discriminated against in the matter of promotion; and the High Court struck down that policy:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano)

According to a very recent Huffington Post article (that bastion of liberalism), the so-called "Paycheck Fairness Act" (to which you are evidently referring) would "require the Department of Labor to collect wage data from employers, broken down by race and gender, and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex."  In other words, it would require employers to prove their innocence--guilty until proven innocent!--which is about as Orwellian of a thought as I can imagine.   

You have previously stated that you, too, would prefer that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether (although you consider it unlikely that this would happen anytime soon; as I do also).  Yet here, you seem to favor such government "if the parties involved cannot work it out on their own."  So it is really hard to know just where you stand on this particular issue.   

Buckley established a philosophical preference of "self-reliance" over "reliance on the state" and the Democrats have offered one proposal that unquestionably do that (regardless of whether we agree with that proposal it would reduce welfare dependency) but the Republicans have offered absolutely nothing that would reduce the level of poverty in the United States. Republican economic policies actually increase wealth disparity as opposed to reducing it which is juxtaposed to reducing poverty. The Republican Party does not seek to reduce poverty to reduce welfare assistance to mitigate the effects of poverty but instead merely seeks to cut the welfare assistance as the poverty increases. The Republicans are not addressing the problem of poverty at all.  

The Republican Party itself used to be far more "libertarian" than it is today. It was actually when the Republican Party, under Nixon, that abandoned it's socially liberal and economic conservative that lead to the creation of the Libertarian Party. Buckley was more of an "old school" Republican than he was a libertarian.

"Pay as you go" includes paying "all of the bills" and not just the expenditures you (or the Republican Party) agree with. Your position remains, if I might paraphrase it, "We shouldn't collect the taxes necessary to fund those expeditures I don't like" and that is not a "Pay as you go" policy. You don't like welfare spending and I don't like excessive military spending but both have to be paid for and to do that we must raise more tax revenue. The only question is who's going to carry the increased tax burden. We can't raise taxes on the poor or middle class that can't afford more taxation and Republican refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy that can afford more taxation (and that have the lowest total tax burden relative to income in the United States).  

By the way you are aware of the fact that if we were just to focus on paying "past bills" and we spread that over 20 years it would require increasing taxation by roughly a trillion dollars a year above a "balanced budget" (regardless of how the balanced budget is achieved). Just to support paying the past bills basically requires you to support a trillion/yr tax increase.

Of note if all of the professors at Harvard were clones of Buckley I'd choose the first 400 names in the phone book as being preferable to the Buckley clones.

Ricci v. DeStefano addressed a single case of a misapplication of Affirmative Action guidelines (which I stated did exist) and it was an anecdotal case. I previously noted that a misapplication of the principles of Affirmative Action do exist but they're the exception and not the rule. If we want to address these exceptions then we need to improve the Affirmative Action guidelines so that fewer exceptions occur. You don't oppose something in principle simply because there are rare cases in which the principles are not followed.

Just because one student is admitted to a college doesn't imply that another applicant was denied admission because of it. Republicans are very quick to point out that wealth is not a "zero gain" situation and neither is education. If you'll actually check the history of college admissions you'll find that they've increased the number of admissions over time when can accomodate the criteria of Affirmative Action principles without denying anyone admission because of the additional students allowed by the expanded admission policies. The colleges and universities added "seats" to accomodate the Affirmative Action students.

On a side note the total number of people helped by Affirmative Action of ALL forms (hiring, advancement in employment, education etc.) has only averaged about 250,000 per year as I recall. In an nation of over 300 million people this is only 0.0008% of the population. By analogy you're complaining about the difference in the price of a new car that would sell for $20,000 costing $16 more. It is hardly a significant amount worthy of discussion. It is so strange that you worry about zero cases of voter impersonation in Wisconsin but ignore millions of Americans that have been disadvantaged by historical racial discrimination. Why is that?    

Did you actually read about the "Paycheck Fairness Act" or merely read Huffington Post?

