"Brain-dead Conservatives:" Whose side are you on, the populists or the elitists?

[foxpaws]

I was commenting on your history on this forum.

And I am reacting to your historical actions on this forum.

Do you grasp the fact that a concept cannot exist before it existed?

Positivism is not something that, "happens". It is not an action.

FYI: your snarky little condescension doesn't mask the fact that your intentionally misleading and trying to confuse the issue...

And do you grasp that God existed before we gave him a name, before mankind could grasp the concept of a creator? A concept can very much exist before we give it a name shag...

And positivism is the name for an action - in the case of the US, it is the legally elected legislature creating a law that goes against the constitution, which would be considered 'illegal'. The action is the creation of the 'illegal' law. That happened when the founding fathers created the constitution, and allowed slavery to continue. Slavery is against the constitution, but the law that allowed it remained 'legal' in spite of the fact it was unconstitutional.

Have you read Napolitano's article that I linked... you might want to...

 

[shagdrum]

And I am reacting to your historical actions on this forum.

Sure you are...

And positivism is the name for an action - in the case of the US, it is the legally elected legislature creating a law that goes against the constitution, which would be considered 'illegal'. The action is the creation of the 'illegal' law.

a philosophical idea, by it's very nature, cannot be an action. An action can be rooted in that idea, but the action itself cannot be the idea.

Stop spreading disinformation...

 

[shagdrum]

I would love to talk about corporate theocracy and the threat from within – wanna do it on another thread – it is pretty complex…

Why another thread? You have already hijacked and ruined this one...

 

[Calabrio]

You made a statement regarding corporate theocracy and associated it specifically with the last three Republican presidents, yet to failed to actually present any kind of argument or substantive foundation. In doing so, no one can respond to it. Rather than starting a new thread, why not just elaborate right here. You've muddied this thread up enough, no one will even know.

But, arguing that we should have less government in the name of ‘freedom’ and then looking to that same government to curtail rights in other areas is equally as foolish.

And I thank you for restating the point I've been repeating through out this thread.....

Making the government ‘smaller’ is a single issue isn’t it – and does it alone define freedom?

No, making the government smaller would involve a great number of issues.
And making the government bigger would inarguably result in LESS freedom.

I took that to the local government could make restrictions... Sorry if I misunderstood... But, your response could certainly be construed to be saying that local governments can make decisions and restrictions - it even says those exact words.

For example, if you want to smoke pot it might be legal in San Fransisco but not necessarily in Salt Lake City. However, it's never legal for a city, county, or state to deny constitutionally protected rights.

How much did Reagan/Bush give people - by reducing taxes?

Interesting use of language-
you equate not taking something from someone as "giving" it to them.
Then thank me for giving you what you've worked to own and have acquired because I chose not to go out there a take them from you by force...

Letting someone keep what they've spent their lives earning is not "giving it" to them.
Do you justify such a statement because they don't "need" it as much? You must think the government can redistribute it more fairly?

Yes I am Cal - I worked hard to reduce government with welfare reform.

And what are you doing about it right now as they expand the roles and undue all that the Republican congress accomplished in 1996?

So how can a town have socialized medicine if they don't 'nationalize' the health care facilities?

I've made a distinction between what a local government can do and what the limitations on the federal government. Why are you asking me lay out a localize, single payer system? I have no interest in such a thing, but it'd be legal so long as it was done constitutionally.

Why are you deliberately missing all of these points?

You were the one that brought up that a town in Vermont could create socialized health care - without creating state ownership of the facilities that can't happen.

Community ownership of a facility wouldn't be necessary, but I'm not advocating policy here. That would be for them to decide.

Socialistized health care is as unconstitutional as Fascism - but you seem to think that the town should be able to get around the constitution to create socialized health care - why should they stop there - why not a fascist form of local government as well. You have to remove private ownership to create a socialized system...

This example isn't important to me, so I'm not going to defend it.
Fine- for the sake of this discussion, we'll just agree that any form of socialized medicine or single payer system is both unconstitutional and fascist.

My point has about the limited power of the federal government and the ability of the state and local governments to engage in experiments and policies to do things outside the power of the federal government. A local health care system was merely one example- however, if you think that that such a thing violates the bill of rights- very well.

