Please explain

[Spexvet]

What's so bad about Hillary Clinton? Specifically, what has she done, or not done to make her such a pariah? Please cite examples, not just "she's a beeeee-yotch"

[chip anderson]

There was the sacking of the Whitehouse when she left.
There was socialized medicine (National healthcare).
There was the embracement of gay marriage.
There was the embracement of "special rights" for gays and other minorities.
There were dozens of 'give away' programs to buy votes.
There is her shreeking tirades and schrill voice.
There is her treatment of the help both civilian and military at the white house.
There was her "lack of memory" in many investigation of her affairs.
There were a few white house officials that died under suspicios circumstances when about to appearently spill the beans on her.
Woman has already served as president for four years, no matter what her husband tought.
Not supporting English as the official language of the United States.
Support of Gun Control.
Firing the White House Transportation staff in a fit of temper (Do we need a president with temper tantrums?) just because her demands couldn't be met.
I also suspect the da*n woman drinks scotch, a sin in anyone's book

Need more?:hammer:

[Judy Canty]

I drink scotch and smoke a good cigar on occasion. I count myself in good company. Sen. Clinton is fine in my book.

[gemstone]

Whether you like her or not, she will lose whatever race when her opponent plays the scene of her rolling her eyes at the State of The Union Address.

[Bill West]

I drink scotch and smoke a good cigar on occasion. I count myself in good company. Sen. Clinton is fine in my book.

...not in my practice. :cheers:

[MarcE]

There was the sacking of the Whitehouse when she left.
There was socialized medicine (National healthcare).
There was the embracement of gay marriage.
There was the embracement of "special rights" for gays and other minorities.
There were dozens of 'give away' programs to buy votes.
There is her shreeking tirades and schrill voice.
There is her treatment of the help both civilian and military at the white house.
There was her "lack of memory" in many investigation of her affairs.
There were a few white house officials that died under suspicios circumstances when about to appearently spill the beans on her.
I also suspect the da*n woman drinks scotch, a sin in anyone's book

Need more?:hammer:

I used to detest her for the same reasons (I only drink Vodka). But after 6+ years of our current president, most any amount of corruption seems tolerable.

MarcE, (Former Republician who wouldn't convert to the American Nazi/Fascist party led by W. Bush)

[bt5050]

my thoughts where always good on the side of her - until - recently - this past week - i saw how she is in bed with india - and as i watched for her online speach - i had always thought to myself she was for the middle class of america -
I was always gunhoe on the clintons -= however - as i learn more about her views - and her votes - i ? myself - and as for the war - looks like she will have a DO_OVER vote - when they bring up - bringing our troops home - and you know she will take huge advantage of that -

however - her views - on increasing the H1 B Visas - from 64 K to well over 120K -- and come to find out that idian gets 7 out of 10 of those visas - to bring forign workers here - and get paid 12 K less pr yr - shows that she favors the votes for her - rather then protecting the middle class jobs -
i just shake my head - at the democrats. that they are all agst - loosing jobs over seas - HOWEVER _ they look the other way - when they import these workers into the usa - to take jobs here -

As for those saying H1B visas should be unlimitted - they say they are only for high skill jobs - yet 60% got to low skill workers - and as for the term - short term 5 yrs - we have no way to know if these folks ever leave - and i suppose they don't just say - oh my time is up - let me go home --
I just ? - her motives - as well as the rest of them - in dc - they are only out for the vote - and for the cash ! I say with any1 in DC - all we have to do is follow the $$ - and we will know WHAT THEY are all about - !

FORGET about OBAMA !!! way to far left for my taste -
( maybe - we should stick to optic - since this stuff gets me nutts - !!)

LOL ---

[Fezz]

Her position on gun control and her constant attacks on OUR second amendment RIGHTS.

[Pete Hanlin]

Here are my "political beefs" with Senator Clinton:

Fiscal Policy (quote from a 2004 speech) "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
I- along with most of the middle class- benefitted from the (unfortunately temporary) tax cuts gained under the 2000-04 Bush term. I staunchly disagree with Sen. Clinton's opinion that those cuts need to be rolled back. Cut spending, but do not raise my taxes (if that means we need to curtail the Iraq war simply due to a "lack of funds," so be it).

Energy Policy Sen. Clinton opposes drilling in ANWR, supports the Kyoto Protocol, and has stated we should free up our oil reserves- completely opposite to my opinions on these matters (not that I'm right, or she's wrong- but this is a list of why I would not want her as a President).

Regulation From her book It Takes a Village, "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."
Its quite clear Sen. Clinton is in favor of greater regulation of industry, commerce, etc. While I do not favor complete laissez-faire approach to commerce, it is my guess that Sen. Clinton would favor a tremendous increase in regulation.

Health Care This would be the biggie for me. I had a somewhat open mind about Sen. Clinton until she headed up the push for Universal Health Care. UHC is everything I do NOT want in a government. Now, Sen. Clinton seems to have figured out that the American voting populace is not ready for her radical agenda, so she has worked to "tone it down a bit." However, I do not believe for a second her spots have changed on this issue. Next to Social Security, UHC would be the biggest governmental disaster in our nation's history (again, just my humble opinion).
As I recall, the "savior" of the US health system (according to Sen. Clinton) was going to be HMOs. A couple years later, I remember watching her rail against HMOs on C-SPAN for limiting access to a "small network of member doctors." Um, that's how an HMO controls cost, Senator!

General Doublespeak For example, on immigration the Senator supports beefing up our border patrols. However, once illegal immigrants make it in, she seems to go completely lax on any kind of labor enforcement. All politicians doublespeak, but the only major candidate worse than Clinton at trying to appear something they're not is Sen. McCain- for whom I reserve the greatest level of loathing. The Senator is a radical liberal who attempts to look as centrist as possible for the camera.

Let's see, other than that, I think she tends to be vindictive, harsh, delusional (at times), and self-serving to the extreme (which describes a LOT of politicians). I do not view her as particularly diplomat, nor do I think she communicates well (that is her husband's gift). Those are merely personal opinions, however- the above are my political reasons for disdaining Sen. Clinton.

PS- Just read It Takes a Village. That book does a much better job of explaining the things that scare me about this candidate... Yes, community helps raise a child (and in a broader sense, yes- we are all somewhat responsible for each other), but what it REALLY takes is a village with stronger families! Substituting the government for parents- which is what we do when we take care of people from cradle to grave- diminishes the family's importance (yes, I know that is an archaic view- but I happen to believe its true). The Great Society was a failure- we created a Dependent Society.

[shanbaum]

Her position on gun control and her constant attacks on OUR second amendment RIGHTS.




So... is that GOOD or BAD?

[shanbaum]

OK, Pete, here goes:

1) The Bush tax cuts didn’t help anyone in the middle class, but only gave the illusion of doing so. I presume your taxes decreased, but your share of the resulting borrowing the government did (and continues to do) on your behalf increased, just as the share of the relatively wealthier decreased. While you may think that this debt will never be repaid, you will eventually pay at least some of the interest (can’t really borrow it all forever), in a greater share than before the cuts. ‘Course, if by that time you qualify as one of the few who got the really big cuts, you do make out.

