Why are taxes such an issue?

[MRFS]

Start here:

www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif


MRFS

 

[knarl]

It's America, where 40% can block anything the other 60% come up with it. This works to the advantage of conservatives, the very name, "conservative", says it all, they don't want to change as many things as the "progressives".

Uhhh.... don't you have to first propose a budget, before anyone could even dream of starting to block it? Hahaha, nice try on that though. Can't wait to hear your explanation of how the President's recent budget proposal was "blocked". Are you gonna claim it was conservatives that doomed it, when every single member of the Senate, INCLUDING every single damn Democrat, voted against his budget?


Now that's a President with foresight and an ability to lead. He is so in tune with reality, that every Democrat in the Senate voted against his budget. Can't get better than that really!

 

[MysticMiner]

The US Constitution did allow for moral choices. In fact it inherently requires moral choices.

Yes, to some extent it does. But I said THEIR constitution, referring to the Wisconsin state Constitution. Was that unclear?

Of course, the US Constitution is not the most explicit constitution in the United States, some are worded in much stronger terms, or even add several larger protections.

If you don't like the rules, change the people writing them.

But sometimes the way to do that requires you to violate the other rules. Hence the Declaration of Independence. Similar reasoning was also used for the American Civil War.

Huh? Two different groups can act on apparently similar basic principles, but one can be wrong, and the other right. Who knew?

And those are just two examples. There are others.

Normal law abiding Americans trying to work an honest job and take care of their families feel that it is government making this increasingly more difficult not "the evil corporations".

Some feel that way. Others do feel it's the corporations. Especially when they notice how much influence the corporations have over the government. Or rather, the people running those corporations, just so Mitt Romney understands, since he's apparently prone to literal interpretations.

Myself and those who feel as I do are tired of it and we are no longer silent.

There was never any silence on the subject that I noticed. It's been a simmering undercurrent for the entirety of the Republic. And before, given the reason many of the original states were formed.

Thanks for schooling me mysticminer. I realize now that if people have done it in the past that makes it logical, reasonable, functional and moral by default.

Well, unless you want to reject those people, and their principles, you probably should give it consideration. Especially given how many in the Tea Party make plays to Revolutionary themes, it's kind of hypocritical to reject the whole basis of the American Revolution. It's one thing to have a nuanced support, but you can't take out the foundation of their actions quite so easily.

If you don't like that Jefferson used such reasoning in the Declaration of Independence, then it's really hard to appeal to him, or his fellows.

Have you really thought this through?

It's in the damn name. Do you not even know what the original "Tea Party" was??

I can't say I know the Rules of Order at play but I suppose the rule of quorum was to keep small bands from calling secret/private meetings to impose their will on everyone else. Stop it! Federal Judges don't like the competition!

That's the quorum. The call to the Quorum is the prevent groups from blocking a quorum. Then we have the filibuster rule which increases the effective size of the quorum.

Federal judges do not make secret decisions though, almost any opinion will have so many citations that if you can't follow their thinking, it's hard for me to blame them. Amusing example of hypocrisy comes up with that one though, with a sudden love for
"activist judges" as long as they make the desired decisions.

But you want to get rid of secret holds, and force this new "Super Committee" to be transparent, go ahead.

Does it escape your notice if people are entitled to play by whatever rules they want, so long as they feel like its right, then there can be no order and therefore no society or civilization? You don't help your case to say that they won't do it often or indefinitely. Good grief.

What escaped your notice, once again, is that I'm not saying that people can play by whatever rules they want. I sense I'm going to be saying this quite often, and to no effect, but you are completely and utterly failing to recognize what I actually said because you prefer your own misinterpretation.

What I am saying is that people may have to reject rules when the rules themselves are an anathema for some reason.

This concept should not be that hard to understand. And as I said, rejecting it puts you in the place of somehow not following the core of how this country was formed.

I do not think that the Tea Party can take that approach. It's certainly a way to lose my respect since it contradicts their basic principles. Makes me wonder why they take up those symbols if they don't believe in them.

If you don't like the rules you can drum up enough support to change the rules or play a different game. We may just have to disagree but I think leaving the state was a dereliction of duty.

You can't always drum up support by complying with the rules. Sometimes the thing to do is leave, sometimes the thing to do is to stand up and fight.

I don't get how you are so opposed to this idea, it's one of the basic principles behind the Tea Party, it's in the name.