I look forward to seeing you condemning the policies of the federal government, the Obama Administration as unconstitutional and fascist from this point forward.

You won't though. Those words are just as hollow as your claims of reducing the size and scope of government.
You'll say absolutely anything.

 

[hrmwrm]

Do you grasp the fact that a concept cannot exist before it existed?

do you not grasp that a concept can exist before discovery and name? just because it wasn't named as a concept doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[shagdrum]

This message is hidden because hrmwrm is on your ignore list.

 

[foxpaws]

Why another thread? You have already hijacked and ruined this one...

Pouting... ahhhh... actually it was Cal first - he even labeled it as hijacking - post #2 - I piled on... And I was trying not to take it even further off course...

a philosophical idea, by it's very nature, cannot be an action. An action can be rooted in that idea, but the action itself cannot be the idea.

You are right shag - I was referring to the actions that are a result of positivism.

Originally Posted by hrmwrm
This message is hidden because hrmwrm is on your ignore list.

Perhaps you can grasp the concept that hrmwrm has posted something even though you can't see it -

 

[shagdrum]

You are right shag - I was referring to the actions that are a result of positivism.

..and no action can be the result of and idea they have never thought of...

At best, you can say that, looking back, the idea is an effective example of positivism, but you can not claim that it is the result of positivism because that idea was not a factor at that time and could not have inspired any action

 

[foxpaws]

You made a statement regarding corporate theocracy and associated it specifically with the last three Republican presidents, yet to failed to actually present any kind of argument or substantive foundation. In doing so, no one can respond to it. Rather than starting a new thread, why not just elaborate right here. You've muddied this thread up enough, no one will even know.

I have already been reprimanded by shag once - if you want that discussion - start a thread...

And I thank you for restating the point I've been repeating through out this thread.....

No, making the government smaller would involve a great number of issues.
And making the government bigger would inarguably result in LESS freedom.

And thank you for finally saying that small government without personal freedoms isn't such a great thing either.

And making the government bigger arguably results in less freedom. Some people aren't worrying as much about their old age - that medicare and SS will be helping them live life more comfortably once they retire is a type of freedom. To state 'in-arguably' is pretty much false in complex cases such as the size of government and freedoms. I believe as you do, smaller government overall allows for more freedom, but what is good for some, is not good for others. You weigh your freedoms, I weigh mine, the size of government could effect the 'weight' of those freedoms.

For example, if you want to smoke pot it might be legal in San Fransisco but not necessarily in Salt Lake City. However, it's never legal for a city, county, or state to deny constitutionally protected rights.

So things like segregated schools and communities would still fall under the Federal mandates, not local, as well as questions regarding discrimination in the areas of race, creed, sex?

Interesting use of language-
you equate not taking something from someone as "giving" it to them.
Then thank me for giving you what you've worked to own and have acquired because I chose not to go out there a take them from you by force...

Cal - all the money we get back from the government we gave them at some point. My $4500 clunker cash will lower my tax exposure somewhat this year-I pay a ton more than that. The $8000 house credit is directly off your taxes... It is just the same as decreasing the tax rate.

Letting someone keep what they've spent their lives earning is not "giving it" to them.
Do you justify such a statement because they don't "need" it as much? You must think the government can redistribute it more fairly?

Nope, I think people need whatever money they think they need. I am for flat tax, I have stated it before. Not national sales tax - that isn't fair. Flat tax on income is.

And what are you doing about it right now as they expand the roles and undue all that the Republican congress accomplished in 1996?

I am still very involved in welfare, especially concerning women and single mothers. The current expansion of welfare is written with sunset clauses. It is a stop gap measure because of the failing economy.

I am also very involved in reforming education. I am not in politics any longer Cal - I get to pick and chose my battles now.

What battles are you fighting - how many government committees have you sat on recently? How often do you get called regarding pending legislation?

I've made a distinction between what a local government can do and what the limitations on the federal government. Why are you asking me lay out a localize, single payer system? I have no interest in such a thing, but it'd be legal so long as it was done constitutionally.

You have changed the parameters of your 'what if' Cal - before it was socialized health care, now it is single payer. There is a great big difference. Single payer could be constitutional, if taken up on a community or state level.

Community ownership of a facility wouldn't be necessary, but I'm not advocating policy here. That would be for them to decide.

