On all the great social issues of our time, "The Left" has already won.

[Chris_]

I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.  I stand by that.  I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed. 

You did no such thing.  You provided no information on how such plan would be implemented or even proposed.  You merely shrugged your shoulders and said "meh".

Are you planning on defending any of your assertions in this thread with concrete and verifiable data or are you just going to talk out of your ass and waste everyone's time?  Because your tenure here is looking more like the latter than the former.

[txradioguy]

Go figure he supports the failed President's of Liberalism...Carter and Obama.

Only Libs look at failure as success and promote those that continually underachieve

[Laelth]

You did no such thing.  You provided no information on how such plan would be implemented or even proposed.  You merely shrugged your shoulders and said "meh".

Are you planning on defending any of your assertions in this thread with concrete and verifiable data or are you just going to talk out of your ass and waste everyone's time?  Because your tenure here is looking more like the latter than the former.

Um, this thread is about "the great social issues of the day."  Not sure how we transferred the discussion of the Swiss, guaranteed minimum income proposal to this thread, but so be it.  On the subject of the guaranteed minimum income, it's clear that there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States.  That said, I still think it would be a good idea, but I have no interest in defending that position because it would be pointless.  If the Swiss pass such a law, I think it would be wise to watch and see how it plays out.

Fair enough?   

-Laelth

[Freeper]

Assuming we're talking about the "guaranteed minimum income,"  and assuming there was political will to do such a thing in the United States (which there isn't), under those circumstances "I" wouldn't be demanding that anyone pay anything, but it is true that the Federal Government of the United States could demand (and does demand) that its citizens pay taxes for whatever constitutional purpose that the federal government decides needs to be done.

Government does have the power to take wealth from one group and distribute that wealth to another group.  This power is not new, nor is it going away.  How to use this power is the question.  It appears to me that government takes money from the poor and middle class and gives it to the rich far moreso than it takes money from the rich to give to the poor and middle class (bailout of AIG and the banks, for example).
Nobody I know wants a 90% top marginal rate.  As I said elsewhere on this forum, I'd be happy to return to the 39.6% top marginal rate we had under Clinton.

-Laelth

Show me where the government has the power to redistribute wealth. I can't find anywhere in our constitution nor from the founding fathers any permission to steal from one man to give to another.

The bailouts were wrong, the government had no business deciding who should succeed and who should fail. If the banks failed there are free market solutions for dealing with it.

If you want a 39.6% tax rate then when you figure your taxes at the end of the year make up the difference and send a check to the IRS. They will gladly accept it. You may think that 39.6% would make you happy but I know that if you got your way, it would end up being 40% before too long then 50% and so on. There is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you leftists, just as no amount of government control will ever be enough for you. No matter how high taxes are you will claim that someone somewhere is a victim and that we owe them.

[Laelth]

Show me where the government has the power to redistribute wealth. I can't find anywhere in our constitution nor from the founding fathers any permission to steal from one man to give to another.

We agree, I think, that the government does have this power.  Whether that power is constitutional is another question.  I will note, however, that this is a matter of established law, and that the SCOTUS is not likely to hear any arguments on the government's taxing and spending powers any time soon.

The bailouts were wrong, the government had no business deciding who should succeed and who should fail. If the banks failed there are free market solutions for dealing with it.

On that, we agree--entirely and without question, though I admit I came to this conclusion late in the game.

If you want a 39.6% tax rate then when you figure your taxes at the end of the year make up the difference and send a check to the IRS. They will gladly accept it. You may think that 39.6% would make you happy but I know that if you got your way, it would end up being 40% before too long then 50% and so on. There is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you leftists, just as no amount of government control will ever be enough for you. No matter how high taxes are you will claim that someone somewhere is a victim and that we owe them.

If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy.  In fact, I'll be relying on you to do just that.

 

Still, a 39.6% top marginal rate wouldn't kill anybody, and we need the revenue.