Yes, it does require the Dept of Labor to "wage data from employers" but which employers are affected? For an accurate sample size it would actually require an employer to have over 100 employees. Less than that amount doesn't really provide a statistical foundation as the margin of error is far too high. All but large corporations are fundamentally exempt. Next is even if significant disparity exists then all the employer has to do is to turn over a copy of it's employee compensation policies, that every large employer has or should have on file, that establish that the wages are based upon: "(1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex."  That's pretty good criteria from my perspective as it allows for wage discrimination based upon an non-nefarious criteria. Are you opposed to the criteria that actually provides for literally all forms of wage discrimination except gender?  

Of course to avoid any problems whatsoever all an employer has to do is ensure that their enterpise is in compliance with the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and they Dept of Labor won't investigate them at all. In short: Follow the law = no problem for any employer. Why are Republicans opposed to employers following the Equal Pay Act of 1963 or the enforcement of it by the Dept of Labor in cases where, based upon information supplied by the employer, it apparently isn't being followed?  

The goverment should only become involved in "marriage" based upon the identical reason it gets involved in other issues of dispute related partnerships - PROPERTY RIGHTS. I would not advocate the government estalishing the "conditions of contract" (assuming legality as applicable to all partnerships) but it must become involved as the neutral arbitrator of disputes arising from contracts.

Of note I wouldn't use the "religious" criteria because it would disparage the "Rights of the Person to Marry" if they don't believe in religion(s). The athiest is just as capable of love, sharing, and the other wonderful attributes of "marriage" as someone that is a member of a religious sect.  

Oct 9, 2014 18:14:42 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The use of the term, "sect," to apply to organized religion, is clearly an attempt to make it appear cult-like; in other words, to disparage organized religion.

No, I do not believe that government needs to be "addressing the problem of poverty" at all. It is entirely--not partially; not even mostly; but entirely--an individual matter; which is to say, it is not something to be "addressed" by The Benefactor State (which is a concept that I find most alarming, anyway).

Fifty years ago, exactly, the late Barry Goldwater was the GOP candidate for president. And he was, certainly, a libertarian. (You may refer to him as "an 'old school' Republican" if you wish.)

You may wish to return to the days of a "socially liberal" Republican Party--in effect, shutting out any meaningful voice in favor of social conservatism--but I certainly do not. In fact, that tendency seems downright totalitarian. And there is simply no such thing as totalitarian doctrine in the defense of a worthy end. Such a concept is entirely oxymoronic--a bit like a square circle.

Your caricature of my position--"We shouldn't collect the taxes necessary to fund the expenses I don't like"--is not even close to being accurate.  Do you really wish to know my views on the matter?  Or would you prefer to just create a strawman, and then set it ablaze?

My own view, for what it is worth--and I have stated this previously--is that we should pay entirely, and immediately, for all expenditures, so as to eliminate any deficit spending.  My further view is that we should drastically cut back on the non-defense portion of the budget, so as to not incur such enormous expenses in the future.

If you wish to take issue with my actual (stated) position, please feel free to do so.  But it would be nice if you would refrain from claiming that I believe something that I do not believe.

I really do not know where you got the idea that we could pay off the entire national debt within just 20 years. Even 50 years would be rather ambitious, I would think. But now would be a good time to start. (What is that old Chinese proverb about the longest journey beginning with a single step?)

Every time I mention a specific case of affirmative action's amounting to reverse discrimination, you dismiss it as merely "anecdotal." By that standard, it would be entirely impossible for me to ever supply an example that you would accept.  So why should I even bother to try?

And what is it about the Huffington Post article with which you disagree?  (Remember, this is not an editorial from National Review or The Weekly Standard; it is, rather, an article from a left-leaning publication.) 

And what I am "opposed to" is a person's being considered guilty until proven innocent.  Fair enough?

Oh, I am not much concerned about "historical racial discrimination." I live in the here and now--not in yesteryear. So I care not one whit about our compensating others for past acts of racial discrimination.  Rather, I care exclusively about our ensuring racial equality, under the law, in the present. 

I tend to agree with your view, however, that the government should become involved in marriage only as an arbiter of property rights (although I disagree with your earlier implication that children may be likened to property, in this context).  And this, in any case, is more about the government's becoming involved in divorce than about its becoming involved in marriage. 