For it to be socialized medicine the community would have to have ownership of the facility. That is the definition of socialism.

This example isn't important to me, so I'm not going to defend it.
Fine- for the sake of this discussion, we'll just agree that any form of socialized medicine or single payer system is both unconstitutional and fascist.

But, in a couple of paragraphs above you indicated that community driven single payer might work. Is it only federal single payer that you think is unconstitutional?

I look forward to seeing you condemning the policies of the federal government, the Obama Administration as unconstitutional and fascist from this point forward.

You will probably see me take exceptions or in your language "condemning" points in a bill... usually the bills are so massive that parts are good, parts are bad. I have stated this over and over and over again. Is single payer unconstitutional on a national level - looks like it is. Can the government get around it? Yep - look at medicare - taxed. Look at social security - taxed. Health care could end up as a tax instead of a premium based expense. Most likely that is how single payer would work itself into the system. It is yet another reason I don't like single payer. I 'condemn' single payer health insurance.

And the requirement that you have health care insurance - can the federal government do that - not really. But the federal government can mandate the states to require that. The state governments can do that (think car insurance). Mandates are a bit iffy too... but they have been around for a while, and the supreme court hasn't been striking them down.

 

[foxpaws]

..and no action can be the result of and idea they have never thought of...

At best, you can say that, looking back, the idea is an effective example of positivism, but you can not claim that it is the result of positivism because that idea was not a factor at that time and could not have inspired any action

shag - you can continue on in your idea that a concept cannot exist before we give it a name - but, the founding fathers, with forethought, allowed slavery to exist, even though it was unconstitutional. No matter the reasoning behind the action, the laws allowing slavery were against the constitution. Just because they didn't have a name for this philosophy (positivism) they still used the exact same principles. They could have called it 'saving the union'. But since 'saving the union' and 'positivism' are exactly the same - those are both roses, and they both smell as sweet... no matter what we name them.

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws supports a flat tax

I have already been reprimanded by shag once - if you want that discussion - start a thread...

Stop making excuses... you made a rather bold statement, apparently without the ability to support it.

If you don't want to, perhaps because you can't, just say so.

And thank you for finally saying that small government without personal freedoms isn't such a great thing either.

A small government is always a better thing than a large government.

A small government, meaning a psychically smaller presence, can certainly be oppressive. But a small government, meaning LIMITED POWER and involvement is always preferable and presents the MOST personal freedom.

A large government, both in size and power, always restricts liberty and acquires power.

that medicare and SS will be helping them live life more comfortably once they retire is a type of freedom.

No, that isn't a kind of freedom- that's a kind of security.
A classic example of the exchange of freedom FOR security.

Cal - all the money we get back from the government we gave them at some point.

All the money the government redistributes is the result of stealing wealth from someone... not necessarily the recipient.

But if they were going to give it back, what right did they have to take it in the first place? To TELL YOU how to spend it? You can have your $4500 back IF you spend it in a manner that we feel is appropriate?

Is that freedom?
No, it's not.

I am for flat tax, I have stated it before. Not national sales tax - that isn't fair. Flat tax on income is.

O.K. While I don't actually believe you, I'm not interested in challenging this either. Though, in all of our conversations, I can't think of a single time that you challenged the progressive income tax system that exists or the class warfare rhetoric embraced by the Democrats and the Obama administration.

So, let's make a note, so the search will find this- "Foxpaws supports a flat tax".

But, in a couple of paragraphs above you indicated that community driven single payer might work. Is it only federal single payer that you think is unconstitutional?

I didn't say it might work, I said they could experiment with it.
A federal system is outside of the limited powers afforded the federal government, making it unconstitutional.

And the requirement that you have health care insurance - can the federal government do that - not really.

Yet you still support the bill/

But the federal government can mandate the states to require that.

No, they really aren't. They just haven't been effectively challenged before a court with competent, judges that respect the constitution.

The state governments can do that (think car insurance).

Arguably, the state can do this- but equating it with car insurance is inaccurate. You aren't required to have car insurance UNLESS you operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways. Car ownership is a decision. Living isn't.

Furthermore, auto insurance exists to cover damage to other people or their property or catastrophic damage to your own vehicle. To equate it to medical insurance, your car policy would have to include oil changes, new tires, car washes, and engine overhauls.

