American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 414928]Find me the dictionary where jurisdiction is defined that way. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In its most basic sense, jurisdiction means subject to the law and rules of a particular government. As an example, Julian Assange is outside the USA's jurisdiction. If he did what he did while on US soil, however, he would be within our jurisdiction, regardless of whether he's an Australian citizen, just as Sweden asserts he is subject to their jurisdiction for conduct that occurred while on their soil. When here, jurisdiction would certainly apply to the newly born, as well as to their parents while on USA soil, unless they're diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Finally, the idea that the original drafters of the 14th Amendment may have expressed their private intention differently makes a little difference, but not much. The rules of statutory construction are well-established: When something's clear on its face, you look no further than the text. Even when it's not clear on its face, a preparer's private or public remarks about meaning are unlikely to carry much weight since those who voted to ratify an Amendment likely did not know what these separate thoughts were. Instead, they voted on the actual language in the Amendment, not on the separate remarks.[/QUOTE]Read Elk vs Wilkins 1884. the amendment was used to ensure freed slaves would be citizens of their states and federal citizens. This is a direct quote from the Civil Rights Act. explain what the wording of the law means when it says "not subject to any foreign power."

I would have to agree with Rock's assessment with regards to the best way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the USA.

[quote]The most effective way to control illegal immigration is to make the employment market and access to social / government services almost completely impenetrable to illegal aliens, which would provide a major deterrent to prospective illegal immigrants. [/quote]While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land. The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time. Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.

Securing the illegal labor market has the several benefits including; making illegal immigration much less desirable, lowering domestic unemployment, and raising funds for our immigration services by fining offending employers. Limiting access to governmental services would also have a profound effect, potentially making emigrating to the USA worse than living in one's country of origin, if all services were withheld. Although I believe the chances of that happening is slim, it is definitely something to explore in differing degrees of severity.

Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor {sorry, El Alamo}).

My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.

[QUOTE=Guestrex;414933]Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor).[/QUOTE]While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.

What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.

[quote=-Guestrex]While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land.[/quote]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414935]My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.[/QUOTE]We built a 50,000 mile interstate highway system reaching every part of the country, thus I am confident that we can build a 3,000 mile fence.

[quote=-Guestrex]Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.[/quote]So to extend that logic, nobody should build fences anywhere because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" fences, and we shouldn't build border stations because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" border stations, and we shouldn't build airport security checkpoints because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" airport security checkpoints , and...

[quote=-Guestrex]The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time.[/quote]The "costs are ridiculous" compared to what? The cost of education, law enforcement, health care and social services for illegal immigrants?

Regarding the alleged "corruption" argument: First, I haven't read any news reports specifically identifying "corruption" in the building of the existing portions of the fence, but for the sake of argument let's assume that there was some measure of "corruption" in the contracting and construction of said fence. Does mean that the Federal Government shouldn't build anything anywhere because of the possibility that there might be some "corruption" in the contracting procedure?

It's not lost on me that liberals always cry "waste and corruption" in their arguments against anything they don't want, but are completely silent on the same issue in regards to their own sacred programs. For example, I've never heard any liberal decry "waste and corruption" as an argument against welfare or any other wealth transfer program, and yet these programs have been repeatedly proven to be rife with fraud and abuse.

Thanks,

Jackson

When I started printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414940]BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414935]My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day. [/QUOTE]Last time I checked there aren't too many citizens on either side of the DMZ that want to cross. Not to mention the thousands of landmines that are buried in the area. Regardless, if you take as an example some of the kidnappings of South Koreans by the North, I guess you can use that as circumstantial evidence that the DMZ isn't impenetrable. To use a boundary that most people don't want to cross is misleading.

The USSR had far stricter penalties for crossing the Berlin wall than we would ever conceive of using and people still crossed illegally regularly. If people think it will change their lives for the better, they will risk anything.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414940]While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.[/quote]I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 414940]What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens. [/QUOTE]Honestly I think that if you go after the jobs, there won't be any reason to go after anyone else. All I'm asking is that we do exactly what conservatives have been saying all along. Enforce the laws already on the books (like The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens). I can never understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to follow through on even their most common talking points and then they wonder why the younger generations are apathetic.

