“Utah state attorneys defend the state amendment by saying it promotes the state's interest in "responsible procreation" and the "optimal mode of child-rearing."
#1 - poverty is not the optimal mode of childrearing. What is the State doing to promote the elimination of poverty?
#2 - Birth Control is a part of responsible procreation. What is the State doing to promote Birth Control?
#3 - Two working parents is not the optimal mode of childrearing. What is the State doing to promote having wages from a single earner enough to support a family?
#4 - Pre-Natal Health Care is a part of responsible procreation. What is the State doing to promote pre-Natal Health Care.
#5 - Women living with an abusive husband is not the optimal mode of childrearing. What is the State doing to promote safe home environments.
Unfortunately, the State is not really interested in responsible procreation and optimal modes of childrearing. That is why this effort is so clearly an effort to force everyone in the State to conform to one narrow 1st century world view.”
Jim Haston on Dec 4, 2013 at 12:29:00
“EXTREMELY WELL PUT. YOU NEED TO BE IN WASHINGTON AND MAYBE SOMETHING WOULD FINALLY GET ACCOMPLISHED.”
“I would love to go my separate way, but many of these people think it is necessary to implement public policies that support conformity to their world view.
They need to stop trying to force my conformity to their 1st century world view. I don't understand why believe they need to do this. I heard once that many believe that Jesus will only return when everyone believes. And that is why they need to "convert" others. That sort of make sense.
However, independent of why they feel it their mission to force conformity to their 1st century static world view, they cannot succeed. They cannot succeed because their 1st century world view is based on a static text that becomes more out of date everyday.”
The standard usually used is a "compelling State Interest."
So, the Standard that says Churches don't pay taxes is not a behavior that harms others. Or the Standard that standard that says freedom of religion or no search without good cause.
All of these examples are standards of behavior that have nothing to do with harm to others.
Or the standard that says you need auto insurance to drive on public roads. Or Same sex can marry.
So, I disagree that a communities right to set standards are limited to behaviors that ONLY cause harm to others.”
MDean on Oct 20, 2013 at 18:30:21
“On the contrary... Interfering with a person's right to choose and exercise a religion, and searching a person without cause absolutely are harmful - to a person's freedom. But I have no doubt that communities seek to regulate behaviors beyond what I think they have the right to.”
The flaw with your point is that they are being hurt. It is just that they have a higher threshold for pain than others. Or that others are being hurt worse than them.
I think their displeasure with the closing of National Monuments is the one example. That hurt them badly. And it exposed the key flaw in their position. The flaw was so badly exposed that one Tea Party Rep had to publicly and personally apologize (something they hate doing) over his actions on that subject.”
“"He said because the nation's new health care law has price limits that restrict discrepancies between what young Americans buying insurance pay and what older customers pay, it was a "massive wealth transfer" from healthy young people "who are struggling, just starting their career, to everybody else."
This makes perfect sense.
So here is my question to conservatives.
In the old days, young people that worked family farms or were hunters shared their efforts with with the old people. Wasn't that a wealth transfer?
I suspect that Conservatives will answer that question with the following, "yes, but it was voluntary!" "It was not the federal government forcing the young to do help the elderly in the community." Right?
But, here is the point. We have a system where people vote for things and if the majority vote to force someone to do something (example, forcing a women to birth a child in all situations once impregnated) then people have to do it. If you don't like the law, regulation, or rule, vote your own reps to change it.
I think this is the key point we need to discuss. Does a community have the right to set standards of behavior. I think it does. And, while I think the method we have to do that today is flawed, it is still the best method found to date.”
MDean on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:58:38
“I think the community's right to set standards of behavior are limited to behaviors that cause harm to others.”
“"Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, then attempted to clarify that his previous comments were somehow not an attempt to paint a religion of around 1.6 billion followers with a broad brush."
Apparently many Christians here in Georgia believe that MOST Slave Owners treated their "
Slaves" well, and therefore Slavery was not that bad. But, this comment is not an attempt to paint a Christians or Southerns with a broad brush.”
gungavin on Aug 8, 2013 at 17:37:49
“Not a bad idea, man. Paint all those hypocrites with a broadside from a canon. That'll do the trick !”
cabrobst on Aug 8, 2013 at 17:11:14
“Southerners go to church and they come out of there like uncorked animals, going back to their plantations to rape the house n****** and beat the field hands.”
My point is that the amount and the source of taxes should be looked at the whole ecosystem level. Taxing Corps for the reasons you said may be appropriate. But, then again, maybe a consumption tax might be appropriate? Or maybe only business taxes?
Commerce exists to benefit the community, the community does not exist to benefit commerce. So the goal of tax structure should be what benefits the community the most.
Reasonable people should be able to discuss and decide on the "optimal" tax and spending models.”
SapientiaAudit on May 23, 2013 at 08:19:56
“Consumption taxes are regressive, and tax those least able to afford it, generally.
Sure, and if our politicians were reasonable people who cared about the community more than commerce, that would happen. Unfortunately, as so often occurs, monied interests have completely destroyed any semblance of actual representation we might have had.