Mandates are a bit iffy too... but they have been around for a while, and the supreme court hasn't been striking them down.

We have schools of lawyers with no regard for the constitution, limited understanding and respect for federalism, and a desire to apply social justice from the bench. And Obama will continue to appoint those people to the bench.

 

[foxpaws]

Stop making excuses... you made a rather bold statement, apparently without the ability to support it.

If you don't want to, perhaps because you can't, just say so.

Ah – easy to accuse – harder to prove… Start the thread…

No, that isn't a kind of freedom- that's a kind of security.
A classic example of the exchange of freedom FOR security.

I agree it is security, but it is also freedom. The freedom not to worry about your health care expenses is a pretty big freedom for some people.

But if they were going to give it back, what right did they have to take it in the first place? To TELL YOU how to spend it? You can have your $4500 back IF you spend it in a manner that we feel is appropriate?

O.K. While I don't actually believe you, I'm not interested in challenging this either. Though, in all of our conversations, I can't think of a single time that you challenged the progressive income tax system that exists or the class warfare rhetoric embraced by the Democrats and the Obama administration.

So, let's make a note, so the search will find this- "Foxpaws supports a flat tax".

They do it all the time – they give you a tax break for paying a mortgage – they give you a tax break for putting your child, or yourself through college. I don’t think I have said the current form of indexed taxing is fair –

And I did state in February 2009 what I thought of flat tax… from an Obama to raise taxes thread…

Flat tax is a challenging idea, and I think it would work if you knock out the lowest income bracket of working Americans.

Flat tax would be fine as I stated earlier - I don't think flat tax is a bad idea. But certainly 'income' would have a far different definition then it does today.

Better than national sales tax, which is a logistics nightmare.

I think that flat tax works well with all but the lowest income earners - Usually in the lowest 10% of income earners. Most of the studies I have seen those taxes are lowered significantly or abolished for that lowest income bracket. It sort is a bailiwick of 'minimum needs'. You need to tax survival differently.
​

Yet you still support the bill/

And you keep misrepresenting me on this Cal – I support parts of the bill. I would rather see no bill than to see a bill go through with single payer, or even the government plan option.

Arguably, the state can do this- but equating it with car insurance is inaccurate. You aren't required to have car insurance UNLESS you operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways. Car ownership is a decision. Living isn't.

I wasn’t equating car insurance with healthcare – sorry – I didn’t make myself that clear – I was showing how states can require you to do something that the federal government can’t. The feds can’t require you carry auto insurance – but your state can.

And, if you noticed I did state that mandates were ‘iffy’, but since the court hasn’t been striking them down, it is one way the feds work around things.

 

[Calabrio]

Ah – easy to accuse – harder to prove… Start the thread…

You can't prove it, you can't explain it, you can't defend it.
It seems resolved to me....

I agree it is security, but it is also freedom.

I am not going to spend three pages engaged in a ridiculous argument where you dance around parsing the definitions of freedom and security. Or watch you pull contextless quotes from dead people in an effort to confuse things further.

Social Security is a classic example of surrendering your freedom for increased security. It's not a voluntary arrangement. If you don't participate, you will go to jail. And in exchange, you are promised (though it's not guaranteed) some security after you retire.

Freedom doesn't mean "free from worry." That is security.
Freedom, by it's very definition, includes the risk of failure.
You can not have true freedom without the risk of failing.

And examples of government programs that ascribe to to do that, or quotes from hypocritical Republicans you may want to reference won't make that any less true.

They do it all the time –

That doesn't make it right.
And that doesn't make it any less offensive.
The government shouldn't take your money only to "give it back" on the condition you spend it according to their wishes

And I did state in February 2009 what I thought of flat tax…

You mean in the thread where you actively defend Obama's tax policy??
You did mention that in that thread, but you didn't embrace or defend it. Most of that thread consists of you defending Obama's tax increases and justifying progressive tax rates based upon "need."

Better than national sales tax, which is a logistics nightmare.

Will you be opposing the VAT tax that is working it's way through Congress?

And you keep misrepresenting me on this Cal – I support parts of the bill. I would rather see no bill than to see a bill go through with single payer, or even the government plan option.

