# Jim Crow X 10,000



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The NAACP exposes voter suppression schemesThere is scant evidence of 'voter fraud', yet under that pretext *states are trying to return us to a pre-Civil Rights era America*

The NAACP will be sending a delegation to the United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights alleging a concerted effort to deny voting rights to black and hispanic Americans. Given how rarely anyone in the United States looks to the United Nations for justice, and how often the United States ignores the UN, this is both a significant and futile effort. But what's at issue is so egregious that the NAACP has chosen to shout it from a global stage. 
In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president, the United States had one of the highest turnouts ever of black and Latino voters. Undoubtedly, this made a difference in the election: Obama won by a slim margin in many states that had traditionally voted Republicans. The high turnout of blacks and Latinos made the difference in crucial swing states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado and New Mexico. And southern states, which have a high percentage of blacks, are traditionally carried by the Republican party - but if enough blacks and Latinos vote, that isn't the case.

...I doubt the NAACP expects to obtain justice by pursuing their case at the United Nations. But the push to limit the ability of poor people, blacks and Latinos to participate in the electoral process is so outrageous, that it must be loudly denounced in front of the nations of the world. I was born after the civil rights era of the 1950s and 60s, when white southerners still tried to use billy clubs to prevent blacks from voting. My daughter was born just after the first black president was elected. *I thought we were making progress in this country.*

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commenti...dec/06/naacp-exposes-voter-suppression-scheme

I understand that people can have issues with and oppose certain policies, but when does the shrill hyperbole and distortion go too far??


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

It happens when political agendas become more important than individual rights. This is very sad.

I don't care who you vote for, but I do care that you have an equal chance to make your choice.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Glad we agree on something, WouldaShoulda.

Voter suppression is becoming a problem here under Rick Scott.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Glad we agree on something, WouldaShoulda.
> 
> Voter suppression is becoming a problem here under Rick Scott.


Not so fast...

The question was "when does the shrill hyperbole and distortion go too far??"

Are states really "trying to return us to a pre-Civil Rights era America??"
Have we made "no progress in America??" (see bolds in article I reference)

If the public library wants a photo ID to take out a book, does that mean it wants poor people of color to remain illiterate??

Probably not, but if one thinks the requirement of the library to do so is unfair, a different policy may be worked out.

Without the divisive demonization and rhetoric. (Like Obama previously called for and since abandoned)

Without calling in the UN for help!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I've never understood why we don't get our Voter registration card when we register for the Selective Service. Make it the same card.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Well, the fact women don't have to register for selective service is kind of a problem....

Plus, there are some of us men who have never registered.

And: is the Selective Service System really equipped to stop fictional registrations?

Plus: they stop following people once they turn 26.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Artcile quoted by WouldaShoulda said:


> Given how rarely anyone in the United States looks to the United Nations for justice


Incidentally, this is pretty off-base. The NAACP has complained to the UN repeatedly over decades. Example from a 2000 UN Press Release describing recent activities:



> JULIAN BOND, of the International Human Rights Law Group, said he was Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP; the organization had been founded in 1909 and was the oldest and most accomplished civil rights organization in the United States. The NAACP wished to highlight grave deficiencies in the U.S. criminal justice system, although it also should be pointed out that racism pervaded many other aspects of life in the United States. The NAACP had submitted a call to action to the United Nations, which had been distributed.
> 
> The call to action said, among other things, that racial discrimination in the U.S. was particularly pernicious because its new forms were often obscured under guises such as the "war on drugs" and crime prevention; that racial discrimination was endemic in the U.S. criminal justice system from initial suspicion to sentencing; and that African-American men made up 6 per cent of the U.S. population but 50 per cent of the U.S. prison population. It urged the United Nations to call on the U.S. to end such discrimination, to examine the problem of racial bias in its justice system; and to consider missions to the country by relevant United Nations Special Rapporteurs. It further called on the UN to expressly include the issue of race bias in the U.S. criminal-justice system as an agenda item of the upcoming World Conference against Racism.


More, this from the notes summarizing the contents of an academic collection of NAACP papers for 1940-55:


> With the serious effort to establish a United Nations organization in 1945, the NAACP moved aggressively to bring the denial of democratic rights to the forefront of that body's concerns. It petitioned the UN repeatedly from 1945 into the 1950s on behalf of victims of American racism and European colonialism. The records contained in this collection document the association's foreign policy
> initiatives in pursuit of these objectives.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Starch said:


> Incidentally, this is pretty off-base. The NAACP has complained to the UN repeatedly over decades. Example from a 2000 UN Press Release describing recent activities:
> 
> More, this from the notes summarizing the contents of an academic collection of NAACP papers for 1940-55:


What they should have said was "Given how rarely anyone _besides the NAACP_ in the United States looks to the United Nations for justice."

In 1945 I would have stood by them.

Today, well, not so much.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Starch said:


> Well, the fact women don't have to register for selective service is kind of a problem....
> 
> Plus, there are some of us men who have never registered.
> 
> ...


I agree, the fact that Women don't have to register for the Selective Service is kind of a problem...

As for men who never registered.... ( I was "backdoor" registered when I joined the military) that is a crime.

As for the 26 age limit.. once you have the card, it's no problem. You just stop being eligible for the draft at 26.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> As for men who never registered.... that is a crime.


Not if you were born in the latter part of 1957, or any part of 1958 or 1959. Although it is possible that that, in itself, might be considered something akin to criminal in certain circles.



> As for the 26 age limit.. once you have the card, it's no problem.


I was thinking more in terms of keeping track of address changes, etc. Not to mention deaths. Which they could, of course, start doing, but you don't get the free ride of piggy-backing on a registrations system that already exists.

You'd also have to register people who become citizens post age 26.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Starch said:


> Not if you were born in the latter part of 1957, or any part of 1958 or 1959. Although it is possible that that, in itself, might be considered something akin to criminal in certain circles.
> 
> I was thinking more in terms of keeping track of address changes, etc. Not to mention deaths. Which they could, of course, start doing, but you don't get the free ride of piggy-backing on a registrations system that already exists.
> 
> You'd also have to register people who become citizens post age 26.


For the most part the top is academic.

As for people who become citizens after age 26, address changes, etc, it's all things we do now through other systems like the Social Security system (another why do we have multiple systems that aren't linked). When you become a permanent US resident, you have to register for the Draft (even illegals have the requirement for Selective Service), so it is merely a case of designing a form, and integrating an existing computer database.

If voter registration on the state level is a "problem," "issue," or even a "concern," why not streamline the process? At birth (or citizenship/residence), issue person their Voter Registration # (which would be their SSN in theory, since we already do that). At the age of Majority, Activate their VR# when they register for the Selective Service (which they are required to do so anyways). When they move to a new municipality, they change their data as needed. Their most recent Tax withholdings will show place of physical employment (and their are other methods in place if needed).


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Linking it to social security registration would make the most sense, since that's pretty nearly a requirement, and it's lifelong.

The main reason it wouldn't happen is that a certain group of people would feel -- rightly or wrongly, but probably fervently -- that the federalization of state registration was a huge attack on the Constitution.

The other issue, which groups like the NAACP would presumably raise, is that the "hook" that currently drives social security registration is largely economic, and differentially affects various socio-economic/racial groups (as does any more rigorous voter-qualification system, hence the complaint to the UN).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Starch said:


> The other issue, which groups like the NAACP would presumably raise, is that the "hook" that currently drives social security registration is largely economic, and differentially affects various socio-economic/racial groups (as does any more rigorous voter-qualification system, hence the complaint to the UN).


Presuming there would be a great benefit to the underserved by having a photo ID, shouldn't there be an effort by the NAACP in helping the underserved get one??

Considering that one would be charged a 2% check cashing fee because they don't have a checking account, is a $20.00 fee for an ID really too great of a burden??


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Presuming there would be a great benefit to the underserved by having a photo ID, shouldn't there be an effort by the NAACP in helping the underserved get one??


That isn't always as easy as it sounds. I was born outside the US while my father was in the US army. By law, I was a US citizen at birth. But took me a year and a half just to get a copy of my immigration records from the National Records Center and another year and a half for the USCIS (formerly the INS) to process my application for a Certificate of Citizenship to prove it so I could get a photo ID ("less government" sounds like a great idea until you run into a real-life consequence of government penny-pinching). Ironically, my mother, who _wasn't_ a US citizen and therefore couldn't legally vote, could have gotten a photo driver's license just by showing her green card and then presumably could have used it to register illegally!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> That isn't always as easy as it sounds.
> 
> I was born outside the US while my father was in the US army. By law, I was a US citizen at birth. But took me a year and a half just to get a copy of my immigration records from the National Records Center and another year and a half for the USCIS (formerly the INS) to process my application for a Certificate of Citizenship to prove it so I could get a photo ID ("less government" sounds like a great idea until you run into a real-life consequence of government penny-pinching).
> 
> Ironically, my mother, who _wasn't_ a US citizen and therefore couldn't legally vote, could have gotten a photo driver's license just by showing her green card and then presumably could have used it to register illegally!


1. That's why the NAACP should be helping people obtain them as I propose.

2. Are you sure it was Government in-efficiency instead of "penny pinching??" (I'll settle for any combination)

3. That's a whole 'nuther problem!!

While many people I know who have gone through the steps required to do things legally are sympathetic with the illegal situation, many more are PISSED because doing the right thing is so difficult.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Capitol Report: ACLU sues over state's voter ID law

https://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-aclu-sues-over-state-s-voter-id-law/article_cb347812-259f-11e1-8151-001871e3ce6c.html

Another plaintiff is Carl Ellis, 52, who is living in a homeless shelter for veterans in Milwaukee. He cannot afford to get a copy of his birth certificate from the Illinois Department of Public Health's Vital Records Office. Ellis does possess a Veterans Identification Card, but the card is not an acceptable form of identification under the new Wisconsin law.
"If I can serve my country, I should be able to vote for who runs it," says Ellis in a prepared statement.

