|
0 members (),
23
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,587
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Keeping with the previous rubric: A) So, if I understand correctly, separation of church and state should not be an issue, but you agree (with me) that it is. And that it is an issue because the current SCOTUS majority is improperly interpreting the plain language of the Constitution? How do we "fix" this? It is not an issue because of decision by the current Supreme Court. It is because of decisions made by the Supreme Court decades ago. Decisions that misinterpreted the idea of the separation of church and state. This can be fixed by the Supreme Court making decisions based on what is the state supporting a religion. When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion. B) I have never suggested that we "eliminate those factors to make everyone's income equal" (nor am I aware of anyone here, ever, doing so). However, one of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason. There are many other policies that I believe will enhance the future of the majority of our population and are consonant with the principles our nation was founded upon. Rich Kids Stay Rich, Poor Kids Stay Poor (FiveThirtyEight); Opportunity Insights (Harvard) - See Which policies improve social well-being the most?Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone. The rich pay MORE than their fair share! The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed! It was taxed when the people who have it earned it! Why should our government get up to 55% of someone's estate just because they die? Double taxation is wrong! If you really want to improve people's lives get our government out of their lives! Wealth can be created even under the worst possible circumstances. The original Avon lady Our country was founded on the principle of the opportunity to create wealth. It was not created on the principle of government helping people! C) Since we agree that "government does have both an interest and responsibility to administer justice fairly." The question is, are we? (I think we can acknowlege that we are not. The Injustice System of America (Kellogg Foundation)) Shouldn't we do better? Can we do better? How do we do better? If, as you say, the problem is "our justice system is operated by human beings", I see two potential solutions - be better human beings, or eliminate human foibles as much as possible. Neither of the solutions you suggested are possible! Human nature has not changed since man first started living together. It will not be changed by anything any government does. But, I think, with regard to both B and C, we have to start by acknowledging realities. One of those realities is the persistence of racial division as a matter of policy. When 49% of incarcerated adults come from 13% of the population, something is clearly wrong. When this prevails: ![[Linked Image from equitablegrowth.org]](https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/fig4compact.png) There is something that needs to be addressed. See, for example, Wealth taxation: An introduction to net worth taxes and how one might work in the United States (Washington Center for Equitable Growth). Government confiscation of wealth, taxes, does not help anyone improve their financial situation. Expecting our government to solve a problem it created is wishful thinking. The problem of minority incarceration is a problem a caused government policy. More government programs are not the answer! Walter Williams
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
Republican strategist Rick Wilson defines the modern conservative: ...[F]luent in the language of whining, dickish grievance-mongering... I whole-heartedly agree. I will also add incessantly trolling in order to "own" the Liberals.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,177 Likes: 254
It's the Despair Quotient! Carpal Tunnel
|
|
It's the Despair Quotient! Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,177 Likes: 254 |
There is and always will be income inequality. It exists because what some people do has more value than what others do. Should the income of the Rolling Stones be equal to that of person working at their first job? Hell no it shouldn't! The efforts to make everyone's income equal can only be successful if everyone is equally poor. To achieve that is to take away the incentive to improve your life. To get rid of income inequality is part of the social justice reform. Therefore it is a bad idea.  Straw man alert detected Yes, there HAS always been income inequality...some income inequality. In some time periods there was massive income inequality and in other times there was less massive income inequality, but only a numbskull would seriously ever expect there to be equal incomes for everybody, or equal outcomes for everything. That's totally disingenuous. No amount of finger pointing pedagogy about Marx, spare us ALL, please. Nobody here is interested in Marx. The most you will ever see who are nationwide probably number less than Arby's employees by several orders of magnitude. NOBODY ever expects equal outcomes, even in the most ultra/uber egalitarian wet dream. Equal opportunity on the other hand is another matter, and I am tired of endlessly drawing this important distinction to people who respond like zombies from The Walking Dead, endlessly insisting that I, a lefty, DO INDEED subscribe to Marx, while at the same time not even knowing I do. [/sarcasm]  You claim in one post that some things are a matter of degree. In your post above, you trot out a one-dimensional cardboard cutout. It might be Karl Marx, or it might be one of The Smith Brothers, of cough drop fame. It doesn't matter to you because you're in a hurry to point out some perceived failing of a socialist/communist ideology that isn't even part of the discussion