By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
Have you guys actually READ what Dr. Kahan said, or just parroting what the right wing noise machine is spewing? There is a word for my reaction to that, but it doesn’t translate into English very well, Fremdscham.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/
DavidM, I can hear the shrieks and expletives of many commenters as I type!!!
DavidM: One time I desired to pave a parking lot in front of an office building. I was forced by the regulatory authority to pay for a handicap parking space.
that is not a reduction of ownership, that is a reduction of your ability to treat handicapped people unfairly because it is not profitable for you to treat them fairly.
By your example, you consider it a reduction of ownership of your gun if I tell you that you can’t fire warning shots at drivers you don’t like, or you can’t hunt within a mile of a grade school.
That is not a reduction of ownership, it is not some natural right of ownership to use your property to oppress others or endanger others or exploit others for profit, and that is precisely what you wish to do by refusing to provide the requisite number of handicapped parking spaces.
That is why we had to MAKE it a law, because greedy businessmen like you do not care who they hurt to make a profit.
Tony C wrote: “That is why we had to MAKE it a law, because greedy businessmen like you do not care who they hurt to make a profit.”
Incidentally, Tony, this was NOT a law that applied to me. The Disabilities Act defines an employer as having 15 or more employees. Therefore, the requirements do not apply to me. The problem was that the local authority has final say, regardless of what the law actually says. The local authority would not listen to me no matter how many times I quoted the law to him. I even called Tallahassee legal department, and they said I was right on the law, but the law also says that the local authority has final say, so they could not advise him that I was right on the law. They advised me that my recourse was to hire a lawyer to sue the local authority for the right to use my property in accordance with the law.
I thought this would help you understand why I distrust government, and about how government regulations hinder me. They shut down the entire project midstream over this. They had graded the land and marked it off for pouring, then stopped the project. I had to deal with rain and other problems destroying the work site in its half completed stage. Instead of helping you see, it caused you to think I am greedy. I am truly amazed.
DavidM: By “class” I mean people with different privileges under the law than others, whether that is “official” or not. We live in a classed society, for example, when it comes to arrest and prosecution and sentencing for drug use and possession.
The evidence for that is the inner city kids arrested and put in jail for owning less pot than celebrities (like Bill Mahr and others) admit to smoking and using at will, along with coke and other drugs. Because the wealthy can shift the risk of possession to others until those others are well inside their high-walled estate with the armed guards at the gate, which no cop is going to casually breach without a warrant on the grounds of smelling pot usage across the 400 yard lawn. But they will kick down an apartment door or regular house door on those grounds; thus defining the class. Not to mention the many celebrities actually caught with drugs, even hard drugs, and sentenced to rehab five times instead of the prison that mere minimum wage workers guilty of even less possession routinely get.
The same goes for many other offenses; if you are a recognizable politician or wealthy, the law does not apply to you the same as it does to the poor; the reason the last two presidents are comfortable gutting the Constitution and civil rights is precisely because we have become a classed society; the Constitution still applies to those they care about, their wealthy friends and fellow politicians, because those people can afford it.
That is the result of your suggestion about making the government something you have to pay for; we are on that path right now. It is fundamentally unfair to make justice something you have to buy, it stops being justice and starts being the anarchy of who can hire the best mercenary.
I personally know people on both sides of this divide; I see it with my own eyes.
Tony C wrote: “that is not a reduction of ownership, that is a reduction of your ability to treat handicapped people unfairly because it is not profitable for you to treat them fairly.”
I don’t think you understood what I said. My business was internet based and not open to the public. No disabled people using building. So it is like almost half the driveway sits empty, unused. I have to make sure I don’t block the spot or the police will give me a ticket. For what? There is not one person to ever use that spot. It makes no sense. Sorry you can’t see that. I thought you were more reasonable. If there is a need to accommodate a disabled person, fine, but if not, let me use my property please.
You have done consulting work. I suggest you pay to add a parking spot at your home right next to your driveway with a sign that would cause police to write you a ticket if you block it. See how you like it. Then let someone call you greedy for not wanting to do it.
Bron, I hope professor Kahan has tenure @ Yale.
dAVIDm:
Have you seen this?
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/
“Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.”
Bron – I had not seen that about the Tea Party being more scientifically minded. Not surprising, however. With all the media hype against them, you have to look through all the emotional bs and see the numbers to see that they make good sense. I’ve stood from a distance for awhile, but after seeing Ted Cruz and the good he did in exposing the hypocrisy and partisanship in Congress and our President, I signed up with the Tea Party.
DavidM: Capitalism produces classes in society. Such is an inevitable product of human nature.
No it isn’t. Capitalism can produce wealthy people, but it is NOT necessary or wealth to be a determining factor in whether laws apply to you or not, whether you receive preferential treatment or not. That situation occurs today because necessary services, like legal representation and the help needed to bring successful suit, have become monetized to the extent that only the wealthy have full access to the defenses and remedies that we all deserve. But it is not an inevitable consequence of capitalism or a disparity of income. Human nature, in fact, leans strongly toward laws, rules, and punishments to be equally enforced and applicable to all; that is why we are outraged when we read about circumstances where wealth allows the wealthy to get away with crimes (or get a slap on the wrist, fine, or “public service” sentence) that the rest of us might end up in prison for: Like carrying half a pound of cocaine, or a fifth offense of carrying pot that results in two hours of prison accompanied by an armed guard the entire time.