Need I point out that "Christianity" originated (according to the New Testiment) as a Jewish cult? Had it not been for the "marketing" of Christianity to the non-Jewish Romans, after the death of Jesus, Christianity would have disappeared from history along with several other Jewish "messiah" cults that existed at the time. Yes, it has become a major "religion" but it's origin was as a cult religion. Of course I can't think of any other historical religion that didn't originate as a cult where the origins can be traced. Mormonism was obviously a cult derivative of Christianity as was Protestantism when it broke off from the Catholic Church. Islam was a cult that broke off from Christianity.

While you don't believe that government should be involved in addressing the matter of poverty you forget that it's the government that is generally responsible for it. Laws that address the economy and property all contribute to the creation of the poverty. When we have tax laws that increase the wealth of the wealthy while depleting the wealth of the poor that is an example of the government creating poverty. It is a problem that our government, through the law, creates and government is responsible fornthe negative outcomes it creates (e.g. poverty in America).

If you will recall in my tax proposals I attempt to eliminate the government imposed poverty under our tax codes and my proposal for federal taxation would certainly reduce poverty in America over time. I would offer the same tax proposals for the states (although that's much harder to accomplish) by using a "consumption tax with prebates" to fund state government. In short use "income to fund federal expenditures and consumer spending to fund state expenditures" as both address wealth accumulation or the inability to accumulate wealth by the person.

You see I actually offer proposals that would reduce the poverty created by the laws and by reducing poverty it reduces the responsibility of government to mitigate the effects of the poverty the government creates under the laws.

"Libertarianism" is not a constant as it is a very progressive (in the real sense and not as a term for Democrats) ideology. Not even the most "libertarian" person of the 1960's would qualify as a "libertarian" today. "Libertarianism" is not stuck in "conservative" ideologies because "conservative" thinking reflects the violations of the Rights of the Person inherent in the past. Figuratively speaking every single day the "libertarian" is tasked with identifying and addressing another violation of the Rights of the Person that has been allowed to exist. You've certianly seen this in me where I challenge attempts to disenfranchise voters based upon the Right to Vote were all persons, citizens and non-citizens share all Rights of the Person (I do argue for the Right to Vote for permanent residents of the United States as Rights are not based upon "citizenship" under the Constitution). I argue for the Right of Liberty for immigration. I argue for fair taxation. I argue for the Right of Property of the person. I'm always arguing cases addressing the Inalienable Rights of the Person and self-identify myself as a "progressive-libertarian" because I'm always addressing the historical violations of the Rights of the Person.

No, Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., Ron Paul, and Rand Paul are not (or were not) "libertarians" at all. They're all "conservative Republicans" that are not fighting for the Inalienable Rights of the Person. I would note that I know that Barry Goldwater was not a "social-conservative" though because one of his greatest fears was the influence of Christianity into politics. Goldwater believed in secular government which has been abandoned by the social-conservatives for the most part today.

Spending and Taxation - What do you propose?

According to Wikipedia for 2013 the US government had $2.77 trillion in actual revenue and $3.45 trillion in actual (all Congressionally authorized) expenditures plus we had a $16 trillion national debt at the end of 2012 (as I recall).

Using that as an example how would you have changed the tax codes so that the $3.45 trillion in "actual bills" would have been paid plus additional revenues to  pay off $800 billion worth of the national debt so that on a prorated basis the national debt would be eliminated in 20 years. You're about $1.5 trillion short of being able to pay for 2013 so how would you have changed the tax codes to come up with $1.5 trillion in more revenue? You can't cut any of the "spending" because it was all Congressionally authorized so how do you come up with the additional money to "pay as you go" for 2013?

BTW My tax proposal for 2013 would have balanced the budget with a 29% income tax rate but would not have covered the $800 billion to pay down the debt. Adding $800 billion would probably have increased my tax rate to perhaps 32% but that's just a rough guess-timate.

Of note the employers is not "innocent" based upon the Equal Pay Act of 1963 if they're engaging in unjustifiable wage discrimination based upon gender. The evidence of the differnent compensation being paid to male and female employess is gathered before the employer is ever required to show that this difference in compensation is not based upon gender discrimination. The employer basically is "guilty" because they don't compensate women and men equally and that is documented. The employer does have to establish that the differences in pay are not nefariously based upon gender to show compliance with the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  Of note the employer is not charged with any criminal offense, and is not required to "establish their innocent in court" unless it is later established by compelling evidence that the compensation practices are, in fact, discriminatory based exclusively upon gender.  

