[w4rma]

…
Though Ron Paul is beloved by partisans from multiple parties, he's often relegated to the "back benches" in serious politics. This may change soon as there are rumors that he's on grassroots darling Howard Dean's short list for a presidential running-mate.
http://www.cryptonomicon.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=489

[Roper]

Ron Paul is going from R to D?

[Augustwest]

Hokey smoke, would Rep. Paul on someone's ticket put me in a quandry...

[w4rma]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003

Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:[list=1]
They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
[/list=1]Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It would certainly make me more inclined to vote Dean; but Dean would have to do more than make Paul his VP candidate, he would have to show that they shared a similar belief about the role of government and I don't see how Dean can do that given his Democrat party background and current roster of policies.

[Mark Tyson]

This would get me to seriously consider Dean. I don't see what he has to lose by coming out more pro-gun than he is. The blissninnies at Brady and MMM have already come out against him.

Edited to add:

I think those of us who are registered democrats have to support Dean at least in the primaries because he's the lesser evil when it comes to guns and a few other things. Who gets my vote in The Big One still depends.

[Tamara]

Ron Paul on a the same ticket as a big government, anti-capitalist, Welfare State, tax-'n'-spender?

Well, I never thought I'd completely lose my respect for him, but that'd be one sure way for it to happen...


Howard Dean makes FDR look like Lysander Spooner. :scrutiny:

[Brett Bellmore]

Paul already lost my respect. Denounced the latest anti-Partial birth abortion bill as unconstitutional, and then voted for it anyway. Time was, he was quite adamant about not having the right to vote for unconstitutional laws. Now he thinks it's ok, if the bill is really important.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

[publius]

I'm stunned by the prospect. I voted for Dr. Paul in 1988 when he was the LP candidate for President. I was crushed when he went back to the GOP, since I figured he'd sell out like the rest of them and start voting for more and more government. I was glad to be proven wrong, as he earned the nickname Dr. No. :D

Nothing he's done has caused me to lose respect for him, though the article that Brett linked is still loading back there somewhere. Pending that, all I can say is...what Tamara said. I wouldn't vote for anyone advocating bigger government, no matter who his running mate was, so there's basically no chance I'll vote for an R, much less a D.

[publius]

OK, having read the article, Brett's right that Dr. Paul was wrong to vote the way he did. He needed to have a little talk with Horatio Bunce (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1993/vo09no19/vo09no19_humbling.htm).

Still, that's a very tough call, asking an ob-gyn with his opinions to vote no, as he knows he should, rather than vote yes, perhaps saving innocent lives from needless destruction (in his medical opinion). I'm sticking with my previous statement. Nothing he's done has cost him my respect. Yet.:scrutiny: Teaming up with Dean would do it, though.

[Quartus]

Why on earth would Ron Paul hook up with an out and out socialist like Dean? Has there been any confirmation of this? If it's true, he's lost his mind and my respect.


Dean is no better than Hillary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Note that the rumor is that Paul is on Dean's list for possible running mates. So the nutcase in question, were the rumor true, is Dean, not Paul.

[Balog]

This is ridiculous. One random website says there are unsubstantiated rumours that something might happen, and people start going off on it. What a load of dung. If I fire up a website and write that it is rumored that Tom McClintock wants California to secede, will someone post it on here and get everyone frothing at the mouth? If someone at the grocery store says he's heard Dubya is gonna name Ted Kennedy as his running mate in 2004, this is not sufficient evidence to begin a debate about.

I'm highly suspicious of the reasons behind this post. w4rma's sig proclaims his affiliation with the socialist Dean. His post seems a transparent attempt to curry favor for his favored candidate by trying to link his campaign with one of the more respected names in the pro-RKBA arena.

Let me repeat. One sentence on the internet, reporting unsubstantiated rumours. Tell me again why we should care?:scrutiny:

[PeteyPete]

Ron Paul: Adam Smith capitalist, Goldwater Republican, and longtime ally of gun owners.

Howard Dean: European-style socialist, Big Gov't Democrat, and wants to leave the infringement of the constitution "up to the states".

I don't think Ron Paul would even want to share a pepsi, let alone a Presidential ticket w/ Dean.

[MicroBalrog]

If it's true: Groovy!

[Tamara]

Like others have pointed out above, the chances of this being fact are slim to the point of anorexia. Ron Paul and Howard "Lenin" Dean are poles apart ideologically.

[MicroBalrog]

That's the problem with people like Paul, Tamara:

They think everybody going for anything less than anarchy is a totalitarian.:rolleyes:

[Tamara]

Not discussing topics with which you are obviously unfamiliar would do wonders for maintaining your credibility with folks. ;) (Yeah a sitting congressman who's been a part of the .gov since the 1970's (http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.htm) is sneakin off to Anarchist Anonymous meetings after dark... :rolleyes: ) Perhaps you should study up on both Ron Paul and Howard Dean a little more.

[MicroBalrog]

Perhaps you should study up on both Ron Paul and Howard Dean a little more.

I have read about both men. While Dean's half-hearted statements support for gun-control don't sound good, it's still better than most politicians - and if he runs with Paul, it'll be better still.

I agree with Dean on most other issues, except the war on Drugs, perhaps.

[PeteyPete]

I agree with Dean on most other issues, except the war on Drugs, perhaps.

Thank God your not a voting American! Dean was the one that said that the US should: "take a more evenhanded position in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict".

What do you think that means? (hint: read between the lines)

[MicroBalrog]

Dean was the one that said that the US should: "take a more evenhanded position in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict".

OK, and that one, too.:D

[Tamara]

I agree with Dean on most other issues,

Especially the Tax And Spend ones, right? :rolleyes:

(Sometimes your age makes itself apparent in your words...)

[Moparmike]

Yep. Doing that would (hypothetically) make me lose all respect for Paul. Dean is trying to pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes. Unfortunately, Clark is getting help from the Master of Wool Pulling, Klinton.

If I fire up a website and write that it is rumored that Tom McClintock wants California to secede, will someone post it on here and get everyone frothing at the mouth?Actually Balog, it would probably be cheered and helped enthusiastically by most of the members here, as long as the THR POW's were allowed to escape unharmed with what little goodies they are allowed today. I would donate to a fund to help in the secession efforts.:cool:

Just dont fire that site up to slander McClintock. That would be bad.:mad:

[MicroBalrog]

Especially the Tax And Spend ones, right?

Not "especially", but yes.

[Ironbarr]

Ron Paul ought to run for president as an Independent. Blasting both sides with the truth might just catch on. With Bush weakening and nine Demons - er - Demos splitting the electorate's opinions, there could be a useful fight here... the kind where you create hate and discontent, then step aside and watch throats being cut. Last man standing!

Could be Paul.

Now THAT could get me interested.

-Andy

[Cactus]

Ironbarr,

You mean like in 1988 when he got 0.47% of the vote?

Obviously, not too many found it interesting!:rolleyes:

[w4rma]

…
It should come as no surprise that the most insistent voice in opposition to that vision should come from a New Englander with family ties to Wall Street. Howard Dean has labored in politics to make government work; bringing health care coverage to Vermont children has been one of his signal accomplishments. In signing Vermont's civil union law, he honored the wall between church and state. At the same time, he has always been aware of the need to keep Wall Street happy by making sure government's fiscal house is in order.

Dean may resemble most of all the Rockefeller Republicans of the old East Coast establishment, who would be aghast at the way the Bush administration has pillaged the Treasury and robbed the government of the power to do good works.
…
Dean and the Voice of Vermont (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21851-2003Oct13.html)

[Balog]

and robbed the government of the power to do good works.


The government isn't the freakin' Tooth Fairy! It isn't supposed to run around like Robin Hood "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."

[w4rma]

…
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:[list=1] They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.[/list=1]…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

[w4rma]

The Appeal of Howard Dean

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

[Zundfolge]

Here's an interesting thought; lets say hypothetically that the Dean/Paul ticket where to win.

How long do you think Dean would remain alive?

There are a lot of people in this country sick enough of liberals to start killing them, and with someone like Ron Paul in the first seat of succession, the temptation for some to off ole Howie would just be too darn great.


Keep in mind I'm not advocating assassination of Mr. Dean (or anyone else for that matter) ... I just think it would probably happen (and frankly America might end up better off for it).

[RocketMan]

Should this hypothetical exercise ever come to fruition, what John Nance Garner said comes to mind.
While he wasn't entirely correct, there is some validity in his statement.

[Thumper]

Hey n4rma, posting your "what neo-cons are generally understood to believe" list twice in the same thread doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Not discussing topics with which you are obviously unfamiliar would do wonders for maintaining your credibility with folks.

Tam, to his credit, microbalrog has demonstrated time and again that he's (evidently) not overly concerned with his credibility.

[w4rma]

A whole lot of Libertarians, liberals and conservatives disagree with you, Thumper, and agree with Rep. Ron Paul's description of neo-conservative beliefs.

[Thumper]

A whole lot of Libertarians, liberals and conservatives disagree with you, Thumper, and agree with Rep. Ron Paul's description of neo-conservative beliefs.

A "whole lot" of people believe that man has never set foot on the moon.

Your "whole lot" doesn't even begin to meet your claim, linguistically, of a "generally held belief."

Wishing it doesn't make it so.

Stood 10 feet from Dr. Paul two weeks ago and listened to him speak. Your magical thinking assertions that he might run with Dean :barf: are farcical.

[w4rma]

Then prove Rep. Ron Paul wrong, Thumper.