Communism is not the other end of the spectrum, it is on a different line altogether. The ends of the spectrum are highly regulated markets and unregulated markets; but even a highly regulated market does not prohibit making profits or wealthy individuals or getting rich from a useful invention or entertainment. Regulating businesses to prohibit unfair practices or fraud or exploitation (of workers, suppliers, investors, customers or the environment) is NOT owning the market or the means of production. Regulation does not have to control sales, or profits, or anything else; if you have a product people clamor for (like a movie) and you can make a billion in profits WITHOUT exploiting anybody or ruining the environment, more power to you.
That is apparently a persistent misunderstanding of yours, you think we are trying to strangle the market or prevent wealth, but we are not. We are trying to stop exploitation, fraud, coercion, and unfair practices. It just so happens that because the market is NOT regulated enough, most of the wealthy got that way by unfair exploitation. But we are not opposed to wealth per se; we are opposed to the exploitation that results in wealth at the expense of creating poverty and desperation.
I don’t begrudge Julia Roberts or Kobe Bryant their many millions; I think they earned those millions fair and square (to my knowledge). I might resent them using their millions to escape prosecution the average person could not escape, but wealth itself isn’t the issue, it is primarily about whether it was acquired fairly.
https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1383673_10151974984526489_2024341020_n.jpg – It is interesting as some people age they become wiser and some do not.
“It is interesting as some people age they become wiser and some do not.”
Quite true tour comments here have proved the latter in you.
Tony C wrote: “Capitalism can produce wealthy people, but it is NOT necessary or wealth to be a determining factor in whether laws apply to you or not, whether you receive preferential treatment or not.”
We must have a different concept of what classes are. I can barely understand your sentence here and how it might apply to the way human nature and capitalism interact to produce a class structure in society.
What I observe is that people have different skill levels and different attitudes and personalities which affect their choices about what kind of work they do. There are leaders and there are followers in society. Also, some people are fortuitous to be in the right place at the right time, and some people are not so lucky. Some people desire wealth and some people don’t. Some like to enjoy art and music above working, and some prefer to be achievers.
I have always loved the idea of a classless society, but no matter how hard an individual might work at causing all his friends and acquaintances to be in the same class as him, it will not work. Some people are going to emerge leaders, and some will become wealthier than others. Some will exhibit talents that others lack. Such leads some people to admire others. Then some people are going to react to that admiration with hostility and jealousy. Even if the wealthy gave away all his wealth, he will be despised by some in society for his ability to earn it. If he buys himself a home, somebody is going to wish he had it, or that he had one bigger, or he may be prideful that his home is bigger and despise him for having a smaller house! The truth is that people always stratify into different socioeconomic classes. The communistic ideal is completely unachievable because it is contrary to natural laws that govern human nature. The ideal of communism is in constant opposition to humanity. The path to peace is not forcing socioeconomic equality, but rather the path to peace is admiring and respecting our diversity by perceiving how we all fit together in ways that complement each other.
Tony C wrote: “Regulating businesses to prohibit unfair practices or fraud or exploitation (of workers, suppliers, investors, customers or the environment) is NOT owning the market or the means of production.”
One one end of the spectrum we have free ownership where nobody dictates what you can or cannot do with your property. On the other end we have communism where nobody is allowed to own private property; rather, it is owned by the public. Regulation is everything in between. Heavy regulation reduces the level of ownership that we have. If a person must pay property taxes, he loses some ownership in his property. If he doesn’t pay his taxes, he will lose ownership completely. If regulations tell him he can’t cut a tree on his property, he has lost some ownership of his property. If regulations require him to file paperwork declaring improvements to his property, he has lost some ownership. If he must pay for a permit before he adds a porch to his house, he has lost some ownership. You may say that a person still owns the property, but in a sense he has lost some ownership because without paying the fee and filing for the permit, he cannot do what he wants to do with his property.
One time I desired to pave a parking lot in front of an office building. I was forced by the regulatory authority to pay for a handicap parking space. This regulation results in a loss of ownership, because no handicap people work in the office, and nobody in the public comes to the office. If I were to park on my property in that space, I would get a ticket from the police. Basically, I had to pay thousands of dollars to pour concrete to create this parking lot, but I was allowed to do so only if I also created one space for the hypothetical handicap person who might use the space. And, I had to cut the total number of spaces down from five to four because the handicap space required extra width for the hypothetical wheelchair to exit. I also had to pay an extra $800 for a ramp to the front door for that non-existent wheelchair, pay extra for a metal sign warning of fines for parking there illegally, and pay for painting the space with blue paint. Sitting in that office and looking through the window at that empty handicap space that I was not allowed to use was irritating. I did not feel much like I owned my property. I couldn’t use that section of the property for anything. This is an example of how regulations take away ownership rights. So regulation and ownership are not as independent as you seem to indicate.
Tony C wrote: “you think we are trying to strangle the market or prevent wealth, but we are not.”