How ironic that you refer to th Equal Pay Act of 1963 but then don't want it enforced when there is actual documented evidence of different compensation rates between men and women. Why is that?

Oct 10, 2014 17:57:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

To be absolutely clear: I do, of course, want to see the law enforced.  But I do not wish to see employers being viewed as presumably guilty of "nefarious" wage discrimination, unless they can prove that any statistical differences are justified. Again, that is guilty until proven innocent.  And that stands on its head a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence.

Are you suggesting that all religions--even thousands of years after their founding--should still be regarded as mere "cults"?

And do you view organized religion negatively, in general?  (I am not speaking here of some particular group--say, the Westboro Baptist Church or some pro-ISIS mosque--but organized religion in general.) 

You continue to stick to the 20-year figure for our paying off the national debt (which is rapidly approaching 18 trillion dollars).  I have previously stated that even a 50-year timetable would probably be unrealistically aggressive.

Why would you imagine that all future social spending is set in concrete?  No past Congress may bind future Congresses as concerning spending--or anything else.  So Congress remains free to rescind those expenditures proposed by past Congresses--or, at least, to trim them substantially.

Your litmus-test view of "true" libertarianism reminds me of the proverbial Puritan, who was said to have declared, "Only me and thee are pure; and sometimes I wonder a little about thee."

And how do you believe, exactly, that American (federal) laws "increase the wealth of the wealthy while decreasing the wealth of the poor"?  I would think that the so-called progressive tax code (or graduated income tax) would do precisely the opposite of that.  (And that is not even to mention such provisions of the tax code as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which assist the poor.)     

The employers are not "presumed guilty" of anything. The employers know their pay practices and they know if women are being paid less than men and they should know why women are paid less than men if that condition exists (to be in compliance with the equal pay law). So let's assume an employer knows that it's female employees are earning 20% less than the men but they company pays based upon "piece work" and that's the reason for the difference in compensation. When they report the disparity in the compensation they also provide their "pay policy" that establishes compensation is based upon "piece work" showing that they're in full compliance with the law. They can provide documentation of any reasonable reason why the compensation is different for men and women that establishes it not based upon gender. The 1963 law requires them to ensure that they pay practices are not dictated by gender and if there is disparity in compensation then they're required to explain why. All the 2014 law requires is that they provide this information to the Dept of Labor. That is not "guilty until proven innocent" because the employer has an obligation under the law to ensure that they're pay practices are not nefariously based upon gender.

So why don't you want employers to provide evidence that they're complying with the law if there is a compensation differential between men and women? Seriously this is no different than the IRS asking a taxpayer to provide documentation of a large charitable contribution they list on the tax return. The taxpayer isn't "guilty" of anything assuming the deduction is legitimate. Requiring documentation is not a presumption of guilt and that is all the law establishes. If, and only if, there is wage disparities related to gender the employer has a responsibility under the law to explain why. Employers can obviously avoid any of this by ensuring that men and women are compenstated equally (in complaince with the law) if there is no legitimate reason why the shouldn't be. Why would anyone oppose that?

Well, perhaps I do consider all organized religions to be cults because I don't place a number on how many people constitute a cult nor do I believe that time changes the nature of a cult. Now that might be an improper uses of the word but for me, "Once a cult, always a cult" and that's just my opinion. Of note I don't necessarily attach a negative connotation in my use of the word cult. Like Jefferson I believe the philosophy that Jesus apparently expressed (we don't know what he actually said because all of the statements attributed to him are hearsay) were admirable.

In general I do view organized religion negatively because of the history of organized religions. That is not a condemnation of those that have a personal belief in god but instead is a condemnation of the historical tyranny propagated in the name of organized religion. More importantly I oppose the tyranny propagated by organized religion that has existed throughout US history.