I went to school for a semester in Japan, I liked it so much that I moved back there after graduation. I was unable to sustain myself there because I could not find a job without a working visa. Unlike the USA and Argentina, the Japanese government prosecuted businesses that employed illegals. No one would hire me without the proper documents out of fear of that prosecution.

[QUOTE=Guestrex;414950]I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.[/QUOTE]This is very easy for employers to do with e-Verify now. There's no failsafe way to ensure that you're not hiring someone who's illegal. But, at least with this program, my understanding is that employers get a presumption of compliance if: (a) they've run what appears to be a facially valid I'd through that system; and (b) don't get a negative result. It's quick and easy to use. If someone presents you with a sophisticated counterfeit, you (the employer) aren't responsible. The e-verify system does make mistakes (false positives) but when that happens legit employees are usually able to clear up the error pretty quickly.

If you are a business without internet access, this would be difficult. But, if you've got internet access, it's almost too easy to get an instant result. Use of e-Verify is still voluntary, but it's pretty darn easy.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414945]When I started Printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions. [/QUOTE]Unions started out great and did great service to the workers. Even non union workers benifited because the employers had to improve conditions or loose all their employees. But unions gradually fucked themselves by making outrageous demands and forcing many employers to go non union to remain competitive. Look at Spain or Greece and what the unions did to them.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;414951]If someone presents you with a sophisticated counterfeit, you (the employer) aren't responsible.[/QUOTE]Unless, of course, you're a Republican candidate for Governor of California.

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;414952]Unions started out great and did great service to the workers. Even non union workers benifited because the employers had to improve conditions or loose all their employees. But unions gradually fucked themselves by making outrageous demands and forcing many employers to go non union to remain competitive. Look at Spain or Greece and what the unions did to them.[/QUOTE]You're really talking more about public unions. I'm no big fan of private sector unions, but there are natural economic principles that will kill them off when they become too greedy, as they did in WorldTraveler's case.

I'm also no big fan of FDR, but even he recognized that public unions should NEVER be allowed to exist:

[i]All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. [/i]

I've asked this twice before here and no one has tried to answer. Why do we allow public unions to exist? Until 50 years ago, they were allowed in the private sector and forbidden in the public sector? Now that they've bankrupted the federal government, as well as most state, county and municipal governments, why do we allow them to continue? At this point, the only people willing to publicly stand up for them are union leaders and neo-marxists like Robert Reich. Democrats will take their campaign contributions and lobby for their votes, but even they are generally too timid to voice much public support.

Last year, someone wrote a book about Goldman Sachs with an apt quote describing how greedy they are. The quote, when paraphrased, actually applies far better to public unions:

A public union is like a [i]'vampire squid wrapped around the face of [government], relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money'[/i]

So, are you saying that we go back to 70 hour work weeks, No vacations, No Holidays, No Sick Leaves, No Health Care, No Child Labor Laws, Etc.

I have a union pension. $700. A month, is that too much?

I also have a University Of California Pension. $1400. A month, because of the union.

The Retired Regents get $240, 000. Plus per year and want more.

Whose getting Fucked?

Sounds like what the Republicans got what they want.

No Unions, No Restrictions for the rich,
Lower Wages! Make us a Third World Country.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 414954]You're really talking more about public unions. I'm no big fan of private sector unions, but there are natural economic principles that will kill them off when they become too greedy, as they did in WorldTraveler's case.