I would say the exact same thing regardless of who does it because my principles and morals are not grounded in my feelings or some political agenda.

I doubt that. It's easy to make the claim that you would. Let's see some evidence of you actually doing that.

I'll wait.

It's interesting that I just took your position ("it's ok to not comply with rules you don't want to") and asked what it would be like if everyone could apply it, but then you say I am being too absolute. Laws can be changed, but there is a reason we arrest and penalize people who break laws. Yes, some laws need to be changed, but you can't justify your position by saying that whatever feels/seems right is ok.

There's a reason why jury nullification exists. And Civil Disobedience. And ultimately, revolution. It's not as simple as "whatever feels right" and your simplification into those terms is a misrepresentation.

There's usually a reason behind it, which may range from self-delusional to a genuine and substantive grievance.

And I am glad you know how to cut and paste and think that the TEA Party folks are patriots. If I had known calling them terrorist/traitors was just another way of saying patriots I wouldn't have considered it inaccurate.

You really did misinterpret me there. Yet again. The point I was making is entirely different from your representation. I was saying that patriotism and treason...is not meaningful on its own, and people can adopt or press both banners. It's easy to say something. Less easy is the truth of it.

Claim to be a patriot. Claim another is a traitor. They can do the same of you. Both of you can be right, both of you can be wrong, or something else.

Have you talked to anyone in the TEA Party? How did you determine some were "racist bigots"? and please define the term.

Oh yes, I've talked to some racist bigots in the Tea Party, and let's see, in their cases they:

Said the damn blacks were stealing too much white money.
Asserted that they and the Mexicans should be shipped back to Africa and Mexico.
They also made some other unpleasant remarks about the President, and a few other things. Like wearing 14 Words banners.

Their choice of words was far more intemperate than mine, but I decline to type it exactly. You can say I'm interpreting them wrongly, or that they're not representative of the Tea Party if you like, but I'd suggest you repudiate them instead of defending them. There's no group that doesn't have its bad apples. I'd invite you to come with me on some trips around my local area so we can see the exact same instances of behavior, but yeah, even if I didn't have some personal issues going on that impede my ability to deal with that, I have no desire to do so. If you want to say I live in an island where the Tea Party is somehow not representative of what it's like elsewhere...ok...but please tell me the ones around me are doing things wrong.

If you need a definition of racial bigotry, go look for some yourself, don't expect to get one single example, people use a lot of different ones. I don't think your example is one, you would have to add something more to it.

BTW: I suppose I should mention though, I do respect Ron Paul, in the sense that he's at least following his principles. I may disagree with him on various details, but I consider him somebody who follows his principles. Especially given what he said tonight.

Too many in the Tea Party don't measure up to his particular standard. But then Ron Paul was Ron Paul for a long time before the Tea Party.

Uhhh.... don't you have to first propose a budget, before anyone could even dream of starting to block it? Hahaha, nice try on that though. Can't wait to hear your explanation of how the President's recent budget proposal was "blocked". Are you gonna claim it was conservatives that doomed it, when every single member of the Senate, INCLUDING every single damn Democrat, voted against his budget?

Reality is somewhat different. The proposal that you're talking about was supplanted by a further refinement. As such, they picked the more ambitious plan.

You should really look for the details behind the reality.

But hey, at least they didn't vote to gut Medicare. Who did? Anybody behind Ryan's plan.

Or are you going to say that's not what the Ryan plan is about?

 

[MysticMiner]

Why? I already said:

And while Wisconsin's state constitution may not provide for defiance of the rules of government being a moral choice, I consider that a defect of their constitution.

They should amend it, so folks aren't confused, and think that the rules are somehow determinative of what is good and proper.

Rightness is not always found in the laws or in the conduct of authority.

They might want to try the models New Hampshire, Kentucky, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania or Tennessee. Heck, I think we should have that provision in the Federal Constitution, it should be obvious, but apparently it's worth stating.

 

[Gulli]

Uhhh.... don't you have to first propose a budget, before anyone could even dream of starting to block it? Hahaha, nice try on that though. Can't wait to hear your explanation of how the President's recent budget proposal was "blocked". Are you gonna claim it was conservatives that doomed it, when every single member of the Senate, INCLUDING every single damn Democrat, voted against his budget?


Now that's a President with foresight and an ability to lead. He is so in tune with reality, that every Democrat in the Senate voted against his budget. Can't get better than that really!