The best current example of that is same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage never effected traditional marriage in the United States nor will it today. No one's rights were ever violated by allowing same-sex marriages. The legal prohibitions against same-sex marriage really originated after the 1971 MN Supreme Court decision in Baker v Nelson where the court ruled that the Christian religious institution of marriage (i.e. one man and one woman) should prevail even though same-sex marriages were never prohibited under the law. The fact that excluding same-sex couples from marriage under the law violated their Constitutionally protected Rights was never a consideration of the "Christians" that jumped on the bandwagon to prohibit same-sex marriage beginning in 1971. Of course the tyranny (i.e. violations of the Rights of the Person) of organized religion in American goes further back than that.

In 1878 polygamy was prohibited by the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v US (the same decision that established the Constitutional precedent of separation of church and state) because Christian European nations only accepted the Christian definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Court, in it's decision, openly acknowleded that other religions embraced polygamy (i.e. Islam) but then imposed the Christian definition that all Western European nations used. The SCOTUS literally defied the very precedent it established in it's onw decision by forcing "traditional" Christian religious beliefs upon Reynolds. It is the most flawed SCOTUS I'm aware of because it violates the very precedent it establishes. It was somewhat ironic that the "Christians" in control of the US government forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy in order to achieve statehood. Organized religious beliefs held by members of US goverment force the "establishment" of WASP religious beliefs on the Mormons as a condition of statehood. It was a pure act of organized religious tyranny.   

Let's put it this way. Since 2001 (when we had a projected surplus budget that was erased by tax breaks) we've increased the national debt by about $13 trillion by your estimate. Should we not be able to pay off the debt in the same amount of time it took to create it? But ignore that. Take the actual revenues and actual authorized expenditures and provide a retro-active tax proposal that would have just balanced the budget. You cant reduce the expenditures because your criteria was that as long as they were authorized, and they were, then they must be funded. So fund them.  

Government spending on "wefare" is not set in stone but the moral financial obligation imposed upon society created by poverty is established by the poverty. The only means of reducing that moral financial obligation imposed upon society is by reducing the poverty. To not fund that moral obligation is merely to abandon the morality it's based upon. In short, to not fund the obligation is immoral. The ultimate question is then whether we're a moral society or not.

I merely cite what "Libertarian" political ideology, by definition, imposes upon the person that is a Libertarian. The word "libertarian" is based upon the root word "liberty" and "liberty" is exclusively related to the "Freedom to Exericse an Inalienable Right by the Person" in the United States. The "Inalienable Rights of the Person" have never been, and perhaps never can be, fully enumerated. If we, as libertarians, are advocating the "Freedom to Exercise" the our "Inalienable Right" then it is inherently incombant upon us to identify those "Inalienable Rights" that we seek to exercise. The "status quo" does not provide the "inalienable rights" that we seek to exercise and historically the status quo has violated those rights. We must be very "progressive" in identifying "inalienable rights" and overcoming the status quo when it violated them by prohibiting our "liberty" to exercise those rights.

I'm not "special" by any means when it comes to the libertarian political ideology unless you think that someone actually complying with the inherent mandate is special. What I am not is a "status quo" advocate that is willing to accept the violations of my "liberty" or anyone else's "liberty" to "exercise their Inalienable Rights" as a person. To allow the status quo that violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person to continue is not "libertarianism" by any definition I'm aware of. A libertarian must be progressive as opposed to conservatve in their actions as the status quo that "conservatives" cling to all too often violates the "Liberty" of the person by violating their Inalienable Rights.  

Of course I'm very much annoyed by those that continue to advocate the status quo when it can be shown that that the status quo violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person if they, or others, call them libertarians because clearly they're not.       

The wealthest people in American are not the workers but instead are the investors and they are taxed at a fraction of the federal tax rates that the workers are subjected to. I believe I've shared the following tax chart which compare "worker" (earn income) with "investors" (unearned income on long term capital gains) and you can see the huge disparity in the tax rates.

This doesn't even account for the fact that the workers are also subjected to a 15.3% FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment tax on top of their federal income taxes that the "investor" basically doesn't pay - except for the new 3.8% Medicare tax above about $250,000/yr (that all workers pay on every dollar of income) to fund the expansion of Medicaid.  