I'm also no big fan of FDR, but even he recognized that public unions should NEVER be allowed to exist:

[i]All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. [/i]

I've asked this twice before here and no one has tried to answer. Why do we allow public unions to exist? Until 50 years ago, they were allowed in the private sector and forbidden in the public sector? Now that they've bankrupted the federal government, as well as most state, county and municipal governments, why do we allow them to continue? At this point, the only people willing to publicly stand up for them are union leaders and neo-marxists like Robert Reich. Democrats will take their campaign contributions and lobby for their votes, but even they are generally too timid to voice much public support.

Last year, someone wrote a book about Goldman Sachs with an apt quote describing how greedy they are. The quote, when paraphrased, actually applies far better to public unions:

A public union is like a [i]'vampire squid wrapped around the face of [government], relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money'[/i][/QUOTE]

I am not anti union. I think unions helped make the US what it is today or better yet, what it was 15 years ago. What happened is some unions got out of hand. As to "public" unions, if I recall public employees won the right to collective barganing with various restrictions. Such as in the cases of railway workers or the now famous ATC where they were not permitted to strike. This was for a reason, you can not let a union or any group threaten the well being of the country. Shutting down all air travel or trains would paralyze the country. If that were allowed it would just like Argentina! I felt no remorse over the ATC strikers. The were offered the option to return to their jobs or goodbye. They broke the law, they are lucky they weren't prosecuted.

"It's oh so good to be back at the Dexter Lake Club."

I'll avoid opining on the broader issue of unions and just hit on one of the key public employee union elements that is bankrupting government, at all levels (municipal, state and federal). With all due respect to those who have received them in the past or are due them today, from this point forward, there should be an absolute ban (I. E. Make it illegal) preventing any taxpayer-funded enterprise, including all public sector employers (union or not) , from offering defined benefit pensions to any employees from the lowest hourly employee to the highest (including nonunion employees like the mayor, governor, president, etc). As for the private sector, they can do what they want (they aren't using taxpayer money) and almost all of them chose not to offer this type of retirement plan.

The legacy of this type of pension is that the former employer is obligated to continue paying the former employee for life, including many, may years when the former employee is contributing absolutely nothing to the continued success of the company. That does not diminish the value of the contribution that the employee made in the past but it is payment for services never rendered. This forces the employer to ever increase the number of people to whom it is paying weekly wages while not increasing the actual number of people contributing to the bottom line. The argument that they were underpaid while they were working and therefore deserve more is ludicrous. Government employees are paid something around 150% of their private sector counterparts (USA Today 3-8-2010).

We should not take them away from those who already have them, but the practice has to be stopped. The private sector started eliminating these in the 80's. It would be very hard to find more than a few examples where this type of pension is still available in the private sector (excluding unionized positions). Why then are they so prevalent in the public sector? Defined benefit pensions in the public sector are a means through which unions extort taxpayer monies, to which they are not entitled, from weak politicians who are more concerned about doing what is politically expedient as opposed to what is actually right.

One of the problems with regards to public sector employees and their pensions is the fact that many of these people (my mother being one of them) are not eligible for social security benefits and are now dependent on those pensions for life post-retirement. In fact, I believe that she paid a portion of her salary into her own pension fund. I don't know the reasons for not allowing these people the ability to pay into S.S. and receive benefits later in life, but perhaps, if they were allowed it would make much smaller pensions feasible.

Here is an article written by former labor secretary Robert Reich. Although it has an obvious liberal slant, there are some interesting points with regards to public employees. [url]http://robertreich.org/post/2615647030[/url]

Mongers-

I have a pretty good understanding of public sector pensions at the state level as both my parents are very recently retired employees of a major northeastern state. My father was commissioner of the Department of Labor and my mother a superintendent of a large school district. Both draw six figure annual pensions AND are eligible for maximum social security benefits. Both worked almost forty years for the state and as such draw a pension that is about 40/55 (about 72%) of their BEST annual salary. Currently, this particular state is billions of dollars in the red and is trying to figure out out to close the deficit. The state pension fund is underfunded at this moment because the state did not match the employees own contributions as they are contractually and legally obligated to do; the state supreme court has repeatedly ruled the state's own behavior illegal and ordered them to comply, yet they have failed to do so.