on the Left. A matter of degree in things like, say perhaps, human productivity, might be important. Or for instance, matters of degree in things like income inequality might also be considered important, and worthy of a closer look. I think degrees in income inequality down through the ages follow a familiar pattern. When matched carefully to historic events both good and bad, one begins to see a pattern of human nature. In today's economy, we are at or near enough to an extreme imbalance...several of them. If you spot it, even when its not there, you've got it. Nowhere in my comment do I make even a passing reference to Karl Marx but you keep seeing references to him. To repeat, there is not a single reference to Karl Marx in my comment! Hatrack, your continual reference to what YOU perceive is "liberal expectation of equal outcomes" is the marxism you refer to all the time, both BY name and NOT by name. If you're not careful, I will corner you into repeating your old saws about how you think so much of Democratic Party ideology is marxism based. So, playing a four year old's game of "I didn't actually SAY Karl Marx" isn't going to work. We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming. One only need dig up a few copies of your old newsletter The Militant, for examples. Your problem is, you WERE a former Socialist Workers Party member, so you continue to assume that you understand everyone on the Left. You write all of your arguments as if you're talking to (or talking DOWN to) another SWP member...A MARXIST. So I will try one more time to let you know: There are NO MARXISTS here and your argument about equal outcomes and equal wealth are a STRAW MAN. Would you like for me to pull up three or four of your past posts where you imply and then later outright SAY that Democrats are all marxists at heart, or something similar? We can start with your "Rolling Stones" reference in case you already forgot that one, and work backwards.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
We know that far out ultra leftists dream of equal outcomes, and equalized wealth, with no nail sticking up and nonconforming. Yes, a far out leftist like Kamala Harris, the junior Senator and former Attorney General of California.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
...a far out leftist like Kamala Harris... I like that Kamala frightens you. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135 |
Why don't far right nut jobs send shivers of fear through the Senator?
The left is looking for equality for all people, so why is that scary.
The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person.
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Why don't far right nut jobs send shivers of fear through the Senator?
The left is looking for equality for all people, so why is that scary.
The right is trying to legislatively ensure inequality, now that should be very scary for any person. Because the far right nut jobs only exist in you fevered mind. Why should I let your nightmares scare me? The only way to legislate equality for all people is by putting everyone in prison. Pass enough laws so everyone breaks one and is then put in prison, that is very scary. The right cannot legislate inequality, it already exists.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135 |
When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion. So you are calling that support of mangers? A manger scene is symbolic of one of THE iconic events in Christianity, so how is that not supporting Christianity??? I don't have a problem if cities states of the federal government "honored" everyone who has a religious preference with a blurb about their religion (or lack thereof), be it wiccan, voodoo Christianity or Islam. There is no need for a SC case as every religion is supported. Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone. You should read county tax books from the 1790's and on. There has always been a progressive tax on wealth in this country. Whether it is good bad or ugly is not the question. It tries to be equitable. If you are wealthy it was presumed you could afford to pay more. After all most of the wealthy were business men or large farmers who prevailed on local, state and federal governments to enacts laws to benefit them in their pursuit of wealth. And guess what? government was more than happy to comply. The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed! Based on that argument no money should be taxed. Brilliant. See if you can figure out how nothing is taxable. Human nature has not changed since man first started living together. and so we should live like animals? You ARE trying to convince me I am correct when I concluded conservatives simply do not want government but a Darwinian death match. More government programs are not the answer! You are correct. BETTER PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED!!!!
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135 |
Sounds like the only fevered mind is yours. Yes you are scary. The right cannot legislate inequality, it already exists. You said it incorrectly. Inequality exists in nature but not as a result of anyone's attempt to legislate inequality. However more progressive people see the equality and try to fix it through legislation, so at least there is LEGAL equality. (You can't fix the bigotry of Trump supporters.) However the fevered minds of the right want to ensure there is LEGAL inequality by enacting laws which guarantee certain people do not have the same rights and privileges I do. Why doesn't that enrage you???
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135 |
Does society, generally, and government specifically, have an interest or responsibility to ensure justice is administered fairly? If i does not, then what good is society or government?
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
|