IMHO, there is a whole lot of information on the PNAC site that backs Rep. Ron Paul's description:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

For instance, I ran a search on the PNAC site for the word "empire", here:
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=empire&SUBMIT=Find%21&t=s

[Thumper]

Ah...the inconsequential fringe.

Dean/Paul in 2004! You should send that in to Mad magazine, they have a page for that kinda stuff.

Good luck with that.

[w4rma]

Poll: Bush Slipping
Iraq, Economic Problems Level the ’04 Playing Field

Oct. 14— Persistent criticism on the economy and his Iraq policy alike are clouding President Bush's political standing, creating vulnerabilities that combine to lock the incumbent and an unnamed Democrat in a dead heat for the 2004 vote.

An ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds that nearly six in 10 Americans — a new high — call U.S. casualties in Iraq "unacceptable," more than double its level when Baghdad fell last April. Bush's approval rating for handling terrorism more broadly, while still high, now matches his career low. And most continue to disapprove of his handling of the economy, a critical election-year benchmark.

There are newer troubles as well: More than eight in 10 continue to see the alleged White House leak of a CIA operative's identity as a "serious matter," and the number who think the administration is fully cooperating in the investigation has declined to 39 percent. About two-thirds still favor appointment of an outside special counsel to look into the matter.
…
All told, 17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they'd vote today for Dean, 13 percent for Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, 12 percent for Clark, 10 percent for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, 9 percent for Lieberman, 6 percent for former Illinois senator and ambassador Carol Moseley Braun, with the remaining three candidates under 5 percent. (The race is essentially the same among registered voters and unleaned Democrats.)
…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/iraq_economics031014_poll.html

Nope. Not "fringe" and IMHO Rep. Ron Paul is exactly correct about the neo-conservatives.

[Thumper]

17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they'd vote today for Dean

Heck...with Ron's votes you now have a total of 17.047%.

Oh but wait...now we have to subtract the Dean supporters that wouldn't abide Paul as a running mate. Lets be conservative (little c) and say, oh, 15% of registered Dems.

Heck...you've got 2.047%

Eeek, now we have to subtract the Paul supporters who won't vote for Dean...I'd put that at .047 percent of registered voters per '88, plus whatever percentage you personally represent.

I put you and yours at about 2.0000000001%

Fringe...

:D

When asked what percentage of the vote he garnered in 1988, Paul replies, "I came in third."

Funny guy.

[atek3]

I know a few "l" libertarians (myself not among them) who would cast a vote for Dean before Mr. "I love big government/empire" Bush. I told them that was hypocritical because they gave me flak for voting Simon over Davis, they agreed and apologized for the flak-giving.
If Dean and Paul ran, that would be a pretty exciting election, certainly more than bushgore for prez 2000.

atek3

[Quartus]

"Exciting election"??


It's not a football game. The future of liberty is too important to trivialize into mere entertainment.

[PeteyPete]

This Dean/Paul running hypothetical makes as much sense as the Republicans disagreeing w/ the Dems during the Clinton administration, and then deciding to form a coalition w/ the communist or green party. Regardless of the animosity between the Dems and Repubs at that time, this just didn't happen...nor would it ever have.

It doesn't make much sense to drop your affiliation w/ people who share most of your beliefs, to join up w/ a group that shares none of your beliefs.

[Don Galt]

I can't fathom why so many people think we have to vote for a "a big government, anti-capitalist, Welfare State, tax-'n'-spender", to use Tameras words, because a "a big government, anti-capitalist, Welfare State, tax-'n'-spender" paired with Ron Paul would be worse!

That's just silly. With a Dean / Paul ticket, at least one of the people is a small government, pro-capitalist, anti-welfare state, anti-taxes guy.

What have the republicans got to offer? Pro-big government, anti-capitalist, pro-welfare state, pro-tax increases (and if you think Bush cut taxes, you're deluding yourself. A tax cut paid for with debt is not a tax cut, its just shifting the taxes to later.... which means really its a tax increase cause you have the cost of the debt added on top of it when you pay it back. Furthermore, with the budget busting growth of the government under Bush, we've had massive increase in the amount of taxes we're going to have to pay. You cannot cut taxes without cutting the budget... and anyone with basic capitalist free-market economics understanding should see that. TANSTAAFL!)

OH, and on top of all of that, Bush is just as anti-gun as Howard Dean. In fact, if it weren't for his father, we'd not have the 1994 AWB (which was originally an executive order signed by Bush 1).... furthermore, Bush 2 has enacted new gun bans under the AWB while he's been in office. I'm not aware of Howard Dean enacting any gun bans, though I don't like his position statement on the issue.

So, in summary who's got the correct policies?

Taxes: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut taxes and spending.
Welfare: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut welfare.
Second Ammendment: Libertarians are the only party that supports it.
Capitalism: The Libertarians are the only non-socialist party.
Government Size: The libertarian platforms central goal is to shrink government to the point that income tax is not necessary.

Frankly, I would be surprised if any of the republicans here actually supported that last one...

So, if you want socialism, vote republican. IF you want socialism, vote democrat.

IF you want the constitution, gun rights, and all those other things you claim to want, you have only one choice. Vote libertarian.

How long do you have to be screwed by the Republicans before you stop taking it?

[Moparmike]

So, in summary who's got the correct policies?

Taxes: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut taxes and spending.
Welfare: Libertarians are the only party that wants to cut welfare.
Second Ammendment: Libertarians are the only party that supports it.
Capitalism: The Libertarians are the only non-socialist party.
Government Size: The libertarian platforms central goal is to shrink government to the point that income tax is not necessary.

Frankly, I would be surprised if any of the republicans here actually supported that last one...

So, if you want socialism, vote republican. IF you want socialism, vote democrat.

IF you want the constitution, gun rights, and all those other things you claim to want, you have only one choice. Vote libertarian.

How long do you have to be screwed by the Republicans before you stop taking it?Don Galt, I like your summary. I dont know how many "Brainwashed Republicans" would like it though.

[greyhound]

Personally, I don't care if Howard Dean ran with the ghost of Ayn Rand, he's still a leftist and wouldn't get my vote.

I have never, and will never, vote for a candidate based on their VP/running mate.

w4rma, I do respect your passion for your choice - and I agree that he's the least offensive of the Dems on guns, but somehow I just can't get past the feeling that he'll be a UN loving / world opinion means everything/ its our fault leftist on the WOT.

And that may play with the hard left right now, but past the primary it won't with middle America.

At least he isn't a Kucinich with his ludicrous "Department of Peace" and "US out, UN in tomorrow" nonsense; Dean at least realizes Iraq is something we have to deal with. Nonetheless, I still think he'd yank us out and put the UN in, just not "tomorrow" like Kucinich.

[CaesarI]

Oh dear... folks are startin' to look at me funny, I was fallin' over laughin' for about 2 mins. My belly hurts!

Here's an interesting thought; lets say hypothetically that the Dean/Paul ticket where to win.
How long do you think Dean would remain alive?


What a hoot! Dear god Zundfolge, we oughta hang out. When I'm back in CO I'm gonna look you up.

There are a lot of people in this country sick enough of liberals to start killing them, and with someone like Ron Paul in the first seat of succession, the temptation for some to off ole Howie would just be too darn great.

When asked what percentage of the vote he garnered in 1988, Paul replies, "I came in third."

Funny guy indeed, not as funny as Zundfolge's stuff, but funny all the same.

******************************************************

Oh... and were Dean to run with Paul... I'd consider voting for'em.
The principle disagreement between me and the Libertarians is their isolationism. I know history too well to be an isolationist.

'Course... all Howard Dean (or any presidential candidate with a snowball's chance in hell) would have to do to get my vote is: promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. Bush beats Gore. Bush beats Dean (I fear the Theocrats less than the Socialists). Bush... might have trouble fightin' a Dean/Paul combo. Now a Bush/Dean combo... Hmm..... naaah it'll never work.

I find I've more in common philosophically with the right than the left. The Left is mostly Socialist in ideology, the Right, is misguided often, and lacks the long-term "compromise, but always compromise in our direction" skills that the Left has.


Maybe Dean is the Libertarians' secret weapon...
"We'll sell him as a Democrat, he'll slowly build his credentials within' the Democrat community, win their trust, then win the presidency, and then he'll begin by destroying every anti-constitutional law ever passed!!!!" :evil:

Who says Libertarian's can't form a conspiracy?

-Morgan

[Dilettante]

I can barely believe this.

I thought the fundamental issue was not guns themselves, but self-defense.

Whatever you like to call the recent war in Iraq, it was so close to self-defense that it's hard for me to believe that people here would vote for someone like Dean.

Ron Paul didn't even seem to like clear-cut self-defense in Afghanistan. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/h112901.html)

Am I missing something? :confused:

[fallingblock]

if Larry Pratt was running as his V.P.:D

Wait! Maybe there is some truth to Zundfolge's assassination theory...?

Naah! Not even then:D

[cloudkiller]

The government isn't the freakin' Tooth Fairy! It isn't supposed to run around like Robin Hood "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."[/QUOTE]

One point of contention that EVERYBODY seems to miss. The goverment isn't robbing from the Rich to give to the Poor.

The government is robbing from the middle class, to give a little to the poor, in order to appease them while the rich get richer. They also use this technique to keep the middle class suspicious of the poor while the true robbers are doing better every year!