Since I don’t believe that the government should always be smaller, I can’t accept the notion that taxes should always be lower. Aside from the obvious (like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere), what would you cut? Border patrol?

2) Drilling in the ANWR might produce 700K bbl/day; that’s not insignificant. To borrow a phrase I heard on Hardball last night, from what has to be the nation’s dumbest Congressman (some guy from Iowa who couldn't even read the talking points correctly), why wouldn’t we exhaust all the other possibilities first, especially when so much can be achieved through conservation (even if it has to be forced, through higher CAFE standards, which Bush & Cheney delayed for six years, but now support)?

Have you ever been to Alaska? Go there, then tell me it’s OK to turn part of it into Beaumont. Have you been to Beaumont?

3) An unregulated free market degenerates into monopolism, and we’re seeing that happen all around us. Exxon/Mobil, for Crom’s sake? Pre-Reagan (and pre-Clinton, who did nothing to change the trend Reagan started in that arena), that would have been unthinkable. (I realize that monopolism may be more difficult to detect when... oh, never mind).

4) Social Security is hardly a disaster; ask the recipients. The fact that the government has been dishonest in representing how it’s financed shouldn’t be confused with how well it works. Health care in America, on the other hand, is a disaster for most of us. For those with insurance, it works (often poorly), but at a ridiculous price; for many, getting sick translates pretty much directly to bankruptcy. Do you have any savings? How would you feel about spending all of it on staying alive, and then dying young? Is that a reasonable way to live? (Hmm... I can already hear the response; it is so hard to argue with a Calvinist). Why not spread the risk of unforeseeable misfortunes as widely as possible? Why not provide basic, routinecare - care that we think everyone should have (for example, well child doctor visits; for example, eye exams) to everyone, and share the cost? Certainly not because we can't afford it; in fact, we can't not afford it - it's cheaper than not doing it.

I don’t recall the specifics of HillaryCare offhand, but I don’t recall that HMO’s had anything to do with it. In 1994, however, HMO’s were still in their ascendancy; “managing” care was going to lead to all kinds of savings, which it had done in its early incarnations. But it’s pretty obvious that in the capitated HMO model, there’s an incentive to deny needed care; that was (and is) its Achilles heel.

I never read Hillary’s book, and probably won’t, unless she actually gets the nomination. Maybe not even then. The GOP’s years in power have been enough of a disaster to keep me voting Democrat until they commit atrocities of a similar magnitude (if ever).

I used to be more independent; George Bush made me a committed Dem, because that’s the only viable alternative. But for Ralph Nader, I might be railing about how Gore has disappointed me, and championing, I dunno, Romney (if he would sit still on one set of positions long enough for me to know what I'm voting for).

I have Chris Dodd to support as a favorite son. I don’t expect him to make it, but he’s a smart guy; practical, compassionate, and relatively non-ideological. I am so ready for a non-ideologue.

[chip anderson]

Sho' be amazin how two people(s) can look at exact issues, exact facts and see them 180 degrees opposed ain't it. Also amazin that no matter how right or wrong or left one may be no amount of oratory, perspective or whatever will even begin to change the others mind ain't it.

[Grubendol]

The trashing of the white house Has been proven to be an absolute fabrication made up by the Rove spin machine.

[Spexvet]

...(which describes a LOT of politicians)...

That's my point. Why is Hillary the object of such abject hatred, when others, on both sides, do similar things?

[Pete Hanlin]

Since I don’t believe that the government should always be smaller, I can’t accept the notion that taxes should always be lower. Aside from the obvious (like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere), what would you cut? Border patrol?
I provided one very big expenditure that could be cut if absolutely necessary- namely, we pull the troops due to fiscal necessity (personally, I think that would be a bad move- but I am even more adamant that the government should not require more of my paycheck than they already take).
Additionally, Citizens Against Government Waste identified $3.4 Billion in "pork" spending. To qualify as pork, the spending must meet two of the following criteria:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress
Not specifically authorized
Not competitively awarded
Not requested by the President
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
Not the subject of congressional hearings
Serves only a local or special interest.Given my view of government, this is money the states should be raising for their own projects- if they're that important to the local economy. I'm sure there's at least 50% of that money that could be cut from the budget. Of course, that's only $2-3 Billion (and deficit spending is currently around $370 billion). What we need is a Graham-Rudman Act that Congress sticks to...

To borrow a phrase I heard on Hardball last night... ...why wouldn’t we exhaust all the other possibilities first, especially when so much can be achieved through conservation (even if it has to be forced, through higher CAFE standards... Have you ever been to Alaska? Go there, then tell me it’s OK to turn part of it into Beaumont. Have you been to Beaumont?
Alaska is the only state I have yet to visit. However, considering ANWR is in perpetual darkness for several months of the year and has one of the sparsest populations in the US, I can't think of a BETTER place to drill. Although I've been in Houston numerous times, I've never visited Beaumont. Seems like a nice enough place, though. http://www.cityofbeaumont.com/
Conservation is great, but the fact is our economy runs on oil, and it seems to me only logical that we tap into what is potentially the largest oil resource in our nation. So, institute conservation efforts AND start utilizing the resources in ANWR. Parallel thinking would be "Hey, I'd like to make more money- and I'm only working 30 hours a week. Why not figure out all the ways to better manage my money before going out and working those extra 10-20 hours per week?" Wouldn't it make more sense to start managing money better AND working those extra hours?

An unregulated free market degenerates into monopolism, and we’re seeing that happen all around us.
Amazing how everyone hates a monopoly AFTER society has sucked all the benefit it can from it. Case in point, Microsoft. The Microsoft monopoly created a consistent standard for software that benefitted society by making development of systems possible. Are there drawbacks? Sure, especially if you're Netscape or some other competitor. Same with Bell Telephone and other "monopolies." Regulation of mergers is something I can buy into, but if a company has managed to develop an intrastructure or intellectual property that gives them an unbelievable advantage, well that's business.

Social Security is hardly a disaster; ask the recipients.
If I thought there was even a remote possibility of me being a recipient someday, I might be less absolute in my opinion when I note the 15% of my income that goes into what should have been a TEMPORARY program. I've never understood the reason behind having the federal government mandating how I invest 15% of my income- its simply not within the scope of the federal govm't to do so. Even though my retirement is "none of their business," I might accept something mandating that people put aside 15-20% of their income for retirement. Social Security was a Pandora's Box that should have been left closed- one of the worst experiments in US history.

Health care in America, on the other hand, is a disaster for most of us.
Its always worked okay for me.