*Sounds as if the law could be changed to accomodate him.

Plaintiff Sandra Jashinski, 48, of Milwaukee, lacks a photo ID and does not have a Social Security card. Because a photo ID is needed to obtain a Social Security card, Jashinski was denied a card. As a homeless woman, she also has no way to provide the state with an address.

*The ACLU should help this woman verify her citizenship and get any benefits she may be elligible for. For some reason, her victimhood appears more valuable to them.

College students account for eight of the 18 plaintiffs. In addition to several that do not want to turn in their out-of-state licenses in order to obtain a Wisconsin ID, the suit also names Domonique Whitehurst, a 17-year-old who turns 18 on Feb. 4, just days before the new law takes effect for the spring primary Feb. 21.

*Shouldn't these students vote absentee through their resident states?? This limit makes perfect sense to me.

Sherman says the lead plaintiff in the case is Ruthelle Frank, 84, who was born at home in Brokaw and has voted in every election since 1948. She lacks a certified birth certificate, which is required to obtain an acceptable form of photo identification.

When she went to get a copy of her birth certificate she learned her maiden name was spelled wrong on it. Correcting the error could cost as much as $200 or more.

*The problem here are foolish administrators. They should issue a waiver, or an ACLU lawyer can help her, or if she ever had a DL, when she turned it in the DMV should issue her a non-driver ID. Problem solved.

"Rich, poor and everything in between ... we don't think you should have to pay a single cent to get a certified copy of your birth certificate to get a free photo ID," Sherman says. "It's a poll tax."

*A certified copy of your birth certificate is obtained for a fee regardless of why one is being required. As I mentioned previosly, if you have been charged 2% for every check you cashed for the last 20 years or more, you have bigger problems and are better served obtaining a photo ID.

The ACLU and NAACP should be helping people, not exploiting them. They look like poverty pimps.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

We've turned over civil registration to the tax authorities. They need to keep track of people anyway...

The church managed it from 1600-1991. 

Works well.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> We've turned over civil registration to the tax authorities. *They need to keep track of people anyway...
> *
> The church managed it from 1600-1991.
> 
> Works well.


I bet they do!!

From an American perspective, you went from awful to worse.

Up until about 60 years ago, some Americans "birth cirtificates" were an entry in the family bible!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I bet they do!!
> 
> From an American perspective, you went from awful to worse.
> 
> Up until about 60 years ago, some Americans "birth cirtificates" were an entry in the family bible!!


Well, you know, so people can pay their taxes, get ID:s, birth certificates etc.

Pretty basic stuff...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Well, you know, so people can pay their taxes, get ID:s, birth certificates etc.
> 
> Pretty basic stuff...


National ID schemes have been universally opposed in the US by nearly everyone for as long as I remember.

Even though a Passport accomplishes the task well.

In post #16 I've injected my personal thoughts preceeded by an "*"

Any comments??


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...Up until about 60 years ago, some Americans "birth cirtificates" were an entry in the family bible!!


When my dad was born in Houma, Louisiana in 1919 there were no state-issued birth certificates at that time. The church kept track of births, baptisms, deaths, and marriages. So his birth was recorded in a church ledger.

Bjorn is right; the gov't needs to be able to keep track of people so that resources can be properly allocated.

Re national I.D.: Oh come on. You know that the Social Security number has been used as a de facto national I.D. for decades. All it would take is a federally-funded nationwide driver's license database located at F.B.I. headquarters and presto - instant national I.D.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> National ID schemes have been universally opposed in the US by nearly everyone for as long as I remember.
> 
> Even though a Passport accomplishes the task well.
> 
> ...


A Passport isn't a National ID. It cannot be required for use inside the US. Although it does act as a birth certificate even when expired. Unfortunately, it costs about $100 to get one, and takes upwards of 6 weeks to get. And only about a 1/3rd of Americans have them. Being good for only 5 (minor)/10 (Adult) years would not solve the issue presented by the ACLU. It would actually intensify it. Longer waits, more money.

I'm opposed to a MANDATORY national ID scheme as well. I do like the idea of a voluntary one that is universally accepted within the US though (like the passport card I got when I renewed my passport). Many Americans just don't trust the government (with good reason... just look at the TSA). National ID's lead down a dark scary road.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I'm opposed to a MANDATORY national ID scheme as well. I do like the idea of a voluntary one that is universally accepted within the US though (like the passport card I got when I renewed my passport).


Would failure to obtain a voluntarily free National ID mean that when it came time to vote in some states you couldn't??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Many Americans just don't trust the government (with good reason... just look at the TSA). National ID's lead down a dark scary road.


So, what do you think of comments such as these...



Regillus said:


> Bjorn is right; the gov't needs to be able to keep track of people so that resources can be properly allocated.


In general, that's what the census is for. But for the individual?? Hell no!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Would failure to obtain a voluntarily free National ID mean that when it came time to vote in some states you couldn't??


Not necessarily, if you could use a "for fee" state issued ID in lieu of it. It's all about choices. As long as their is choices, all is good.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So, what do you think of comments such as these...
> 
> In general, that's what the census is for. But for the individual?? Hell no!!


I agree with you . Censuses work just fine. But honestly, we don't even need them. Standard record keeping (utility bills, standard tax records, etc) which are collected monthly, quarterly, or even annually work even better. The federal government doing it every 10 years it's more to reduce administrative burden than anything.

I really don't like the idea of each individual being "tracked" by the government, any more than is absolutely necessary. The government is just not that good at it. Tracking one person would be a full time job for one other person. I can barely keep track of myself, and my wife helps. Getting the government involved is just silly for anything beyond basic "tax collection," which in my personal opinion is better suited to reduce inflation than generate revenue.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

The whole issue of voting in the United States is a disgrace. There are countries in the Third World that have more effective vote counting than the USA. Witness the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. Look at the constant criticisms of voting machine irregularities. The Guardian writer is "in the tank" for the Democrat Party which ostensibly wants to raise up the lot of Afro-Americans and Latinos but as has been proven they really want to keep them "down on the plantation" in their "rightful" place (in Dem think I mean). The GOP has done a lot to raise the lot of minorities and allow them to be fully part of the USA political system. The Bush Administration was full of brilliant high profile successful black and Latino people. The Clinton and Obama Administrations on the contrary are/were by and large peopled with the very worst elements of black and Latino political culture. Race hucksters, shake down merchants and plain extremists who are nothing but an embarrassment to these communities. The Democrat Party use these communities to enhance their politcal clout by pandering to them and then instituting dodgy legislation such as the Motor Voter Act to enhance the possibility of vote fraud. This is why various states have sought to enhance proper voter registration - specifically to prevent the debasement of American democracy by voter fraud not to prevent the minorities voting as is the NAACP conspiracy theory.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Keeping track of people is easy as long as the responsible agency gets information from other agencies, and as long as there is a responsibility for the individual to register change. Name, birthdate, address and marital status gets you a long way. Doesn't take much. 

You seem overly concerned that any government initiative would automatically fail, however, they don't. 

We also charge people for ID:s, a charge of around 30$ I think. Might be slightly higher now.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

meister said:


> The whole issue of voting in the United States is a disgrace. There are countries in the Third World that have more effective vote counting than the USA. Witness the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. Look at the constant criticisms of voting machine irregularities. The Guardian writer is "in the tank" for the Democrat Party which ostensibly wants to raise up the lot of Afro-Americans and Latinos but as has been proven they really want to keep them "down on the plantation" in their "rightful" place (in Dem think I mean). The GOP has done a lot to raise the lot of minorities and allow them to be fully part of the USA political system. The Bush Administration was full of brilliant high profile successful black and Latino people. The Clinton and Obama Administrations on the contrary are/were by and large peopled with the very worst elements of black and Latino political culture. Race hucksters, shake down merchants and plain extremists who are nothing but an embarrassment to these communities. The Democrat Party use these communities to enhance their politcal clout by pandering to them and then instituting dodgy legislation such as the Motor Voter Act to enhance the possibility of vote fraud. This is why various states have sought to enhance proper voter registration - specifically to prevent the debasement of American democracy by voter fraud not to prevent the minorities voting as is the NAACP conspiracy theory.


It was a fiasco because we still have the archaic Electoral College. Get rid of it, go to direct direct voting, and the problem is solved.

There's a petition over at "We the people" (whitehouse.gov) to do just that.

Slot machines in Vegas are more transparent and better regulated than voter machines, currently.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> *Keeping track of people is easy* as long as the responsible agency gets information from other agencies, and as long as there is a responsibility for the individual to register change. Name, birthdate, address and marital status gets you a long way. Doesn't take much.
> 
> You seem overly concerned that any government initiative would automatically fail, however, they don't.
> 
> We also charge people for ID:s, a charge of around 30$ I think. Might be slightly higher now.


There's a difference between Sweden's 10 million, and the USA's 310 million though. Los Angeles, CA is currently pushing the same population as all of Sweden. It's easy to make a broad statement like that, but you have to remember you are looking at a country that is roughly equivalent to the size of Europe, and contains 50 states each with their own population bases. If I recall correctly their are 204 countries in the world. If you made the US states into individual countries, that number would jump by 25%.

Essentially that is what we are. We don't have a federal system for tracking individual births. We have state level tracking (birth certificates are issued at state level). Social Security is specifically forbidden to be used as a nation means of identification, although it often is (since the numbers are unique per person). When people cross state boundaries, information is not transferred from one state to another.

Although the USA is one country, it really is more of an Empire. It's a bunch of neighbor countries. California is to Spain as Sweden is to Virginia. Our Union (like your EU) is just a lot more rigidly defined, and pushing 236 years old.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Not necessarily, if you could use a "for fee" state issued ID in lieu of it. It's all about choices. As long as their is choices, all is good.


So we all agree then; it isn't the ID part that's so offensive, it's the difficulty in obtaining one that's burdensome for some.

Someone better go tell the AG!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> There's a difference between Sweden's 10 million, and the USA's 310 million though.