I don’t know if you are TRYING to strangle the market. I am only trying to communicate that the policies you embrace have that effect of strangling the market and reducing jobs and wealth. This is a fact. My number one obstacle to expanding my business and creating jobs and wealth is government regulations. I agree that we need some level of government regulations for the public good, but when regulations become oppressive and excessively block economic productivity, then that indicates we have too much regulation. And it is not just in business. I cannot stand all the fishing regulations. Fishing is one thing I enjoy doing when I take time off, but the regulations are so complex, one almost must be a lawyer to understand them all. It really takes all the fun out of it. I practice catch and release, but when I bring a friend who might want to bring a fish or two home for dinner, I am stuck trying to look through the myriad of regulations to know how many are allowed, is it the right time of year to be allowed, is the fish too big or too small?
Tony C wrote: “We are trying to stop exploitation, fraud, coercion, and unfair practices. It just so happens that because the market is NOT regulated enough, most of the wealthy got that way by unfair exploitation. But we are not opposed to wealth per se; we are opposed to the exploitation that results in wealth at the expense of creating poverty and desperation.”
I am in agreement about the need for regulations for the reasons you express here. I am not sure about whether the markets are not regulated enough. Most of the wealthy live in a different world than me. I do not move in their circles. It is easy for me to look at a Bernie Madoff and say there needs to be better oversight, but what about a Steve Jobs? I just don’t know. Facebook is of great concern to me in regards to privacy issues, but I think government would rather cozy up to them rather than regulate them in the public’s best interest. Then when I look at the banking regulations for mortgages and the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac situation, I see excessive government regulations actually creating an economic bubble that hurt the public. Who’s going to regulate the government missteps? Maybe part of the problem is that you are more trusting of government than I am. Therefore, I perceive that a smaller, more limited government with less money available to them is a government that I can better trust to do the right thing.
I know I have raised this before, and you thoroughly disagreed with me, but I think in the evolution of government structures, we should consider the idea that at least for certain services, the government be paid voluntarily like other businesses. They advertise what they are doing for the poor or other entitlements, and people contribute, and from that voluntary contribution they administer those programs. This would put them on an equal footing with other charities. Let the best charities prevail. If it is government, great. If not, support the charities that actually work.
By the way, the government does advertise food stamps. They spend $41 million a year on advertising. Why? Isn’t that a waste of taxpayer dollars? Why not just let that money be spent helping someone. Not only that, but they hire recruiters who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients a month. If they are going to act like a private enterprise with marketing like this, why not also be funded through voluntary charitable donations?
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist but she was for limited government. She even thought that taxes or some other form of revenue collection would be necessary to run legitimate government functions.
We are so far off base of what our government is supposed to do, it is beyond belief.
The market was almost free in the 19th century.
Problem started when the rich sent their children to European schools in 1830’s, 40’s and 50’s. They picked up intellectual ideas in Europe and brought them here. Ideas totally at odds with our founding, I might add.
Why does Marxism, almost universally, appeal to the children of the rich and well to do?
“The market was almost free in the 19th century.
Problem started when the rich sent their children to European schools in 1830′s, 40′s and 50′s. They picked up intellectual ideas in Europe and brought them here. Ideas totally at odds with our founding, I might add.”
DavidM,
The “market was almost free in the 19th Century”. Ah yes though glorious days of your when John D. Rockefeller could murder 39 men, women and children for a strike at his mine. Mr. Pullman could require that his employees live in his company town and buy at his company store at prices high enough to ensure they’d constantly be in his debt. now there was the kind of sociopath that a man like you could really admire.
As for those bad “European Ideas”, you mean like “The Enlightenment?”
DavidM I knew already that you had little regard for those less fortunate, except in a “Lady Bountiful” kind of way done to salve your conscience, or lack of same. What I didn’t realize was that you are a full blown feudalistic
fetishist, longing to worship on your knees at the beck and call of your betters.
Mike Spindell – you have attributed Bron’s post to me in several of your posts. If you are going to pontificate, at least pay enough attention to get the author right. [sigh]
RTC:
exceptional situations make for bad examples of morality. Like a life boat situation. You cannot use those for everday morality.
In the cases you describe, where the person is unable to talk, the proper thing to do is to save their life, treat them and worry about how to pay for it later.
So you are saying all poor people are mentally ill? That none are able to work? That people receiving unemployment insurance are incapable of volunteering at a museum or hospital or helping an old person go to the store or rake their leaves?
All living things work for a living. Why should humans be any different?
The birds and squirrels can fend for themselves even if I dont feed them, are you telling me a human being is less able than a bird or squirrel?
When this country was young, we used to help our neighbors if their barn burned down. Now we expect the government to do it.
America used to be noble, that stopped in the first part of the 20th century.
The Declaration of Independence is noble, we are so far from Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness it boggles the mind.
Bron wrote: “When this country was young, we used to help our neighbors if their barn burned down. Now we expect the government to do it.”
The Amish still do this.
I had a neighbor whose roof leaked and he was unable to fix it. He kept trying to patch it, but it kept leaking. He had a wife and children. I knew a couple of roofers, and so I got them to agree to help for a day. Word spread among friends and we got a bunch of other people together to help, and in one day we tore off his roof off and put on a new roof. Those of us able to pitch in to buy roofing material did so. Some of the women and children who could not engage in the physical demands of climbing the root and working up there instead made lunch and brought us cold water and drinks.