I was talking about more general perceived inaction from the democrats. Did the democrats propose a budget? Yes they did, it's hard not too since even doing nothing is technically proposing a budget (a budget that's the same as that of the previous year). But they didn't do nothing: they curbed the worrying trend of the ever growing military budget and proposed to cut the tax cuts for the rich and began the withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's healthcare reform (sadly toned down by compromise) will eventually lower healthcare costs relative to GDP in the long term (unless America fails to meet even Southern European efficiency standards). So the democrats did propose a new budget, they just did it quietly for the most part and in pieces.

 

[MysticMiner]

So they did it becuase they 'felt like it'? According to no rules of conduct in the Wisconsin legislature?

Go look up their statement if you want to see their reasons.

You won't though, because you'd prefer to belittle them.

 

[Gulli]

How are healthcare costs going to be reduced exactly?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/666148/-American-ExceptionalismHealth-Insurance-Company-Costs

 

[MysticMiner]

You can and should act according to the best principles of your conscience.

Sometimes that may require you to defy the rules.

 

[MysticMiner]

In the really real world, when you break the rules you get punished.

Sometimes, yes, you do. This punishment may be fair, or it may not. Nobody ever promised that life would be fair or just.

Luckily, sometimes even if you get punished, you get vindicated in the end.

 

[chunkymonster]

I gotta be honest though Miner, I do not understand how any reasonably intelligent person can support the Democrats in Wisconsin just for the simple fact that they ran away from their responsibility, hid out like cowards in Illinois, and failed to represent their constituency. The people in Wisconsin get what they deserve if they do not recall any and all Democrats.

I pity the people who try to frame it in such terms, because clearly they'd rather call somebody a coward than realize they're standing up for their principles, and not realizing that they DID represent their constituency.

It's like calling somebody a coward, or a snitch, because instead of punching a bully, they go to an authority. Or they start screaming about how they're being attacked, if you prefer it that way. Let's say they'd stayed in Wisconsin. Would that have meant anything positive for the Democrats? The Republicans wouldn't have voted any differently, but what would have happened was the people did not have a chance to speak out. So I say they did a better job of representing them by stepping out of the state.

Quorum busting has a long political history across the spectrum. It's one, of many ways, to get things done. I do not disapprove of it myself, it's not at all offensive, compared to say, a coup, or a rump session.

You call it cowardice. I consider you calling them a coward proof of exactly how brave they are.

Thank you, your opprobrium convinces me more and more that they did the right thing.

Please keep your pity to yourself; implying anyone who thinks differently needs pity is condescending, presumptuous, and ignorant.

Yes, the Wisconsin Democrats who fled to Illinois were, by definition, cowards. They lacked courage to stay in State, they lacked courage to continue to debate, and they lacked courage by failing to admit their mistake of leaving in the first place. Bottom line, the Wisconsin Democrats failed their party and constituency by fleeing to Illinois.

The notion that leaving the State was a principled political tactic is tenuous. As a political tactic, it failed miserably. It was the very absence of the Democrats that fled like cowards to Illinois that allowed Republicans to avoid quorum and change the bill to push through a vote.

Fact is, if the Democrats had remained in Wisconsin and done the job they were elected to do, the Republicans would not have been able to change the bill and push the vote.

Actually, I call you out on this one Miner. I propose the following hypothetical. What if Congressional Republicans fled to Canada during the Obamacare or Budget/Debt Ceiling debates because the only "option we had to slow things down was to leave." like the Wisconsin Democrats claimed? Would you defend Republican's for fleeing the country to slow things down? Would you claim theirs was a principled political move to represent their constituency and defend their party position? Something tells me you would not take the same position defending Congressional Republicans as you do Wisconsin Democrats; please prove me wrong.

 

[MysticMiner]

Please keep your pity to yourself; implying anyone who thinks differently needs pity is condescending, presumptuous, and ignorant.

You already said "I do not understand how any reasonably intelligent person can" which implies that anybody who thinks differently is well...not reasonably intelligent.

You're not on the high road, you're already covered in mud.

Stop your protests already, I don't believe them. You can't get indignant when you've already done something yourself.

Or did you not realize how insulting your words were?

Yes, the Wisconsin Democrats who fled to Illinois were, by definition, cowards. They lacked courage to stay in State, they lacked courage to continue to debate, and they lacked courage by failing to admit their mistake of leaving in the first place. Bottom line, the Wisconsin Democrats failed their party and constituency by fleeing to Illinois.