But that's the "good news" for workers. Under state taxation laws the poor workers (relative to high income investors) are far worse off because most state taxation is highly regressive. In WA, where I live we have the most regressive state taxation in the nation and it imposes 14-times the tax burden relative to income on low (minimum wage) households than it does on our high income households.

,

When the total tax burden relative to income is calculated the low income workers have the highest tax burden relative to income (i.e. percentage of total income being spent on taxes) while the wealthy have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States. That's what amazes me about the average Republican that continues to endorse the wealthy having a much lower tax burden relative to income than what they paying. Do they really believe that they should have a higher tax burden than someone with a multi-million dollar income? To me that makes no sense whatsoever and I can't understand their logic. Why do they want to "pay more" percentage-wise out of their paycheck than a multi-millionaire?     

Of course every dollar a low income worker doesn't have detracts from their ability to accomulate any wealth. They can't even begin to accumulate any wealth until after all of their basic necessities including food, shelter, transportation, energy, health care (insurance), clothing, communication (phoneand internet today), and numerous other "basic" necessities are paid for. The wealthy, on the other hand, not only have all of their necessities paid for but also have the majority of their income left over to invest and grow their personal wealthy.

Basically we end up perhaps 20% to 30% that are completely incapable of increasing their wealth by even a dime and about 5% where it is all but impossible for them to not vastly increase their wealth.

Oct 12, 2014 1:49:06 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Beginning with your final point, above: Of course "state" taxes are "regressive."  (Well, except for the state income tax--which Tennessee does not have, except on private investments.) That is because these taxes are consumption taxes (I am thinking specifically of the sales tax); and probably nothing can be done to ameliorate the tax burden, other than eliminating the sales tax from necessities (such as food--at least, non-processed groceries).  And that would require government's raising the sales tax--rather substantially, in all probability--on just about everything else. 

By the way, it is not essential to have an impressive income in order to be able to save for retirement (and a rainy day).  I never earned more than $12 an hour--and with far more undertime than overtime--yet I socked away 15 percent of my paycheck into a 401(k) each week, for years; and then increased that amount to 26 percent, for the final several years of my working life.

You claim that employers would not be "presumed guilty" of anything under the "Paycheck Fairness Act."  Yet you would require that they prove their innocence of "nefarious" conduct, if there is a statistical discrepancy between men's pay and women's pay, on average.  How does that work?

Your reasoning--"Once a cult, always a cult"--is certainly, well, most interesting. If a prospective employer were to reject an applicant who had been a convicted felon--and who had served time, and then been released--with the reasoning, "Once a criminal, always a criminal," would you be entirely sanguine about that?  (Note:  I did not ask if that ever happens; rather, I asked how you would feel about it.)     

One man for one woman is not merely the "Christian" standard for marriage. Muslims, Jews, et al. have traditionally embraced the very same standard.  But perhaps you believe that today's progressives are sufficiently wise that they should be allowed to overturn millenia of human history--and even overturn the will of the majority in some states, where same-sex marriage bans have been voted into place. 

Why can't we reduce future expenditures?  As I have noted previously, the current Congress cannot be bound by the actions of past Congresses.  No exceptions.  So I would suggest that our current Congress should reduce future expenditures--substantially--although it should pay for what has already been purchased, so as not to add to the national debt. 

Your assertion that any libertarian "must be progressive" seems to indicate that you view libertarians as mere liberals--which is to say, essentially, Democrats--masquerading as Deep Thinkers searching for a "third way." 

It would be one thing to question the morality of one's declining to spend any portion of one's income--voluntarily--on the poor.  But you seem to question the morality of one's declining to support the basic concept of The Benefactor State.  Interesting...

(By the way, Utah never had any inherent right to statehood.  If the US government had wished to declare, say, that Utah would not be admitted to the Union unless it could prove that just about every resident of that territory ate radishes for dinner every Wednesday, without fail, I would have no problem with that.) 