I posted previously in this thread a link to a community in Hawaii that could not wait for the government to put in a bridge, so the community pitched in and did it without the government.
David: Hence the “unincorporated” part; generally States do not collect property taxes, they are imposed by local governments with limited jurisdiction, and imposed on the value of your land: If you are just farming and ranching and living in a trailer, the value of your land is in the thousands and the taxes would be non-existent, exempt as a homestead, or minimal (since you say you don’t mind paying a little taxes), you can cover it selling organic vegetables and stay beneath the taxable income limit.
It actually IS as cheap as I assume, one of my relatives did that successfully for a few years before he decided he had enough and wanted to go see Rome and the Vatican. So he sold his property and did that. One of my nephews is reportedly considering following that self-sufficiency example and doing it now.
David says: They are raping us, and you say, let them keep doing it.
I didn’t say that at all. What I do say is we have complete control over them via the vote. If they really WERE raping us so bad, we could and would do something about it; and the reason we don’t is the vast majority do not think they are being “raped,” they are just irritated. People act when they feel (metaphorical or real) pain, and thus far they do not think the inefficiencies of government rise to the level of “rape.” They just disagree with you; they LIKE Medicare, they LIKE social security, in general they like having police and court systems and fire department, they think the FDA and FTC and health inspectors and building codes are all a necessity, they want licensing required for various professionals. They even like the military; “support our troops” is a bipartisan belief whether individuals agree with the decisions at the top or not. The vast majority of money spent meets with their approval. It isn’t $100K for a used truck, it is $5000 when it should have cost $4000, and that is an irritation, not a rape.
Things like McConnell’s dam costing 4 times as much as budgeted average out with the many billions paid out with virtually no corruption to social security recipients, Medicare recipients, soldiers, cops, teachers and other public employees. They average out so much they are in the noise.
Any amount we are over-taxed would pale in comparison to the profit taking that would occur if we turned government functions over to private enterprise; the revelations of the overhead and heart-breaking wrongful denials of claims in the for-profit insurance market, versus the minimal overhead in Medicare is plenty of evidence of what happens when people’s health and even lives stand in the way of profit.
Skip, and what Tony said about stopping your freeloading.
David, You wouldn’t possibly consider leaving the Magic Kingdom, would you?
Skip, I do think about what I write. I’m not sure you do, however. Your point about food stamps , for example, is completely backwards. Food stamps is a way for the government to excess production off the market withoout actually having to purchase and take possession if it. Without that measure, prices would plummet, like they did around 1910, and farmers would suffer severely. Mostly the small, family farm repubs pay lip service to, but agri-biz overall would take a hit. And the backlash would be higher prices for food at the end of day, in addition to a tremendous amount of suffering.
The final outcome of your policy proposals would be to make this country more like China, in every respect. I don’t think you realize that
RTC wrote: “The final outcome of your policy proposals would be to make this country more like China, in every respect.”
What? You make no sense. You think the outcome of Skip’s policy proposals is communism? Please explain.
China not only has an extensive welfare system with universal health care, they also choose your jobs for you. I was in China earlier this year and talked extensively to my taxi driver who was taking me to the Great Wall of China. We talked about his upbringing, the economy, and politics. Even his job was selected for him by government. He can’t choose not to be a taxi driver. And he can’t have more than one child without paying a huge tax that he cannot afford. China is nothing like what Skip is talking about, and you say his policy would result in a country more like China IN EVERY RESPECT? Such a statement makes no sense.
Really. It’s not a result of excessive taxation and regulations bankrupting the lower socioeconomic levels of our population to where they can no longer afford food on their own? Oh by the way, we want prices to plummet, that way people could actually afford food. My policies are called free enterprise or capitalism and you probably embrace 80% of the communist doctrine. Read the 10 platforms of communism in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Richard Engels and you tell me how many you embrace. For me I embrace none of them. I’m serious David, read the 10 platforms of communism and give me your truthful answer to how many you embrace. I think you will find your a commie but just don’t know it.
“The final outcome of your policy proposals would be to make this country more like China, in every respect. I don’t think you realize that”
RTC,
I must disagree. I think hskiprob does realize it and that this country being more like China would fulfill all his dreams. He will of course reply that China is Communist, but he knows the truth that China is his wet dream.
DavidM: That is similar to a racist telling a black man, if you don’t like the way things are in this country, you are free to go back to Africa.
You don’t have to leave; just stop using the public infrastructure and earning excess money by exploiting it.
We already have a threshold beneath which you have to pay no income taxes, and in fact you can survive in this country without earning any money. Buy yourself a few acres of land in the wilderness, unincorporated into any city or town, and grow your own food, raise your own livestock, pump your own water — You earn nothing, spend nothing, and live fine. Mount up solar panels or a windmill and you can even have electricity. You can get plenty of nutritious plants that self-seed, so you never have to buy that; chickens (both egg-laying hens and roasters) are easy enough to raise and breed for your protein requirements; and has been proven many times, the work equivalent of about 10 hours a week for a healthy adult male is enough to feed himself; the full-time labor of a single adult male is enough to feed a family of two adults and raise several children. If your land is decent, it is also proven you can accomplish that on just two acres, which includes plenty of room for your shelter, well and storage facilities.