For those with insurance, it works (often poorly), but at a ridiculous price; for many, getting sick translates pretty much directly to bankruptcy. Do you have any savings? How would you feel about spending all of it on staying alive, and then dying young? Is that a reasonable way to live? (Hmm... I can already hear the response; it is so hard to argue with a Calvinist).
Its like you can read my mind- spooky! Here's a concept- life isn't fair. In fact, for some people, its kinda crappy. Furthermore, as much as I'd like to think I've been successful due to my own efforts, a lot has to do with opportunity, chance, and (I would suggest) God's blessing.
Is it "right" that people go bankrupt due to disease? I don't know how to call that "right" or "wrong." I would call that "life." I do know that you cannot tax everyone to a point that ensures no one is in want (which seems to be the idea behind the Great Society). That's a lovely idea, really it is... My grandfather- who remains my greatest hero- was an FDR Democrat who often told me while fishing "Petie, in a country this prosperous, there's simply no reason anyone should be in want."
Were it not for mankind's inherently evil nature, my grandfather would have been absolutely correct! From a realistic standpoint, however, trying to provide for everyone through government intervention is destined to fail because: a. people take advantage of the system (both those who receive funds and those who disperse funds), b. all systems are prone to corruption, and c. even non-corrupt systems lose resources to ineffiencies.

I don’t recall the specifics of HillaryCare offhand, but I don’t recall that HMO’s had anything to do with it.
I can't give a specific quote- but I distinctly remember watching Sen. Clinton state that the HMO concept was a "shining example" of how national healthcare might work. 2 years later, I distinctly recall her railing at how HMOs limit access to doctors. Point being, I think she gets so wrapped up in the nobility of the goal (providing everyone with healthcare- which is truly noble) that she checks out on reality (and the reality is a government run healthcare program is destined for disaster).

Really, the war in Iraq may be a good parallel to the concept of national healthcare. Freeing Iraq and fostering a democracy is an awesome idea- I would imagine very few would argue with the merits. However, there's this nasty little thing called reality that dictates that these people may not WANT a democracy, and there are certain feuds that have been going on for centuries that we cannot solve through external intervention.

[OPTIDONN]

This is simple...Hillary is a dude! One night Hillary and I got a little drunk she looked at me knowing I was Republican. The taboo of it drove her wild and she was looking to get a little revenge on Bill for his moral indescretions. I felt a firm slap upon my buttox and heard a whisper in my ear "hey big boy, want to want a trip to the oval office?" Thinking it was Bill I turned ready to give him what for (there's a back story here I'll get into later). To my surprise it was the lovely masculine Hillary. I figured I had plenty of booze in my system and enough condoms plus every one deserves a little bit of "the Donn" so I went for it. We snuck off into the ally. I felt wiskers but figured she was Italian. We kept going and all I'll say is that she is in fact a dude!! I have reason to believe that Bill is in fact a lesbian!! I swear DC is a crazy place! Can't wait to go back! This time Harry, Fezz and Ziggy come too!:cheers:

[Fezz]

Can't wait to go back! This time Harry, Fezz and Ziggy come too!:cheers:

I'm in...as long as theDude drives us in Lensgrinders car!



:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[OPTIDONN]

I'm in...as long as theDude drives us in Lensgrinders car!



:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:


Heck yeah!!! This time only legit women! Nothin' but the best for my boyz!

[Bill West]

This is simple...Hillary is a dude! One night Hillary and I got a little drunk she looked at me knowing I was Republican. The taboo of it drove her wild and she was looking to get a little revenge on Bill for his moral indescretions. I felt a firm slap upon my buttox and heard a whisper in my ear "hey big boy, want to want a trip to the oval office?" Thinking it was Bill I turned ready to give him what for (there's a back story here I'll get into later). To my surprise it was the lovely masculine Hillary. I figured I had plenty of booze in my system and enough condoms plus every one deserves a little bit of "the Donn" so I went for it. We snuck off into the ally. I felt wiskers but figured she was Italian. We kept going and all I'll say is that she is in fact a dude!! I have reason to believe that Bill is in fact a lesbian!! I swear DC is a crazy place! Can't wait to go back! This time Harry, Fezz and Ziggy come too!:cheers:

If I wrote something like this on here, I would be punished and trashed.
How do you do it?

[shanbaum]

If I wrote something like this on here, I would be punished and trashed.

How do you do it?



He succeeds at humor. Were you trying to be funny?

[OPTIDONN]

I'm charming :p

[Bill West]

He succeeds at humor. Were you trying to be funny?

I ALWAYS SMILE WHEN I TYPE. DOES THAT COUNT?:)

[shanbaum]

So, Pete, you’re for pulling the troops because it will save money, but against it, because it’s a bad move from a foreign policy standpoint. However, the bad move is preferable if it means no increase in your taxes. In other words, between “raise my taxes” and “f*** America”, we choose, “f*** America.”

It’s surprising that pork persists the way it does, given the way everyone complains about it. The reason may be in part that it’s such a tiny part of the problem; at $3.4 billion, it’s 0.15% of percent of the federal budget. Get rid of it, and the $2.2 trillion budget decreases to… $2.2 trillion. Your $10,000 tax bill could decrease to $9,985. Oh, but wait; your $10,000 tax bill is only what you actually pay… there’s the $400 billion we’re borrowing annually, your share of which is about $1,800. Oh, but wait again, that $400 billion deficit doesn’t include the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; that’s another $100 billion per year (roughly). So, just to cover the money the government is borrowing on your behalf should cause your taxes to rise about 24%... before you deduct the $15 we’ll save by eliminating pork.

Of course, that must not happen, because taxes must never rise.

You’re right about ANWR, if there’s really no value to preserving the wildlife refuge – you certainly left the value of that out of your decision-making process. The less value you place on preservation, the easier the decision to drill becomes. No question about that. F*** the caribou. Hell, let’s eat ‘em.

The great thing about conversing with you, Pete, is that you always surprise. Most people have a visceral negative reaction to monopolies – probably not because they understand that monopolies defeat market pricing; most people figure they’re just bad. You, on the other hand, think they’re just fine. Just business. Wow. Have you ever read about Commodore Vanderbilt? I thought that was a sufficient lesson. In modern America, there are particularly pernicious monopolies (or near-monopolies): broadcasters like Clear Channel and Fox, by virtue of their control of news outlets, exert disproportionate control over the no-longer-quite-a-marketplace of ideas. But I guess that’s just business, too.

Why discriminate against capitalists who create monopolies by simply buying up businesses, as opposed to those who build them up without doing so? Do you think that a monopoly is a kind of reward for good works (since you get nothing on that account from God, in your world)? What if (like, for instance, Microsoft) your monopoly power derived not so much from your brilliance as from another’s (in this case, IBM’s) abject stupidity? Is that still OK? Shouldn’t IBM get a cut for contributing?

I don’t know why you think Social Security should have been temporary; it was never intended to be temporary. It’s now half the income of two-thirds of seniors, and the only income for 20% of seniors. And the situation is going to deteriorate; we’re departing an era during which most large companies offered pension benefits. Is it really important that they have less, so you and I have more?

BTW, Have all y’all looked at your retirement savings? There are some nifty calculators available on the ‘net that tell you how you’re doing. If you dare.

Your skepticism about ever collecting Social Security is understandable – but then, I know you’re a pessimist. I expect it to be available for you. The obvious solution to the problem of fewer workers supporting more retirees is so simple: have more children. I wish I had thought of that earlier.

That, or admit more immigrants. But only the young ones (oh, but not too young; God forbid we should pay to educate the kids of furriners).