The sales tax is unquestionably the most regressive tax with property taxes probably coming in a close second (if we acknowledge that the renter pays the landlord's property taxes). While corrupted in it's details FairTax.org's proposal of a consumption tax with prebates (if properly created) eliminates ther regressive nature of the consumption tax. Simply exempting certain items form the consumption (sales) tax does not eliminate the regressive nature of the tax (but is is a form of government social engineering). The "prebate" (that removes the regressive nature of the tax) must be funded so it does cause an increase in the tax rate but the final result is that only those that can afford the tax, pay the tax, and it is a progressive tax where the more you can afford the more you pay. By analogy it's the same as the "exemption" I provided for income taxes.

How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred? Hardly a religion of monogamy based upon it's own history. The religion of Islam embraces polygyny, the same was true of the Hebrew and Mormon religions, which are forms of polygamy. Let us remember though that the US Constitution prohibits the "establishment" of religion under the law so the religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, ancient Jews, or Mormons of marriage cannot be used as the criteria for the marriage laws and all religious and secular beliefs in marriage must be accommodated so long as the Rights of the Person, protected by the Constitution, are not violated.  

The United States was founded upon an ideology that was later defined as "classical liberalism" so inherently anyone that supports the original ideology of the United States is, by definition, a classical liberal. Let us also understand that classical liberalism was still in it's infancy in 1776 with the arguments for it, based upon John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, being barely 80 years old. The founders like Madison and Jefferson knew that they weren't just turning a page in a book of political ideology but instead had started writing a completely new book. They left it to use to fill in the future pages in that book. John Locke's arguments were just the Preface to the book, the founders wrote Chapter One, and it has been the responsibility of subsequent generations to write following chapters that all flow from the original Preface of the book.

All Americans that embrace the original ideology of the United States are classical liberals.

Anedotal cases have little relevance. Were you the sole income earner? How many children did you raise. Did you also have to support extended family?Did you live in an apartment that cost you 50% f your income like many low income households? How many employers in your community denied you employment because of the color of your skin? In times of financial crisis could you count on your family to bail you out?      

Yesterday I read an OpEd based upon the book "How to Be a Conservative" that was very interesting. It cited a passage from the book (that I have not read) that I will quote.

Hobbes may have been wrong to think that he could reduce the obligation of society to a contract; but he was surely right to think that outside society life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." And the more we take from this arrangement, the more we must give in return. This is not a contractual obligation. It is an obligation of gratitude. But it exists for all that, and must be built into the conservative vision as a cornerstone of social policy.

That, in my view, is the truth in socialism, the truth of our mutual dependence, and of the need to do what we can to spread the benefits of social membership to those whose own efforts do not suffice to obtain them.

theweek.com/article/index/269549/what-conservatives-must-learn-from-socialists

This is a problem for those that rely on "voluntary" actions when it comes to mitigating the effects of poverty. The "obligation" exists and as stated "the more we take from this arrangement, the more we must give in return" but people are inherently not disposed to do this. If we used the income statistics and applied the standard that "the more you recieve the more you should give" then I could argue that a Top 1%, depending upon their actual income, should be giving up to 99% of their income to charity. A person with $20 million in income could still live lavishly on $200,000 a year if they gave the rest to charity. I've lived lavishly on far less. No one really needs their own Lear Jet for personal transportation or an elevator in their garage.

So the "obligation" exists but virtually no one assumes responsibility for their obligation voluntarily.     

We're not addressing "future spending" but instead past spending. Based upon "pay as you go" how would you have funded 2013 expenditures that were Congressionally authorized?

While the Congress did not have to allow Utah to become a State it could not impose a "religious" requirement in demanding that Mormon's discard their religions beliefs in marriage and adopt Protestant religious beliefs in marriage as that violated the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment. 

Oct 13, 2014 1:24:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, I am not a Christian fundamentalist; so let us clear up that matter immediately. But it is certainly fair to note that the Bible is divided into three basic eras: the Patriarchal Era (in which the patriarchs ruled;  think:  Abraham); the Mosaic Era (in which the Law of Moses codified Hebrews' beliefs); and the Christian Era.  So the concubines (not "wives") that Solomon had is an irrelevancy here.

I would argue that the classical liberalism of the Founders' era--or even of 100 years ago--is really much more closely aligned with today's conservatism that it is with modern (or rather, postmodern) progressivism.

I find it interesting that you quote--approvingly--someone who praises "the truth of socialism," as regarding "our mutual dependence"--even though you would really desire that the state should make some Americans dependent upon government, at the expense of other Americans.