The taxes are a fee for using the public infrastructure; directly or indirectly, and the level of taxes paid is a function of how much the public infrastructure is benefiting you in terms of dollars earned.
If you don’t want to pay taxes, you don’t have to leave the country, you just have to stop using all the stuff we have developed to make yourself a profit: And if you have a job that earns enough to BE taxed, you ARE earning a profit off of our stuff; like our roads, military, sewage systems, court systems, FDA, police protection and jails that severely reduce the chances of you being robbed, murdered or enslaved, and on and on.
I’ve seen arable land in the middle of nowhere for as low as $500 an acre; you can probably afford five acres somewhere, along with a pick, shovel and ax. Then you can start digging; you will need a latrine and a well, and I’d recommend a rock-lined pit for rainwater storage. The ax is so you can build a shelter, sluices, fences, etc.
Get to work! For probably under $10K you can be a free-rider, earning nothing, buying nothing, living off the sweat of your brow and paying no taxes to nobody, and we will STILL protect your rights and defend you against foreign invaders at no charge; and continue to risk our lives finding and jailing most of the human predators that would see your homestead as easy pickings.
Tony C – I have actually looked into living like that, not because of the desire to avoid taxes, but because of the simplicity involved with being off the grid and separated from this world system. Unfortunately, there are property taxes involved, and it is not as cheap as you assume.
I do not object to taxes per se. I object to overtaxation, overspending, government waste, and government borrowing. My perspective is that we pay too much for what the public gets from government. That’s all. It is like someone selling me a beat up used truck for $100,000. It’s not a good deal. Then I go look at what they spend the money on, and they waste it. The politicians live better than the average American. They are raping us, and you say, let them keep doing it. Stop complaining. Look at what government provides for us. It is like the battered wife syndrome… yeah, he hurts me, but he also provides for me and I love him. Deep down, he is a good husband. The truth is that government takes advantage of us, and they do it deceptively.
“I do not object to taxes per se. I object to overtaxation, overspending, government waste, and government borrowing.”
DavidM,
Try as you might, rhetorically you can’t have it both ways. Are you against government, or not? If you’re not against government, but your objection is towards tax money being spent on certain things, then you are still for a government and your quibble is with what this particular government does.
Now to cut to the chase the reality is that you only talk in wide generalizations to keep your debate options open. This is how you try to keep people from pinning you down as to what you really believe. Now I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to use such a strategy here, be my guest. What I am specifically saying is that it is a dishonest debate tactic.
Yes David, your love of humanity just oozes from the screen
David,
Sorry, I didn’t see your post addressing how much you’d be willing to pay for your friensd surgeries. That neatly illustrates my point about the futility of relying on private charity; there’s always an excuse at hand for not giving.
RTC wrote: “That neatly illustrates my point about the futility of relying on private charity; there’s always an excuse at hand for not giving.”
I never said that I object to private charity helping with surgery. I support St. Jude’s Hospitals and numerous other charities providing such care. I was talking about me as an individual paying for someone’s surgery. I don’t think I have a duty to pay a surgeon to perform surgery on others. The surgeon should donate his time, the same way I do. Why should I pay for his expensive cars and homes for such things? But if you think I have a duty to pay for them, I must ask, have you ever personally paid for a stranger’s surgery?
RTC, just like all the homeless in the Country, shows how well government is willing and able to care for the poor and disenfranchised? When you write stuff, do you really think of what your position is and results in relation to the alternative we are defending? I should even have to be writing this to you.
“But if you think I have a duty to pay for them, I must ask, have you ever personally paid for a stranger’s surgery?”
DavidM,
No I haven’t. But the government, therefore the people of the United States paid for my heart surgery that saved my life. While in truth I paid into it for many, many years the expense of the surgery was far more than what I paid in. That’s known as insurance and a good part of the idea of insurance is that you spread the risk. The cost of the surgery was such that I never could have paid for it, even by mortgaging my soul, so without Medicare I’d be dead. To people like you who hold up abstract and unworkable principles my death would be the preferred outcome and of course would just be representative of many, many deaths. Your outlook is certainly your prerogative, but in my opinion if there is some sort of judgment made on us humans, your outlook will doom you despite all the “charity” you do to make yourself seem not as selfish as you are.
Mike Spindell wrote: “The cost of the surgery was such that I never could have paid for it, even by mortgaging my soul, so without Medicare I’d be dead. To people like you who hold up abstract and unworkable principles my death would be the preferred outcome and of course would just be representative of many, many deaths.”
Please. How can you say this? I would not prefer your death. So if this happened to you in 1965 before Medicare existed, do you really think you would have been left to die?
What you don’t realize is that the cost of the surgery is high BECAUSE of Medicare and other insurance products. If insurance did not exist, the cost would be much lower.
If we allowed the American Heart Association and other charities like them to expand instead of pushing government programs to outcompete them, they would do a better job establishing free heart surgery for people like you. Whenever you give people the option to go to a government run health clinic or a private practice, do you know which they choose? The private practice. Why is that? Which would your wife choose, the government run health clinic or the private practice doctor? What I hear you saying is that you want to get rid of the private practice doctor and have only government run health care. In my opinion, that is a step down.