That was inevitable though. Less than 600 people in control of the world's biggest economy are inevitably destined to become the pawns of those who actually control that economy. Anyone can be gotten to as an individual, and 526 isn't that many, given the variety of monied interests involved and their relative power.
THe only real solution is to change the system. Get rid of the legislators, we don't actually need them. We can debate and vote on the laws ourselves. It might not be pretty at first, but eventually, people will just vote for what seems to actually work.
Of course, the current system and its owners will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening, which I believe is also inevitable, eventually.”
“Sorry, I am not smart enough to understand you point.”
OneInEveryFamily on May 23, 2013 at 07:37:06
“I am saying that if a road is created with public funds, it is there for all to use. If I sell an ipad to you and the profit on it is $150, that is income. It is a sliver of all of the income in the country. Either that gets taxed or we have to make up for it elsewhere which would be individual incomes, including incomes of people not privy to the transaction.”
“Interesting, You say that we can achieve the things in the preamble with our without money.
Ok, I get it.
So, how do you achieve the common defense without money? Did we win any war without money?”
JasonWS on May 23, 2013 at 23:42:25
“A good point except that no one ever wins a war. The closest we could argue would be either the revolutionary war(because we exist, but then it's inarguable an extension of the wars between the French and British empires) or World War II(but some might argue that the belligerence of that conflict has just been a continuous and incomplete series of battles and strife since World War I).
The argument that we need money also precludes a system where we don't need the tracking and scoring system of money to get things done. If we had a better way to invoke common good and get people to participate, I hope we'd choose it.”
“Interesting. I don't think I agree that Taxes are a brake on monopolies. The courts are a better brake (the breakup of AT&T or of the Microsoft judgement being two examples).
Now, to the main point. Why is my question a "false" question? It seems a valid question to me.
My point is that how a community collects money to pay for the commons is arbitrary. We should not be locked into fixed methods. We should look for the optimal sources and amounts and recognize those sources and amounts can vary moment to moment.”
JasonWS on May 23, 2013 at 23:52:17
“"Since Corporation just pass on costs to Individuals"
That's a false statement because it states a false assumption about the point at which you solve the problem. Your example is also a post hoc ergo propter hoc or the same reason. Taxes are not ultimately on individuals anyway because Corporations pass all costs on to individuals, but instead the statement is that some corporations have passed all taxes on to their consumers, so a more efficient tax might cut out the middle man. A correct interpretation, however, might be: "Since Corporations have a history of passing on costs to individuals it might be best to tax individuals rather than attempt to tax Corporations. If the root cause is that Corporations pass on costs to individuals, it doesn't preclude us from addressing that as the actual problem.
"My point is that how a community collects money to pay for the commons is arbitrary"
My argument is instead that money is arbitrary as an exchange of services and goods, so the collection of money for community goods and services follows as an arbitrary system. You and I simply see a different place to put the decimal point. I've made and sold my own business. I paid taxes during the operation and on the profits of the sale, but the difference int he tranches of my money and the government money was an arbitrary delineation based upon volume. That volume was used to optimize the government's concerns and I optimized with my attorney and accountant to retain”
“Saplentia, interesting. Something either is or is not a "false" assumption.
I could be wrong. Since you have Audit in your name I assume you know more about finances than I.
But, it seems to me, that all revenue comes from individuals eventually. What am I missing?”
SapientiaAudit on May 23, 2013 at 07:25:18
“Actually, in this context, audit roughly translates to 'listens'.
You've made the assumption that all corporations would automatically increase their prices if its taxes were increased. However, this is actually only true in cases where doing so would not hurt sales because of a lack of competition or where not doing so would cause the company to become unprofitable.
Otherwise, if there are two companies that sell widgets, and they're both profitable and competitors, if one raises prices due to a tax increase, all the other one has to do to increase its sales and steal its competitors' customers is not raise its prices. Sure, it will be slightly less profitable in the short run, but in the long run having more customers would probably more than make up for the profit lost to the tax increase.
“For the TP/GOP, Arrogance of Power is bad when it is a liberal, but Arrogance of Power is good when it is a conservative.
The reason for this is simple. The TP/GOP think they are right because they are promoting the right direction for this country. So, it is ok to use power to promote the "right" values; such as 10 Commandments in Public Places, no gay lifestyle, forced childbirth to anyone pregnant, etc.
Power corrupts, or so it is said. Parents can abuse their power. Bosses can abuse their power. Spouses can abuse their power. Friends can abuse their power. Congress can abuse its power The Police/military/courts can abuse their power. Market leaders can abuse their power.
The issue is not if power is abused. The issue is how it is abused.
And the solution is always transparency. The more transparent someone with power is, the less they can abuse that power.”
“Since Corporation just pass on costs to Individuals. Aren't all taxes fundamentally and ultimately on individuals anyway.
So why tax business and/or Corporations at all?
Could it be to keep profits in the community?
What is the Intent of Taxes? To, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?" Is that the intent of taxes?
If the Preamble to the Constitution is the intent of taxes, then the question should be what is the optimal method to gather money to achieve those goals!
We need to study two questions:
1) what is the right amount of taxes
2) what is the right mix of sources for those taxes.”