Sweden and similar other nations also fail the diversity test.

They have less history of repressive and racist policies the way the South does here. While most of us have gotten over it, a significant number of us still lived through it and it's legacy stubbornly persists as it's embers fed; not by some imaginary Old Guard of hooded lunatics, but by the usual Leftist suspects!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Essentially that is what we are. We don't have a federal system for tracking individual births. We have state level tracking (birth certificates are issued at state level). Social Security is specifically forbidden to be used as a nation means of identification, although it often is (since the numbers are unique per person).


So are cell phone numbers. Many poor and even homeless don't find owning one all too "burdensome" so there is a potential ID solution there also. Somewhere. Maybe...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> There's a difference between Sweden's 10 million, and the USA's 310 million though. Los Angeles, CA is currently pushing the same population as all of Sweden. It's easy to make a broad statement like that, but you have to remember you are looking at a country that is roughly equivalent to the size of Europe, and contains 50 states each with their own population bases. If I recall correctly their are 204 countries in the world. If you made the US states into individual countries, that number would jump by 25%.
> 
> Essentially that is what we are. We don't have a federal system for tracking individual births. We have state level tracking (birth certificates are issued at state level). Social Security is specifically forbidden to be used as a nation means of identification, although it often is (since the numbers are unique per person). When people cross state boundaries, information is not transferred from one state to another.
> 
> Although the USA is one country, it really is more of an Empire. It's a bunch of neighbor countries. California is to Spain as Sweden is to Virginia. Our Union (like your EU) is just a lot more rigidly defined, and pushing 236 years old.


I kinda disagree, although I recognize your point. I don't see the UK for example having those kinds of problems in tracking their populace, although its substantially larger than Swedens. Scaling isn't the issue, it's finding a consensus that the government needs to do it and then funding it.

With a sufficient IT system and sufficient resources, the task should be manageable. If theres legislation to support it. There's something to be said for infrastructure in government, even if it means tax expenditure. You seem to have broad support for that only in regards to your armed forces, which seems kinda backwards.

Of course, in Sweden we seem to have broad support for that for everything except our armed forces, which is also kind of backwards.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Scaling isn't the issue, it's finding a consensus that the government needs to do it and then funding it.


What our Federal Government can do is limited and deliniated by our Constitution. Everything else falls to our States.

Though those "limits" appear to be expanding hourly, much to any Freedom lover's dismay, they still do (and should) exist.

There are better ways to accomplish nearly everything than to place trust in a controlling, centralized authority.

To sum up, you are right insofar as it can be done, but it is prohibited by our Constution and contrary to (most) of our belief systems.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What our Federal Government can do is limited and deliniated by our Constitution. Everything else falls to our States.
> 
> Though those "limits" appear to be expanding hourly, much to any Freedom lover's dismay, they still do (and should) exist.
> 
> ...


Then that's your problem...

"A fully developed bureaucratic mechanism stands in the same relationship to other forms as does the machine to the non-mechanical production of goods. Precision, speed, clarity, documentary ability, continuity, discretion, unity, rigid subordination, reduction of friction and material and personal expenses are unique to bureaucratic organization."

Without efficient government, there's no real freedom.

Also, if your IRS keeps track of everyone for tax purposes, they could easily issue ID:s. That would be a service rather than a Imposition, no?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Then that's your problem...
> 
> Also, if your IRS keeps track of everyone for tax purposes, they could easily issue ID:s. That would be a service rather than a Imposition, no?


1) Exactly!!

2) I suspect their response (even if they were permitted to do so legally) would be "that's not our job!!"


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sweden and similar other nations also fail the diversity test.
> 
> They have less history of repressive and racist policies the way the South does here. While most of us have gotten over it, a significant number of us still lived through it and it's legacy stubbornly persists as it's embers fed; not by some imaginary Old Guard of hooded lunatics, but by the usual Leftist suspects!!


What "usual Leftist suspects", exactly, are you referring to?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> What "usual Leftist suspects", exactly, are you referring to?


The ACLU and NAACP have been mentioned previously but I'm happy to include the SEIU as a "usual Leftist suspect" as well!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So progressive organisations are responsible for keeping black people down. Just making sure I'm getting this correctly.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I think his point is that the well-meaning (or maybe not always so well-meaning, but at least ostensibly so) may take actions that are counter-productive.

This certainly happens, often in pretty obvious ways. I'll leave to others whether this is an instance.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> So progressive organisations are responsible for keeping black people down. Just making sure I'm getting this correctly.


It's the only logical conclusion I have come to after decades of study. A permanent victim underclass is the only thing keeping "progressive organisations" in business. Success for their ever expanding core constituency (not exclusively Black Americans) would render them useless.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Starch said:


> I think his point is that the well-meaning (or maybe not always so well-meaning, but at least ostensibly so) may take actions that are counter-productive.


That's being polite and giving them the benefit of the doubt. But the suffering is so great, they should be rigorously exposed.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> "A fully developed bureaucratic mechanism... "


"The machine may also be brought under the domination of the party officials in whose hands the regular business rests. According to the view of some Social Democratic circles, their party had succumbed to this 'bureaucratization.' But 'officials' submit relatively easily to a leader's personality if it has a strong demagogic appeal....

"He who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force requires a following, a human 'machine.' He must hold out the necessary internal and external premiums, heavenly or worldly reward, to this 'machine' or else the machine will not function. Under the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal premiums consist of the satisfying of hatred and the craving for revenge; above all, resentment and the need for pseudo-ethical self-righteousness: the opponents must be slandered and accused of heresy. The external rewards are adventure, victory, booty, power, and spoils. The leader and his success are completely dependent upon the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives. Therefore he also depends upon whether or not the premiums can be permanently granted to the following, that is, to the Red Guard, the informers, the agitators, whom he needs. What he actually attains under the conditions of his work is therefore not in his hand, but is prescribed to him by the following's motives, which, if viewed ethically, are predominantly base....

"Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness...."


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's the only logical conclusion I have come to after decades of study. A permanent victim underclass is the only thing keeping "progressive organisations" in business. Success for their ever expanding core constituency (not exclusively Black Americans) would render them useless.


Whatever you say.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Starch said:


> "The machine may also be brought under the domination of the party officials in whose hands the regular business rests. According to the view of some Social Democratic circles, their party had succumbed to this 'bureaucratization.' But 'officials' submit relatively easily to a leader's personality if it has a strong demagogic appeal....
> 
> "He who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force requires a following, a human 'machine.' He must hold out the necessary internal and external premiums, heavenly or worldly reward, to this 'machine' or else the machine will not function. Under the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal premiums consist of the satisfying of hatred and the craving for revenge; above all, resentment and the need for pseudo-ethical self-righteousness: the opponents must be slandered and accused of heresy. The external rewards are adventure, victory, booty, power, and spoils. The leader and his success are completely dependent upon the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives. Therefore he also depends upon whether or not the premiums can be permanently granted to the following, that is, to the Red Guard, the informers, the agitators, whom he needs. What he actually attains under the conditions of his work is therefore not in his hand, but is prescribed to him by the following's motives, which, if viewed ethically, are predominantly base....
> 
> "Not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness...."


Aren't we mixing it up a little bit here?

Beauracracy is by no means a socialist agenda nor a conservative one...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Whatever you say.


If you keep an open mind, your eduacation may lead you to places you hadn't expected. But above all, challenge what you are being taught.

If you have challenged it, pondered it intensely, and you still believe, good on you. If however, you simply accept and regurgitate it, well, I suppose the world needs useful idiots too!!

Go back to post #16 and let's discuss how these people should be helped instead of exploited.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Starch said:


> "He who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force requires a following, a human 'machine.' He must hold out the necessary internal and external premiums, heavenly or worldly reward, to this 'machine' or else the machine will not function. Under the conditions of the modern class struggle, the internal premiums consist of the satisfying of hatred and the craving for revenge; above all, resentment and the need for pseudo-ethical self-righteousness: the opponents must be slandered and accused of heresy.


I have to admit, if I were an ordinary European at the turn of the last century, if we hadn't escaped to America, WWI would have turned me Commie in an instant!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you keep an open mind, your eduacation may lead you to places you hadn't expected. But above all, challenge what you are being taught. If you have challenged it, pondered it intensely, and you still believe, good on you. If however, you simply accept and regurgitate it, well, I suppose the world needs useful idiots too!! Go back to post #16 and let's discuss how these people should be helped instead of exploited.


 Advice on keeping an open mind from our man Woulda.....LOL. Now I have heard it all.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Advice on keeping an open mind from our man Woulda.....LOL. Now I have heard it all.


Stunning, I know!!

Who benefits from the presence of a permanently suffering underclass??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Stunning, I know!!
> 
> Who benefits from the presence of a permanently suffering underclass??


If you change this from 'permanently suffering underclass' to permanent underclass', one could easily argue that the answer to your question (whether one is liberal, socialist or conservative) is the middle and upper class.

I would argue that the only way to make sure that everyone gets their vote is by making sure you know who everyone is and that requires both registration and free and ready access to a means to identify oneself.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> If you change this from 'permanently suffering underclass' to permanent underclass', one could easily argue that the answer to your question (whether one is liberal, socialist or conservative) is the middle and upper class.
> 
> I would argue that the only way to make sure that everyone gets their vote is by making sure you know who everyone is and that requires both registration and free and ready access to a means to identify oneself.


1) If the permanent underclass where the same people that paint my house or fix my car you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't!!

You may be confusing the working class for the underclass. For this illustration the underclass generally don't work at all, very little or off the books.

2) You, Sir, are correct!!

However, due to our (USA) unfortunate history, some folks will continue to view everything through race-colored glasses. I don't blame them, I'd rather educate them to the error of their ways!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you keep an open mind, your eduacation may lead you to places you hadn't expected. But above all, challenge what you are being taught.
> 
> If you have challenged it, pondered it intensely, and you still believe, good on you. If however, you simply accept and regurgitate it, well, I suppose the world needs useful idiots too!!
> 
> Go back to post #16 and let's discuss how these people should be helped instead of exploited.