Mike S wrote:
“Are you against government, or not?”
Not.
Mike S. wrote:
“If you’re not against government, but your objection is towards tax money being spent on certain things, then you are still for a government and your quibble is with what this particular government does.”
Now you are starting to understand my position better.
Mike S. wrote: “Now to cut to the chase the reality is that you only talk in wide generalizations to keep your debate options open.”
I think I try to be as specific as I can for what this forum would allow. From my perspective, you and most others here tend to be very general in what you say… almost superficial actually. But some of that is just an artifact of the nature of this forum.
When I say: “I do not object to taxes per se. I object to overtaxation, overspending, government waste, and government borrowing.”
This is a fairly specific statement which refers back to even more specific details given in previous posts I have made in this thread.
Look, at one end of the spectrum we have communism which gets rid of private property and alleges to be able to establish a classless society where laborers are not taken advantage of. On the other end of the spectrum we have capitalism which allows individuals to decide for themselves if they want to own property, build enterprises, or do manual labor. Capitalism produces classes in society. Such is an inevitable product of human nature. If one person chooses to own property and build a factory, he is going to be in a different position from the person who chooses to work on the assembly line in the factory and rent his apartment from a landlord. Mixed within all this we have dishonest folks, thieves and abusers, people who take advantage of others, etc. For that we need government. Government restrains these bad acting folks, and I agree that they need restraining. Therefore, I agree with government.
What I don’t want is government telling me that if I am sick, I have to go seek medical care, or that if my children are sick, I have to care for them in the way that they prescribe. I don’t want government making me buy products that I don’t want. I don’t want my government investing tax money in banks, car companies and insurance companies. Truth is that I don’t want government hiring private contractors for anything. They can help direct private companies to what needs to be done, but they should not directly hire them. That is a little extreme to some, but from my perspective, hiring private companies leads to cronyism. In other words, the concept of limited government appeals to me.
So I am pro-taxes and pro-government, but I think right now the government takes too much in taxes and makes it very hard on the middle class, the bourgeoisie that Marx and Engels wanted eliminated from society. I think every American should have the right to own property, in contrast to the communist ideals of no private property ownership. Communism is the enemy of America. President Obama is leading us right into that enemy IMO. I have come to believe that he has been the worst President in American history. Hopefully people will vote Republican next year, and Republican again in 2016. It is the only way to stop a Tea Party inspired revolution to put things back to the way they use to be. If we can vote a Republican Congress and Republican President, we can undo the damage that Obama has done.
“Please. How can you say this? I would not prefer your death. So if this happened to you in 1965 before Medicare existed, do you really think you would have been left to die?”
DavidM,
Whether you’d prefer my particular death is a metaphor for all those who you would carelessly doom to death falsely believing that someone would care for them. Yes if this was 1965 I would have died because I was a self-supporting college student, alone in the world, who could barely afford a Doctor’s visit when I had the measles, nor a prescription for an antibiotic.
“If we allowed the American Heart Association and other charities like them to expand instead of pushing government programs to outcompete them, they would do a better job establishing free heart surgery for people like you.”
If you really believe that, then you are not only more ignorant that I think you are, but you’re not. That was merely a rhetorical statement on your part that has as much truth and honesty behind it as a part platform.
“I think I try to be as specific as I can for what this forum would allow. From my perspective, you and most others here tend to be very general in what you say… almost superficial actually. But some of that is just an artifact of the nature of this forum.”
My, my. A full paragraph to say that you are tailoring your message to make you seem more reasonable and your message more palatable, in short you’re merely a tea party propagandist.
“If you’re not against government, but your objection is towards tax money being spent on certain things, then you are still for a government and your quibble is with what this particular government does.”
“Now you are starting to understand my position better.”
Oh I’ve understood your position all along. Your quibble is about providing aid to the middle class and the poor so fortunate sons like yourself won’t be overburdened with paying for what they unwarrantedly take from society.
“Look, at one end of the spectrum we have communism which gets rid of private property and alleges to be able to establish a classless society where laborers are not taken advantage of. On the other end of the spectrum we have capitalism which allows individuals to decide for themselves if they want to own property, build enterprises, or do manual labor.”
No on the other end of the spectrum you have feudalism which is akin to socialism for the wealthy and someone like you dying for a knighthood.
“the bourgeoisie that Marx and Engels wanted eliminated from society.”
So “Cold War” 1950’s DavidM. Raising the boogieman of communism to justify the theories of narcissistic, misanthropes who only want to be in power over their fellow man, who is in their mind worthlees. Or do you think that John Galt and Howard Roark were anything more that Nietzsche’s supermen adopted out of the erotic musings of a clinically disturbed writer.
David,
“If Skip thinks taxes are high, let’s discuss that subject. Are taxes too high?”
——————-
You answered your own question…
“…Somalia has higher taxes than the U.S.”
So, no. Taxes are not too high.
The effective tax rate in this country is one of the lowest in the industrialized world. Thanks to loopholes in the tax law the wealthiest 1% get away with paying a little as 17% on declared earnings (Exhibit A: Nitt Romney). During the Eisenhower years, the effective tax rate was much higher (not the 90 – 98% figure you’re going to throw back, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 – 38% for top earners.) Those years saw the greatest expansion of the middle class , along with the fastest rise in the standard of living in history.