We agree that life is unfair. But you think that man is inherently evil, and entirely dependent on God’s grace to do anything about that. I think that man is inherently stupid, but remarkably capable of rectifying that. (I don’t know if man is inherently good or evil, but I operate on the assumption that he can at least be turned to the bright side; your assumption is simply too dismal for me to accept). Does your belief translate into the notion that we shouldn’t try to mitigate life’s unfairness to the extent that we can? I think that trying to do so is merely compassionate, and I wouldn’t let the fact that compassionate acts may have unintended consequences prevent me from trying to be compassionate. I gather you would. Do our differences arise from different valuations of compassion and responsibility?

The great thing about democracy is that it lets us resolve our differences in an orderly fashion (though not very effectively or efficiently – but at least it does it). You keep trying to convince me that I should be more self-centered and insist that everyone be responsible for himself. I’ll keep trying to convince you that we should act in concert (even if that means using the government to do so) to mitigate life’s unfairness.

And f*** Chip.

[Pete Hanlin]

Actually, I very rarely drop f-bombs, but your point is taken. Apparently, your interpretation of my opinions are "Screw America, screw Americans, screw the ecology, screw the sick, heck- screw everyone!" Not surprisingly, I tend to take a different perspective on my views- basically, we are all ultimately screwed. One can work as hard as they can to become as unscrewed as possible, but the amount of final screwedness basically comes down to a mixture of effort, opportunity, and luck.

You accuse me of being a pessimist (and I have to say, I resemble that remark), and yet you are the one who seems to think we can't drill for oil without destroying the local environment. To which, I would imagine, you would retort- "Well, based on previous experience that is the likely outcome."

Well then, I'll base my pessimism regarding our ability to eradicate our screwed situation on the same concept. Based on previous experience, the federal government is not particularly suited at managing the distribution of services or money. Most people base investment decisions on the rate of return provided by the institution. The prospectus for my SS dollars doesn't read all that well, and- if I had a choice- I'd probably invest that money elsewhere.

Regarding the debt and the war in Iraq, it comes down to making fiscal choices. There are lots of things that are "good" to do. Heck, I'd like to put in hardwood floors, replace my aluminum gutters with copper, and upgrade the garage door to a wooden one. Since I have limited financial resources, I'll have to CHOOSE which one is a priority- although all of the items are arguably good upgrades for my house.

You challenge me to come up with a way to save money, but then slam any choice I make (even pulling out of Iraq, which I suspect you support anyway). My belief remains consistent- the deficit is not a result of the government taking too little money, its a result of the government trying to do too many "good" things. Since I've given ways to reduce the deficit, let me ask you- how much higher should the tax rate go... and who should pay the bill (and before you suggest the "rich," be sure to define who the "rich" are and how much real money is supposed to be available from these people).

I do like the distinction you make between our views... I believe mankind is inherently evil, you believe mankind is inherently stupid- but while I would include myself as being inherenly evil, I get the impression you would exclude yourself from being inherently stupid.

[shanbaum]

I do like the distinction you make between our views... I believe mankind is inherently evil, you believe mankind is inherently stupid- but while I would include myself as being inherenly evil, I get the impression you would exclude yourself from being inherently stupid.




Not at all! Getting to be this smart has been really hard work!

[chip anderson]

Carabou like pipelines. It is now thier preferred range. They get along fine with concientious oil production. So what's the problem?

What's the problem with drilling in the continental and offshore lands of the U.S.?

What's the problem with building refineries in the U.S.?

If the greenies want to preserve an area what's to stop them from buying it and doing whatever they want with it?

Chip

[DragonLensmanWV]

Carabou like pipelines. It is now thier preferred range. They get along fine with concientious oil production. So what's the problem?

What's the problem with drilling in the continental and offshore lands of the U.S.?

What's the problem with building refineries in the U.S.?

If the greenies want to preserve an area what's to stop them from buying it and doing whatever they want with it?

Chip


We would be in better shape if we would build refineries here in the US. I think I read somewhere that no refineries have been built here since the 70's. Big Oil's response is that it would raise the price of gas too high to do so and people would complain, also they're worried that improvements in biofuels would make their expensive refineries obsolete. SO they keep up with their current practice (which works really well for them given their profits) of raising the price of gas that's already in the tanks. They have it both ways: when they raise the price of already-delivered gas it's because "the price of crude is going up" and then when the price of crude goes down, they say "we already paid this high price for it so we have to charge more for it".
Nevermind that the price can go up 25 cents in one day (pre-Memorial Day) and then go back down 20 cents (after Memorial Day) - all on the same gas already in the tanks at the stations.
Until stuff like that stops, we're under Big Oil's thumb. Of course, having a Texas oilman in the White House will not discourage that practice.

[Spexvet]

... Big Oil's response is that it would raise the price of gas too high to do so and people would complain, ...
Yeah - can't dig into their record profits, can they?

[Spexvet]

Carabou like pipelines. It is now thier preferred range. They get along fine with concientious oil production. So what's the problem?

What's the problem with drilling in the continental and offshore lands of the U.S.?

What's the problem with building refineries in the U.S.?

If the greenies want to preserve an area what's to stop them from buying it and doing whatever they want with it?

Chip
Let's drill in Chip's back yard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheers:

[Spexvet]

...Really, the war in Iraq may be a good parallel to the concept of national healthcare. Freeing Iraq and fostering a democracy is an awesome idea- I would imagine very few would argue with the merits. However, there's this nasty little thing called reality that dictates that these people may not WANT a democracy, and there are certain feuds that have been going on for centuries that we cannot solve through external intervention.
Iraq may be a good parallel to the concept of Social Security. Allowing your parents to keep and invest the money that now goes into SS is an awesome idea - I would imagine very few would argue with the merits. However, there's this nasty little thing called reality that dictates that these people may mismanage their money and not have a pot to pee in when they retire. Then the options are Pete taking care of them (most likely for a cost higher than his or their SS contribution) or they starve - remember, there's no SS as a safety net.

[Spexvet]

This is simple...Hillary is a dude! One night Hillary and I got a little drunk she looked at me knowing I was Republican. The taboo of it drove her wild and she was looking to get a little revenge on Bill for his moral indescretions. I felt a firm slap upon my buttox and heard a whisper in my ear "hey big boy, want to want a trip to the oval office?" Thinking it was Bill I turned ready to give him what for (there's a back story here I'll get into later). To my surprise it was the lovely masculine Hillary. I figured I had plenty of booze in my system and enough condoms plus every one deserves a little bit of "the Donn" so I went for it. We snuck off into the ally. I felt wiskers but figured she was Italian. We kept going and all I'll say is that she is in fact a dude!! I have reason to believe that Bill is in fact a lesbian!! I swear DC is a crazy place! Can't wait to go back! This time Harry, Fezz and Ziggy come too!:cheers:
Ur teh ghey?

[chip anderson]

Simple: Stop B***hing about high gas prices form a new compeditive company that will build a refirnery or two and invest in it.
Of course then we wouldn't have "Big Oil" to complain about. We might even have to do away the terms the unions loved "Fat Cows" to be milked too.