Questioning what I was taught isn't really going to change that I disagree with your conspiracy theory.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Questioning what I was taught isn't really going to change that I disagree with your conspiracy theory.


At least it's a step in the right direction!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Who benefits from the presence of a permanently suffering underclass??


George Carlin said it best:

_Well. Tell you what. Now, to balance the scale, I'd like to talk about some things that bring us together, things that point out our similarities instead of our differences. 'Cause that's all you ever hear about in this country! It's our differences! That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about! The things that separate us. Things that make us different from one another. That's the way the ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the ******* money! Fairly simple thing! Happens to work! You know? Anything different! That's what they're gonna talk about race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything can do, keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank!

You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the **** out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs._


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> George Carlin said it best:


If I read that correctly it appears the best way to screw the 1% would be for the underclass to get a job, keep it, and stop fighting with and amongst the Middle Class!!

Let's give it a try and see if it works.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> At least it's a step in the right direction!!


You're assuming it would point me in the _right wing_ direction.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Then that's your problem...
> 
> "A fully developed bureaucratic mechanism stands in the same relationship to other forms as does the machine to the non-mechanical production of goods. Precision, speed, clarity, documentary ability, continuity, discretion, unity, rigid subordination, reduction of friction and material and personal expenses are unique to bureaucratic organization."


Are not the goal of efficiency and large government (a fully developed bureaucratic mechanism) diametrically opposing forces? It seems as though the size of government is inversely proportional to the efficiency of government... In very general terms, efficiency is good because it decreases the amount of manpower and cost to achieve a specific end. Effectively, it takes less resources to accomplish a task, leaving more resources to undertake and accomplish other tasks. Often times in government the goal is not efficiency because so often efficiency would mean cutting government jobs. Moreover, efficiency is not rewarded in government as it would be in the private sector (i.e. increased profits) which in turn removes the primary incentive for efficiency.



> Without efficient government, there's no real freedom.


Well put.



> So progressive organisations are responsible for keeping black people down. Just making sure I'm getting this correctly.


That is not their aim (and to say such would be disingenuous), however these progressive organizations often support government programs and initiatives to assist up the poor or disadvantaged. Often, these very initiatives do not solve the problem. Conversely, they often worsen it or cause new and unintended problems. Historically, programs or policies like public housing, protection of the monopolization of unionized labor, minimum wage, and more recently, government support of sub prime mortgage have all failed to accomplish their goals.

Often, the very programs which are intended to help the downtrodden do nothing more than fix them in their place.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Using government programs (Progressive movements) to solve social problems, prevents society from self correcting social problems. Every time you add a rule (regulation) you add in an unintended consequence, which in turn causes another unintended consequence, ad nauseum.

Take "Affordable Health Care" for instance. It sounds like a great idea on paper, but in practice, so many issues pop up. Individual mandate, increase in cost of private health insurance, public backlash, among others.

If the problem is big enough, people will fix the problem. Unfortunately... sometimes regulation may prevent us from fixing the problem. Look at what's happening through the US right now. "Regulation" (DHS policy) has defined protests as a form of "low level terrorism" and "legislation" is being enacted giving extra power to the to combat such "threats to national security."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

helo-flyer said:


> That is not their aim.....


OK, say that was not their aim to begin with.

Once they saw what they wrought, once it was continued, we can no longer say that it is not their aim.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If I read that correctly


 Negative. Go back and read it again.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...the best way to screw the 1%....


Would be to abolish all their tax credits/deferrals and raise the marginal tax rate on earned income over $5M to 49% and unearned income over $5M to 60%.:idea:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Regillus said:


> Would be to abolish all their tax credits/deferrals and raise the marginal tax rate on earned income over $5M to 49% and unearned income over $5M to 60%.:idea:


Like you said SCREW.

The rich are not there to support the poor. The poor are not to be supported by the rich. The government is not a means of transferring wealth. It is a means of providing* necessary* services.

This entire 1% thing is just elitist BS. The idea that those who ear more should pay more (%wise) has always struck me as odd. In general, they get less out of the social services (the non necessary, subsidized services). Essentially forced charity.

It doesn't reward anyone for earning more. It works under the philosophy that your earnings start out belonging to the government (society), not you, and you get to keep only what they don't take. That's like the bully taking all your lunch, and letting you keep the stuff he doesn't like. It doesn't matter how much you bring, he just takes it all, and leaves you with the apple.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's the only logical conclusion I have come to after decades of study. A permanent victim underclass is the only thing keeping "progressive organisations" in business. Success for their ever expanding core constituency (not exclusively Black Americans) would render them useless.


Exactly got it in one. Professional parasites race hucksters and shake down artists like the Reverend gentlemen who claim to represent the black community.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Would be to abolish all their tax credits/deferrals and raise the marginal tax rate on earned income over $5M to 49% and unearned income over $5M to 60%.:idea:


See, I didn't glean that from the Carlin peice at all!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Like you said SCREW.
> 
> The rich are not there to support the poor. The poor are not to be supported by the rich. The government is not a means of transferring wealth. It is a means of providing* necessary* services.
> 
> ...


What a bunch of utter drivel. As if an increase of 1 or 2% in a marginal tax rate would case millionaires to close up shop and go back to pushing a broom? LOL

The bottom line, which the Tea Party jokers would like you to ignore is that we are all interdependent&#8230;and thus all owe our fair share to the greater good. As Thomas Paine said put it so eloquently 200+ years ago:
*Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> *All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.*


Say, at a flat rate of 20%??


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Say, at a flat rate of 20%??


Aha! So you're not disputing the point; just debating over how much to tax. A crack in the wall.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> What a bunch of utter drivel. As if an increase of 1 or 2% in a marginal tax rate would case millionaires to close up shop and go back to pushing a broom? LOL
> 
> The bottom line, which the Tea Party jokers would like you to ignore is that we are all interdependent&#8230;and thus all owe our fair share to the greater good. As Thomas Paine said put it so eloquently 200+ years ago:
> *Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
> ...


Millionaires do close up shop all the time because of that 1-2% increase in tax rate. That's why we outsource jobs. When a business is not PROFITABLE (Profit is the businessman's paycheck), he will do whatever he can to cut costs. The easiest one to do is reduce labor cost. That means Benefits & direct pay. When you tax him, you hurt his employees. It is a direct correlation. Overtax him, he lays off employees in the States and hires them elsewhere. Require him to give employees benefits, he hires employees in foreign lands without those requirements and replaces you. Don't believe me, call Tech support, read the labels on most clothes, foods, and other items.

Whatever you do to the top 1% will happen to the bottom 99%. That was the entire concept of trickle down economics that Reagan preached.

Capitalists owe the country the taxes they pay for the opportunities they received. They earned them on the backs of the people that came before them. The way they pay that back is providing the same opportunities to the people that come after them. That's it. They make sure the roads are there. They make sure government runs necessary programs. They don't have to run a charity though.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Regillus said:


> Aha! So you're not disputing the point; just debating over how much to tax. A crack in the wall.


Death & Taxes are inevitable.

Taxes help prevent inflation at the federal level. They provide revenue at the State & Local levels. You're not going to stop them. Here's the question though. How much of the year should you have to work before YOU start earning money for yourself?

At 20% that's 73 days in. So the first week of March is when you would see your first $.

I've always preferred a consumption tax (sales tax). Get taxed on what you buy. No penalty for saving money. Only get nailed when you buy something. Straight 10%. Save it long enough, and you can earn enough interest to bypass the hit.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK, say that was not their aim to begin with.
> Once they saw what they wrought, once it was continued, we can no longer say that it is not their aim.


But therein lies the issue. I don't believe they ever realized that it was wrought. They never realized it for specifically the same reasons that they convinced themselves they could understand and manipulate the current system. Leaders and proponents of progressive movements, or planners for the sake of this argument, are doomed to fail specifically because they do not recognize the complexity of the base framework that they are operating under. They buy into the delusion that through their meddling they can make it better, and when it does not work out, there is more than enough complexity inherent in the system to shift blame elsewhere.

*



Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Click to expand...

*Thomas Paine also said:
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
and: 
"To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not."

I will not disagree that the business owner who creates a product depends on others to buy that product. That fact is inherent in our society. He recognizes a demand (or if he's lucky creates a demand) and attempts to provide a supply for that demand. If he succeeds in giving the best product for the best price he will be successful. However to say that he should give back the money he earned to the people that bought his product is ludicrous, because that was not part of the deal. He offered a product at a price in the open marketplace. There was no promise nor expectation for future payment.



> we are all interdependent&#8230;and thus all owe our fair share to the greater good.


And government is the greater good? To be clear, government is not the great satan. However, we need to be suspicious of an entity that gains too much power. Government should encompass all those areas we can't solve ourselves. In the realm of economics, it should set the rules and mediate disputes, always acting in the interest of competition... It is important to remember that government creates nothing, it only consumes. On this subject, I defer to President Jefferson:

"[A] wise and frugal government...shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.



> Aha! So you're not disputing the point; just debating over how much to tax. A crack in the wall


disputing which point? Progressive taxes are just one example of tyranny of the majority. With progressive taxes you are making others pay more than their "fair share." Its easy to screw over the !% when you have 99% of the vote.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Aha! So you're not disputing the point; just debating over how much to tax. A crack in the wall.


Of course, I'm not a total wackjob you know!! 

Federal income tax is necessary.

Confiscatory Federal Tax policies are not.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Millionaires do close up shop all the time because of that 1-2% increase in tax rate. That's why we outsource jobs. When a business is not PROFITABLE (Profit is the businessman's paycheck), he will do whatever he can to cut costs. The easiest one to do is reduce labor cost. That means Benefits & direct pay. When you tax him, you hurt his employees. It is a direct correlation. Overtax him, he lays off employees in the States and hires them elsewhere. Require him to give employees benefits, he hires employees in foreign lands without those requirements and replaces you. Don't believe me, call Tech support, read the labels on most clothes, foods, and other items.