The debt is actually a necessary and useful tool in the world of finance. The genius of Alexander Hamilton was that he realized it was an instrument that could be sold. That’s why Alan Greenspan sounded like he was double-talking at the end of the Clinton administration when the debt had been all but eliminated.
I don’t run up credit for the simple fact that I’m not a government with unlimited borrowing power. You make the mistake of thinking that the government should be run like a business, which is like asking a parrot to eat steak. And your problem, and skippy’s, is that you keep accusing the government of being the problem.. The problem is the the financial sector, the banks, Wall St., the money lenders, who want you guys to believe that the govt is the bad guy and are willing to spend a lot of money to convince you of that. You engage in a lot sophistry. One wonders what other deceptions you’re telling yourself.
Strange how you failed to disclose how much money you would give to your “friends” on disability. I’m guessing you give them nothing. Is it because you know those wiley bostards are scamming the system? Question is, why would they tell what they’re doing? They must know how you feel about govt aid.
As far as telling skippy where to go… it’s like telling someone who’s constantly whining about the weather being too hot and muggy to go somewhere cooler. I don’t have any respect for whiny little [blanks] like him. Besides, he seems rather shallow. You, are on the hand, are a sociopath whose depths have no bounds
hskiprob,
Have you ever seen anyone stand in a bucket and try to lift it? Really? Government is not an expense. Government is not a business, it’s not meant to turn a profit. It’s created to carry out the functions that private enterprise can’t or won’t. Alexander Hamilton had a lot to say on that. I swear, have you ever even heard of the Founding? I mean other than the “Don’t Tread On Me” Tree-of Liberty tripe that Freedomworks is peddling.
You rant like someone who got his degree from a box of Grover Norquist’s discarded CrackerJack.
Let’s see. Denial, Denial, wrong assumption and logical fallacy. US history has proven Alexander Hamilton “dead” wrong on a number of his positions. Please go into detail those things that private enterprise can’t or won’t do.
David,
I didn’t tell skippyrob to leave. I pointed out that if he felt that the taxes were so coercive he was free to leave. I mentioned Somalia because there aren’t many countries in the world that don’t tax, and very few with lower levels of taxation than the U.S. Anyone who whines about taxes like skippyrob is a whiny b-aitch.
“I personally know people on disability”
are you willing to pay for their surgeries? How about their food or rent? Frankly, you seem inherently distrustful of anyone seeking assistance. I realize you’ve been burned by wiley people around you that you’ve tried to help. But your misanthropic attitude to the impoverished in distant locations illustrates the need for government to step in and help those who lack sufficient guardians angels.
RTC wrote: “I pointed out that if he felt that the taxes were so coercive he was free to leave. I mentioned Somalia because there aren’t many countries in the world that don’t tax, and very few with lower levels of taxation than the U.S.””
That is similar to a racist telling a black man, if you don’t like the way things are in this country, you are free to go back to Africa. How about instead we learn to get along and listen to one another? If Skip thinks taxes are high, let’s discuss that subject. Are taxes too high? Could they be lower and we still have all the services that you want? These are the questions to ask. Telling someone that they are free to leave the country is not constructive.
By the way, Somalia has higher taxes than the U.S. The government taxes trades and professions at 35% plus they have a 10% sales tax. They also have individual taxes up to 18%, and ad valorem taxes on top of that that range from 0% to 100%. Imports are taxed at 10%. All of this makes the effective tax rate higher. They also got rid of private insurance and established state owned insurance with the individual mandate.
The reason some people spin the situation in Somalia to claim that they don’t have taxes is because collapse of the government led to the government’s inability to collect the taxes. Overspending by the government caused the country to run a deficit since the early 1970’s. The country turned to socialism in the 1970’s and then communism in the 1980’s. By the 1990’s, overtaxation and government overspending resulted in civil war… revolution against the government. What has happened there is what Republicans warn will happen here if we don’t get spending under control. So some claim they don’t have taxes, but the truth is that overtaxation led to tax evasion, and like many other countries in our recent history, the result was financial ruin of the government and civil war by the people. The government basically failed once they spent all their money and borrowed more than they could pay back. As long as you have a gun and are willing to use it when the tax man comes, people in Somalia don’t pay taxes. Many of them have turned to piracy. Some businesses who want to rebuild the government are beginning to pay taxes again voluntarily. The point is that Somalia already went the direction that our president is now leading us. We should learn from history before we make the same mistakes. It is common sense that if we keep borrowing money at the current rate, our government will fail. It is inevitable. Right now you owe the government $53,000 just to pay off the debt. Your wife owes $53,000. Each of your children each owe $53,000. This is not the amount needed to run the government. This is what is needed to pay off the debt and stop the interest payments which right now represents about one eighth of our 3.5 trillion dollar budget. Our government right now borrows almost one-third of what we spend. For every dollar we spend, 32 cents is borrowed with interest. Maybe you run your finances by running up credit card debt as high as possible and paying interest to the credit card companies. That’s not how I run my finances, and I object to my President running my country this way.