They were fighting. They were debating. They served their constituency as best they could. Out of state, but not out of touch.

Wonderful thing phones and television cameras.

Bottom line...you call them cowards because they want something different from you. Again, you're not on the high road
here.

The notion that leaving the State was a principled political tactic is tenuous. As a political tactic, it failed miserably. It was the very absence of the Democrats that fled like cowards to Illinois that allowed Republicans to avoid quorum and change the bill to push through a vote.

Fact is, if the Democrats had remained in Wisconsin and done the job they were elected to do, the Republicans would not have been able to change the bill and push the vote.

Stop right there. You are mistaken. Republicans could not avoid the quorum issue on the original law which besides its anti-union practices, included some budgetary matters, which due to the Wisconsin constitution required a 2/3 attendence. With the Democrats out of state, they were stuck, unless they themselves wanted to violate the state constitution too explicitly to ignore. So they changed tactics to push a law that simply did the one.

Fact is, if the Democrats had remained, the Republicans wouldn't have had to do that, but nothing would have stopped them from doing it anyway, if it were so desired. Just like nothing would have stopped them from passing the original law.

Your perceptions are in error. Nothing would have come of staying.

But the Democrats were able to exploit staying away, since they forced the Republicans to admit that their anti-union procedures were not really about saving the budget, and from there, they parlayed it into two successful recalls, not to mention six whole petitions, compared to only two against them. Next week we'll see if the Republicans even manage to get one Democrat.

And if the whole state went through elections again...I doubt Walker would make it.

Actually, I call you out on this one Miner. I propose the following hypothetical. What if Congressional Republicans fled to Canada during the Obamacare or Budget/Debt Ceiling debates because the only "option we had to slow things down was to leave." like the Wisconsin Democrats claimed? Would you defend Republican's for fleeing the country to slow things down? Would you claim theirs was a principled political move to represent their constituency and defend their party position? Something tells me you would not take the same position defending Congressional Republicans as you do Wisconsin Democrats; please prove me wrong.

Secret holds. Silent Filibusters. Stacking amendments. Floor readings. Demanding roll call votes. I don't bring them up, because they don't matter to me. I know they happened, but you'll not find me making an issue of them.

Dishonesty towards the public now, that bothers me, but I wouldn't consider that as a tactic, so much as violating a principle of service. Or maybe being non-genuine about your intentions and motivations is the way to put it?

It's like this murder case I know about, the man hid the bodies after he shot them, and denied doing it. Now killing somebody is generally frowned upon, right? But there are times where it is right, so if he'd admitted doing it, and asserted self-defense, then he'd be justified. Even if shooting somebody is generally against the law.

And yes, I do oppose those places that I feel do restrict self-defense excessively. I can understand adopting a platform of non-violence for yourself, but I don't support criminalizing use of violence for all possible reasons. There are some proper ones.

Just like there are proper reasons to violate the law in other ways.

 

[MysticMiner]

How is it anti-union to ask union members to contribute a little more to their own benefits to help balance the budget and save union jobs?

That wasn't the anti-union part. The anti-union part was that they couldn't even bargain together over it.

The unions had agreed to those cuts. It was the other issues that were opposed.

Public sector jobs were saved as the result of the Republicans and Gov. Walker in Wisconsin; nobody was fired. Everyone got to keep their jobs and benefits.

Nobody? Everyone?

Not at least two people this week.

That isn't even counting the hundreds of teachers in Wisconsin who have since been laid off due to cuts in education funding.

Oh and, did you notice the sea of red color, from t-shirts to waving flags, during the Wisconsin protests? Red, hmmm. We know they weren't Republicans wearing those red colors. Wonder who they were? hmmmmm.

Did you notice the palm trees on Fox News? Wonder when they were planted in Wisconsin.

People wearing Red...oh noes! Maybe they're University of Wisconsin alumni! How horrible!

 

[MU_Engineer]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/666148/-American-ExceptionalismHealth-Insurance-Company-Costs

That DailyKos article is absolutely wrong on all except one point (#3.)

1. There are many non-profit insurers in the U.S. Insurers that are not for profit are not much if any less expensive than the for-profit ones. Think about it- health insurance costs are tremendous and are a massive burden on employers. If the not-for-profit insurers really were so much less expensive because they didn't need to make those eeeeeevil huge profits, every employer would pick a non-profit insurer to reduce costs. The fact that there are still many for-profit insurers around speaks very strongly against any significant profit-taking driving up costs.