You keep saying this, yet you continue to publicly defend the entire bill.
So, to clear up any confusion-
Do you oppose any of the currently proposed health care reform packages that are in the congress? If you were in the Congress, would you vote against them? If not, which one would you vote for?

 

[shagdrum]

shag - you can continue on in your idea that a concept cannot exist before we give it a name - but, the founding fathers, with forethought, allowed slavery to exist, even though it was unconstitutional. No matter the reasoning behind the action, the laws allowing slavery were against the constitution.

The reasoning is what determines weather or not an action is based in a certain idea or not.

But go ahead and try to downplay and ignore that.

But since 'saving the union' and 'positivism' are exactly the same - those are both roses, and they both smell as sweet... no matter what we name them.

:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

"Saving the union" has absolutely nothing to do with "positivism".

You clearly do not know what positivism means and it is funny to watch you try and talk authoritatively about it. You keep sticking your foot in your mouth and you are too ignorant to know it.

I'll help you out here and see if you can figure it out. Here are a couple hints.

• Positivism is not "a law that is unconstitutional" and is not determined by the constitutionality of the law. The connection to the Constitution and the idea of constitutionality is tangential at best
• There is a reason I drew a distinction between Natural Law/Natural Rights and Positivism

As usual you are focusing on the superfluous and the superficial in your "understanding" of a concept.

Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. It amuses me...

 

[foxpaws]

"Saving the union" has absolutely nothing to do with "positivism".

You clearly do not know what positivism means and it is funny to watch you try and talk authoritatively about it. You keep sticking your foot in your mouth and you are too ignorant to know it.

I know what positivism is shag - and I am using it correctly. The constitution is based on natural law - when the framers went against natural law by allowing slavery to continue (liberty is a natural law) they were using a jurisprudence that followed the lines of: we must go by the written law here, and we will not be following natural law (the constitution). In this case, you must follow this law because it has been enacted by a political institution, we 'wrote' the law, not because it is a natural law (the constitution).

Positivism is the idea that we must follow the laws because someone has made them and written them down, even though they might go against natural law. In the case of the US natural law is embodied in the constitution, and if congress enacts laws that would be antithesis to the constitution they are going with the philosophy of positivism - the idea that the law is valid merely because it was enacted by duly elected officials and written down, and for that reason alone it should be followed. It doesn't have to follow the ideals of natural law (once again, in the case of the US it is the constitution that embodies the framers ideals of natural law.) I have been using the constitution as the standard to which our elected officials should base their laws.

I think you are the only person I know who can't grasp the idea that a concept can exist before you give it a name. And when you give that 'thing' a name, that is all it is, a name, an identifier. It defines nothing. We could have called cats dogs and dogs cats ages ago, it still wouldn't have changed their state of being - their concept. The legal minds that came up with the word 'positivism' for this 'school of legal thought' could have called it anything - they could have called it antinaturojurienatism and the concept would have been exactly the same, and what the framers did when allowing slavery would have follow along the same lines.

And I realize that you can't get out of that painted into corner you find yourself regarding the idea that a concept can exist before we name it... so have fun sitting there while the paint dries...

Oh, and while that paint dries, I don't know if you ever read anything beyond the realm of law and politics, you might want to, it would expand your horizons a bit. To understand the fleeting nature of the 'name' of something you should read Feynman's What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character it has great stories about his father, and how when they would explore in the forest his father would incorrectly name all manner of things, but would go on to explain all about the bird, the flower, the tree, and how it fit into the whole of the forest. The wrong names used to upset Feynman, until one day, he realized his dad knew what was important-not the name, but the concept of what something 'is'.

 

[foxpaws]

You can't prove it, you can't explain it, you can't defend it.
It seems resolved to me....

Yep, so it will remain - resolved only in your mind cal... if you want to see how I resolve it you can start a thread... but that won't happen, you have resolved it to your satisfaction. Sort of a form of self gratification...

Freedom doesn't mean "free from worry." That is security.
Freedom, by it's very definition, includes the risk of failure.
You can not have true freedom without the risk of failing.

Freedom can mean freedom from fear - but I guess you can't quite grasp that... If you are living in fear of not being able to afford medication, your life isn't very free.

