Avoiding issues?
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
strict constitutionalist (that was painful to write). 