2. "Under-insured" is a highly political term. Some people choose to carry high-deductible, catastrophic-only coverage because that's the coverage that fits them best. I did that until I was forced by the Obamacare mandate to carry maternity coverage (even though I am a male?!) and a whole raft of other things that do not apply to me. They also made me take a much lower deductible and that roughly doubled my rates. Obamacare considers most everything short of an everything is covered, low-deductible plan to be "under-insured." That's pretty much like outlawing any sort of car insurance less than comprehensive coverage with a $50 deductible. It doesn't make much sense, except to subsidize people who do things like live in East St. Louis and leave their iPad on their passenger seat or tailgate dump trucks and go through 10 windshields per year. Also, the people who really do avoid going to the doctor because of a high out-of-pocket cost go to the emergency room. There they are legally required to be treated for $0 out of pocket yet run up massive costs they ignore and the hospital has to pass on to everybody else.

3. Our costs are rising faster than other countries, that is the ONLY correct thing in the article. The reasons for this are manifold, but mostly result from the government setting the payment schedule everybody else follows (Medicare DRG) as well as mandating levels of insurance coverage (#2.) The DRG sets reimbursements with seemingly no rhyme or reason and has crippled primary care in the U.S., which has massively driven up overall costs. The one thing that some socialized systems (mainly the U.K. NHS) have gotten right, it is to emphasize primary care. The NHS has all sorts of other problems, but they do have the emphasis of primary care right.

4. The administrative costs are high, and dealing with government payors (Medicaid, Medicare) have the absolute highest administrative costs. Private insurers impose lower administrative costs on the providers than does the government, and their reimbursements are higher. The government is the one that is the worst player here, putting them in charge of the entire system would *increase* costs.

5. There is a huge amount of central planning already. The government pretty well sets the reimbursement rates through the DRG, plus every provider that takes even one government-pay patient has to abide by all of the federal rules for billing, coding, etc. etc. for EVERY patient. The government certainly has monopoly powers, otherwise they wouldn't be able to use the DRG for reimbursement. The DRG is a "here's what we'll pay regardless of what you bill." Being able to dictate market terms is the definition of a monopoly, and the federal government certainly qualifies here. Oddly enough, private insurers don't have that kind of clout. They may balk at some charges, but they do they pay what you bill and pay a lot more than the government. About the only things lacking in having the government completely taking over heath care would be to finish off the non-government insurers and to take over all of the healthcare institutions and providers. The former will happen through Obamacare, and the government doesn't want the latter to happen. If they take over all of healthcare, then they will have to pay the physicians a salary and cover all of their costs. This will cost them a LOT more than their current method of treating them as independent contractors and paying them far below actual cost for care.

So in other words, costs would go DOWN a LOT if the government stayed out of health care. However, the power-hungry people in government don't want to cede power and control, so it won't happen.

 

[Wisecracker]

4. The administrative costs are high, and dealing with government payors (Medicaid, Medicare) have the absolute highest administrative costs.

mmmmmmm ... No.

 

[MU_Engineer]

4. The administrative costs are high, and dealing with government payors (Medicaid, Medicare) have the absolute highest administrative costs.

mmmmmmm ... No.

mmmmmmm ... Yes.

See here
and here
and here
and here
and here

And these are only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[hate-liberals]

4. And to the one just above, Canada pays less than the US for healthcare. About 60% of the US average.

And you forgot to mention that Canadians get 40% less health care than Americans do. I'd rather keep paying for QUALITY of service - thanks anyway, though.

Health care is so lousy in Canada they actually passed a special bill to try to make it suck less:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

 

[hate-liberals]

3. Manufacturing is waning in the US? Only the jobs, but productivity is going up, and except for the recent global economic downturn, so was production. The US still produces over 1.5 trillion dollars worth of goods. Just with fewer, more efficient workers, and a concentration on high-margin goods instead of the low-margin ones. And no, those jobs were not unionized, that's why they got left behind, since the workers did not stand together.

Today's Unions = another beaurocracy that wants to take a slice of your pie. Unions aren't what they were 40, 50, 60 or more years ago. The union at my workplace has it in the contract that they can't go on strike...

W.. T.. F... (I'm not in that union. But I laughed when all the union guys were told no raises this year, and that their only recourse was to go to a third-party arbitrator). Why the f' would a union be a union and agree to any contract where they can't strike??? Isn't the only power you have as a union, your ability to get together and go on strike???