That doesn't make it right.
And that doesn't make it any less offensive.
The government shouldn't take your money only to "give it back" on the condition you spend it according to their wishes

I didn't say it was right or wrong, or offensive Cal - I said it 'is'. The housing and clunker programs are similar to other programs, the administration hasn't come up with anything radically new or different than solar credits or FEMA credits. If you want to remove all credits fine, then go with a flat tax.

I have an idea Cal - why not spend some of your time working for an idea, a concept, a way of changing America for the good. Start working for something instead of continuing to complain against something. Maybe reforming the tax system is something you can work for. People can make a difference in government. I know they can.

You mean in the thread where you actively defend Obama's tax policy??
You did mention that in that thread, but you didn't embrace or defend it. Most of that thread consists of you defending Obama's tax increases and justifying progressive tax rates based upon "need."

I said it was a tax program that could work and that I would be for a flat tax. I believe that was more than you have taken on Cal. You appear to be for a national sales tax - are you? Do you think that is a fair and equitable way to tax all American citizens?

In that thread I was defending the fact that Obama did decrease taxes (if I remember correctly). If people want they can go back and review it...

Will you be opposing the VAT tax that is working it's way through Congress?

I know very little about VAT tax - but on the surface it appears flawed because it is trying to change our profile on an international playing field where we are already playing at a disadvantage. I wouldn't be for a VATs type tax as it has been presented to this point.

You keep saying this, yet you continue to publicly defend the entire bill.
So, to clear up any confusion-
Do you oppose any of the currently proposed health care reform packages that are in the congress? If you were in the Congress, would you vote against them? If not, which one would you vote for?

The quick list of things I like (big picture stuff):
Exempting grandfathered health insurance coverage
Requires qualified health benefits plans to provide essential benefits.
Prohibits premium variances, except for reasons of age, area, or family enrollment.
Prohibits preexisting condition exclusions
Prohibits retraction of health insurance coverage without evidence of fraud.
Creates a Health Insurance Exchange to provide individuals and employers access to health insurance coverage choices, but WITHOUT the current language that includes a public option

Things I don't like -
Placing a tax on people who don't have health insurance (however I do believe then there should be a way for the government to recoup loses from those same said people who use the health care system and don't pay for it - example - using an emergency room, running up a huge bill, and then they don't have to pay for it, leaving 'us' with the bill. I don't know, maybe community service or something.)

I don't like the 'must have no coverage limits' (annual and lifetime). I think you should be able to buy into the limits you feel comfortable with - and that a no limit option should be offered, but not required.

I think that businesses should be allowed to use health care expenses as a write off (not Cadillac plans - but a standard write-off that would cover a 'required' plan), but I don't think that I like the part in the current bill where penalties are assessed to business whose payrolls are more than $250,000 who don't provide health insurance. I think that is an unrealistic number, and should be moved to a higher number, based on employee count and not a dollar figure - I think businesses with more than 25 people employeed should be required to provide health care options to their employees, and taxed accordingly if they don't.

Anything that has a government option or single payer.

There are smaller points that I am for/against, but those are big picture points Cal.

 

[Calabrio]

Yep, so it will remain - resolved only in your mind cal... if you want to see how I resolve it you can start a thread... but that won't happen, you have resolved it to your satisfaction. Sort of a form of self gratification...

Your the only one jerking anyone around here.
I'm just not interested in. Somehow, it's never satisfying when you do it.

Freedom can mean freedom from fear - but I guess you can't quite grasp that... If you are living in fear of not being able to afford medication, your life isn't very free.

No, that's not freedom or liberty. That's just a situation where you're not exposed to another condition or risk. That's like my dog being free of fleas and ticks.

You again are mistakenly confusing freedom with security. They are very different things. And, as I mentioned, when you have a government, you exchange a certain amount of those freedoms for security. That is the always the compromise.

I didn't say it was right or wrong, or offensive Cal -

If you weren't saying anything, why'd you write it?

I said it 'is'. The housing and clunker programs are similar to other programs, the administration hasn't come up with anything radically new or different

And it's wrong and I oppose it.
Do you oppose it? Apparently NOT because you've supported and defended all of the recent measures quite aggressively. And even in this thread, you're actively excusing it.

If you want to remove all credits fine, then go with a flat tax.