The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled. With all this regulation you would think that they would be getting poorer! Heck no! They are starting wars to give multibillion dollar contracts to each other! Meanwhile the % of the tax burden born by business is a fraction of what it was in 1950!

[Balog]

cloudkiller: classic Bolshie class-warfare rhetoric. The top earners in this country pay most of the taxes. IIRC, the top 1% pay something like 37%. Yeah, that's "robbing from the middle class.":rolleyes:

[CaesarI]

The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled.

HA! Wrong! Bill Gates individual wealth, as a percentage of our GDP is miniscule in comparison to that of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, etc.

Oh... and I don't have anything against those so called "Robber Barons" either. Class warfare, plain and simple. You've been fed Socialist rhetoric.

'course bein' rich don't make you smart. e.g. Warren Buffett, George Soros et al.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

'Course... all Howard Dean (or any presidential candidate with a snowball's chance in hell) would have to do to get my vote is: promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.Sign the Petition to Stop Ashcroft

John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration want to erode the civil rights and freedoms that are vital to the American ideal. They are advocating laws that break down the trust between communities, and using fear and inflammatory rhetoric to divide us.

On August 19th, John Ashcroft begins a national tour promoting an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. We need your help to make a strong statement to stop John Ashcroft from doing more damage to the bill of rights.

As Americans, we have a long standing tradition of defending not only our own liberties and civil rights, but also standing up for equal rights for all.

Show America the depth of our commitment to basic civil rights: add your name to the Stop Ashcroft petition, and pass it on to your friends, family, and co-workers. We will deliver your names and your comments to the Attorney General.

To John Ashcroft:

Stop compromising our freedoms. Stop eroding our basic civil rights. Stop trying to teach our neighbors to spy on each other, and American communities to mistrust each other.

I will not stand for your using fear to threaten what it means to be an American.

The rule of law and due process are at the heart of the American tradition. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr002=egzno4osu1.app193aThe accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled.The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

The bottom 90% of American households own less than 30% of America's wealth.
The bottom 40% of American households own 0.2% of America's wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Big buisnesses (owned by those in the top 1%) are running small buisnesses out of buisness. Big buisnesses are now leaving the country and taking their wealth with them. Run a small buisness and you have to pay high taxes. Run a big one and you can incorporate in the Cayman Islands, thereby avoiding federal taxes, and shop around in all 50 states for the one that will pay the board members the most to move there.

Treasury Chief: Tax Evasion Is on the Rise (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10915FB3C5E0C7A8DDDAE0894D9404482)

[CaesarI]

Sorry Mr Dean supporter (w4rma). Your class warfare protestations just lost my vote.
The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.
And this is supposed to somehow PROVE that concentrating wealth in the hands of a few people is bad? Statistics 101: Correlation != Causation.

And then this "big business = Bad" nonsense. You're preachin' on the wrong forum.

I'll back you on Ashcroft, but other than that we've nothing in common. As Dean has FAILED to indicate he would repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, I won't vote for his commie butt either.
"I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional."* (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights)

I like this one: "I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together."
Except then he has this one too: "I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity." which means he doesn't believe in the constitution.

Oh... and what does this "Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation." mean? Reading between the lines.... I'd say more taxes on people who produce wealth at greater rates than others.

"Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees." Hmm... where's Social Security in the Constitution Dean?

And then quoting you (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35841):
the 2nd Am is there to make sure the govt doesnt get too big for its britches

Not just government. You need to think more broadly, IMHO. the 2nd Am is there to make sure that *any* concentration of power doesn't get too big:
Hmm.... so are you advocating taking up arms against those evil rich overlords? Hmm.... walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist...


And the coup de grace:
I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

"Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees." Hmm... where's Social Security in the Constitution Dean?If you think the Social Security program should be dismantled. If you don't care one whit about folks who are over the age of 65. If you are happy watching your grandparents and then your parents work in Wal-Mart (essentially a Red Chinese retail outlet), until the day they die, as greeters for minimum wage and no health benefits after being hung out to dry, then your vote was never had to be lost.

Oh... and what does this "Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation." mean?At his meeting with reporters from USA TODAY and Gannett News Service, Howard Dean fired a string of zingers at President Bush:

• "His view of life starts at about $250,000 a year and goes up."

• "I think the president's philosophy is that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-zingers-usat_x.htm

'We Can Do Better' by Howard Dean
…
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920

…
On trade:

"We're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. I was a supporter of both NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and China's entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) for strategic geopolitical reasons. But those agreements are written to favor multinational corporations at the expense of working people both in other countries and here. ... I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.

"For us to be exporting manufacturing jobs to countries that don't enforce child labor laws if they have them, and have no occupational safety and health laws, have no worker protection, don't allow free association and trade unionization, that's not fair trade, and it's not good for either the workers in those other countries or for our workers. I'm not in the camp of let's repeal NAFTA and WTO. But those organizations have to be significantly and substantially altered."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-dean-excerpts-usat_x.htm

Reclaiming the American Dream (An economic policy speech from Dean)
http://images.deanforamerica.com/docs/031016.speech.pdf

Dean Interview on Capitol Report Regarding His Economic Plan
http://deanforamerica.servehttp.com/DeanOnCapitolReport-101603-Lite.wmv

Hmm.... so are you advocating taking up arms against those evil rich overlords?Are you advocating taking up arms against the United States government?

Well, I'm not advocating taking up arms against multinational corporations. However, I do think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

And the coup de grace:Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

IMHO, Dean is trying to be as straightfoward as he can. He says he doesn't want to add any more federal laws (except the closing of that loophole). And he doesn't want to remove any of the federal laws currently on the books. He says that is as far as he is willing to go (in both directions).

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35583

[CaesarI]

Re: Social Security
You create a false dilemma: "support social security or your grandparents will suffer!"

"If you don't care one whit about folks who are over the age of 65." Hmm... OK... so "gimme your money youngin'!" is OK then huh? Let's reverse it, "Old people over 65 don't give a whit about folks forced to pay for their retirement."

Second of all... Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Third of all, those who paid into the system can be returned their stolen income, without forcing younger retirees to suffer usury tax rates.

Finally, my grandparents (both sides) were smart, they saved up, maybe you should read about ants and grasshoppers. Oh, except my natural maternal grandfather, but he was a horrible human being, and horrendously lazy, and my mother didn't shed a tear when he died, in part because he was abusive. The state didn't protect her from him, but the state accused her of child abuse for smacking my sister. The state will not help her stave off poverty, but the state will provide for her father because he's too lazy to work. Further, my mother would refuse any form of welfare because she's got pride, and refuses to accept any money stolen from someone else, at present *I* am working on providing for her, and should my grandparents ever need it, I'll take care of *them* I will not take care of someone else's grandparents, or some old man who should have died decades ago, and I resent your forcing me to do so through government fiat.

Re: HATE THE RICH!!
Wow... he can make pot shots at G W Bush... look at how impressed I am.

"put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it." - Keynsian Economics is bunk, and short-sited.

"full-employment recovery" they had full employment in Nazi Germany too. I'd give you a lecture on why this economic recovery has not resulted in rapid re-employment and why its a good thing, but I've neither the time, nor the motivation, I don't teach for free.

Re: Trade
"We're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs" we've been "hemorrhaging farming jobs" for the past 150 years. And textiles, people used to hand make all clothing, all fabric, all cloth, it was awful labor. Then (gods be praised) the industrial revolution put all those people (slowly) out of work. They had to move into different areas of the economy. We're moving into a more service based economy due primarily to automation, and foreign countries getting underway in their industrial revolutions.

God forbid our economy advance, and old jobs (that were more intense physical labor) be destroyed. Poor little baby.



Bad economics, plain and simple.

Re: Guns
Dean seems to think Bush doesn't really support the ban:
"Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong."
Many THR folks feel Bush is saying it for Political reasons too.

But hey, he's better than any other Democrat, I'll back'em in the primaries.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

They won't be your parents, but there will be a whole lot of people who *will* suffer and die without that safety net.

Note, it was Reagan that did away with the pay as we go system that used to pay for Social Security. He also added a new and extremely large tax: the payroll tax.

Enronomics is bunk, and short-sited, CaesarI.

Also, you create a false dilemma: Hate the rich.

I don't hate folks who have incomes of $350,000 or more per year and I'm sure that Dean, being a centrist, doesn't either. I don't even dislike such folks. Many of these folks are brilliant people who didn't inherit their wealth and who worked extremely hard for it. Many of these folks are trying to make the world a better place.

What I do have a problem with is conglomeration of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one.

'We Can Do Better' by Howard Dean
…
No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110003920

Here is an example of the type of favoritism in the tax code that Gov. Dean is campaigning to fix:

Company Is Foreign at Tax Time, but Seeks Americans-Only Work

A big oil-well drilling company that has used one law to escape American taxes by taking addresses in Bermuda and Barbados is now trying to use another law to qualify for business open only to American companies.

Competitors are crying foul, saying they cannot survive if the Bermuda-Barbados company, Nabors Industries (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=NBR), is allowed to vie for contracts while paying little or nothing in taxes.

The competitors, most of them family-owned businesses, say that unless Congress acts to level the playing field they will lose so much business to Nabors that they will go broke within a decade or be forced themselves to try to become Bermuda companies so they can also escape taxes.

The issue is part of a much larger debate about how a hodgepodge of tax laws enacted starting in 1986 give big advantages to multinational concerns over domestic companies.
…
There is no corporate income tax in Bermuda and under a treaty with Barbados, profits are taxed at 1 percent. The United States corporate tax rate is 35 percent. The savings to Nabors was $10 million last year.