If 1 or 2% is the difference between being profitable or not, it wont take long for you to be out of business for some other reason.

People hire employees based on ROI. What is the person going to cost me vs. how much can this person add to my bottom line. A 1% increase isn't going to tip that scale one way or the other&#8230;.so stop with this whole Sky is falling / Chicken Little Act.

You know as well as I do - 99% of all oursourcing happens to INCREASE PROFITS&#8230;.not to hold the bottom line. Oh poor millionare&#8230;just cant make ends meet paying people a fair wage in the USA.

We should be removing all tax shelters and breaks for corporations that outsource. Then just WATCH who fast they can suddenly be profitable here in the USA.



Apatheticviews said:


> Whatever you do to the top 1% will happen to the bottom 99%. That was the entire concept of trickle down economics that Reagan preached.


 Ah, back to Ronnie's old , failed playbook&#8230;lol

From economic growth, job creation to stock market performance and just about every other indicator of the health of American capitalism, the modern U.S. economy has almost always _done better under Democratic presidents_. Despite GOP mythology, American has consistently gained more jobs and grew faster when taxes were higher (even much higher) and income inequality lower.

But preach on with your failed sermon.


Apatheticviews said:


> Capitalists owe the country the taxes they pay for the opportunities they received. They earned them on the backs of the people that came before them. The way they pay that back is providing the same opportunities to the people that come after them. That's it. They make sure the roads are there. They make sure government runs necessary programs. They don't have to run a charity though.


No one is asking you to run a charity. The top earners in this country pay at what is a very low tax rate - yet they still piss, moan and try to buy as many tea party jokers as they can to do their bidding. Back in the 90s, when tax rates were MUCH higher - the rich were doing just fine. Now that the rates are lower, they are still not satisfied.

When the country is in recession - it is necessary for those among us who can afford it, to pay a bit more to help right the ship. Surely no one would argue that most of the collapse was facilitated by shady business dealings from the richest in the country&#8230;..so why should they not be asked to help pay a small share more to get us back on course?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Surely no one would argue that most of the collapse was facilitated by shady business dealings from the richest in the country&#8230;..so why should they not be asked to help pay a small share more to get us back on course?


This may be construed as confiscation without due process.

Is that what you advocate??

You know, I'm sure most of "those people" are guilty of something, so let's punish all of them!!"


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This may be construed as confiscation without due process.
> 
> Is that what you advocate??
> 
> You know, I'm sure most of "those people" are guilty of something, so let's punish all of them!!"


yeah, that's what it is. Asking people to pay their fair share is confiscation.

The rich paid 90% back in the 1940s.....what was that called?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> yeah, that's what it is. Asking people to pay their fair share is confiscation.
> 
> The rich paid 90% back in the 1940s.....what was that called?


A fantasy.

That may have been the retail rate but nobody actually paid it.

It was like a 795.00 JAB suite!!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The top marginal tax rate in the 1940s, all in, was actually 94%. It was 91% as recently as 1963.

Some people did pay at that rate, but very, very few. Deductions and exemptions were somewhat more generous then, the capital-gains rate was lower (as is also the case now) and the point at which the top marginal rate kicked in was very high. You need to remember that, before 1986, there were _lots_ of tax brackets. Very few people were ever in any of the higher ones (in 1935, the highest individual income tax bracket had exactly one taxpayer in it).


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

As for the more general point, just to kind of state what seems to me to be common sense:

Theoretically, there's some "best" set of tax rates, that balances the negative economic effect of a tax (there is a negative economic effect to most any general tax) with the positive value of having the government do various things that cost money while not simply printing the stuff. Different people may differ as to where the exact right balance is: primarily, but not only, as a result of differing in their estimation of the positive value of having the government do various things that cost money.

Any increase above whatever you've determined is the best rate - even a very small one - will have a net negative effect. Okay, sure, a very small increase over the ideal rate will only have a relatively small net negative effect, but it's still negative, and it's not nonexistent. At any given moment, a certain number of decision-makers are exactly "on the margin," _i.e._ poised precisely (or very nearly) on the line between making a decision one way or a different way. If you move an independent variable, even a little bit, you will get a reaction from those who are on the margin, and a dependent variable will move correspondingly.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> If 1 or 2% is the difference between being profitable or not, it wont take long for you to be out of business for some other reason.
> 
> People hire employees based on ROI. What is the person going to cost me vs. how much can this person add to my bottom line. A 1% increase isn't going to tip that scale one way or the other&#8230;.so stop with this whole Sky is falling / Chicken Little Act.
> 
> ...


1 or 2% to put you out of business... let's ask the airlines...mortgage brokers...oil industry (they make about 10% profit, when the Government makes 20% profit per gallon). 1-2% is HUGE. Some industries, these numbers are not chump change. When you start telling the people who invested the money they are going to lose a million dollars, they pull their money out completely, creating a ripple effect.

You think that 1% won't tip the scales, but it obviously does.  People in charge of their business, looking at their personal wallets make their decisions based on those things. They choose whether to stay in the US, or go abroad for resources (Human or Capital) based on pennies.

REDUCING COST = INCREASING PROFIT. If you don't understand that, you need a course in basic economics. Every time someone sells something at the same price with a reduced cost, they make an equal amount of profit. They can reduce the price to increase their competitive advantage as a choice as well. But on the opposite side of that is when someone else reduces the price of their goods/service, you must also to maintain competition. This forces you to find ways to reduce costs. Innovation is one way. Reduction in payroll is another, and frankly easier. First law of the jungle is "the easy kill is the only kill." Keep the minimum number of employees needed to perform the work, at the minimum amount you can pay them. Don't pay for what you don't need. Don't waste capital. Don't waste money. Don't waste resources. It doesn't help anyone.

I'm all for removing tax shelters for companies that outsource. But until that happens, you have to acknowledge that companies do it. They hire cheap foreign labor who is happy to have a job and willing to work for it rather than pay expensive domestic labor who thinks they are entitled to high pay just because of the country of their birth.

As for Ronnie's playbook. I seem to remember being pretty damn prosperous back then. But anyone can write revisionist history based on specific key points when trying to spout party lines. And no, I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I choose not to be wrong half the time on all the issues.

Top earners pay more both % wise, and in raw $ than everyone else. They use less of the social welfare programs than everyone else. They essentially have someone take their wallets, and try to steal their money. They fight tooth & nail to keep every dime, just like every other citizen, regardless of income bracket. I haven't met one person yet on this planet that says they earn too much or that thinks the government should take MORE taxes from them. If they do, they are lying.

As for being in a recession. The word means the economy isn't growing. That is the result of EVERYONE. Every single person. Not just some shady businessmen. People who had no business taking loans who did (whether home or student). People who gave loans. People who prophesied the end was nigh in congress (on both sides). People who speculated against the market crashing and made money when it did. If you want to get money out of people, go after the people at fault. Not just RICH people. Assuming people are at fault just because they are rich, is like assuming Germany's troubles were caused by the Jews.... oh wait.... that's the same argument.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

If you take a comparative approach, and see that countries such as the UK, France, Sweden, Finland, Germany do still have a viable economy at their tax rates, and contemplate that you tax at the rate of, say, Colombia, perhaps that will clarify the issue of whether a slightly higher tax rate would kill your economy...

There's no economic theorisation that can be applied to say that a higher tax rate of the GDP in the US would seriously hurt your economy. Not if the raise was small. 

As was stated above by Starch, one can have different opinions on where the sweet spot is regarding taxation. I'm for lowering taxes in Sweden. If I lived in the US, I would support raising them. Not much, but slightly. Either that or removing them completely. I wouldn't want to pay for 'cheap' public services, if I'm gonna pay tax I want free health care and top notch public schools, plenty of cops, well supplied military, good roads and sanitation. Otherwise, what's the point? Why pay 10% for half-assed services? 

I'd rather pay 30% and get something back.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> If you take a comparative approach, and see that countries such as the UK, France, Sweden, Finland, Germany do still have a viable economy at their tax rates, and contemplate that you tax at the rate of, say, Colombia, perhaps that will clarify the issue of whether a slightly higher tax rate would kill your economy...
> 
> There's no economic theorisation that can be applied to say that a higher tax rate of the GDP in the US would seriously hurt your economy. Not if the raise was small.
> 
> ...


That's the trick. Right now we pay 15% and get pretty good cops, one of the best militaries in the world, solid roads & transportation, and plenty of other services (including higher Educational opportunities). We don't get "Free health care" and our public school system is only as good as you are willing to take out of it (it's as much the individual as the system).

Because many countries in Europe (and the rest of the world) price control medical services (specifically pharmaceuticals), Americans end up absorbing the cost (part of the entire affordable argument). Other than minimal safety regulation, I don't want government involved in medicine. They have no clue what they are doing. We're talking about 600 legislators (mostly with legal or business backgrounds) trying to make decisions about medical practice. Like it or not, Medicine is a business, and people go into it to make money. Remove the incentive, and people won't do it. That said.... Health insurance reform (not government insurance) might be in order. There's foxes guarding the henhouse in that industry.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> That said.... Health insurance reform (not government insurance) might be in order.


Around here, "Health insurance reform" meant mandated coverages and limits pushing up prices so fewer can afford it.

Don't want to buy screening, "mental health", infertility or rehabilitation service coverage?? Too bad!!

Interstate, basic, catastrophic, transportable, high dedutible coverage for $200.00 or so a month is all we need.

Will we get it??

NO!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> 1 or 2% to put you out of business... let's ask the airlines...mortgage brokers...oil industry (they make about 10% profit, when the Government makes 20% profit per gallon). 1-2% is HUGE. Some industries, these numbers are not chump change. When you start telling the people who invested the money they are going to lose a million dollars, they pull their money out completely, creating a ripple effect.
> 
> You think that 1% won't tip the scales, but it obviously does. People in charge of their business, looking at their personal wallets make their decisions based on those things. They choose whether to stay in the US, or go abroad for resources (Human or Capital) based on pennies.