O.K. I'm 100% prepared to support a radical overhaul of the income tax system in this country. Are you? Because you're passionately DEFENDED the progress tax, even doing so in the thread you used to demonstrate the tepid support of the flat tax in.

But if you think we need fundamental change to the tax system, like an across the board flat tax of 15% on the top 90% of earners, that'd be great. We would be in agreement.

I said it was a tax program that could work and that I would be for a flat tax. I believe that was more than you have taken on Cal. You appear to be for a national sales tax - are you? Do you think that is a fair and equitable way to tax all American citizens?

I think the Fair Tax is an equitable way to tax citizens. Since we require a national tax, it makes more sense to tax consumption than it does production and savings.

However, no federal sales tax can be considered unless the 16th amendment is amended first. The power and revenue hungry politicians in government will be compelled to simply tax both sources. As I've mentioned, Pelosi is moving a VAT tax in the Congress right now. Until then, I think what ever tax system needs to be limited, simple, and uniformly applied. A flat tax is a very reasonable, simple, realistic alternative.

I know very little about VAT tax - but on the surface it appears flawed because it is trying to change our profile on an international playing field where we are already playing at a disadvantage. I wouldn't be for a VATs type tax as it has been presented to this point.

Hold that thought....we'll come back to later.

There are smaller points that I am for/against, but those are big picture points Cal.

No, the big picture question is- do you support the bills as they are currently being presented? Would you vote for them if in office? Are you calling your Congressmen to tell them to start over and fix it?

In case you're wondering- I'd vote no.
Just so you don't have to ask.....

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

All of a sudden you seem to have a more substantive understanding that is inconsistent with what you were claiming earlier...

So, were you intentionally misleading earlier, or did you call up one of your "friends" in the legal profession to explain it to you?

 

[hrmwrm]

All of a sudden you seem to have a more substantive understanding that is inconsistent with what you were claiming earlier...

although she elaborated a little further so as to not confuse your perplexed mind, it is still the same as what she has iterated before.
so, you backing down on your stance of a concept can exist before it is named? next will be the lines of baffling bs and backpedaling? i look forward to some more humour this long weekend.

 

[foxpaws]

All of a sudden you seem to have a more substantive understanding that is inconsistent with what you were claiming earlier...

So, were you intentionally misleading earlier, or did you call up one of your "friends" in the legal profession to explain it to you?

No shag, I finally figured out how to explain it to you in a form that you could understand. You seem to be incapable of connecting the dots in complex conversations. I 'uncomplicated' it for you. I kept getting simpler and simpler until I reached your level. I never said anything different in any post, I just kept simplifying it (and added a bunch of parenthetical comments - like this one - to further simplify things).

You know, if you are looking at law as a career, you might want to pick up on some connect the dot techniques - or maybe looking into logic circles as a way of understanding how things relate to each other. Learn to think outside the book. I thought it was neat that we could discuss positivism vs natural law, until I realized that you only knew it in book form, relating it to 'real life' situations seemed to be outside of your comfort zone.

Oh, I listen to my 'friends', we discuss many things. Positivism reared its ugly head many years ago (about 8) when we were discussing the Patriot Act - which went against natural law (the constitution again shag)... Bush used a positivism approach when he gave us the Patriot Act...

You know one of the things to do is to understand the natural law. A lot of my conservative colleagues supported the Patriot Act because they thought that it kept us safe. It’s a big argument as to whether giving up your freedoms keeps you safe. I would argue that it doesn’t. But when you think about it, it is a simple piece of legislation that lets federal agents violate the Constitution. If the American people understood that, there would be no Patriot Act. - Andrew Naplitano​

 

[foxpaws]

Somehow, it's never satisfying when you do it.

Well Cal, there's no accounting for how the pendulum swings...

If you weren't saying anything, why'd you write it?

Because I was comparing them to other, similar programs, you indicated it was something evil that just has suddenly appeared on the horizon. Government rebates like this have been around for a long, long time.

And it's wrong and I oppose it.
Do you oppose it? Apparently NOT because you've supported and defended all of the recent measures quite aggressively. And even in this thread, you're actively excusing it.