Chip

[k12311997]

Let's drill in Chip's back yard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheers:

my daughter would be devastated if we took out her swing set, however when I explained that I would then buy her the park up the street she'd calm down. I wish there was oil on my property.

on the flip side. There is a development of $500,000 homes and up fighting to stop a wind farm from being built 5 miles away. p.s. if you want to rent the space I'd be happy to have you build a turbine in my back yard to.

[OPTIDONN]

Ur teh ghey?
Who's a what now? Are you asking if I'm gay? If thats the case I'm afraid you may lynch me? and my wife and kids would be very sad!

[chip anderson]

Kay 123: You can drill in my back yard anytime, I also have 160 acres in SW Mississippi you can drill on. Just let me know when you are ready to negotiate mineral rights and leasing rights. I have pen and paper, come on!

Just leave me a bass pond when you clean up after.

Chip

[OPTIDONN]

Man I wish I had oil on my land! what a bummer:cry:

[shanbaum]

Man I wish I had oil on my land! what a bummer:cry:


Chip didn't say he had oil on his land - just that he's willing to sell you the mineral rights.

[OPTIDONN]

Still, I wish I had oil on my land or for that matter gold, silver or anything other than dog poop! and we don't even have a dog!

[Fezz]

Man I wish I had oil on my land! what a bummer:cry:



OPTIDONN,

I have an ESTATE in Tidioute Pennsylvania. You know, a second palace. Us rich Opticians have multiple estates. Well, this is a stones throw away from Titusville Pa where the first oil was discovered in the USA. Yes I do have oil on my property. Yes you can walk thru the woods and often times smell the oil. Many times after a heavy rain, you can see and smell the oil slicks on the small streams. Sadly, I do not have any rights to the oil that is on my property. Somehow, everybody else and there inbreed brother has more rights to MY oil than me! Oh well, I'll keep on curing the world of ill fitting eyewear and be a better person for it!!!!!!



:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

Fondly,

The Man, The Myth, The Legend,

Fezz

[karen]

Good thread spexie....nothing like some thoughtful and considerate debate-reminds me of myself and shanbaum a time or two (hi robert! hope you and the wife are well, looking forward to hopefully meeting you this year!)

I do not agree with her health care philosphy.
I do not care for her general demeanor which seems to vacillate bewtween harpy and martyr.
I do not agree with what her party platform is.(not her fault certainly but it does color my opinion)
I think she was dishonest about Whitewater and things surrounding that.
I do not agree with her stance on letting minors have abortions without parental notification.

She just rubs me the wrong way. Totally and completely.

[shanbaum]

I do not care for her general demeanor which seems to vacillate bewtween harpy and martyr.



The tough part about vacillating between harpy and martyr is coming back from the latter.

[fvc2020]

Thank you Karen


I only have one thing more to add to your wonderful list...I think she is fraud w/the whole move to NY just in enough time to run for the Senate..



Christina

[shanbaum]

Thank you Karen


I only have one thing more to add to your wonderful list...I think she is fraud w/the whole move to NY just in enough time to run for the Senate..



Christina


You mean, the way Dick Cheney moved back to Wyoming (from Dallas, where he actually lived at the time) just in time to run for vice-president?

[Spexvet]

Good thread spexie....nothing like some thoughtful and considerate debate-reminds me of myself and shanbaum a time or two (hi robert! hope you and the wife are well, looking forward to hopefully meeting you this year!)

I do not agree with her health care philosphy.
I do not care for her general demeanor which seems to vacillate bewtween harpy and martyr.
I do not agree with what her party platform is.(not her fault certainly but it does color my opinion)
I think she was dishonest about Whitewater and things surrounding that.
I do not agree with her stance on letting minors have abortions without parental notification.

She just rubs me the wrong way. Totally and completely.

Thank you Karen


I only have one thing more to add to your wonderful list...I think she is fraud w/the whole move to NY just in enough time to run for the Senate..



Christina

Other politicians have done similar things - why not the same hatred for them?

[karen]

The tough part about vacillating between harpy and martyr is coming back from the latter.

Too true......she sure does know how to wear a hair shirt and make it look good!;)

Spexie, to answer your question-there are other politicians I dislike heartily as well. McCain, Boxer and Feinstein, on the local front Antonio Villaraigosa......don't care much for David Drier-he is a flip flopper and an idiot.....Hillary is a bigger target because she is going for the top dog position. In the same way that W is a big target because he is Commander in Chief.

[Spexvet]

You mean, the way Dick Cheney moved back to Wyoming (from Dallas, where he actually lived at the time) just in time to run for vice-president?

And wasn't Daddy-Bush's residency in question? I seem to remember that he owned the place in Kennebunkport (sp?) but had an apartment in Texas, which he declared was his official residence.

[Spexvet]

Kay 123: You can drill in my back yard anytime, I also have 160 acres in SW Mississippi you can drill on. Just let me know when you are ready to negotiate mineral rights and leasing rights. I have pen and paper, come on!

Just leave me a bass pond when you clean up after.

Chip
That's the problem - they DO make a mess, and they DON'T clean up. Would you feel the same way if you were a caribou or seal?

[shanbaum]

And wasn't Daddy-Bush's residency in question? I seem to remember that he owned the place in Kennebunkport (sp?) but had an apartment in Texas, which he declared was his official residence.

No, he was definitely a Texas resident in 2000 (being governor an' all).

Oh, Daddy Bush. I don't think it mattered, particularly.

[chip anderson]

Spex:
They clean up nicely and if you put it in the contract they have to leave it "as promised." From everything I have read except from certian greenie groups, the carabou are very, very happy with the pipeline. It his thier prefered migration route, the preferred mating ground, best graze, etc. Population has been increasing since the establishment of the pipeline.
Now as to how I would "feel" if I were a carabou or a seal, who knows, I'll even bet you don't know how you would feel.


Chip:cheers:

[shanbaum]

They clean up nicely and if you put it in the contract they have to leave it "as promised."



Surprisingly (it surprised me), that's not true. There's a famous case (famous to law students, anyway) directly on that point, Peeveyhouse v. Garland Coal, in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court let Garland leave land they had undisputably agreed to remediate, unremediated. They had to pay Mr. Peeveyhouse a sum equal to the diminution in the value of the land, which was pitifully small, and a tiny fraction of the cost of remediation.




From everything I have read...




Please, Chip, be more careful, I spit Dr. Pepper all over my computer when I read that.




...the carabou are very, very happy with the pipeline.



OK, let's say that they are. But we're not talking about a pipeline.

As far as how caribou feel, I always figured they had lots of headaches.

[shanbaum]

One can work as hard as they can to become as unscrewed as possible, but the amount of final screwedness basically comes down to a mixture of effort, opportunity, and luck.



OK, I agree with that. But aren’t you saying that though we all start off “screwed”, we can try, and to some extent succeed, at un-screwing ourselves – subject to the random justice, or injustice (opportunity and luck) of the universe? How do you get from there to “we shouldn’t try to mitigate the adverse effects of limited opportunity and bad luck”?



Based on previous experience, the federal government is not particularly suited at managing the distribution of services or money. Most people base investment decisions on the rate of return provided by the institution. The prospectus for my SS dollars doesn't read all that well, and- if I had a choice- I'd probably invest that money elsewhere.