Every time I go home to visit my parents I get in an argument about how I feel that public employee salaries, and especially pensions, are completely ridiculous at a time when the state is broke. This holds especially true with teachers, who are paid comparable salaries to other public employees to only work 180 days per year. My father is fairly reasonable in that he says he got what he got because the state signed a contract agreeing to it and after that contract expires the state can do whatever it has to do. I attempt to explain to my mother that teachers should have to either work more for the same money or take a pay cut because the employer (the state) is broke and needs to cut costs. She routinely refuses to accept my logic and babbles on about greedy capitalist pigs, etc. I try to explain to her that I am thrilled with the fact that my own parents get such nice compensation, from a pragmatic standpoint it is bad for the financial health of the state because it is unsustainable; she wants to hear nothing of it.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;414968](about 72%) of their BEST annual salary.[/quote]I wish your parents great happiness and longevity, despite the implications for the affected taxpayers.

They will be paid 72% of their best annual salary for doing absolutely nothing (no offense meant to either of them). That isn't to say that they didn't do anything to earn a pension rather it is to say that there is very little chance that they or anyone else in there situation so 'over contributed' to the entity during their tenure that such largess is merited.

A defined contribution pension with some level or matching is far more appropriate for private and public sector employees because it not only encourages personal savings, it requires it to maximize your benefit package. This helps to allign the retirement responsibility where it should be, on the individual. After all, when you retire, who should be responsible for paying your bills? You? Or the taxpayers?

That said, your father is correct:

[quote=]he says he got what he got because the state signed a contract agreeing to it and after that contract expires the state can do whatever it has to do. [/quote]It is not appropriate to take contractually obligated and legally obtained wealth from state retirees anymore than it is to take it from Bill Gates or Barbara Streisand. However, there has to be a line drawn in the sand that says "from this point forward there will be no more defined benefit plans." It is immoral and clearly unsustainable for entities to agree to defined benefit plans when they know that: 1) they will be stealing more from taxpayers to pay expenditures that should not be born by the taxpayer. 2) the payments are being made to 'noncontributing' individuals. 3) the private sector tax payers who are burdened with these payments are unlikely to ever be offered or receive such benefits, and 4) this model is absolutely unsustainable.

[quote=]I attempt to explain to my mother that teachers should have to either work more for the same money or take a pay cut because the employer (the state) is broke and needs to cut costs. She routinely refuses to accept my logic and babbles on about greedy capitalist pigs, etc.[/quote]With all due respect to your mother, who I am certain is a wonderful woman, trying to impart knowledge of the real world upon a union teacher is like Sisyphus asking for a water break.

[quote=]I try to explain to her that I am thrilled with the fact that my own parents get such nice compensation, from a pragmatic standpoint it is bad for the financial health of the state because it is unsustainable; she wants to hear nothing of it.[/quote]The fact that they are absolutely entitled to receive the benefits to which the two parties agreed at the time of their respective contracts, is not mutually exclusive of the fact that it s wholly unsustainable. However, she may, consciously or subconsciously feel that by accepting the truth of the latter she may somehow delegitimize the former. Nothing could be further from the truth. They fulfilled their end of the bargain, they deserve what they were promised. What we have to change is what people are promised, going forward.

WW you seem to have a excellent grasp of what has happened and how it happened plus you seem to understand what needs to be done. Why don't you get a job with Obama or better yet run for president yourself? Suerte!

BOEHNER: "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve".

When is the bullshit going to stop. Do these political parasites, with their perks, free travel, medical perks, golden retirements, ever increasing salaries and worthless staffs numbering in the hundreds really think they are serving us. They are serving themselves which may be astonishing given the fact that the vast majority of them have an IQ less than their shoe size.

They would change skin color if that would prolong their lavish lifestyles.