NPR did a great story on this a few weeks back.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpol...ires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much

Some excerpts

_Ever since the idea of the surtax was introduced weeks ago, Republicans in Congress have railed against it, arguing that it is a direct hit on small-business owners and other job creators. The argument is that many small-business owners report company profits on their individual taxes because of the way their businesses are structured. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., says the surtax would hurt their ability to hire.

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. *They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
*__
So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to. A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio._
_
So next we put a query on Facebook. And several business owners who said they would be affected by the "millionaires surtax" responded.
_
_"It's not in the top 20 things that we think about when we're making a business hire," said Ian Yankwitt, who owns Tortoise Investment Management.
_
_He says his ultimate marginal tax rate "didn't even make it on the agenda."_
_Yankwitt says deciding to bring on another employee is all about return on investment. Will adding another person to the payroll make his company more successful?
_
_For Jason Burger, the motivation is similar. __"If my taxes go up, I have slightly less disposable income, yes," said Burger, co-owner of CSS International Holdings, a global infrastructure contractor. "But that has nothing to do with what my business does. What my business does is based on the contracts that it wins and the demand for its services."
_
_"I, like any other American, especially a business owner, I want to make as much money as I can and I want to keep as much money in my pocket as I can, but I also believe in the greater good," says Deborah Schwarz, who owns LAC Group, an information management firm with offices nationwide and in London._
_
Surtax or no, Schwarz says she hopes to keep hiring. __"We're going to keep on writing proposals, going after contracts, hopefully winning them, and when we do we're going to continue to hire people," says Schwarz._
_
*All of this contradicts the arguments about job creators being made by Republicans in Congress.

*_


Apatheticviews said:


> REDUCING COST = INCREASING PROFIT. If you don't understand that, you need a course in basic economics. Every time someone sells something at the same price with a reduced cost, they make an equal amount of profit. They can reduce the price to increase their competitive advantage as a choice as well. But on the opposite side of that is when someone else reduces the price of their goods/service, you must also to maintain competition. This forces you to find ways to reduce costs. Innovation is one way. Reduction in payroll is another, and frankly easier. First law of the jungle is "the easy kill is the only kill." Keep the minimum number of employees needed to perform the work, at the minimum amount you can pay them. Don't pay for what you don't need. Don't waste capital. Don't waste money. Don't waste resources. It doesn't help anyone.


First off...I don't need an economics lesson from you. I have an MBA and been running the marketing and sales of a number of large companies for years. But thanks for the tip.

In case you are too engrossed in your 1% will kill the economy pity party - let me clue you in on some news. American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.

The first law of economics is to look at the ledger. Don't listen to the blowhards and talking heads, don't get swallowed up by the PR - LOOK AT THE BOTTOM LINE. Even in the middle of this recession, the bottom line for a great many US corporations is very healthy.



Apatheticviews said:


> As for Ronnie's playbook. I seem to remember being pretty damn prosperous back then. But anyone can write revisionist history based on specific key points when trying to spout party lines. And no, I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I choose not to be wrong half the time on all the issues.


#1 - the country was in MUCH BETTER shape during Clinton - for whatever that is worth.

As for your, I am from neither party statement - that is a laugh. I love conservatives who are too afraid to stand up for that they believe in, so they claim to be independent&#8230;.yet you read their drivel out here and it is 99.9% - in lock step with the Republican Party. Sorry, if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck&#8230;



Apatheticviews said:


> Top earners pay more both % wise, and in raw $ than everyone else.


Might be the case in some instances, but on par - that is simply not true.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

_Getting back to Buffett's op-ed, his claims rest on how these taxes interact with each other. The fact we're checking here is that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," while middle class taxpayers "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
_
_He's right that a billionaire whose income is mostly from investments is probably taxed at a lower rate than someone who has an ordinary job. Very little of this taxpayer's income is wage income, so payroll taxes don't take much of a bite. It seems likely that much of this hypothetical person's income would be taxed around the 15 percent rate__. And, in fact, as Buffett says, statistics from the Internal Revenue Service_ _ show that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay tax rates of less than 20 percent.
_
_So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. *And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really **rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True.

*_


Apatheticviews said:


> As for being in a recession. The word means the economy isn't growing. That is the result of EVERYONE. Every single person. Not just some shady businessmen. People who had no business taking loans who did (whether home or student). People who gave loans. People who prophesied the end was nigh in congress (on both sides). People who speculated against the market crashing and made money when it did. If you want to get money out of people, go after the people at fault. Not just RICH people. Assuming people are at fault just because they are rich, is like assuming Germany's troubles were caused by the Jews.... oh wait.... that's the same argument.


Yes we are all to blame and much share in the deep cuts and behavioral changes necessary to get the economy back on track. But at a time when the country is doing so poorly, the wealthiest amongst us are paying a HISTORICALLY low share of their income into taxes. So this whole "oh woe is me" talk for the millionaires and billionaires among us rings pretty hollow.

When 8 Republican candidates were asked if they would accept a plan which featured 10-1 spending cuts to tax increase - none raised their hand. NOT ONE.

There is something terribly wrong when the political pressure in a party, any party, is so intense that it prevents a serious intellectual conversation from even taking place. *And if we have reached a point where Republicans running for president cannot envision (or at least admit to) any scenario in which they would raise taxes, then it's time to consider loosening the philosophical straightjacket they are in.*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> _
> We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. *They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
> 
> *_There is something terribly wrong when the political pressure in a party, any party, is so intense that it prevents a serious intellectual conversation from even taking place. *And if we have reached a point where Republicans running for president cannot envision (or at least admit to) any scenario in which they would raise taxes, then it's time to consider loosening the philosophical straightjacket they are in.*


1) Good thing there is a secret ballot. *I wouldn't want to be made the target of Occupy Wall Street thugs marching to my house following such an interview.
*
2) We need this for balance in an environment where a sitting President *admits he would raise punitive taxes even if it meant lower revenue for the Treasury. *


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Good thing there is a secret ballot. *I wouldn't want to be made the target of Occupy Wall Street thugs marching to my house following such an interview.
> *
> 2) We need this for balance in an environment where a sitting President *admits he would raise punitive taxes even if it meant lower revenue for the Treasury. *


According to those on the right - ALL TAXES above the historically low rates they are currently paying, are "punitive taxes"

What a JOKE.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> According to those on the right - ALL TAXES above the historically low rates they are currently paying, are "punitive taxes"
> 
> What a JOKE.


If it won't increase revenue or lower the deficit, it's the only name that fits.

Not a joke.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> First off...I don't need an economics lesson from you. I have an MBA and been running the marketing and sales of a number of large companies for years. But thanks for the tip.
> 
> In case you are too engrossed in your 1% will kill the economy pity party - let me clue you in on some news. American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, *at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.*
> 
> The first law of economics is to look at the ledger. Don't listen to the blowhards and talking heads, don't get swallowed up by the PR - LOOK AT THE BOTTOM LINE. Even in the middle of this recession, the bottom line for a great many US corporations is very healthy.


Looks like you did a good job at "lying with statistics 101" also!!

"Looking at the bottom line" is what motivates outsourcing. I understand sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it may not be, but I'd be more selective on when to use that phrase.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> As for your, I am from neither party statement - that is a laugh. I love conservatives who are too afraid to stand up for that they believe in, so they claim to be independent&#8230;.yet you read their drivel out here and it is 99.9% - in lock step with the Republican Party. Sorry, if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck&#8230;


People affiliate with any party are generally idiots. Republicans or Democrats alike. Both sides have great ideas, and greats stances on ISSUES. Both sides have bloody stupid stances on other issues.

Republicans (Conservatives) are idiots on the Gay Marriage side. Democrats (Progressives/Liberals) are just as big of fools when it comes to Gun Control and trying to reach into someone else's wallet.

Ask me about an *Issue*, and I'll give you an opinion. You might agree with it, or disagree with it.

In previous topics I've stated I don't think the government has any business making ANY medical decision for me. That includes abortion (hello Democratic agenda!), nor Mandatory Health Care (hello Republicans!). I'm pretty straight forward about it.

I'm as pro Bill of Rights as you can get (Hello ACLU & Democrats), including the 2nd Amendment (Oh wait, that's a Republican sided issue).

I have no issue with Taxation for Necessary programs. But my definition of Necessary, and yours will vary. I don't think Government Health Care Insurance is necessary. I think people should take personal responsibility for their own issues. I've been dead broke with a young child, and foregone medical insurance for MYSELF to ensure my son had it. It was a risk I chose to take. I don't expect society to pay for that. I don't expect society to pay for my higher education. I don't feel entitled to those things, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Listening to people talk about that makes me think they are greedy, or worse, enabling the weak (not the downtrodden, but the WEAK). If you want something, earn it. Don't expect others to give up what they earned and give it to you.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Not making sure everyone gets good medical services, in this century, seems antiquated to say the least. 

Good education and public healthcare pays off for everyone. The upper half gets a slightly smaller TV. 

You shouldn't have to struggle to get health care, that's horrible. And people will work just as hard if they have good healthcare. Maybe harder. It's not deincentivising. 

As for education, everyone getting a shot at higher education is a success factor for any nation. The quality of basic ed is as well. 

I just don't see the point.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Not making sure everyone gets good medical services, in this century, seems antiquated to say the least.
> 
> Good education and public healthcare pays off for everyone. The upper half gets a slightly smaller TV.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying everyone shouldn't have access to medical. I'm saying the government shouldn't be involved in it. There's a huge difference.

The government is inefficient, and prone to become more inefficient with time. Businesses generally can't operate at a deficit for decades. Businesses do look at their bottom line, daily, monthly, quarterly, etc. They are able to adjust more quickly to changing needs.