Now Nabors wants to qualify fully for business under the Jones Act, which since 1916 has required that ships engaged in purely domestic trade be built in American shipyards, owned by American companies and operated by American crews. Nabors owns 33 ships serving oil drilling platforms, a tenth of the fleet of about 350 ships that ferry supplies like drill pipe in the Gulf of Mexico.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/business/18SHIP.html

Note, the lobbyist for Nabor, Kenneth Kies, is a huge GOP contributor (approx $170,000):
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Kies%2C+ken&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N

[CaesarI]

Enronomics? You make that one up? I'm a Laissez-faire Capitalist, with a soft spot for Mises, und österreicher, and Chicago [Cubs].

I think you're startin' to see things... tell me where I said "Reagan" in any of my posts. OK, OK, you caught me, I used some seriously hardcore Java so it'd only show up at your IP address. How'd I get you IP address? ::holds up USA PATRIOT Act::

Re: Suffer and Die
People suffer and die *with* the safety net. Ther are people who are suffering and dieing in Africa, does that give them a right to demand we end their suffering and death? There are people who are suffering and dieing in China, do we owe them too? Is their life not as valuable as American life? But wait... if we tried to take care of all these people, we'd grow broke... depression, and then they'd suffer and die anyway. Whoops.

If there were old people suffering and dieing, I might be inclined to support them voluntarily, I am not inclined to force other people to do this. Where I come from, forcing A to give money to B, because B doesn't have "enough" is called theft.

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense… Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law."
"Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn…" - http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Ignoring the moral issue of you don't have a right to steal my money to pay for old people, young people, purple people, tall people, skinny people, or whomever, there's also the fact that it's a sham. If you think Gore's "Lock Box" is gonna do anything, or that anyone (even Bill Gates) can save it, you need to take a real quick class in accounting. If you've time I recommend actuarial studies too (they're quite fun).

As a point of note, my Gramma would like to work as a greeter at Wal Mart, she thinks it'd be fun. :) But she's from an old fashioned German family... that abusive husband of hers? Decided he didn't need to work anymore now that he was 50, let her support the whole family on her Nurse' salary. Did I mention she's supported abortion for most of her life? Guess what she thinks of welfare. God I love that woman.

Re: dilemmas? me?
I didn't create any dilemma's, false or otherwise, "Hate the Rich" was my summary of that collection of points you were making. You preach class warfare, you also seem to think parents don't have a right to pass on their justly earned wealth to their children. I think all people who have come by their wealth by just means are "making the world a better place" not just those with money who contribute to your pet causes. You seem to imply that people who inherit their wealth, or who don't work "extremely hard for it" are somehow less worthy than those who do. Sounds awful prejudicial to me. I know people with money who are jerks, and people without money who are jerks.

Re: English Kings and Power
The English King had military power. Rich men in the United States, do not, this isn't Rome. A wealthy man may not force me to do anything. "Buy my product or else you'll have to keep your money and not have my product!" just doesn't make me as worried about power as "Pay for those stamps or else I'll send troops to shoot you!" The revolution wasn't against the English Aristocracy (wrong revolution, they spoke French), in fact there were some in the English Aristocracy (the name escapes me at the moment) who supported our revolution. The revolution was against England and more specifically, the English crown. Something about taxes I think...

Real trite quote there, I mean, I'd never heard it before in my whole life. Citizen who?

Re: Corporations playing the game
K... one of two possibilities. You failed economics, or you took economics from a liberal (not the classical sort of Liberal either).
If you chase away capital, with excessive taxes, then you lose that capital. Europeans invest in the United States cause our taxes are a heckuva lot nicer than their taxes.

The Jones Act is protectionism, pure and simple. Find me an economist who supports protectionism, and I'll show you 99 economists who oppose it.

The company should not be force to pay for your social programs either. Lower your tax rate to say 15% and see if they feel differently.

Do you really think that you can close all of the tax loopholes? You haven't been payin' attention for too long. I've got a friend who used to practice law, was really good at it. Made a lot of money helping a lot of Brits take their money out of the country.

Nabors sounds like a smart bunch, lookin' after their shareholders. Their stock symbol is (NBR)
"Nabors is able to cost-effectively drill more wells, in more places, with a higher degree of safety than anyone else. We call this... Ability."
Good folks, looks like they care about their employees too.

But look, we ain't gonna settle this anytime soon. I'm a strict constructionist, and you ain't. You haven't addressed the constitutionality of your little social programs yet. And most of the folks on this board are pretty big on needing constitutional justification for political action. As Social [In]Security makes up about 50% of us gov't expenditures... Oh and now you wanna add healthcare? Where's that one in the constitution?

-Morgan

[greyhound]

Dean, being a centrist,

In my opinion, Dean is a true blue leftist.

Course, I consider Bush a centrist, as opposed to a conservative.

To each his own.

Keep pluggin' away on good ole' Dean, fella.

[MicroBalrog]

Ignoring the moral issue of you don't have a right to steal my money to pay for old people, young people, purple people, tall people, skinny people, or whomever, there's also the fact that it's a sham.


On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation). On a larger scale it's a duty of the .gov to provide basic services to those UNABLE (not UNWILLING, UNABLE) to pay for them.

Food is a basic human right. And if somebody is starving on your front porch because you don't want to help him, well, you're committing murder.

[Chris Rhines]

On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation). Who in the hell told you this? Duty can only be established through explicit consent; I don't recall ever making it my duty to feed the starving, heal the sick, or do anything else of the kind. I might do it to be a nice person, or because I'd hope that someone would do the same for me, but that's a long way from having a duty...

- Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Duty can only be established through explicit

What about the duty/obligation not to commit murder?

[CaesarI]

On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation).
I can't afford to feed all the starving people in the world. Let me repeat. Can't. Contractual law 101: if a contract requires person A perform task B, and person A is inherently incapable of performing task B, then the contract is null and void. e.g.: "If you fail to make your car payments on time, you will be required to pay Master Credit a fee of 1 Trillion dollars." Further, as mentioned no such contract, or law exists, nor can it be proven to exist inherently as a "natural right" as with the rights to life, liberty, and property.

Ignoring the fact that I'm incapable of feeding *every* starving person, let us then examine the individual starving person. I'm on the poverty line, but I have money in my checking account. I could afford to buy food for one of the neighborhood bums for a while, but then I'd be out of money for myself, and I would starve to death. This person's "right to food" is stealing my "right to life".

Suppose the only person on earth is a bum, and he's in the middle of the sahara desert. Where's his "right to food" now? He still has a right to life, liberty and property, no one has a right to kill him, deprive him of his freedom, or to steal his property, but his right to food posits the existence of other human beings, who may, or may not exist. Your "right" requires their existence, as well as their enslavement. Further, supposing your right were enforced on all people today, and supposing the percentage of people who are starving were to rise to the point where those who were producing the food were physically was incapable of feeding them. What then? By your rights we would continue feeding as many as we could, and then the producer's of this food would perish, and all your people with a "right to food" would end up being dead as doornails anyway.

Food is a basic human right.
Nope. Neither is health care. These are positive rights, rather than negative rights, and make an assumption that other people exist to provide them. Further it posits that those people who are providing them *must* provide them and do so at no charge. This is tantamount to enslavement of the providers of these services you call rights. You don't have a right to my life, or the products of my life.

What about the duty/obligation not to commit murder?
I cannot commit murder because people have a right to life. Your use of the verb "to let" in regards to "someone starve to death" assumes that somehow it is in my power to prevent them from starving. As mentioned at the top, I cannot prevent every person from starving to death, it is not in my power, and therefore, there is no "let". Further, your use of "murder" is incorrect. I note you are from Israel, I am unaware of what the laws are in this case, I do know that France has laws requiring people to provide aid to those in need. The United States has no such federal laws, though a few states have them, e.g. Massachusetts (IIRC).
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
to kill: To put to death. To deprive of life. The proper verb here is to "steal someone's life".
It is not *I* that causes a person to die of starvation, unless I in some way directly hinder their ability to consume this food, say by imprisonment. Rather it is the laws of biology that cause this person to die.

To conclude: your right to life, doesn't give you a right to my property. If you want it, you'll have to take it by force, and I've got guns.

-Morgan

[MicroBalrog]

I am unaware of what the laws are in this case

In my country, if you are able to prevent a person from dying and don't try to do so, you're a criminal.

You're forgetting that welfare isn't about paying those unwilling to work, but about aiding those unable to work.

[Chris Rhines]

By that token, MicroBalrog, if there is a person who needs a heart transplant, and I am the only available doner, what should I do?

I suspect that rigid adherence to such a concept would make you yourself a murderer.

- Chris

[MicroBalrog]

I suspect that rigid adherence to such a concept would make you yourself a murderer

There's no concept which would not lead to horrible consequences when followed rigidly and fanatically.

Rigid adherence to your concept of "no welfare, EVER" is murder too.

[MicroBalrog]

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

And Ron Paul knows exactly what about the Likud Party?:D

[Glock Glockler]

Micro,

In the situation Chris described you can 1) kill yourself and give the other person your heart which would essentially be murdering yourself or you can 2) keep your own heart and let him die, whihc would also make youn a murderer. So both options result in murder, then how do you determine justification, which the lack of is needed in order to determine murder as opposed to justifiable homicide?