-Laelth

[Freeper]

We agree, I think, that the government does have this power.  Whether that power is constitutional is another question.  I will note, however, that this is a matter of established law, and that the SCOTUS is not likely to hear any arguments on the government's taxing and spending powers any time soon.
On that, we agree--entirely and without question, though I admit I cam to this conclusion late in the game.
If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy.  In fact, I'll be relying on you to do just that.

 

Still, a 39.6% top marginal rate wouldn't kill anybody, and we need the revenue.

-Laelth

Whether that power is constitutional is another question.

That is not another question. That is the question on every law, every policy, and everything the feds do. If it is unconstitutional then the government does NOT have that power. I am sick of people thinking the constitution was nothing more than a bunch of suggestions. And NO we do NOT agree that the government has that power. Just because they have done it does not make it right.

If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy.

You have the power to set that rate on yourself.
You say that 39.6% won't kill anyone, tell you what I will come by your house and go through all your belongings and take 1% of everything in your house. It won't kill you if I did that right? I would be quite generous allowing you to keep 99% of your stuff right?

[Laelth]

That is not another question. That is the question on every law, every policy, and everything the feds do. If it is unconstitutional then the government does NOT have that power. I am sick of people thinking the constitution was nothing more than a bunch of suggestions. And NO we do NOT agree that the government has that power. Just because they have done it does not make it right.

I hear you on that, honestly.  Still, if the SCOTUS won't take that power away from the government (and it appears they won't), then, I must conclude that the government does have that power, for better or for worse.  You say "worse."  I get that.

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%.  That would wipe out the national defecit.

Then why didn't it?  Why didn't the even higher rate under Carter wipe out the national deficit?

[Freeper]

I hear you on that, honestly.  Still, if the SCOTUS won't take that power away from the government (and it appears they won't), then, I must conclude that the government does have that power, for better or for worse.  You say "worse."  I get that.

-Laelth

You can conclude that all you want still doesn't make it right. If the SC won't do their job then it is up to us to vote for people who will take that power away.
People that do not follow the constitution do not deserve to be in power ever. The Constitution was not a suggestion and this country has acted as if it were for way too damn long. The founders wrote it for a reason, they knew people like you would come along who have no desire for liberty.

[txradioguy]

You can conclude that all you want still doesn't make it right. If the SC won't do their job then it is up to us to vote for people who will take that power away.
People that do not follow the constitution do not deserve to be in power ever. The Constitution was not a suggestion and this country has acted as if it were for way too damn long. The founders wrote it for a reason, they knew people like you would come along who have no desire for liberty.

Thank goodness George Mason got his way and Article V was included in the Constitution to protect us from the over reach of government that we're seeing now.

[Freeper]

Thank goodness George Mason got his way and Article V was included in the Constitution to protect us from the over reach of government that we're seeing now.

*sigh* if only we had followed it.

[txradioguy]

*sigh* if only we had followed it.

Well...better late than never.  Just gotta get our state reps and Govs to do it.

[Freeper]

Well...better late than never.  Just gotta get our state reps and Govs to do it.

The Tea Party is a good start.

[txradioguy]

The Tea Party is a good start.

Indeed.  They must really worry the Dems with all vitriol directed at them.

Same for Ted Cruz

[Freeper]

Indeed.  They must really worry the Dems with all vitriol directed at them.

Same for Ted Cruz

The RINOs get treated exactly the same way, they are just focused on the Tea Party right now. So there is no benefit in being a RINO yet there are so many.

[txradioguy]

The RINOs get treated exactly the same way, they are just focused on the Tea Party right now. So there is no benefit in being a RINO yet there are so many.

They've always been there though.  Reagan had to fight through them to get to the White House...it can be done.

Problem now is that the media isn't hiding their association with Liberals anymore and use the power of their medium like a club against anyone that dares to speak ill of Dems.

Cruz, Mike Lee and the Tea Party are unaffected by this disgusting rhetoric and it drives Libs crazy...which is good.

[Eupher]

I will continue to assume that you are an American patriot--one who cares about this country enough to think about it and write about it in a public forum.  Way back when, I got some good political advice.  Among the legislators and politicians I know, the 1st rule is: don't question another politician's motives.  You make political enemies that way, and I have no desire to make enemies here.