Your assertion that the wealthy "should be giving up to 99% of their income to charity" overlooks the obvious: viz., that these people typically have far more financial obligations than the rest of us do.  So they may have no more disposable income than the average, middle-class American does--if as much, even.  (Personally, I would far rather earn $50,000 a year, after taxes, and spend just $40,000 a year, than to earn $500,000 a year, after taxes, and spend $600,000 a year.  But that is just me.) 

You have asked too many (rapid-fire) questions, as regarding my own "necdotal" situation, for me to try to answer them all. But I will say that the part about my "family" helping me seems laughable--albeit in a rather sad way:  Both of my parents were already deceased; and I have no siblings or children.

And you seem to be obsessed with the matter of skin color.

As I have noted previously, I would have preferred that the Congress drastically reduce those "authorized expenditures, thereby making it unnecessary to increase taxes.  But the money that had already been spent should certainly have been paid--not just kicked down the road, for a future generation to deal with.

Interestingly enough, the US Supreme Court has never found that the way Utah was admitted to the Union, in 1896, (somehow) violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution...     

Historically the major "Christian" religious organizations have generally, but not always, opposed any marriage other than a monogamous marriage (but historically didn't oppose incestuous marriages between very closely related family members such as first cousins) but off-shoots like Islam and Mormonism have. Of course it's irrelevant because "religious opinion alone cannot be the fundation for law" in the United States (Reynolds v United States 1978 ).  So what traditional religious beliefs associated with "marriage" is have no relevance under the United States Constitution.

Many unconstitutional acts of our government go unchallenged due to a lack of Constitutional "standing" to bring a lawsuit. I could not, for example, challenge Ted Cruz if he was placed on the ballot for president because he's not a "natural born citizen of the United States" (he was born in Canada and was a natural born citizen of Canada) because I lack Constitutional "standing" to file a lawsuit.

"Classical liberalism" has little in common with either "social-conservatism" or "progressive liberalism" of today. The "classic liberal" challenged ALL traditional values and institutions as opposed to supporting them "just because they were traditional" values or institutions. Classical liberalism was far from being a "conservative" approach to government.        

The quotation I provided was from the book "How to Be a Conservative" but was cited in an article related to the "Turths of Socialism" and there certianly are some "truths" contained within the philosohy of socialism. It doesn't imply that it's "all truth" but generally speaking even the most nefarious ideologies (e.g. white supremacy) express some truths.

No, I don't want to make people dependent upon government. I want people to succeed instead based upon their "natural (inalienable) right of property" that are being violated by our "statutory ownership of property" laws in the United States. My proposals are always about reducing poverty so that it reduces the financial burden of poverty that a moral society must carry. As a moral person I do understand that a moral society does have an obligation to provide for those in society identical to what the short passage from "How to Be a Conservative" expresses. That "obligation" will not be met based upon the criteria of "volunteerism" by society.    

Yes, a few very wealthy people "over spend" their income by purchasing Lear Jets or expensive mansions but the vast majority do not. The top 1/10th of 1% have so much income it's virtually impossible for them to spend it all. That's why they have tens of millions (or even billions) of dollars left over to invest every year. Remember that a person with $10 million in income from investments has at least $50 million (probably $100 million) in assets that they could live on if they "cashed out" of their investments. What cannot be denied is that they would be able to live lavishly on a small fraction of their income if it wasn't for stupid and wasteful expenditures on things they really don't need. Of course a low income person doesn't have the income to make really stupid and wasteful expenditures because all of their income must be spent on the bare necessities of survival and they don't have any money left over to invest.   

Yes, I fired numerous questions at you but by your own admission the fact that you didn't have children to support and that would be a primary factor in your ability to invest money, along with the fact that your employer had a 401K plan, that would prevent a very large precentage of those with low incomes from doing. You might have also had a working spouse that doubled your household income.

Yes, I mention skin color because it is a key factor in poverty because of the proven denial of economic opportunity based upon skin color alone.

We're not dealing with hypothetical spending but the actual authorized federal expenditures in 2013. How would you have funded the "actual" and not "hypothetical" expenditures of 2013?