[HBK]

There is nothing redeeming about Dean. He isn't pro gun. He backs "hunters," not gun owners in general. Plus, he's a socialist. He pretty much stands for everything that is the opposite of what our nation was founded on. No way would Ron Paul agree to be a running mate for that jackass. If he did, I would lose all respect for him.

[MicroBalrog]

GG -or 3)Keep the other person alive till somebody else dies from non-violents reasons and harvest his heart.

Besides, that ain't an exact analogy, ya know...:)

[CaesarI]

"Help, somebody, please help this man, he's starving." Oh well... I tried. That's following the letter of the law then.

But the United States, ain't Israel. Ya'll can do whatever you like over there, I'm not too concerned.

If you think welfare is only about aiding those incapable of working, you ain't been to the States too much. Besides relatives on the government tit, I had a former housemate who decided to marry a guy on welfare, he already had one kid. He came over a few times and played on another roomie's PS2. Real incapable of working huh?

And finally, none of the laws in Israel demonstrate authority granted in the United States Constitution which would allow the Federal government to redistribute wealth as they see fit.

-Morgan

[MicroBalrog]

If you think welfare is only about aiding those incapable of working, you ain't been to the States too much.

That's the original purpose. Works quite fine in many countries.


Besides relatives on the government tit, I had a former housemate who decided to marry a guy on welfare, he already had one kid. He came over a few times and played on another roomie's PS2. Real incapable of working huh?

And playing PS2 means you can get a job if you want to?

[Zundfolge]

Food is a basic human right.

So I see you support slavery.

If food is "a basic human right" then those who produce food are obligated to become the slaves of those who don't.


A right CAN NOT EXIST where it creates OBLIGATION on others.


I believe we have a moral obligation to help others when we can, but to codeify such moral obligations into law would mean the end of liberty (and liberty may allow people to abandon their moral obligations, but without liberty the vast majority of opportunities for people to better themselves will vanish).

[Moparmike]

Lets get this straight. Previous posters have it correct: Individual citizens have no obligation or duty *except to their own conscience* to see that others are given their right to life out of their own pocket.

I am not obligated to keep anyone's stomach fed, backs clothed, or bodies sheltered except family. I have no moral obligation to keep up the health of someone capable or incabable of working.

If I so choose to support them thru my own means or thru charities, that is my perrogative. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THAT CHARITY, AND FORCEFULLY TAKE MY MONEY TO SUPPORT IT. Its called a Nanny State. Nanny States are wrong.

Now, can we get this thread on topic please? If we want to start another tireless "Welfare" flamefest, then do it in another thread worthy of being closed.

[Glock Glockler]

Micro,

The dude's heart is shot and he needs a new one, how do you simply magic him alive until another one comes along? It's yours or his: choose.
The point is that no one has a right to something that another must voluntarily provide. If housing was a right people could come over your place and demand that you let them in, or they could demand your money so that they could buy their own place, what do you think about that?

That's the original purpose. Works quite fine in many countries

What's wrong with simply asking someone for help? How many people do you know that would simply let someone starve to death while have an abundance of food? I don't think I know any that would actually do that.

What's wrong with charity based on voluntarily consent as opposed to relying on the threat that the govt will come to your house with guns and kill you if you don't comply?

[AZRickD]

I just saw Rep Ron Paul speak today at the Arizona Freedom Summit
http://www.freedomsummit.com

He is the real deal.

Rick

[w4rma]

Enronomics? You make that one up? I'm a Laissez-faire…Also known as Reaganomics, trickle-down theory, voodoo economics and supply-side economics.

If I am incorrect about my termonology, please correct me, CaesarI.

The economic theory that these terms refer to consists of more and higher taxes that are paid by lower and middle class folks.

For example: folks making $350K/year only have the first 85K of their income taxed by the payroll tax. And that's assuming that they have a salary and aren't just making their money through investing in stocks.

Combine the payroll tax rate and the income tax rate and then try to tell me how wealthy folks need an income tax cut while the middle class don't.

There are people who are suffering and dieing in Africa…I'm not talking about Africa or Liberia or Iraq. I'm talking about America. I'm talking about Americans. I'm talking about our nation. I'm talking about right on our door steps.

…
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
…

While I think it's commendable to help folks in other countries, we have serious problems here in the United States that need to be taken care of. Our senior citizens have social security because they have already worked throughout their lives. They have *already* spent their lives paying into the social security system and most of them are no longer wanted for serious work and the ones still able to do serious work should have the option to retire, anyway.

Some folks might think that working as a greeter at Wal-Mart would be fun. My bet is that most of these folks would rather not be working at Wal-Mart as a greeter, being told what to do from perhaps a punk 16 year old or have to ask permission to go to the bathroom from perhaps a brown-nosing, irritable manager.

The folks who think that is fun are most likely out of touch with reality. That's work, and while it can be fun, it's not usually fun. And even the fun jobs get tedious over time…particularly for a 65 year old who deserves to retire.

Work is work. It needs to be done or our society will fall apart.

You preach class warfare…The class warfare has already been declared, but not by me. The middle class and the lower class are on defense now. In the 1950s a middle class man could buy a house and support his wife and children. Today, a middle class working husband and working wife with children rent an apartment and struggle. It's not because there aren't enough resources. It's because there is a major problem with resources getting rediverted upwards while the middle class is trickled on.

The revolution was against England and more specifically, the English crown.The revolution was about power. All wars are about power. If you allow royalists to temporarily bribe you off with promises of lower taxes while giving aristocrats more and more of your democratic power, then don't be surprised when they raise your taxes and price gouge you with monopolies once they decide they have enough power to do what they want despite what regular Americans think.

Europeans invest in the United Statesbecause regular Americans (as opposed to wealthy international Americans) have resources we are willing to trade if you give us a good deal.

The Jones Act is protectionismNow, what happens when the American government allows American buisnesses to be permanently destroyed and replaced by foreign buisnesses? What happens when the American government pays more attention to foreign lobbyists than American lobbyists? I promise you that what happens is not good for America (It might be good for China, though).

Do you really think that you can close all of the tax loopholes?Do you really think we shouldn't try to close tax loopholes?

Nabors sounds like a smart bunch, lookin' after their shareholders. Their stock symbol is (NBR)…
Minor Cheramie Jr. of Golden Meadow, La., whose family operates 18 Jones Act ships, called it "grossly unfair that we pay taxes for certain services and this big corporation goes foreign and they get the benefit of the same services without paying for them."

He said that because Nabors pays little in taxes it can underbid competitors, growing until it dominates the industry.

If Congress lets Nabors keep its ships and operate more, Mr. Cheramie said, "I won't have a choice but to become a Bermuda company."
…
Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, said he was "angry that a company that became foreign so it would not have to pay taxes still gets all the benefits the taxpayers provide, with the Coast Guard to rescue their ships if they get in trouble and the Navy Seals if they are attacked by terrorists.

"They have an advantage against companies that pay taxes."

Last year Nabors paid 7 cents in taxes out of each dollar of profit.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/business/18SHIP.html

I'm a strict constructionistNo you're not. If you were a strict constitutionalist, you'd have much different views on corporate law, for example, than you do:

Multinational Monitor: What is corporate personhood?
Jan Edwards: It is corporations having rights in the constitution that are normally meant for human beings. Those rights include rights in the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and civil rights laws.

MM: How did corporations gain these rights?
Edwards: The founding fathers of the United States were not interested in giving constitutional rights to corporations. In fact, they wanted to regulate corporations very tightly because they had had bad experiences with corporations during colonial times. The crown charter corporations like the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company had been the rulers of America. So when the constitution was written, corporations were left out of the Constitution. Responsibility for corporate chartering was given to the states. State governance was closer to the people and would enable them to keep an eye on corporations.

In the eighteenth century, corporations had very few of the powers that we now associate with them. They did not have limited liability. They did not have an unlimited life span. They were chartered for a limited period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and for a specific public purpose, such as building a bridge. Often a charter would require that, after a certain amount of time, the bridge or road be turned over to the state or the town in which it was built. Corporations were viewed differently in early America. They were required to serve the public good.

But over time people forgot that corporations had been so powerful and that they needed to be strongly controlled. Also, corporations began to gain more power as the wealthy elite.

After the Civil War, Congress passed several constitutional amendments relating to slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment gave the newly freed male slaves equal protection and due process under law, and the Fifteenth Amendment gave voting rights to these same former black male slaves.

The Fourteenth Amendment used the word "person" in the body of the amendment. This caused some confusion about who "persons" were. Did women qualify? Or corporations? The Supreme Court responded by saying that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment meant just black males.

That, however, wasn't the end of it. Corporations had a lot of money and a lot at stake, and they took case after case to court. In 1886, corporations gained a victory. Before the Supreme Court session to announce the decision in the case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Chief Justice Waite said that the court wouldn't hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment clause on equal protection applied to corporations; they all believed that it did.
…
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02oct-nov/oct-nov02interviewedwards.html

You haven't addressed the constitutionality…
A "social programs mandated by federal law are unconstitutional" argument is just plain ridiculous.

[CaesarI]

Voodoo
Maybe I wasn't clear the last time, when I asked you at what point I mentioned the word 'Reagan' in my previous post. I'll repeat, as you obviously didn't get it. I do not advocate, support, or have a bloody thing to do with any economic theory which says that people should be taxed at different rates because of income. You, apparently, do and this is why I accuse you of class-warfare.

starving people
So lemme get this straight, people starving in other countries are less important to you than the people starving in the United States. Correct? You can go ahead and say yes if you like, this isn't DU, we're more tolerant, we allow you to be who you really want to be: a nationalist, it's OK. :)

Oh, and quoting the bible, real cute. Did Cain let Abel starve to death because Abel couldn't afford to feed himself? Or did Cain bash Abel over the head with a rock? I always assumed the latter... but maybe I was wrong... I'll have some of my friends who read Hebrew get back to you on that one, OK? I only know Latin and (a very little) Ancient Greek.