SapientiaAudit on May 23, 2013 at 07:07:35
“"Since Corporation just pass on costs to Individuals"
That's a provably false assumption.”
JasonWS on May 23, 2013 at 07:03:52
“cont "What is the Intent of Taxes? To, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?" Is that the intent of taxes? "
A tax is an imperfect vehicle to continue the illusion that governments pay for things with the produce of the people. Modern governments pay for things with the belief in the currency that the common people trade as an effort to participate in the social contract. As long as we continue to believe in money, money works. When we become uncertain about money, we approach collapse. Taxes come from many sources, but effectively prop up our belief that we do because we need something and because met needs help us to express desires both for things beyond our needs and for security from a future time of need, we strive to gain and gather more. There is never "enough." There is always either too little or not quite enough for the plans we make.
"If the Preamble to the Constitution is the intent of taxes, then the question should be what is the optimal method to gather money to achieve those goals! "
False. Our preamble can be achieved with or without taxes. It cannot be achieved without an economy of action and progress.
We do study both questions. We even argue over them.”
JasonWS on May 23, 2013 at 07:03:37
“"Since Corporation just pass on costs to Individuals. Aren't all taxes fundamentally and ultimately on individuals anyway."
False question or begging the question. A corporation stands in for the individual. It should pay taxes equal to the individual. Individuals also pass on costs to individuals and other corporations. That statement fundamentally misses that a corporation is a vehicle for liability, not of industry.
"So why tax business and/or Corporations at all?"
Because capitalism eventually leads to monopolies, monopolies to feudalism, feudalism to revolution, revolution to many, many paths. The extreme of any system is collapse. Taxes are the restraint of a competent system to continue.”
cjjanis on May 23, 2013 at 07:02:29
“Taxes are the price you pay for the use of the commons. Business and corporations use the commons the most and should be taxes as such. It would seem that you believe the people should pay for the use and damage to the commons done by the corps under the false silly argument that they just pass the cost along to the consumer. The higher the impact on the commons the larger the taxes.”
OneInEveryFamily on May 23, 2013 at 06:55:47
“Obviously, corp taxes are a component of price of a product, even though they are a timy component of most products but the reason they shoudl continue is that we tax income. If a corporation has X income for the year, shouldn't their customers be the ones paying the tax as part of the price? Why should a noncustomer subsidize the cost of a product?”
I am a liberal and I love rules. When you say you "know" liberals don't like rules, could you explain.
If you mean liberals don't like 1st century rules that cannot change, even though the world and situations change, then you are correct. Liberals do not like 1st century rules, based on 1st century knowledge, and1st century mythologies, that cannot change.
Liberals love rules as much as anyone else. People love rules. This is because the brain is a pattern recognition engine. We make all kinds of rules that help us get through the day.
The key is that liberals know that rules can change. For example, speed limits on roads.”
Point Five Pct on May 17, 2013 at 07:44:46
“no they're always whining that people are in jail because they were victims, not the perpetrator, and according to them its never any ones fault...somebody did it too them. thats right you want you want to make you're own rules. I don't have "rules" to get thru the day...whatever that is”
“Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) "We can't start paying down that $17 trillion in debt till we get rid of the deficit."
Here is a good example the difference between a fact and a conclusion.
What Mike Rogers said might be a FACT. It might be a fact that we cannot pay down debt while we still have a deficit. However, That might not be a fact. Why can't we pay down the debt while still running a deficit. As long as we pay down the debt more than we increase the deficit what is wrong with that.
The more important discussion should be of conclusions. Rep Rogers draws the conclusion that the best way to get rid of both the debt and deficit is reduce the Food Stamp program.
Why does the TP/GOP comes to this conclusion? Why, of all the things that can be cut, are Food Stamps is the best thing to cut. Why not only cut Farm aid to Mega Agribusiness?
It seems to me we should look at what those payments do for the economy. What does someone of Food Stamps do with the money? Clearly that is a rhetorical question. They spend it here in the USA. Now what does Mega Agribusiness do with the money we give them?
The discussion should be what is the "Optimal" role of government in gathering and handing out money and what is the "Optimal" level of taxation and spending?”
“"That doesn't mean taking food away from people who qualify, it just means everybody has to qualify, to demonstrate their eligibility through their income and their assets,"
So, who decides on who qualifies? And who decides what "demonstrates" eligibility? Does this apply to Farm Aid to Mega Agribusiness? Can the community decide which Mega agribusiness should get aid. And can the community also decide what a mega agribusiness would have to do to demonstrate eligibility?”
Point Five Pct on May 16, 2013 at 09:17:29
“some has to...we have to have rules and guidelines. I know liberals don't like rules”
I suspect this guy supports the 2nd amendment. Apparently he has problems with 1st amendment.
Or, might he be suggesting that this the appropriate response to a political loss. Judging by the way the TP/GOP blames the "Press" for Romney's loss, perhaps, there are many in the TP/GOP that agree with this guy and that his response is appropriate.”
opiesysco on May 16, 2013 at 07:18:28
“You guys do know that Richard Sheridan is a democrat, right?”