OK, we need a government but we don't need a government that sounds like Marie Antonette ie. "Let them eat cake" while these parasites have real health care, real retirement benefits, luxury vacations taxpayers pay for, travel junkets taxpayers pay for, guaranteed undeserved salaries and, just for good measure, untold amounts of dirty money in the form of bribes.

If our elected officials want to regain the respect of their constituents maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they need tatooed on their forehead "I am the servant of my constituents" rather than their current tatoo which reads "my constituents are my servants."

P.S. please note that I am just as disgusted with the elitist Republicans who spend our money like drunken sailors as I am with the elitist Democrats who spend our money like drunken sailors. In my opinion, anyone of these slimeballs, regardless of party, would change their political affiliation if that would prolong their privileged life style.

The discussion about public sector salaries, pensions and unions is all fine and some good points have been made. I do think there is such a thing as waste and over-generous compensation in the public sector and it should be addressed, especially when we are running budget deficits.

But in a discussion on balancing budgets, we need to look at both revenue and spending.

The fact is that the rich have been taking more and more of the wealth in this country for decades now. Some like to talk about 'growing the pie' so we all prosper, but the data shows this is a false argument. It is the top few percent that take most of the pie, and everyone else gets a few crumbs.

So it's unreasonable to present the argument that all budget balancing has to come from spending cuts. Why should the poor and middle class take all the pain? Spread the pain over those who can afford it. As an example, you can get a similar budget benefit from cutting the salaries / pensions of all US teachers by 5% as from raising taxes on all US millionaires by 0.3%. A small tax increase represents almost no pain for millionaires, and such a tax is not 'taking other people's money'. We all (should) contribute into a pot according to our means to fund essential / important services.

Rock- I suspect you are presenting the argument to your mother in a one-sided manner, that the answer lies only in cutting spending. This is the Republican approach. If this is the case her reaction is not entirely unreasonable. I would suggest she might be more amenable if you present a more balanced argument which includes both targeted spending cuts and targeted tax increases. For example, a 1% cut in public sector pensions over 100K and a 1% tax increase on all incomes over 500K. Of course there will be state-specific considerations but you get the idea.

Asking just the poor and middle class to bear the brunt of budget balancing is unacceptable. Not when budget deficits have in large part been caused by tax cuts which mainly benefit the rich, and when wealth inequality continues to soar.

If the gov't wants more income and less expenses why not go to a flat tax or a "national sales tax". Get rid of deductions, streamline or elimanate the IRS as they would no longer be needed. What can be fairer then every one paying the same percentage? And how much would we save the country just by elimanating the IRS?

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;414979]If the gov't wants more income and less expenses why not go to a flat tax or a "national sales tax". Get rid of deductions, streamline or elimanate the IRS as they would no longer be needed. What can be fairer then every one paying the same percentage? And how much would we save the country just by elimanating the IRS?[/QUOTE]This is one of the most ridiculous and absurd ideas out there (you are not the first to suggest it). Wealth inequality would SKYROCKET under such a proposal. A flat tax is not appropriate when income and wealth distribution is so lop-sided to begin with.

If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. This is an analogy, but do the math with the actual revenues you would still need to raise and you'll see your proposal amounts to nothing more than a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich.

[QUOTE=Esten;414981]If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. [/QUOTE]???? I give up.

This implies you pay a 1% tax and Gandolf pays 50%. This is a ridiculously twisted analogy that has nothing to do with a flat tax or sales tax.

I do like your field reports from Argentina.

[QUOTE=Esten; 414981]This is one of the most ridiculous and absurd ideas out there (you are not the first to suggest it). Wealth inequality would SKYROCKET under such a proposal. A flat tax is not appropriate when income and wealth distribution is so lop-sided to begin with.

If I have 98 oranges and you have 2, and we implement a flat tax of 1 orange, I'll still have 97 while you have 1. This is an analogy, but do the math with the actual revenues you would still need to raise and you'll see your proposal amounts to nothing more than a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich. [/QUOTE]Esten, I missed you!

Without further adieu.