It does indeed sound like you are one of Eric Holder's sycophants.

But if I gave a good healthy shit about the legislators and politicians you know, I'll let you know, mmmkay? Neither their expressed motives nor their bleeding-heart, feel-good public bullshit is really worth more than skid marks in toilets.

One thing I learned a long time ago -- when you lie with dogs, you get fleas. Since you're asshole deep in politicians, most of whom aren't worth a tinker's damn, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure out where you stack in that equation.

[seahorse513]

Okkkkkkkk..... some of the things on your list are not something I would push, have won and ne proud of.

Let's  start with abortion... women get abortions usually ,because they and their partner were too damn lazy or irresponsible to  take precautions.

Gay marriages...well that can be tricky..homosexuality has existed since humans appeared.  Whether it is an extra x or y chromosome in the dna, don't know don't care. Marriage is  between a man and a woman.

The Bible, the Torah, and even the Qquran say that homosexuality is an abomination against each religion's celestial  being.

We have our constituional rights, yes, but with those rights,  come responsibility, discretion and tact.

[Laelth]

Okkkkkkkk..... some of the things on your list are not something I would push, have won and ne proud of.

Let's  start with abortion... women get abortions usually ,because they and their partner were too damn lazy or irresponsible to  take precautions.

Gay marriages...well that can be tricky..homosexuality has existed since humans appeared.  Whether it is an extra x or y chromosome in the dna, don't know don't care. Marriage is  between a man and a woman.

The Bible, the Torah, and even the Qquran say that homosexuality is an abomination against each religion's celestial  being.

We have our constituional rights, yes, but with those rights,  come responsibility, discretion and tact.

Thanks for the response.

I assumed most posters here would be opposed to the the things I listed.  Whether they're "victories" for anyone is another question.  My question was this:  do you think the left has "won" on these issues, or not?  What's your prognostication regarding the future of these issues in the United States?

-Laelth

[Laelth]

You can conclude that all you want still doesn't make it right. If the SC won't do their job then it is up to us to vote for people who will take that power away.

Indeed.  Just because the federal government has these powers, that does not mean it should have them.  With that, I agree.

I can tell you that Constitutional Law was an enlightening experience for me when I was in in law school.  What I learned was that, in the United States, the Constitution is only as powerful and as relevant as the SCOTUS says it is.  It's that simple.  The SCOTUS is the only defender we have of the Constitution, and, quite frankly, we're lucky to have it (the SCOTUS).

The old and extinct USSR, for example, had a beautiful constitution that guaranteed its citizens incredible (and unrealistic) rights, but that document wasn't worth the paper it was written on because the Russian courts refused to enforce it.  Our SCOTUS, by comparison, actually does, sometimes, enforce our Constitution, and it's generally agreed that they have the power to do so.  This puts us far ahead of most nations, as we do, actually, have some kind of check on government power, but only to the extent that the SCOTUS is willing to do it.

As for the issue we are discussing, the power of the Federal Government to tax and spend (i.e. take money from one person and give it to another) is very well established, and it's not going away.

For what that's worth to you.

Regards,

-Laelth

[Dori]

  What I learned was that, in the United States, the Constitution is only as powerful and as relevant as the SCOTUS says it is.  It's that simple.  The SCOTUS is the only defender we have of the Constitution, and, quite frankly, we're lucky to have it (the SCOTUS).

Regards,

And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?

[JohnnyReb]

And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?

The brown stains will get so bad you can't read it.....almost that bad now.....somebody get Obama a roll of TP....please.

[txradioguy]

And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?

Libs like Laelth and his boss up on Capitol Hill would think that the court was finally balanced.

[Laelth]

And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?

Hard to say, actually.  I suppose it depends on who's controlling Congress and the Presidency at the time.

That said, I see zero chance of any Marxist judges sitting on the SCOTUS, ever.  As such, I don't see what we gain from speculating about that possibility.

-Laelth

[Happy Fun Ball]

I'm sure about 10-15 years ago, you saw zero chance of a Marxist president ever.

Well, guess what...