I use them, they are available, they are written into the system - don't you Cal? Do you own a house - do you take of the mortgage write off? Or do you oppose it so much you don't take any write offs? Do you not take off the property tax write off? It is silly to oppose them, they are part of the system. I don't like the progressive tax system in place - and oppose it - but to oppose write offs, and not use them...

O.K. I'm 100% prepared to support a radical overhaul of the income tax system in this country. Are you? Because you're passionately DEFENDED the progress tax, even doing so in the thread you used to demonstrate the tepid support of the flat tax in.

I would back a flat tax system - 100%. And I would like you to point out where I defended the progressive tax system currently in place. I defended the fact that Obama has cut taxes, I didn't defend the US tax system - you need to review that Cal, nowhere have I defended the current form of progressive tax. In fact I went after loopholes big time in that previous tax thread as well as supported the flat tax system.

In fact I was more supportive of flat tax in that thread then you were of national sales tax. Nor have you even stated that you 100% back national sales tax... what you put out as a solution earlier. Your defense of national sales tax in the previous tax thread was lukewarm at best.

I believe that taxing consumption isn't fair, because it is too easy to hide consumption, and it isn't fair to lower income brackets because of the percentage lower income brackets have to spend to survive. But that was all in the previous tax thread.

However, no federal sales tax can be considered unless the 16th amendment is amended first. The power and revenue hungry politicians in government will be compelled to simply tax both sources. As I've mentioned, Pelosi is moving a VAT tax in the Congress right now. Until then, I think what ever tax system needs to be limited, simple, and uniformly applied. A flat tax is a very reasonable, simple, realistic alternative.

Oh, duh, in the previous tax thread - I was the one that stated if you want to have a national sales tax you have to repeal the 16th Cal - I know all about that. It is another reason to look at a flat income tax - no need to try to repeal an amendment - which could be difficult at best.

No, the big picture question is- do you support the bills as they are currently being presented? Would you vote for them if in office? Are you calling your Congressmen to tell them to start over and fix it?

Since both bills have the public option I would vote no. It is a deal buster for me. And, you might not have noticed earlier, during the town hall meeting time frame (August) I was asked to be on a panel regarding the bill in congress, and yes, in person, I told my representative my feelings regarding the healthcare bill.

You always want more from me, you want to make sure I am out there fighting the fight - I do 'fight the fight' and much more, however my questions regarding your participation in the 'fight' seems to fall on deaf ears...

 

[shagdrum]

...relating it to 'real life' situations seemed to be outside of your comfort zone.

Not "out of my comfort zone", just not where I start. And for good reason.

When it comes to philosophical concepts (which there is no direct real world example of) you can not start by relating it to 'real life' situations because those "real life" situations are only the superficial reflections or appearances of the concept; they are half-truths that inherently mislead, in and of themselves. To look to real world examples to understand a philosophical concept is like looking in a fun house mirror to get an accurate representation of a physical object. The parable of the elephant and the blind men is another great analogy for this.

Starting at the "real life" situations and trying to work your way back (or jumping to them without understanding the thought process to get there) only serves to confuse and mislead. No reason to take someone seriously if they are actively trying to do that...

 

[fossten]

I defended the fact that Obama has cut taxes, I didn't defend the US tax system - you need to review that Cal, nowhere have I defended the current form of progressive tax.

Obama did not cut taxes. Stop repeating that obvious and easily debunked lie.

 

[hrmwrm]

Not "out of my comfort zone", just not where I start. And for good reason.

When it comes to philosophical concepts (which there is no direct real world example of) you can not start by relating it to 'real life' situations because those "real life" situations are only the superficial reflections or appearances of the concept; they are half-truths that inherently mislead, in and of themselves. To look to real world examples to understand a philosophical concept is like looking in a fun house mirror to get an accurate representation of a physical object. The parable of the elephant and the blind men is another great analogy for this.

Starting at the "real life" situations and trying to work your way back (or jumping to them without understanding the thought process to get there) only serves to confuse and mislead. No reason to take someone seriously if they are actively trying to do that...

now starts the b.s.

Starting at the "real life" situations and trying to work your way back

and yet you believe dembsky for the same things.

 

[shagdrum]

now starts the b.s.

The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength
-Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals p. 136​

You are not offering any substance to this thread. You are only distorting and goading. Please have the decency to stop trolling.