RTC wrote: “are you willing to pay for their surgeries? How about their food or rent? Frankly, you seem inherently distrustful of anyone seeking assistance.”
No, I am not willing to pay for their surgeries. Doctors make enough money to volunteer their time to help with that, and hospitals make enough money to volunteer the use of their equipment. We also have a county health system that assists with medical care. However, I do pay for their food and sometimes their rent. If I don’t pay the rent myself, I have county government do it. They work with me where I can bring any person to them and they pay up to three months rent for them. I tell the person that their first month is paid, and if they secure a job, they will get the second month’s rent paid. By the third month, they should be paying their rent on their own. We have the third month available and sometimes have to use it if the person loses their job and has to restart. I also maintain an apartment at my office for those in need, and I maintain a guest room at my home for strangers. The guest room has its own outside entrance so they can come and go as needed.
We can love people without trusting them. I have received and helped people of all kinds, including murderers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts, and alcoholics. Experience has taught me not to trust anyone, so all my relationships start with love but no trust. Trust is something earned based upon character. If their character is deficient, I work on that in the same way that I work on helping them with finding a job and helping with food, clothing, furniture and rent. Without fixing their dysfunctional character, I would be just wasting money and resources.
Our Constitution is based on the protection of individual rights and limited government which limits the need for taxation yet those who benefit from increased taxation, want us to leave the country? To bad we cannot abrogate there freedoms, like they have done to us, to kick them the hell out of this county.
“Our Constitution is based on the protection of individual rights and limited government which limits the need for taxation yet those who benefit from increased taxation, want us to leave the country? To bad we cannot abrogate there freedoms, like they have done to us, to kick them the hell out of this county.”
hskiprob,
I see you’re a fan of nonsensical rhetorical flourishes to hide your disingenuous method of debate. Nobody, as in “nobody” said they “wanted” you to leave the country, so your frame is untruthful. What was said was if you didn’t like to pay taxes to support a government that provides you with myriads of support services that are necessary to run a well-ordered society, than you were free to leave. Indeed, many very wealthy people, who you probably admire, have taken up residences elsewhere to avoid paying taxes.
I’m glad your believe that statism has given us the utopian society that we cannot live without, for a civil society!!!! Where do I start with your delusions? Lets’ talk education quality, high drop and truancy rates, poor healthcare quality, high poverty levels, poor wage levels, disproportionate wealth distribution, GMO and other poor nutritional crops, cancer alleys in many industrial areas, high homeless levels, high foreclosure, personal and business bankruptcy rates, a corrupt judiciary, dysfunctional legislatures, a multitude of constitutional abrogations and usurpations of individual rights, psychopathic levels of military spending and pharmaceutical drug use, high suicide rates, high cancer rates with the MO of the AMA using Chemo and Radiation, hitting less than a 3% cure rate, high crime rates and precincts underreporting crime to make the politicians look good, various bankrupt government institutions and debt up to our eyeballs. I could keep going, but I think that is enough to point out your hypocritical positions. Let’s just ignore all the resulting facts of Keynesian fascist economic policies and continue to live in never never land.
“I’m glad your believe that statism has given us the utopian society that we cannot live without, for a civil society!!!!”
hiskiprob you need to reign yourself in a bit. No one has proposed that we live in a utopian society, yet it is you and DavidM that are supplying the unworkable utopian ideals.
Bron again,
The law says that emergency rooms can’t refuse to treat anyone who shows up with a complaint. Consequently, many people who lack health insurance turn to emrgency rooms for their primary care. Some might pay their bills, but the vast majority don’t. Hospitals turn to the government for reimbursement on debts they can’t collect. If you’re thinking that this has added much to the government’s deficit, you’re on to something. Obamacare is meant in part to address this problem.
You might wonder if we couldn’t simply change the law in regards to emergency room treatment. Consider this not-so hypothetical: my son gets a text from his girlfriend late one night. Her parents are gone and she’s got the house to herself. Perfect time to catch up on some schoolwork. He bolts out of the house, forgetting his ID, hops on his bike, and rides like a bat of hell. Lets say he gets hit by a car (he didn’t, but when you’re a parent this is the kind of shit that goes through your mind). So let’s say he does. He’s taken unconscious to the emergency room wearing nothing but a t-shirt and shorts. He’s definitely covered under my insurance, but the medical staff can’t know that, because he can’t talk. The way the law is set up now, doctors get to work and let the hospital worry about the financial details later. If the law were changed to require patients to show proof of insurance or pay for services up front, I am convinced that there would be hundreds of hospitals that would make it a policy to refuse any, ANY, patient show proof of payment.
Someone might say that this is an isolated example, but it works if somone is involved in a fiery car crash and their clothes are burned off, along with their ID. It works for Alzheimer victims who wander away from their street sweeping jobs. It works for someone at least once everyday somewhere in this country. That’s one reason why we require emergency rooms to treat people. And it’s proof of our nation’s nobility.
Thanks Lotta, coming from you that’s quite a compliment. Actually, I was mush-mouthing in a hurry to get out in the yard and get some work done before the weather turns. I couldn’t resist flaring out at the No Tax Norquister. Thanksgiving’s coming and I gotta limber up.