Social Security is not, and never has been, an investment scheme. To impute a "return" is to mischaracterize it. Congress (with the president's assent) could change the "return" tomorrow. The scheme has always been a pension scheme, where benefits are paid from current tax revenues, and not from earnings of any magnitude. To get to the system you have in mind, you'd have to double up - you'd have to continue to pay the 15% to pay the pensions of current retirees (although it's really not that much; about a quarter of SS taxes are presently really just income taxes in disguise – a more regressive disguise), and put aside money for your retirement. Which, of course, you are free to do, on a tax-deferred basis, already - which is to say, we already have a "privatized" retirement system available; it's just that it's in addition to the public one.

You would have to prove to me that the government does a particularly inefficient job at administering Social Security. I know that the government actually gets good grades for its administration of the Medicare program from knowledgeable commentators (with the exception of Part D, which was designed by drug companies, for drug companies). The GOP has attempted to shoehorn the private sector into Medicare (in Part C), but so far, the cost per covered person who chooses a private plan under Part C is 20% more than under the older, strictly-government-run plans.

Of course, Medicare is limited in scope. But would you get rid of it altogether?



how much higher should the tax rate go... and who should pay the bill



I think that our tax system is presently unintelligible. We don’t have, and can’t easily get, a clear picture of who is paying what.

First, I think that we should tax only people. Taxing businesses is really just a way of taxing people surreptitiously – not unlike the way that deficit spending is a way of taxing people surreptitiously. Look, it obviously worked in your case; you see a decrease in the withholding on your and figure it’s a bona fide cut in your taxes, when it’s nothing of the sort, when in fact, your share of the tax burden actually increased. When we tax businesses, we're just taxing people, or groups of people, twice. That complicates understanding who's paying what, needlessly. Needlessly, unless you're a politician.

I also think that we should tax only income, for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks: it’s where the money is. It’s absurd to tax property, the value of which may be completely unrelated to the ability of the owner to pay.

I also think that all forms of income should be taxed the same. I see no justification for taxing someone who buys and sells optical companies for a living a lower rate than people who buy, sell, fit, and make eyeglasses for a living.

Under those conditions, we could reasonably discuss how the burden should be distributed. I think it should be distributed in a progressive fashion; ideally, an incremental dollar of tax should cause the same pain to every taxpayer, at every income level. Of course, that’s a subjective consideration – I suspect that you feel a relatively greater pain at an additional dollar of tax than many other people who make what you make would feel. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t make a reasonable guess about the utility of that marginal tax dollar by using progressive rates. (Actually, I think it shouldn’t be “rates” at all, but a curve, expressed as a polynomial).

I reject the idea that there’s virtue in everyone paying the same tax rate. I see nothing fair about that. If we were to take our expenditures in total, and divide them up on a per capita basis – that I could see as being arguably fair. But given that both of us think that ability to pay is a function, at least to some extent, of opportunity and luck, it strikes me as harsh, and in any case, impractical; the share of a family of three at the federal poverty level of $21,000 would be about $22,000. That’s counting the kids, of course, don’t they pay their share?

Where’s the fairness in a constant?

It's also hard to know what the burden is. The deficit number you mentioned, for instance, doesn't include the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - they just decided to leave that out. Why? Because they can. We shouldn't let them do that sort of thing.

I suppose I shouldn't get so upset at what I perceive to be the profound stupidity of the assertion that "no matter what, taxes should always be lower," or put a more technical way, "the optimal tax rate is invariably less than the current tax rate." Given that our nation's finances are so obscure, maybe it's not a completely stupid reaction... just a desparate one.

[Pete Hanlin]

First, I think that we should tax only people.
I also think that we should tax only income...
I also think that all forms of income should be taxed the same...
I agree with all the above... I also agree that a "flat tax" is not feasible, but its also unfair to tax someone above 35% of their income- no matter how much s/he makes.

I suppose I shouldn't get so upset at what I perceive to be the profound stupidity of the assertion that "no matter what, taxes should always be lower," or put a more technical way, "the optimal tax rate is invariably less than the current tax rate."
Just to clarify, I do not believe taxes always need to be "lower." Local, state, and federal taxes are necessary to pay for the services provided by government. I do favor localizing those services as much as possible. For example, some services- such as national defense- are obviously best handled by the federal government. Most services, however, should be handled as locally as possible (the ideal amount of localization being payment by the individual).

One of the problems with our federal budget/government is its involvement in services that should be handled on a more local basis. In theory, the more local the money, the more responsible the spending (there are, of course, lots of exceptions in practice).

Given my views, programs like Social Security are naturally to be avoided (IMO)- because the federal government is involving itself in a responsibility which is ideally bourne by the individual.

In short, yes, I should pay the goverment to defend our country and build highways between states. My doctor's visits, retirement, food, etc. are expenses I should be taking responsibility for on an individual basis. If a local community wishes to provide a local fund for those who cannot/will not take care of themselves, okay- but its certainly not a federal responsibility.

[1968]

I reject the idea that there’s virtue in everyone paying the same tax rate. I see nothing fair about that. If we were to take our expenditures in total, and divide them up on a per capita basis – that I could see as being arguably fair. But given that both of us think that ability to pay is a function, at least to some extent, of opportunity and luck, it strikes me as harsh, and in any case, impractical; the share of a family of three at the federal poverty level of $21,000 would be about $22,000. That’s counting the kids, of course, don’t they pay their share?If you think that a person's ability to pay is a factor in determining his or her tax burden, I can understand how you might think a progressive tax is more fair than a flat tax. If you think that a person's ability to pay is a factor in determining his or her tax burden, I cannot understand how you might think divvying up expenditures to be paid on a per capita basis would be more fair than a flat tax. Can you clarify? Although they may apply the "incremental level of pain" theory differently, it seems to me that those who favor flat taxes agree with you that ability to pay is a factor in determining tax burden. Those who might favor an across the board $22,000 tax would not.

[Pete Hanlin]

Actually, I didn't even catch the reference to a system that would simply divvy up the federal expenses and charge each person equally (guess I didn't read carefully enough).

If the federal government limited itself to appropriate areas of responsibility, that actually might make sense. After all, everyone arguably derives roughly equal benefit from national defense.

For things like interstate commerce, taxes could be based on consumption or usage- which would mean tolls on most highways.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, retirement (and arguably education), so those items are written out of the budget and turned over to the states & local governments.

In reality, our system is at a point where federal government cannot be "put back into the bottle." It has worked its way into all sorts of areas where it shouldn't be, and we all pay. As it turns out, we don't pay enough to cover everything- so we need to either cut back on expenditures or increase the charge for government (in the form of taxes). Obviously, my vote is to shrink government spending in ALL areas (understanding there will be "pain" enough to go around).

[shanbaum]

If you think that a person's ability to pay is a factor in determining his or her tax burden, I can understand how you might think a progressive tax is more fair than a flat tax. If you think that a person's ability to pay is a factor in determining his or her tax burden, I cannot understand how you might think divvying up expenditures to be paid on a per capita basis would be more fair than a flat tax. Can you clarify?