Essentially I'm looking for Capitalistic solutions vice Socialist ones. Let me choose how to spend the money I make, vice 51% of the population (and yes it is that divided in the US). If 51% of the people are choosing something, 49% think it's the wrong idea. I'm not opposed to Health Care insurance. Far from it. I think health care insurance is a good idea. I'm opposed to MANDATED health care insurance. Don't remove choice from the individual.

Violating one person (or 49%) for the good of the many (51%) is counter to our Majority Rules, Minority Rights concept here. We have enough people opposing this specific issue that it is obviously *flawed in execution*. Conceptually it sounds great "Health care for everyone." But when you get down to the nuts & bolts, and Congress trying to using penalties as part of their taxing authority, you run into Constitutional issues (violation of state and personal Rights). Until those points of execution are fixed, I hold with my current opinion. The government should not be involved in medical decisions beyond basic regulatory (Licensing Doctors, Hospitals, & Pharmaceuticals).

As for Education. The US offers basic education to everyone from age 5 to 18. We have programs available for higher education available to anyone. Many companies offer tuition reimbursement (as does the US Military). Our education system is not bad at a core level. The main issue is that you are offering it to people too young to know its value. Secondary issues are what we are teaching and how much.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Not making sure everyone gets good medical services, in this century, seems antiquated to say the least.
> 
> As for education, everyone getting a shot at higher education is a success factor for any nation. The quality of basic ed is as well.
> 
> I just don't see the point.


1) Everyone in the US has access to adequate medical care. The only issue is how it gets paid for. You have been misinformed by a segment here in the US that wants people to beleive anyone without health insurance dies in the street but it simply isn't so.

2) Again, everyone in the US has access to a public education thru grade 12 (that's 17-18 years old) and affordable public education at open enrollment comunity colleges in most counties. Yet in some communities nearly half give up and drop out.

Don't beleive everything you read in Salon!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I have worked both private and public sector jobs, and IMO the great 'efficient business' vs 'inefficient government' has not proven itself the paradigm I once thought it was. 

It's quite possible to high quality services in the public sector, cheaply on a large scale with efficient cost and quality control. The massive efficiency promised by business driven solutions often fail to deliver long term, usually because the business owners aren't as 'rational' as is required for the market model to work to maximum economic efficiency, and the agency issues that are acceptable when they happen between customer and business owner (that we find to be perfectly acceptable when the customer wants a shirt and the business is a retailer) are suddenly not so much so when the customer for example wants a medical treatment that is 'experimental' (expensive). 

I had your general view on big government as a provider of inefficient services. However, having worked there I have to say that there is a lot to be said for the 'civil servant' compared with the 'businessman service provider'. A good mix is preferable. 

Organisational development in the public sector has moved on since the basic theory was that any operations that are funded by government will strive to increase costs and reduce efficiency. It simply is not necessarily true any more (if it ever was). 

The forerunner on public organisation and working with efficiency issues are of course the armed forces. Is one of your Navy SEALs necessarily inefficient? Expensive, yes. But inefficient?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Everyone in the US has access to adequate medical care. The only issue is how it gets paid for. You have been misinformed by a segment here in the US that wants people to beleive anyone without health insurance dies in the street but it simply isn't so.
> 
> 2) Again, everyone in the US has access to a public education thru grade 12 (that's 17-18 years old) and affordable public education at open enrollment comunity colleges in most counties. Yet in some communities nearly half give up and drop out.
> 
> Don't beleive everything you read in Salon!!


I'm not sure I've read salon


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Just to make a weird point:

In Iraq, the US did actually outsource to private providers a certain amount of what would ordinarily be considered "military" tasks.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, and it could set off a whole bunch of related, semi-related and unrelated discussions.

Side note: at least in the popular imagination, the military is one of the last institutions that one would describe as "efficient." To be accurate, one should also note, I suppose, that the US military isn't a single institution, but at least three (Army, Navy, Air Force) and possibly more than that. Of course, some huge portion of the cost of maintaining the US military forces is buying equipment, which is almost all supplied by private companies.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I have worked both private and public sector jobs, and IMO the great 'efficient business' vs 'inefficient government' has not proven itself the paradigm I once thought it was.
> 
> It's quite possible to high quality services in the public sector, cheaply on a large scale with efficient cost and quality control. The massive efficiency promised by business driven solutions often fail to deliver long term, usually because the business owners aren't as 'rational' as is required for the market model to work to maximum economic efficiency, and the agency issues that are acceptable when they happen between customer and business owner (that we find to be perfectly acceptable when the customer wants a shirt and the business is a retailer) are suddenly not so much so when the customer for example wants a medical treatment that is 'experimental' (expensive).
> 
> ...


The trade off in Business vs Government is that businesses will die if they don't evolve. Governments generally don't. It's harder for a business to be inefficient when someone's (everyone's) paycheck (and job) is directly affected by the profitability of the business. Since governments don't have to worry about making a profit, and can operate at a deficit indefinitely, they on;y have to worry about political pressure.

As for the military, granted, it is by nature VERY efficient. However the civil servant components of each are not necessarily so. Additionally, outside of war time, the US military is usually manned at 85% of operating needs which breeds a need for increased efficiency, while reducing overall cost. The rest of the government usually doesn't follow the same concept, operating at an increased cost and loss of efficiency.

Basically, the military would represent the "top 10%" while you see other programs operating much lower on the spectrum. The TSA would probably could as one of those in with the least cost/benefit versus actual efficiency.

I'm not saying that the government couldn't be efficient. I'm saying that it isn't. It operates at a deficit. It fights over programs that are non-essential, rather starting with the ones that everyone agrees are essential, then adding additional budgeting for "fluff" for either party.

If we had a valid means of "trimming the fat" I'd be more willing to accept the concept of government ran health care. Until then... not so much.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I think I would like to argue that in fact, the military is not more efficient per se than other government arms. That is just a popular misconception. I have some experience in that direction as well, albeit small. 

Also, with modern governing of government agencies, inefficient parts of the operations do die out. In fact, are stomped out. 

I also think perhaps the notion of government only being efficient in the military is largely an American idea, I don't see it as much in Europe. 

Everything the military tries that works is immediately exported to civil government. Project management, cross-disciplinary task forces etc, are all things that have moved successfully. 

In fact, the public sector (at least in Sweden) is often very organised and does its job very well. But it does have adequate funding. There's a lot of it, and our taxes are quite high. However, removing redistribution of wealth and social security expenses, we do not actually pay 'that' much for the government agencies in themselves. 

Perhaps you have other issues with your federal agencies than funding?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I think I would like to argue that in fact, the military is not more efficient per se than other government arms. That is just a popular misconception. I have some experience in that direction as well, albeit small.
> 
> Also, with modern governing of government agencies, inefficient parts of the operations do die out. In fact, are stomped out.
> 
> ...


That may be a difference between governments. Our's are less prone to "stomping out" of inefficiencies. If it were, or if it's reaction time were better, there would be less issues. We didn't get rid of the National Teat Tasting department until the last 20 years or so, and we finally got rid of the dairy cows at our Naval Academy, even though the public sector could provide the milk cheaper for decades.

The exportation of military techniques does take place. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying it shouldn't have to be the front runner, and not by decades. Our Department of Defense (basically the military branches and their intelligence activities) is one of our biggest agencies, and one of it's most efficient resource wise. It's expensive though. Compare it to the Department Homeland Security (Border Patrol, Customs, TSA, Immigration, Secret Service) who is one of the next largest departments, and you just don't get that same level. They aren't even in the same league. Part of that is because Constitution requirements (state Rights & Individual Rights) get a lot trickier, and create layers more of bureaucracy that has to be waded through.

I have no doubt that Sweden's government is more efficient overall than that of the USA. But we're also talking about a country with 500,000km2 of land (10M population) compared to 10,000,000km2 of land (310M population). If the Roman Empire taught us anything, it's that as nation gets bigger it becomes increasingly harder to run. Both the British & the Spaniards experiences the same folly. History is a harsh teacher, and we're approaching those same timelines....

As for the bolded above.... Redistribution of Wealth is just another name for theft. I'm sorry, but I can't think of it as anything but. That said, I'm opposed to it at its core level. I understand & agree with taxation to offset inflation. I also agree with taxation as revenue for necessary government expenditures. Infrastructure, defense, emergency services, & ensuring fair competition in markets.

As for Social Security.. every country runs their scheme a little different. I am not familiar with Sweden's enough to comment on it. The USA's was devised as a quick revenue scheme with the promise of "supplemental retirement benefits" back during the Great Depression. Those retirement benefits do not kick in until most people are within a couple years of death (age 67 now). Because each person does not have an "account" our children will pay for our payments, just as I will pay for my parents. Essentially, I will never get out what I put in, because the generation before me is significantly larger, and because our Congress has the ability to borrow from that fund for unrelated expenditures. Another form of legalized theft (or embezzlement would be more apt).

It's not just about funding. It's about personal Rights. The government is there to protect them, not violate them. If someone breaks into my home and steals my "stuff" I have the full weight of the government their to protect me. If the government breaks into my wallet and starts taking my money, who protects me? We have too many laws on the books. Just as a single example... the tax code in the US is over 50,000 pages (fifty thousand). Last year I wasn't able to submit my income taxes as quickly as normal because Congress was still writing the new tax code. They still can't agree on a budget. They still fight battles that were resolved in court years ago (Roe vs Wade) hoping for a different outcome. My issue is that I don't fundamentally trust my government to do what's in my best interest, and I doubt many citizens here (USA) do. I'm not talking about one political party, but the machine as a whole. Many folks talk about how the Republicans screwed things up, or the Democrats are idiots, etc, but overall it's just contempt for the system.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1 an accurate and reasonable assessment and very well put, I might add. Wish I could have crafted a statement of those opinions, as well as you have!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Starch said:


> In Iraq, the US did actually outsource to private providers a certain amount of what would ordinarily be considered "military" tasks.


Billions to Halliburton and our Marines still don't have enough field latrines.