First, income and wealth is not "distributed", it's earned, a fundamental concept that is often lost on liberals.

Second, your analogy is all wrong. Of one thing, what you've described is not a flat tax rate. Per your description, it appears to be the same tax amount being paid by both parties regardless of their income. However, I will grant you that the scenario you described, if it existed, would certainly result in "[I]a massive hit to the poor and middle class, and a massive break to the rich[/I]".

Anyway, putting aside your assertion that everyone should pay taxes every year on the number of oranges they already earned and already paid taxes on in past years, let's assume that you meant to say "[I]If I [U]EARNED[/U] 98 oranges and you earned 1 orange...[/I]", and assuming that we actually had a 10% flat tax, then you would pay 9.8 oranges in taxes on your 98 orange income, and I would pay 1/10 (.1) of an orange on my 1 orange income, which means that you would have paid 98 times more in taxes that I did.

Thanks,

Jackson

Good grief you guys are quick. I realized my analogy needed clarification. Hoping to come back quick and edit my post I see there are already two responses. So here's my clarification. Gandolf actually had two distinct ideas. These are known as the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. The orange analogy only applies to the former.

"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".

FLAT TAX. A flat income tax. While less radical it would still significantly worsen wealth inequality.

Neither of these tax proposals is acceptable because they both shift the tax burden from the rich to others, which given what has happened in this country since Reagan is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.

Jackson hope you are enjoying the chicas in BA. We will have to agree to disagree on whether wealth is earned or distributed. I think it is both.

BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit. The second most popular step was to cut defense spending. I found this poll very interesting because these are the same top two items I would have said myself.

Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;414990]"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".[/quote]Esten,

Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.

[QUOTE=Esten;414990]BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit.[/QUOTE]What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of [U]someone[/U] [U]else[/U] paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"[I]Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.[/I]"

Thanks,

Jackson

Economists foretell of USA decline, China's ascension.

I am in Florianopolis and the consensus here is that Brazil is a hoax and China has immense issues with demographics I. E. One child per family and and an aging population is a economic disaster waiting to happen.

The prediction here is another golden era for the United States provided the United States does not succumb to increasing government interference, a counter productive tax structure, third world labor laws and the destruction of what made the United States great - rewarding those with inovative ideas and products

P.S. Brasil is considered a hoax because they have a 100% tax on all imports. This is to protect their home grown businesses. What this really does is allow their home grown businesses to continue inefficient, non competitive practices. I doubt that Brasil exports much outside of natural resources. Brasil cannot compete in world markets, especially with their brain dead aka birdbrain labor laws.

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol.

A little research will show that Rush Limbaugh's great, great, great grandfather incited the killing of Julias Ceasar, Rush's great, great grandfather convinced John Wilkes Booth to assasinate Lincoln, Rush's great grandfather started WW1 with the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, Rush's grandfather was responsible for shooting JFK while Rush's father took care of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I say we eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We can be like North Korea which does just fine without those distractions.

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;414971]WW you seem to have a excellent grasp of what has happened and how it happened plus you seem to understand what needs to be done. Why don't you get a job with Obama or better yet run for president yourself? Suerte![/QUOTE]I promise that if elected, I will end social promotion of liberal children through our schools. I will make extra certain that liberals are educated in the lost art of math and will end the practice of giving defined benefit plans to anyone (liberal, conservative or otherwise) being paid by taxpayers.

I love Esten. He is like the bird that keeps flying into my plate glass window. He fearlessly and blindly jumps into the conversation, avoiding the topic at hand, and delivering yet again, another of his typical "spread the wealth" non sequiturs. In typical knee-jerk liberal fashion, Esten dives headlong into the fray to protect the innocents, who, were it not for the swashbuckling men in tights (like Esten), would be starved of the sustenance that they need to survive (food stamps for smokes, free tattoo removal services and govt cheese) by the heartless right-wingers who want to cut, cut, cut and make old people and children eat dog food, all without having taken the time or extending the effort to grasp the issue. Bravo.