But maybe I should point out... before you start thinking you can win every argument with a "gun owner" by quoting the bible, that I consider the bible irrelevent to these discussions. You wouldn't use the Bible on DU (http://www.democraticunderground.com/) now would you?

Old People
Our senior citizens have social security because they have already worked throughout their lives.
Except when they were kids right? I've worked "through my entire life" except when I was a kid (and that includes years when I was less than 18), why can't I retire? My mom worked, but only sporadically, but she's entitled to the same Social Security as my dad who worked continuously. Is this fair? Maybe you think it is... cause she was raising kids...

The first person to collect Social Security benefits was a legal secretary named Ida May Fuller. She paid a total of $24.74 in Social Security taxes and received a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits (not adjustig for inflation). Ms. Fuller started paying taxes at the outset of the Social Security program and retired three years later at the age of 65. She lived to be 100 years old. source (http://www.ssa.gov/history/imf.html) Is this fair?

or have to ask permission to go to the bathroom from perhaps a brown-nosing, irratable (sic) manager.
You mean like in your wonderful public schools? Except there's one difference, I can quit the job if I don't like the manager. Quit school and they'll send the cops after you (unless you're above some arbitrarily chosen age).

And even the fun jobs get tedious over time
Tell that to Sean Connery. Many psychologists encourage elder Americans to stay involved in tasks, as it provides satisfaction, self-esteem, and gives them a sense of purpose to their lives. My gramma has told me to "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" I told her I love lounging around, shooting, and driving cars at double the legal speed limit (safely). So instead I'm gonna do what I'm good at, even though I hate it. I plan on retiring on my own income at 35, because I'll have lived frugally, and protected my savings from the federal government that wants to make me their dependent, and is afraid of people who are "independently wealthy" cause they don't need the government to baby them. I wanna be an adult. Being an adult means being independent, financially, physically, and morally.

Work is work. It needs to be done or our society will fall apart.
True enough, but why? Lemme answer for you, since you keep getting the wrong answers ;) :
[list=1]
People who don't work produce neither goods, nor services.
Some goods and services are necessary for survival (e.g. food).
If someone's NEEDS exceed their resources, they need to take someone elses resources, or they will die.
Social Security is a system by which resources are transferred from the young PRODUCERS to the old CONSUMERS.
This makes young people poorer, even though as a class they are poorer than the elderly.
Young people vote less regularly than the elderly, and further the percentage of the population that is elderly is increaseing.
The young will continue to be FORCED to subsidize the old because the old are a larger, more powerful, and ever growing political block.
This can only continue so long as the young can afford this burden.
Those young people who cannot afford this burden will be forced into poverty.
Welfare will provide for those young people who cannot afford the burden of the elderly.
This will increase the tax burden of the young who could afford to support the elderly, forcing those who cannot afford to support both the elderly AND the poor young slip into poverty as well.
Eventually no one will be left, and then we'll all be poor, but who will pay for it?
[/list=1]

The rich? For how long? Why should they keep people alive who cannot take care of themselves? Because they SAVED their money and consume less than they create (spend less than they earn)? Ants and grasshoppers. Maybe you didn't hear the story. Lemme refresh. Ants save up all summer (lived frugally during the boom times), have food in winter (have resources for the slow times). Grasshopper doesn't. Grasshopper freezes to death. Ants don't.

Eventually the PRODUCERS who are supporting the MOOCHERS and LOOTERS will get sick and tired of being made your slaves and will refuse to give you the goods THEY produced. That's the part you just don't get. You don't have a right to ANYTHING I produce. I made it, its mine. If I didn't exist, neither would the things I produce (food, clothing, shelter all of which are MONEY serves as a proxy for). They'll force you to use violence to take their money. They'll scuttle their factories, power plants, writing, farms, and then you and the rest of your blood-sucking, non-self-sufficient kind will die, being incapable of supporting yourselves except through theft.

[Samuel L. Jackson Voice]And you will know I am Morgan when I lay my vengeance upon you. [/Samuel L. Jackson Voice] *

Revolutions
All wars are about power.
I never would have guessed.
If you allow royalists to temorarily (sic) bribe you off with promises of lower taxes while giving aristocrats more and more of your democratic power, then don't be surprised when they raise your taxes and price gouge you with monopolies once they decide they have enough power to do what they want despite what regular Americans think.
This is getting recorded in my list of the worst writing I've ever read, just so you know. I can't make much of what you're trying to say here. You use pronouns indiscriminately, analogies to targets I can't identify. All I can say is, I don't fear monopolies which acquire their monopolies through economic means, as opposed to government fiat.

Monopolies
The difference between "the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company" and Standard Oil, is that the former received their power and monopolies by government fiat, the latter acquired them by outcompeting. It was ILLEGAL to compete with the British East India Company in their given geographic zone. I, by contrast, can start up a software company if I don't like MS' stuff.

Europeans investing in the US
You missed the point there. Europeans invest in the United States for 2 reasons.

1. Our taxes on foreign capital are fantastically low (some of the best in the world in fact). Capital (that means money) escapes from areas that tax it heavily (IFF it can escape, the rich often can, the fixed costs are often to great for the poor), and flees to areas that don't tax it as much.

2. We offer a higher rate of return. Our stock market has greater yields, on average than Europe's. We also have lower taxes, and fewer social services. Coincidence? You'd like to think so, but there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence that the less government restrictions on business, the stronger the economy (GASP!) In fact the World Bank, recently published just such a study (but you don't believe anything they publish, cause they're part of the Global-Corporate Conspiracy to steal money from the people with the least money to steal [cause they're extra smart like that, who'd want to steal from people with lots of money?])

Protectionism, Nationalism, and Xeno-Phobia (OK the last one is a stretch)
Q: "what happens when the American government allows American buisnesses to be permanently destroyed and replaced by foreign buisnesses?"
A: Generally American companies out-compete foreign companies if the American companies aren't hindered by government interference. For example, GM and Ford were doing just fine (thank you) before the government required them to reduce emissions and meet CAFE standards (the oil embargo, and high steep price kinda sucked too). The Japanese companies began to outcompete when the US companies were weakest, and made huge market gains. However by refusing to force our steel companies to compete on fair terms with foreign steel companies, we (as a country) end up spending on the order of $128,063 per every job saved in the steel industry. Put another way: it'd be cheaper for us to pay every employee of every American steel company whatever salary they're making for as long as they live, than to put up a tariff (the average salary is quite a bit lower than $128,063). Guess how much our tariffs cost us for every MEAT industry job? $1,850,000
(Source: US International Trade Commisssion, "The Economic Effects of Significant US Import Restraints, December 1995.)
Tariffs transfer money from CONSUMERS (the many) to COMPANIES (the few).

So lemme see... my cars would be cheaper, GM + Ford could get cheaper steel and better compete with Honda and Toyota.... Hmm... I say screw the US steel companies. Foreign steel is OK by me. So's foreign anything really. I don't have anything against foreigners, do you? I mean, we sell our goods and services in their countries, right? Shouldn't they be allowed to sell in ours?

As mentioned though, if you think that tariffs and protectionism are a good thing, you're just wrong. I could give you a million examples. I recommend McKinsey Global Institute's, "Manufacturing Productivity" (Washington, D.C.: McKinsey Global Institute, 1993) Pg 3. As one source.

But seriously, take an econ class. I'm not even being sarcastic or anything. Based on your adherence to protectionism (which no credible economist supports) you obviously don't know a thing about economics.

Taxes
Q: "Do you really think we shouldn't try to close tax loopholes?"
A: Yup.
Why? Cause they'll find new ones. This will cost them a lot of money (initially) to find, this is money that could be better spent in the economy making them more money, making my goods cheaper, or making my job more secure. Better idea: reduce the incentive to use loopholes by reducing the tax burden.

Nabors
K... the NY Times isn't credible, you should know that by now. Around here, we call it "that Liberal Rag" Just FYI, the Washington Post isn't credible either, around here we call it "that Communist Rag"

" because Nabors pays little in taxes it can underbid competitors"
You mean I get cheaper boats? I like that idea. Cheaper boats = cheaper products that come on boats. This means cheaper seafood, and cheaper imports. Woohoo! Cheaper goods are like an automatic pay raise. Lemme explain how that works for you. I used to buy 2 packs of "Brach's Circus Peanuts" whenever I went to the drugstore, they cost (for example) $1.00 each. Now these are fancy "Circus Peanuts" they are imported from the island of ::cough:: Mauritus. Now that boats are cheaper, they only cost $0.50 each. So I now have an extra dollar in my pocket.

READ WHAT I SAY
You quote me, and then you butcher my quote not one line away!
"strict constructionist" is a defined means of interpreting the Constitution (the correct one). A strict constructionist holds that unless the constitution gives the government a right to do something, then that right is reserved to the people (per the 10th amendment).
"strict constitutionalist" is a vague term employed by people who aren't as educated on constitutional law. It generally means someone who strictly adheres to the constitution. Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. Sen. Byrd (D), WV is a :barf: strict constitutionalist (that was painful to write).