I think that a lot of people have come to believe that there's something inherently fair about everyone paying the same rate. I don't. I don't think there's anything at all special about everyone paying the same rate. I can only make sense out of "fair" in this context in two ways: either an equal division ("the bill" divided by the number of us), or something like what I described, where the utility of the marginal tax dollar is equalized. The former takes no notice of ability to pay; the latter does.

To try to express it as you have, if you believe that ability to pay is important in determining the fairness of a tax policy, neither an equal apportionment, nor a flat rate applied to everyone, is fair. If you don't, then only an equal apportionment is fair.

I suppose it's possible that equal utility would occur at the same rate for everyone; I just don't believe that that's true.

[shanbaum]

If the federal government limited itself to appropriate areas of responsibility, that actually might make sense. After all, everyone arguably derives roughly equal benefit from national defense.

For things like interstate commerce, taxes could be based on consumption or usage- which would mean tolls on most highways.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, retirement (and arguably education), so those items are written out of the budget and turned over to the states & local governments.



I think we've had this discussion before, Pete; I don't understand your fondness towards state and local governments. If you think the federal government is inept, let me introduce you to Connecticut.

You seem to confuse interstate commerce with the Interstate Highway System. While I'm sure that the framers didn't envision anything like the continent-wide integrated market we have today (not to mention the global one), they did give the federal government the power to regulate commerce among the several States. One would be hard-pressed to find commerce that doesn't have an interstate (if not international) component. And one would be equally hard-pressed to explain how the Union would work better with without that kind of regulation.

The framers also empowered the federal government to "lay and collect Taxes" to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." You need to explain how healthcare and retirement is excluded from that. Or, just explain why the States (or towns) are better suited to manage it. After all, federally-run Medicare has few critics, while State-run Medicaid has them in spades. And it's really unclear to me what happens to Arizona and Florida if the States subsidize seniors' retirements.

Oh, but I guess they just wouldn't do that; the seniors would of course be on their own in Peteland.

[1968]

I think that a lot of people have come to believe that there's something inherently fair about everyone paying the same rate. I don't. I don't think there's anything at all special about everyone paying the same rate. I can only make sense out of "fair" in this context in two ways: either an equal division ("the bill" divided by the number of us), or something like what I described, where the utility of the marginal tax dollar is equalized. The former takes no notice of ability to pay; the latter does.

To try to express it as you have, if you believe that ability to pay is important in determining the fairness of a tax policy, neither an equal apportionment, nor a flat rate applied to everyone, is fair. If you don't, then only an equal apportionment is fair.

In my opinion, what is “fair” and how tax policy should be structured are two different things. I think ability to pay is important in determining a pragmatic tax policy, but I do not think ability to pay is important in determining a fair tax policy.

In this context, I can only make sense out of “fair” in one way: you pay for what you use or what is used on your behalf. Although contrary to the prevalent bromide, I would call that payment your “fair share”. I believe our current progressive tax requires higher income earners to pay more than their “fair share” and allows lower income earners to pay less than their “fair share”. This would still be true with a flat tax, however, it would be a pragmatic solution to the free-rider problem and shift things in the proper direction of what I consider to be fair.

The framers also empowered the federal government to "lay and collect Taxes" to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." You need to explain how healthcare and retirement is excluded from that.

For those that think the Constitution is “dead”, the easy answer may be that providing for healthcare and retirement is not an enumerated power outlined in Article I, Section 8. For those that think the Constitution is open to interpretation, it appears that the framers gave Congress discretion to determine what is the “general welfare”. One could argue that people are free to work, make money, and provide for their own needs regarding health and retirement… and that it is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution to provide or secure the conditions that make that possible. I think that is a legitimate interpretation of what it means to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

[k12311997]

One could argue that people are free to work, make money, and provide for their own needs regarding health and retirement… and that it is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution to provide or secure the conditions that make that possible. I think that is a legitimate interpretation of what it means to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

i've been generally trying to stay away from the political discourse on here since the turn of some threads last year. I have to say this is the best interpretation of the Constitution I've read on here.

:cheers:

[shanbaum]

In this context, I can only make sense out of “fair” in one way: you pay for what you use or what is used on your behalf. Although contrary to the prevalent bromide, I would call that payment your “fair share”. I believe our current progressive tax requires higher income earners to pay more than their “fair share” and allows lower income earners to pay less than their “fair share”. This would still be true with a flat tax, however, it would be a pragmatic solution to the free-rider problem and shift things in the proper direction of what I consider to be fair.



Well, after all the contortions, our current tax policy is probably closer to flat (if not fair) than you think. Prior to the last Bush tax cuts, the 2% at the top of the income scale who earned 25% of the income paid 27% of the taxes.



For those that think the Constitution is “dead”, the easy answer may be that providing for healthcare and retirement is not an enumerated power outlined in Article I, Section 8. For those that think the Constitution is open to interpretation, it appears that the framers gave Congress discretion to determine what is the “general welfare”. One could argue that people are free to work, make money, and provide for their own needs regarding health and retirement… and that it is the responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution to provide or secure the conditions that make that possible. I think that is a legitimate interpretation of what it means to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

[/quote]

The question of "dead" or "living" doesn't matter unless you can show that the framers (and more importantly, Scalia would say, the ratifiers) adhered to the interpretation you propose. I don't think that can be done. The principal proponents of the "dead Constitution" - namely, Scalia and Thomas - have never proposed anything of the sort; at least, not that I've read.

The spending power - enhanced by the "necessary and proper" clause - has always been interpreted rather broadly:

We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

M'Culloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

[chip anderson]

Shanebaum: Some "authorities" claim those in the top ten per cent of income pay ninety per cent of all income taxes. Odd how the democrat stats differ from the republican ones.
Also odd how the Bush tax cuts have depleted treasury (treasury collections now at an all time high). Stock market also at an all time high.

Chip

[1968]

Well, after all the contortions, our current tax policy is probably closer to flat (if not fair) than you think. Prior to the last Bush tax cuts, the 2% at the top of the income scale who earned 25% of the income paid 27% of the taxes.I try my best not to think about taxes! I've got a table using the IRS as a source stating that the top 1% paid 37% of the taxes and that the top 5% paid 57%: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Anyone care to put this to rest with a good quotation regarding taxes?

The question of "dead" or "living" doesn't matter unless you can show that the framers (and more importantly, Scalia would say, the ratifiers) adhered to the interpretation you propose. I don't think that can be done. The principal proponents of the "dead Constitution" - namely, Scalia and Thomas - have never proposed anything of the sort; at least, not that I've read.

The spending power - enhanced by the "necessary and proper" clause - has always been interpreted rather broadly:

[snipped]

M'Culloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)I would say that it doesn’t matter that we need to show that the framers/ratifiers had any particular interpretation in mind. I think the findings of McCulloch vs. Maryland support the idea that the Constitution is a “living” document open to interpretation. The Court found that Congress has powers not necessarily outlined in Article I, Section 8 and, related to the topic at hand, that effectively gives them some discretion in promoting the general welfare… at least that’s how my layperson’s mind sees it.