My assessment of defined benefit plans is as apolitical as I can get and I have never proposed cutting any retirement benefit plan already earned by anyone. Showing characteristic deftness and the ability to deal with specific issues as well as the broader tapestry of societal fabric, I made a point of leaving my opinions regarding unions out of my keen assessment of defined benefit retirement plans. In fact, on this subject, pension plans, I never suggested cutting any benefit earned by any individual, no matter how ludicrous the benefit. What I did say was that we as a society to make defined benefit plans unavailable to anyone (who hasn't already contractually earned one) on the taxpayers' dime, going forward.

In Washington, as well as other dysfunctional cesspools of liberal gibberish (like our dear colleague's mind) , eliminating an unnecessary, potential future give-way of taxpayers' money is somehow viewed as a cut.

On the subject of balancing municipal, state and federal budgets, the fact of the matter is that not only can all these budgets be brought into balance through spending cuts alone, that is exactly how they should be fixed. The severity of the cuts to discretionary spending (i.e. elective spending) is directly related to the amount of money committed to non-discretionary spending (payments they must make). All of the payments to retired employees who are no longer contributing to the entity (i.e. they are not exchanging services or other things of value in exchange for the cash that they receive) under retirement benefits are non-discretionary expenses (they must pay them come hell or high water). Therefore, if the government entity is paying lots of retired, former employees to do absolutely nothing, then there is less money available in the budget for discretionary spending.

If there isn't enough discretionary dough around for all your pet projects, stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415014]...stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.[/QUOTE]But that's one of the core tenets of liberal philosophy!

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415009]Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol.

A little research will show that Rush Limbaugh's great, great, great grandfather incited the killing of Julias Ceasar, Rush's great, great grandfather convinced John Wilkes Booth to assasinate Lincoln, Rush's great grandfather started WW1 with the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, Rush's grandfather was responsible for shooting JFK while Rush's father took care of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I say we eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We can be like North Korea which does just fine without those distractions. [/QUOTE]Stroessner 2012?

Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

[i]Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country? [/i]

It's not tough to guess what many people would say. And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.

I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out. Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians. It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414991]Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

Thank you for that highly relevant detail on the rebate check (prebate). I enjoy some research and fact checking, and have begun to study this "Fair Tax" in more detail. I will report back later. It looks like it may not be so bad for the poor, and possibly even beneficial. In fact it looks like it might benefit everyone. Are you a supporter of this "Fair Tax", and how do you explain it appears to potentially benefit everyone, while still raising the same revenue as the taxes it replaces?

[QUOTE]What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of [U]someone[/U] [U]else[/U] Paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"[I]Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. [/I]"[/QUOTE]What kind of poll is it - the kind of poll that can and often does influence politics and policy. It is "we the people" deciding what services they want from their government and how it should be paid for. Some may not agree with the decisions that are made, but that is democracy. What's your proposal for how decisions should be made?

While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame

In the memorable words of Clinton

"[I]It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them[/I]"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "[I]the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech.[/I]"

Esten, I don't recall a lot of "We The People" take on the outcome of the November elections from you are the Left Wing Media. So let's not get so high and mighty with the phrase. As I recall November Elections and the Tea Party pretty much said enough spending, taxing and debt. Cut Baby Cut!

Let's start with no more assistance for illegal immigrants in any form. Then move on to paring down Welfare and the associated government agencies providing it, then we can move on to Medicaid and let the states work it out not the Fed's unfunded mandates to the states. That would be a good start. Just MHO.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415019]Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

[i]Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country? [/i][/quote]Leftist radicals, for the most part. Then there are some extremist like the Montana Freemen, who espouse something akin to libertarianism on steroids (the bad kind).

Never would I, or any reasonably intelligent individual, think "conservatives."

If you look at history, of the three groups mentioned above: leftists, conservatives and plain old whackos, guess who has most often and recently taken up arms against the US? I guess that is ok though sincve our current President is buddies with Bill Aires (clearly not one of the Buenos Aires.).