You don't know what either means because you use them interchangeably. Words have meanings, learning those meanings [Glinda the good witch] before [/Glinda the good witch] using them makes communication ever so very much simpler.

Wait... :eek: are you quoting "The Multinational Monitor" on Constitutional Law?
ROFTLMAO!!! That's rich! No really!

Here... lemme quote from their front page:
There is something profoundly wrong with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations -- more than 300 million people.
Profoundly wrong! ROFTLFMAO!!! You just tell me what's "profoundly wrong" with that and then turn around and tell me you're not a class-warrior (and if, when you tell me you're not a class-warrior, I laugh then you fail).

Oh dearie me, I've gone and soiled myself.

A "social programs mandated by federal law are unconstitutional" argument is just plain ridiculous.
No... its called "strict constructionism".

Quoting the... ::giggle:: Multi ::giggle:: national ::snort:: Monitor ::guffaw:: on matters of constitutional law ::snort::, THAT is "just plain ridiculous".

You think its ridiculous because you aren't a strict constructionist, likely because you know about as much about the constitution as I know about sports. If its so ridiculous, and so easy to refute, then why don't you? There are more than enough experts on the Constitution on this forum who could keep the both of us honest. I'll even give you starting arguments. The supreme court tried to rule the vast majority of FDR's programs unconstitutional, before FDR's court packing program got underway.

::still giggling like a school girl::

-Morgan

*- Shameless Samuel L. Jackson rip-off from Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction"
Also the reason for the edit.

[Don Galt]

I doubt Ron Paul is gonna run with Dean... if the republicans stood for what they claim to stand for, we'd be debating whether George Bush adds anything to the Ron Paul presidential ticket!

Republicans, if they were true to their word, would be running Ron Paul for president. (Or Ron Paul would be just another in a long string of republicans who have Ron Pauls positions-- he wouldn't be the stand out he is.)

[w4rma]

Supply-side economic theory
Okay. You don't support that, CaesarI. Gotcha.

Sick and starving people
Would I use the Bible on DU? Yup.
Am I a nationalist? Nope.
Am I a patriot? Yup.
Do I support America? Yup.
Do I support Americans? Yup.

IMHO, patriotism is to fight for the good of your country and I refuse to give an Orwellian, wave-the-flag and do-what-you-are-told definition of patriotism *any* credibililty. Folks who support that support nationalism, not patriotism, whatever they might say. They should be called out on their false definition. Folks should *not* be told that their patriotism is bad, but instead told that they are practicing nationalism instead of patriotism and nationalism is bad.

Patriotism should be respected and commended. However, one should be wary of *nationalism*. And one should be *very* wary of nationalism disguised as patriotism. Do not confuse the two terms.

I am a patriot and proud of it. I want what is best for America and that does *not* mean blindly following our elected (and unelected) leaders.

Retired Old people
Life ain't always fair. And a loophole that occured more than 70 years ago is irrelevent to the safety net that social security provides for less lucky old retired folks.

Also, noone is independent. You use public roads, sewer, water, law enforcement, military, fire protection, electricity, food, fuel, transportation, etc. Either taxes pay for those things and if it isn't taxes then you're directly paying a corporation or a small buisness for those things. Either way, you're going to have to pay someone else with expertise, access and/or ownership to build, maintain, patrol, defend, protect, farm, mine, refine, transport, etc.

aristocracy
Who are the moochers in a nation that has an aristocracy? The aristocrats are among those who mooch.

monopolies and oligopolies
All monopolies and oligopolies aquire their power indirectly or directly through government fiat and once in place, only the government can split them up as they do not respond to market conditions or competition.

trade
Europeans invest their capital in the U.S. to make a profit. The U.S. has one of the largest middle classes of any nation in the world. The middle class spends resources on a wide variety of things which enables a wide variety of buisnesses. If the middle class is allowed to shrink too much, then the U.S. becomes a 3rd world country and the wealthy leave the U.S., with their (formerly our) resources, for another country.

bilateral and fair trade
How do American manufacturers compete with foreign manufacturers? How can manufacturers in a country with a high living wage afford to compete against manufacturers in a country that allows slave wages? Without a manufacturing base, will Americans forget how to manufacture goods? IMHO, it is a national security problem and an ethical problem to export all of our factories to China, etc.

tax loopholes
I'm a programmer. I can find security loopholes in code for no cost, except time, to myself. I promise you that a lawyer can do essentially the same thing with the laws on taxes, for no cost to themselves, but a huge payoff later on. What did that lawyer produce to become a billionaire?

Nabors
Attacking the source. Here are the 3 sources of the quotes below. They are supporting parts of progressive economics. But, none of these 3 sources are liberals, in general, and they are definitely not communist:
Minor Cheramie Jr. of Golden Meadow, La., whose family operates 18 Jones Act ships
Resentative David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana
Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi

…
Minor Cheramie Jr. of Golden Meadow, La., whose family operates 18 Jones Act ships, called it "grossly unfair that we pay taxes for certain services and this big corporation goes foreign and they get the benefit of the same services without paying for them."
…
If Congress lets Nabors keep its ships and operate more, Mr. Cheramie said, "I won't have a choice but to become a Bermuda company."
…
Nabors's opponents are more vocal. Representative David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, said Congress never intended to create a loophole for foreign companies like Nabors to finance an American subsidiary. "This was for a bona fide bank" to provide financing, he said, calling the Nabors arrangement "an abuse."

Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, said he was "angry that a company that became foreign so it would not have to pay taxes still gets all the benefits the taxpayers provide, with the Coast Guard to rescue their ships if they get in trouble and the Navy Seals if they are attacked by terrorists.

"They have an advantage against companies that pay taxes."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/business/18SHIP.html

strict constitutionalist
I consider myself a strict constitutionalist, also. If you want to know how the founding fathers felt about corporations, then you'll need to go back well before the corporatist and socially liberal U.S. Supreme Court that existed during FDR's presidency which was packed in the years after the Civil War by Republican governments starting with Lincoln's and ending in Hoover's and the Great Depression.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Hail, Caesar.

[CaesarI]

linguistics
I like how it's "enronomics" and "reaganomics" and "voodoo economics" when I support it, but it becomes "supply-side" when I don't. You never answered my first question though, what made you think I did?

Constitutionality
You're avoiding the issue of whether or not the federal government has the right to redistribute wealth. Are you conceding the point?

God
I guess the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on god anymore. Democrats are invoking the bible in political debates now? What happened to the separatin of church and state?

Nationalism
from dictionary.com which is citing The American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

3 is obvious out. 2 might be out (you haven't specified, but based on your feelings about China, and people starving outside the States whose lives you consider of less importance, I'll figure you aren't concerned with their welfare).

Your statement "I want what is best for America" meets the first definition spot on. You're a nationalist. Being a nationalist does not require that one think one's nation is always doing good.

as for myself...
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain

I don't think anyone would accuse too many people on this board of being the stereotypical "Orwellian, wave-the-flag and do-what-you-are-told" patriot/nationalist sort. You seem to think I am. I don't know why... but you do. You need to work out your prejudices against us folks not on the right. I don't seriously think all of you are reading Mao's Little Red Book, or Marx, or Chomsky. Doesn't mean your philosophic roots aren't in Marx, and Hegel.

But given that you are a patriot, I s'pose if it could be shown that what you're doing is in fact NOT in the best interests of the country there's room for growth. Capitalism can be shown to be best for the nation as a whole (using Utilitarianism), but I don't have the time to cover why, though there are several books which do. Unfortunately, I don't think would be swayed. You've demonstrated quite a bit of prejudice in your assumption I support some mythical system in which the poor are taxed at a higher rate than the rich, as well as the assumption that I, or any significant percentage of people on this board are the mythical "infused with fear and blinded by patriotism" sort who go about offering up rights to our fearless leaders. I mean shoot, we own guns cause we think we've a right to rebel.


Social (In)Security
So... you think Ida is not representative? True enough. For every Ida, there's someone who'll pay hundreds of thousands, and collect nothing. If you're under about 40, thats probably you. If you think otherwise, you're very mistaken. If you think Gore, or Hilary, or anyone else short of God can save Social Security in its current form without either raising the age for benefits, or reducing benefits, you are very, very wrong. Regardless of its legality, it won't work.

Independence
Oh goody. I had a German teacher try that one on me. I managed to stall the German class out of a test on that occasion. I was praised as a hero, and they allowed me a Triumph, and had a little slave boy whispering in my ear repeatedly "All glory is fleeting". ::sigh:: 'tis so.

First off, if I pay for those services, I am still very much independent. Public roads can be replaced with pivate ones. You ever see E-470 in Colorado? Sewers can also be privatized. So can water (in many cases it is). Law enforcement... well some folks here might support that, but I do not. But where'd I say I opposed it? Military protection... well the Caesar reference addresses why that shouldn't be privatized, though a militia is still a good thing. There's a lot to be said for the swiss model.

I pay for my electricity. Don't you? I also pay for my food, I thought most people did. And I buy my own gas, and pay for my car. As mentioned, you're not the first person to present this argument to me. I owe the producer of electricity whatever he wants to charge me for that product if i voluntarily accept the product. I owe this producer nothing beyond that. If I want food then I ask the producer the price he wants for his food, he tells me the price he will accept for his food. At this point I decide whether the price is less than my subjective value of the bread. If it is, then I trade my money for his bread. To me, the bread was worth more than the money. To the bread-maker the money was worth more than the bread (as he had more bread than he wanted, and less money than he wanted). Hence, we both gain by the trade. If I believe his price is too great, I decline to purchase it. He keeps his bread which is worth more than I was willing to offer for it, and I keep my money which was worth more than he was asking for his bread. In the first case, both parites benefit, in the second case, both parties lose nothing (except money stolen from them by inflation).