[gemstone]

I try my best not to think about taxes!
.
Taxes are pretty much the ONLY difference between the democrats and Republicans in what they actually do. They do confuse people with what they say.

[shanbaum]

I try my best not to think about taxes! I've got a table using the IRS as a source stating that the top 1% paid 37% of the taxes and that the top 5% paid 57%: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Anyone care to put this to rest with a good quotation regarding taxes?



The tables on the site you posted don't include FICA taxes, about a third of which pays for general expenses. The numbers I cited come from David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal. It's possible that they're both right. What's important when considering the share of taxes paid is the concomitant share of income earned. Under a flat tax, those earning 25% of the income would pay 25% of taxes (and they would still constitute approximately the top 2% of taxpayers). Without stating the share of income earned, the statistic is misleading, and intended only to evoke indignation.


I would say that it doesn’t matter that we need to show that the framers/ratifiers had any particular interpretation in mind.


It does if you want to argue for the "dead Constitution." It's almost all that matters. So says Scalia, its chief proponent. The premise of the "dead Consititution" theory is that the meaning of the Constitution should be fixed to that of the ratifiers.


I think the findings of McCulloch vs. Maryland support the idea that the Constitution is a “living” document open to interpretation. The Court found that Congress has powers not necessarily outlined in Article I, Section 8 and, related to the topic at hand, that effectively gives them some discretion in promoting the general welfare… at least that’s how my layperson’s mind sees it.

Again, you would have to find support amongst the framers or ratifiers for your view - if their view was that the Constitution afforded implied powers to the legislature (and clearly, Marshall thought it did), and given a dead Consitution (that is, if that theory is ascendant), you would be stuck with a fixed interpretation of the Constitution in which the Congress is granted implied powers.

The two questions are distinct, although the particular passage I cited speaks to both; there's nothing there (nor anywhere else in the law) that links them in the way you do.

[1968]

The tables on the site you posted don't include FICA taxes, about a third of which pays for general expenses.I thought we were talking about income taxes. Payroll taxes come out of employers' pockets, too, but they don't necessarily show on their personal returns.

It does if you want to argue for the "dead Constitution." It's almost all that matters. So says Scalia, its chief proponent. The premise of the "dead Consititution" theory is that the meaning of the Constitution should be fixed to that of the ratifiers.I’m not arguing for the “dead” Constitution and I don’t think you are either. What is important in this is what the Supreme Court thinks or has decided. As an entity, it appears that they think, as evidenced by M vs M, that they think it is “living”. Which takes us to our next point…

Again, you would have to find support amongst the framers or ratifiers for your view - if their view was that the Constitution afforded implied powers to the legislature (and clearly, Marshall thought it did), and given a dead Consitution (that is, if that theory is ascendant), you would be stuck with a fixed interpretation of the Constitution in which the Congress is granted implied powers.

The two questions are distinct, although the particular passage I cited speaks to both; there's nothing there (nor anywhere else in the law) that links them in the way you do. It appears that I have done a poor job of trying to make myself clear, so I will back up. I butted in on your comment to Pete: The framers also empowered the federal government to "lay and collect Taxes" to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." You need to explain how healthcare and retirement is excluded from that. Rather than place the burden on someone else to prove a negative (i.e. that healthcare and retirement are excluded from what the framers/ratifiers meant by “general welfare”), I would ask you to show how it is included.

My view is this: the Constitution grants Congress the power to promote the general welfare of the United States, but it does not strictly define what constitutes “the general welfare”. Consequently, I have no evidence to show that the framers/ratifiers meant for that to include healthcare and retirement. Per the aforementioned elastic clause, Congress may pass laws implementing healthcare and retirement benefits IF they deem them to be “necessary and proper” for the general welfare of the United States. Similarly, I’m not aware that there are any strict guidelines to determine what is “necessary and proper”. My earlier point was simply that not everyone would agree that passing laws to implement healthcare and retirement benefits are necessary and proper to promote the general welfare of the United States.

[shanbaum]

Rather than place the burden on someone else to prove a negative (i.e. that healthcare and retirement are excluded from what the framers/ratifiers meant by “general welfare”), I would ask you to show how it is included.



I don't have to - at least, I wouldn't in any court. Acts of Congress (and for that matter, legislatures) are presumed Constitutional; the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove their unconstitutionality.

It would be especially difficult to prove the unconstitutionality of an exercise of the spending power - you would have to demonstrate that the spending in question could never promote the general welfare; that is, that there's no rational basis for believing that the legislation could do so.

It's easier to dispute Congress' power to regulate, which is explicitly limited by the language of the Constitution. The spending power is not - promoting the general welfare isn't much of a limitation, unless you invert the presumption of Constitutionality (which, if you think about it, would be the essence of what some people call "judicial activism"). I wonder what that would look like - would Congress have to prove that a piece of legislation could promote the general welfare, or would it have to prove that it couldn't fail to promote the general welfare?

While you might be able to argue that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was not a proper exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce (someone did, and won), it would be impossible to show that Congress could have no rational purpose in providing healthcare for everyone. While I know that some people might be so jaded as to believe that doing so would be an irrational act by Congress, I don't think that the argument would have a snowball's chance of succeeding, not even with an extremist .. Supreme ... Court .... hmm...

:cry:

[1968]

I don't have to - at least, I wouldn't in any court. Acts of Congress (and for that matter, legislatures) are presumed Constitutional; the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove their unconstitutionality.

It would be especially difficult to prove the unconstitutionality of an exercise of the spending power - you would have to demonstrate that the spending in question could never promote the general welfare; that is, that there's no rational basis for believing that the legislation could do so.

It's easier to dispute Congress' power to regulate, which is explicitly limited by the language of the Constitution. The spending power is not - promoting the general welfare isn't much of a limitation, unless you invert the presumption of Constitutionality (which, if you think about it, would be the essence of what some people call "judicial activism"). I wonder what that would look like - would Congress have to prove that a piece of legislation could promote the general welfare, or would it have to prove that it couldn't fail to promote the general welfare?

While you might be able to argue that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was not a proper exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce (someone did, and won), it would be impossible to show that Congress could have no rational purpose in providing healthcare for everyone. While I know that some people might be so jaded as to believe that doing so would be an irrational act by Congress, I don't think that the argument would have a snowball's chance of succeeding, not even with an extremist .. Supreme ... Court .... hmm...

:cry:*laughs* I believe I agree with all of that.

I think any argument could be made that it is in the best interest of the United States to directly provide healthcare and retirement benefits to its citizens; I also think an argument could be made that it is not. It is ultimately up to Congress, hopefully taking our feedback into account, to make the decision. Do we have any common ground on that?

[shanbaum]

It is ultimately up to Congress, hopefully taking our feedback into account, to make the decision. Do we have any common ground on that?



I agree completely with that.

[Uncle Fester]

I really enjoyed this debate. Thanks for the (mostly) well thought out arguments. Regarding Healthcare I firmly believe a tipping point is rapidly approaching where corporate america is going to find it cheaper to have a national policy than the mix we now have. When that happens it's a done deal for sure.