[quote=]It's not tough to guess what many people would say.[/quote]It isn't tough to say anything. It is a little more challenging to be correct in one's statements. I certainly understand why you are unfamiliar with that sensation.

[quote=]And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.[/quote]There is absolutely no plausible explanation for the sheriff's comments other than pure, liberal exploitation of human tragedy. The shooter's best friend has gone on record that this moron couldn't find talk radio if his dick was an AM receiver.

[quote=]I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, [/quote]You only bring this up because you are a hopeless, hapless liberal willing to believe the worst about everyone else and unwilling to put any thought or intellect into your posts.

[quote=]which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out.[/quote]Does it matter to you that the media, thanks to its slavish devotion to the left, got this wrong? Just like they did with Oklahoma and everything else? Why show restraint in not jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood when within two hours of the bullets flying in Tuscon, liberal hacks were blaming talk radio?

[quote=]Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians.[/quote]Just like a liberal to believe that only right wingers are a threat when history shows that the left is responsible for almost every violent attack from within against the US.

[quote=]It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.[/QUOTE]Not unless you are willing to take of the blinders and participate in an open discussion. Otherwise, you should just save your breath.

Good speech by Obama. Remember what I said before about him moving to the center and being increasingly seen as a president above the polarity of the two parties. His approval rating has been touching the 50% mark recently and I would not be surprised to see it go above 50% soon. On a "days in office" basis he is trending better than Clinton and Reagan.

WW- I would never say the left does not also sometimes contribute to divisive or even hateful rhetoric. If you want to argue the left contributes more anti-rich or anti-big business rhetoric than the right, I would not disagree. But you are flat out wrong if you think the right has not been the biggest contributor to anti-government rhetoric in the recent past.

Of interest Gallup just did a poll on whether Americans think political rhetoric played a factor in the AZ shootings. Add "Major Factor" and "Minor Factor", and compare with "Not a Factor". Across All Americans it's an equal split. But when broken down by party affiliation you see clear differences of opinion between Dems and Repubs.

[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415022]While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame.

In the memorable words of Clinton

"[I]It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them[/I]"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "[I]the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech. [/I]"[/QUOTE]I don't think Clinton said those things, but here is something he [i]did[/i] Say about the GOP when they unveiled their 'Pledge to America' (which he aptly called an ideological document) :

[i]"They don't know that the model for success in the 21st century is a vigorous private sector, an effective government, a partnership, not these hysterical tirades against government.". [/i]

We should throw in the towel and raise the white flag if our country is berift of concern about the frankenstein our government has become.

There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is between talk radio and the events in Tucson.

However, this doesn't stop the wantabe dictators of the looney left from using this opportunity to limit free speech and freedom of assembly and encourage us to become a nation of sheep.

Why doesn't the looney left come out and say what they really want: A President named Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong II (feel free to replace the names Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong 11 with whatever looney lefty is railing against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly)

P.S. Here´s a hot one. Obama wants more civil discussions. The translation of this mumble jumble is that Obama wants discussions where criticism of the government is prohibited (welcome to the land of Lenin, Stalin, Mao y Pol Pot)

[QUOTE=El Alamo;415035]There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is a correlation between talk radio and the events in Tucson.[/QUOTE]You just know that the left wing media was waiting in eager anticipation to learn that the perpetrator of the tragedy in Tucson was a Tea Party member.

Sorry Charlie! The facts in this case indicate that Loughner never listened to talk radio, never watched cable news, and in fact apparently had no political agenda.

Of course, the left wing pundits didn't let these facts get in the way of exploiting this tragedy to serve their own political agenda.

Rahm Emanuel on Nov 21, 2008: "[I]You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.[/I]"

FYI, statistically, the large majority of politically motivated acts of violence have been perpetrated by individuals of leftist beliefs.

Thanks,

Jackson