I don't have any qualms PAYING for things, as long as I get to choose if I want'em (excpetions being made for things like national security, but should I not feel the value of that service is worth its cost, I might move elsewhere). The issue is I shouldn't be forced to pay for a social security program if I don't want it. Tell you what, make Social Security optional, and I won't mind it so much.

Aristocracy
Hmm... well the fire against the "aristocracy" (a loaded term for rich people) is based on old world ideas. In Europe, the aristocrats often achieved their aristocracy through long ago allegiances to kings in a Feudal system. These people were very much parasites (though they did provide some degree of security).

As a note of departure, the system of "aristocracy" in Greek means "rule by the best [men]"
Aristos meaning best. It is often thought to mean those who were "best born" that is those of "noble blood" however, I argue (in tiny historical circles of no importance) that the system is very old and likely began in much more primitive societies in which those men though to be the "best" in their community were chosen to rule. Not unlike a Republic really. (Republic from the latin Res Publicum "the public thing" which oddly enough has a great similarity to the Norse "Allthing" setting a long, long precedent of representative rule in European culture ::cough:: but back to the topic.)

In the United States there is no history of aristocracy as such (minus Penn... but he relinquished his lands). People in this country (with very few exceptions prior to the beginning of the 20th century what with Teddy Roosevelt violating the separation of business and government) earned their wealth, that is, they were given their money by people in voluntary exchange.

You may like to believe that wealthy people, whose parents were wealthy, who do nothing but live off their trust fund are "parasites". You'd be correct only in that they are parasites on their parents. These people do not steal your tax dollars (they pay taxes), and further, their wealth, sitting in banks, and stocks, provides financing for those of us without money (like me). It is not blind luck that the Renaissance coincided with the legalizing of charging interest. It is also not random luck that those areas in Europe which developed first were those which were banking centers, and centers of commerce (not the peasant communes).

Liberals seem to be of the belief that there is a fixed amount of wealth (or resources) in the world, and that the more person X has, the less there is for person Y. This is simple to understand, easy to believe, but patently false. The author of "Tragedy of the Commons" recently killed himself, and his wife. Perhaps you were aware. He argued for abortion. He wasn't pro-choice, he was FOR abortion, largely based on the false premise that we were going to run out of resources (written in 1968). Of course Malthus predicted the same thing. Both were wrong. The issue is that capitalism solves the tragedy of the commons very nicely, and there are more examples of this than I can count. If you ask real nice, I'll list half a dozen. The issue is that as long as everyone is paying their own way, there will be no lack of resources. The problem is the continued rise in populations that don't have the resources for their people. If you're poor, and cannot feed your kids, you shouldn't have them. When people believe they cannot feed their kids, they generally don't have kids. A lack of food tends to reduce female fertility (particularly a low body fat percentage). My grandmother was one of 14 children. Her father was able to support all of them without Social Security, or Welfare, and he was poor as dirt (living on a farm has its perks).

In short, the wealthy, presuming they don't take their money and bury it in the backyard, contribute in large part to the health of our economy. Who could afford a house otherwise?

Monopoly
[tin foil beanie]
mono poly latin for "single" "many"
motto of the United States e pluribus unum "out of many, one"
coincidence? I think not!
[/tin foil beanie]
All monopolies and oligopolies aquire their power indirectly or directly through government fiat and once in place, only the government can split them up as they do not respond to market conditions or competition.
#1 by what "government fiat" did Standard Oil acquire their monopoly? How about Microsoft (cause everyone uses it)? Did the federal government
#2 Monopolies have, and will crumble under their own weight should they fail to respond to market conditions or competition. You seriously need to brush up on ECONOMICS his name is Joseph Schumpeter. Lemme sum up: monopolies will continue to survive if they outcompete. In order to do this they must constantly reinvest, and constantly out-innovate the competition. If they fail to do so, given enough time, their monopoly will perish. Ford was superceded by GM, GM while still the market leader in terms of sales, is no in terms of profits, profit margins, or any other measure. Better examples includes WalMart's predecessor (whose name escapes me at present), which has completely disappeared. IBM used to rule the computer world, until a quiet little nerd by the name of Gates showed up.

Trade
You're poor writing skills betray you.
The middle class spends resources on a wide variety of things which enables a wide variety of buisnesses.
Furthermore, so does your complete and total ignorance of economics. Our companies are more profitable because our government interferes less with our businesses than do European companies. I love this talk of "resources" like there's a finite amount of wealth or something equally foolish.
"The middle class is shrinking! The middle class is shrinking!"

bilateral and fair trade
Q: How do American manufacturers compete with foreign manufacturers?
A: We let them make the stuff they make for less, we make the stuff we make for less. e.g. Boeing builds very little of their own planes. This is because specialization is dividing the world up into tiny pieces (kinda like calculus). Boeing makes the wings of their planes. That is the big secret. The rest of it is largely very simple. GE makes the engines. These are areas where American companies are better at it than foreign companies. Furthermore, you create a false dilemma. You presume we must compete as manufacturers. We've been moving from a manufacturing economy to a services economy since the 1970s.

Q: How can manufacturers in a country with a higher living wage afford to compete against manufacturers in a country with that allows slave wages?
A: See Boeing, see Microsoft, see GE, see 3M, see...

"Slave wages" is also a loaded term. I'll accept it in reference to China, but not elsewhere. Often what you consider "slave wages" are not. e.g. $25,000/yr in Manhattan is a slave wage. $25,000/yr in Kentucky is pretty decent. $1.00/hr is pretty decent (in fact very good) wages for someone in Thailand with no skills. That's why they're called "developing countries" S. Korea was once in the same boat as Thailand and Cambodia, now they aren't. Maybe its cause they've a freer economy... NAH! Couldn't be. Taiwan... you remember Taiwan? "Cheap plastic toys" gotta start somewhere. Now they make memory for your computer. Will Americans get those same jobs back? Nope. Just like Americans don't make clothes anymore. We also don't harvest crops by hand either. How many people farm anymore?

Q: Without a manufacturing base, will Americans forget how to manufacture goods?
A: Nope. In areas where its cheaper, we switch to automation. One of the big booms in productivity is so called "lights out" manufacturing, where factories run totally without workers when the dayshift ends. With the progression of automation, and the rise in wages in less developed countries, eventually no human hands will be doing these tasks.

IMHO, it is a national security problem and an ethical problem to export all of our factories to China, etc.
On ethics I agree China's a Communist nation. On security I do not. Arguably for firearms, and perhaps oil and steel. Yet we control the seas, much as Britain did in its prime, so it's a non-issue. Some US Steel companies are still profitable, and can compete with the foreign manufacturers. We could get a lot more oil domestically if it weren't for the environmentalists. Further if we reclaimed the oil wells the Arabs stole--I mean Nationalized!

Taxes
Once again no economic training. Time is money. Personal finance knowledge would've taught you that too.
Tax lawyers rarely become Billionaires (in fact none come to mind, maybe you could name one). That lawyer offered his skills at correctly interpreting the tax law to tax payer A. Tax payer A believes that the cost of the lawyer's skills is less than the value of the money he'll save in taxes. If the tax code were simpler... but congress-critters gotta look out for their lawyer buddies. Changing the tax code requires companies to pay lawyers once again to find all the new loopholes. Keeping the tax code the same (regardless of how arcane) saves companies money in legal fees. I see nothing wrong in a company following the letter of the law, and thereby forking over less of their cash to the government.

Nabors
1. Life ain't fair, that's competition, deal with it.
2. If Mr Cheramie wants to become a Bermuda company, I'm all for it. Not my company.
3. Vitter thinks its an abuse, if he does, he should press charges, otherwise he should shut up.
4. Taylor is a democrat, this makes him almost certainly a "Liberal" and most likely a "Communist". He's angry cause they won't be paying taxes. Money is fungible. Very little of his tax dollars pay for the Coast Guard, most of his tax dollars paid for silly social programs. Maybe Taylor should ask Lloyd's of London how much it would cost to insure an American merchant ship, operating in American coastal waters against terrorist attacks. I'm sure Nabors is DEATHLY afraid that they're gonna be targeted by terrorists. Taylor obviously spent a lot of time thinking on this one.

Let me translate Mr Cheramie's remarks for you: "That ain't FAIR! He's doin' better'n I am! He must be cheatin'! (gosh I wish I thought of that first)"

They have an advantage against companies that pay taxes.
Wow... he's quick. Let's you know what he thinks of his constituents though, or what the NYTimes thinks of their readers.

Constitution
You don't know the constitution from a Maxim magazine, give it a rest. Nothing you've said indicates otherwise. Quoting anti-corporate websites on what the founding fathers thought of corporations is stupid. FDR raped the constitution, if you don't think so, you don't even understand the concept of "separation of powers" this being the case, you don't know 5th grade constitutional law. Alas, you're all too typical.

-Morgan

[atek3]

OUCH, i agree w/ every word (except about the national military stuff), but still OUCH.

atek3

PS this is how i used to get off, getting in big arguements with socialists and refuting all of their arguements line by line, but what can I say, I live in Berkeley, it got old... fast.
but watching others do it, still a ball :)