Waste like that is a damn shame!!



> Panetta said the actions depicted in the brief video were inexcusable.
> "I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms," Panetta's statement said. "Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."


I agree.

The videographer should be punished.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Billions to Halliburton and our Marines still don't have enough field latrines.
> 
> Waste like that is a damn shame!!
> 
> ...


Another SAD attempt at humor


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Billions to Halliburton and our Marines still don't have enough field latrines.
> 
> Waste like that is a damn shame!!
> 
> ...


It's a disgrace to act like that while in uniform, and it reflects badly on soldiers and officers in the entire western world. It is sad. My military service was short but it did impart me with a certain respect for what it takes to be in the service. As well as my father being an officer, whom I have immense respect for. Anything you do in uniform reflects on all the others wearing it. Discipline is important.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> It's a disgrace to act like that while in uniform, and it reflects badly on soldiers and officers in the entire western world. It is sad. My military service was short but it did impart me with a certain respect for what it takes to be in the service. As well as my father being an officer, whom I have immense respect for. Anything you do in uniform reflects on all the others wearing it. Discipline is important.


Of course, that is correct.

But check this out...



> The U.S. Marine Corps is launching an internal investigation into the culture of the Corps in response to a video that purportedly shows troops urinating on the corpses of suspected Taliban fighters, a Marine official told ABC News today.
> The probe will attempt to answer the question "What happened in the Marine Corps that this happened?" according to the official.
> "It'll be a holistic look at everything surrounding this issue," he said.


https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-marines-soul-searching-urinating-video/story?id=15353762

"Holistic??"

I'm confident Marines have been pissing on dead guys since 1775.

But when did spokespersons for the US F'n MC start using dick-ass terms like "holistic??"

Makes me sick.

God help us all.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

The people who did this were idiots. They were disrespectful F$%tards for pissing on the dead. They were idiots for doing it on film. If you're going to be disrespectful F$%^$&, don't don't do it on film. 

The military is willing to tolerate a moderate level of stupidity behind closed doors. It is not willing to tolerate public stupidity at all.

As for "Holistic" that came about when they started issuing vegetarian MRE's. Not enough raw meat in the diet makes Marines start using real weird words.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I agree.
> 
> The videographer should be punished.


Brilliant statement!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> It's a disgrace to act like that while in uniform, and it reflects badly on soldiers and officers in the entire western world. It is sad. My military service was short but it did impart me with a certain respect for what it takes to be in the service. As well as my father being an officer, whom I have immense respect for. Anything you do in uniform reflects on all the others wearing it. Discipline is important.


Agreed.

Isn't a year of military service compulsory in Sweden?



Apatheticviews said:


> The people who did this were idiots. They were disrespectful F$%tards for pissing on the dead. They were idiots for doing it on film. If you're going to be disrespectful F$%^$&, don't don't do it on film.
> 
> The military is willing to tolerate a moderate level of stupidity behind closed doors. It is not willing to tolerate public stupidity at all.
> 
> As for "Holistic" that came about when they started issuing vegetarian MRE's. Not enough raw meat in the diet makes Marines start using real weird words.


Funny, but I assume you still have respect for anyone who makes that dietary choice.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Isn't a year of military service compulsory in Sweden?
> 
> Funny, but I assume you still have respect for anyone who makes that dietary choice.


It used to be, but budgetary cutbacks have come to mean that only a few do military service. Also a shift from invasion defense to a defense force more towards participating in international operations has meant that the money isn't spent on training so much troops.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Ah, I see.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Funny, but I assume you still have respect for anyone who makes that dietary choice.


I was actually referring to the changing of the times which necessitated a vegetarian MRE in the first place. Times change, mentality changes. Marines are no longer (and have never really been) "one shade of green." We are a reflection of society. When society starts using words like holistic, so do we. When LGBT became a non-issue in society, it became a non-issue in the Corps. Who knows what will become commonplace in the future.

Depends on the reasoning. It is my firm belief that humans are evolutionary omnivores. We are designed to eat both meat and foliage. Choosing not to eat meat goes against our nature. If one chooses not to eat meat, they need to be honest with themselves why. Is it a dietary decision or is it an ethical decision?

If it is an ethical decision, many fail to realize that the food species we have (Pork, Beef, Chicken) have few natural predators other than man. They have been specifically bred for flavor (like our modern domestic turkey and cows), which means that widespread abandonment of them as foodstuffs would mean extinction of a few species of animals. If PETA had their way, the following species would cease to exist:

Domestic dogs, cats, & birds (they are opposed to pets)
Cows
Horses
Chickens
Food Turkeys (vice wild turkeys)

Essentially I'm cautious of the hypocrisy of the "cause." Continued existence of the species is the genetic goal of every species. If being a foodstuff/pet/working animal satisfies that goal (rather than extinction) I'm not one to argue.

If it is a dietary decision, and they believe they can be healthier by avoiding meat (the killing of animals), more power to them. Just research it. Humans need protein & fat in our diets (about 50% of our total intake depending on activity). It's easier to get from animal sources (not necessarily meat).


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

It's actually not easier to get protein and fat from animal sources. Thats a myth. I give you olive oil and beans...

The body does not care where the aminos come from. And we use up a lot of resources to make meat. Which is reflected in its pricing, pls compare with beans.

There are few rational reasons for eating meat. I just do it because I like it. When I have tried eating vegetarian for periods of time (I have vegetarians in my family) I have felt significantly better physically, especially after meals. 

But eating meat is a hard habit to quit, especially if you like cooking. 

Also I'm sure that pigs and cows etc would survive. As for cats and dogs, we don't eat them do we?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm an omnivore and for what it's worth, PETA was founded by a hypocritical idiot.

I thought you meant times have changed for the worse in that regard. Before the veggie MREs, my friend had nothing to eat besides peanut butter and beans for protein in the service...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> It's actually not easier to get protein and fat from animal sources. Thats a myth. I give you olive oil and beans...
> 
> The body does not care where the aminos come from. And we use up a lot of resources to make meat. Which is reflected in its pricing, pls compare with beans.
> 
> ...


You'll note that that I specifically mentioned PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals) when I mentioned the extinction of specific species. The opposition to pets and foodstuff animals would result in their extinction because of an ideological standpoint. If we are not eating the cows, why do we have them? We are their natural predator. Since we don't eat cats & dogs, and since the organization is opposed to pets, we would be looking at similar extinction. As Jovan said, PETA was founded by a hypocritical idiot.

As for Olive oils & beans, I see your hand, and raise you chickens & eggs. Dairy & Eggs are amazing solid in protein and hugely sustainable. I have no objection to dietary based vegetarians. If you like to stick to foliage, that's your choice. But humans ARE evolutionary omnivores. We have teeth designed to rip & tear flesh (the front half), and our organs are designed to process that meat.

I personally enjoy meat (because my tongue is designed to: umami), and do enjoy cooking. I do eat vegetarian dishes, more from necessity as the need for carbohydrates during marathon season gets amazingly high. But I would not give up cheese. I love it far too much.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> You'll note that that I specifically mentioned PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals) when I mentioned the extinction of specific species. The opposition to pets and foodstuff animals would result in their extinction because of an ideological standpoint. If we are not eating the cows, why do we have them? We are their natural predator. Since we don't eat cats & dogs, and since the organization is opposed to pets, we would be looking at similar extinction. As Jovan said, PETA was founded by a hypocritical idiot.
> 
> As for Olive oils & beans, I see your hand, and raise you chickens & eggs. Dairy & Eggs are amazing solid in protein and hugely sustainable. I have no objection to dietary based vegetarians. If you like to stick to foliage, that's your choice. But humans ARE evolutionary omnivores. We have teeth designed to rip & tear flesh (the front half), and our organs are designed to process that meat.
> 
> I personally enjoy meat (because my tongue is designed to: umami), and do enjoy cooking. I do eat vegetarian dishes, more from necessity as the need for carbohydrates during marathon season gets amazingly high. But I would not give up cheese. I love it far too much.


I have no knowledge of PETA so just responded in general.

There are also degrees of vegetarianism on ethical grounds, my friend does not exclude dairy or free range eggs. She just doesn't eat meat. A balanced approach if you will.

I would never give up cheese either! Thus, we have saved the cows. It's just the poor piggies who get the proverbial hatchet. On a side note, was at a zoo this summer, met the most fascinating pig. It was like a big dog, very clever and social animal. Was served pork chops that evening. Didn't really sit very well. Squeamish I guess..

I think we can continue eating meat if we improve the way animals are kept and handled and fed. But if push comes to shove and we find ourselves with limited resources globally, it's going have to be beans beans beans.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I have no knowledge of PETA so just responded in general.
> 
> There are also degrees of vegetarianism on ethical grounds, my friend does not exclude dairy or free range eggs. She just doesn't eat meat. A balanced approach if you will.
> 
> ...


I'm all for a balanced approach. Like I said, you have to consider what the repercussions would be by "saving" the animals, if you are taking the ethical stance (be able to defend your stance from all angles, and answer questions). I am a firm believer that animals, even foodstuff should not be treated cruelly before the slaughter. A good life before fulfilling their "purpose" (bred, born, raised, and killed) of being a nice meal.

Pigs are very intelligent (on par with dogs), and I believe some countries (Germany iirc) have laws saying that even foodstuff have to be given intellectual stimulation, so they don't get bored. It's hard to eat meat you know. That's why we don't name them on farms. They become people, and you don't eat people.

All resources have to be treated corrected, whether flora or fauna. Eating meat is natural for humans (evolutionary omnivores vice herbivores). Choosing to go vegetarian can be noble, smart, or hypocritical depending on the facts behind the decision. No one ever considers whether plants scream when you cut them down.

As for PETA (www.peta.org). when you get the chance, go to their website sometime. They have a lot of great ideas.... which have been taken to some very far extremes. Essentially you treat animals ethically. But that means no fishing, pets, meat eating, etc. When you start delving further, you start seeing the hypocrisy.


----------

