What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[justbehappy]

Easy, because I work twice as hard for him successful company for only a 1/100th of the income where there are 50 employees, 46 of them making the same as me.

How do you know you work twice as hard? Just because he has it easy now doesn' mean he always has. And 'working hard' isn't just about labor either. If he was smart enough to think of some concept or some company and put it together, and that made him millions of dollars, than good for him. He was obviously smart enough to put someone into a good position. But how do you know he didn't work hard for years and save up, spend thouands of hours of time and tons of money on his business? Do you really know his background? And not just your boss - but any business owner - anyone who makes a great dea of money? Who are you to assume that they haven't worked hard in their life?

Would I be willing to pay 20k of 80k dollars in taxes? If the programs I were paying for were legitimate social services that helped my follow countryman

You think these services are running good without reform...?

 

[dust1n]

In this specfic case it is - with social programs that is. And just because a government puts it into place doesn't mean it's right or Constitutional.

Just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean it's right or that it is going to guarantee freedom, especially when it was written was a century before the birth of corporatism.

 

[dust1n]

How do you know you work twice as hard? Just because he has it easy now doesn' mean he always has. And 'working hard' isn't just about labor either. If he was smart enough to think of some concept or some company and put it together, and that made him millions of dollars, than good for him. He was obviously smart enough to put someone into a good position. But how do you know he didn't work hard for years and save up, spend thouands of hours of time and tons of money on his business? Do you really know his background? And not just your boss - but any business owner - anyone who makes a great dea of money? Who are you to assume that they haven't worked hard in their life?

I'm not saying that those business owners don't exist. They exist right along with the business owners who don't actually do any work, make extremely large amounts of money and become willing to exploit, pollute, hurt consumers in any way possible if it saves up a buck.

You think these services are running good without reform...?

No. Reform is needed. I just don't see the logic you are employing in determining had bad government programs are right. The rich has an extremely disproportionate say in political affairs than either you or I have. If the rich get to heavily influence the laws, and this is causing problems within a society, what sense does it make to limit the grasp of government because is powerless against personal interest?

 

[justbehappy]

Just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean it's right or that it is going to guarantee freedom, especially when it was written was a century before the birth of corporatism.

We have become the most powerful country on earth - do you not think that this could something to do with the Constitution...?

 

[dust1n]

We have become the most powerful country on earth - do you not think that this could something to do with the Constitution...?

I'm trying to remember where becoming 'the most powerful country on earth' was in the constitution.

 

[justbehappy]

I'm not saying that those business owners don't exist. They exist right along with the business owners who don't actually do any work, make extremely large amounts of money and become willing to exploit, pollute, hurt consumers in any way possible if it saves up a buck.

If that's how they want to run their company, than that's their choice! Freedom is freedom. If you think they take advantage of their workers or consumers, don't buy from them and don't work for them. Anyways, why should all business owners have half their income hauled away from them because some are corrupt?
Put it this way, if I put out a study that said say 60% of people getting government aid abuse that aid (making this up of course) would it be okay (in your opinion) for the government to stop giving you money?
Just as just because some are corrupt doesn't mean we should take large sums away from all of the rich.

No. Reform is needed. I just don't see the logic you are employing in determining had bad government programs are right. The rich has an extremely disproportionate say in political affairs than either you or I have. If the rich get to heavily influence the laws, and this is causing problems within a society, what sense does it make to limit the grasp of government because is powerless against personal interest?

Please explain exactly how the rich have more influence in the government..?

 

[justbehappy]

I'm trying to remember where becoming 'the most powerful country on earth' was in the constitution.

You're missing the point. An extremely powerful country would have to have a good foundation don't build off of, don't you think?

 

[dust1n]

You're missing the point. An extremely powerful country would have to have a good foundation don't build off of, don't you think?

No. When has that ever been necessary? Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, etc. are extremely less powerful and have happy and more successful citizens.

 

[justbehappy]

No. When has that ever been necessary? Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, etc. are extremely less powerful and have happy and more successful citizens.

Still missing the point... It doesn't matter whether you think we need to be powerful or not - I am simply asking you: Do you think the most powerful country in the world would need a good foundation to be off of to become that powerful?

 

[dust1n]

Still missing the point... It doesn't matter whether you think we need to be powerful or not - I am simply asking you: Do you think the most powerful country in the world would need a good foundation to be off of to become that powerful?

Not at all. China is more powerful than us, does that mean they have a younger and better foundation? The point I guess I'm 'still missing' is what the **** does power of a country have to do with fairness, individual rights or it's determining how good its foundations are?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



Would the RCC's teaching on homosexuality be considered hate speech? Would liberals that denounce conservatives as Nazis be considered hate speech?

I need more information to accurately answer that question.

Long before Buckley v. Valeo (1976) the Constitution has protected lobbying via the First Amendment.

Where does it protect legalized bribery? I haven't found it yet.

But the group that advocates for higher taxes gave money to the legislator and he voted to raise taxes.

That's different. Giving money to organizations is just donations. Giving to politicians in order to influence their votes is, IMO, legalized bribery.

I think this proves the uselessness of campaign finance laws to root out corruption. Does NOW try to influence legislators? Does the NRA try to influence legislators? Of course they do, should legal action be taken against them? Hell, I try to influence legislators when I give money to them, am I doing something illegal?

No, you're not, as I already clarified.

Joe, let's put partisan politics aside for a moment and discuss something: How can we even hope to clean up corruption in Washington if we don't stop the lobbyists from essentially paying off our politicians? How can we have a dog's chance in hell of having a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if dollars hold more power than votes? See, to me, failure to do so is like saying that we can rehab a drug addict, while giving him free access to cocaine and heroin. Something is badly wrong with such a picture. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Darkness]

1.) Dismantle the monetary system.
2.) Dismantle itself.
3.) Dismantle the monetary system.
4.) Dismantle itself.
5.) Dismantle the monetary system.
6.) Dismantle itself.
7.) Dismantle the monetary system.
8.) Dismantle itself.
9.) Dismantle the monetary system.
10.) Dismantle itself.

This scares the **** out of me.

9. Set a nationwide age of consent at 15 (much of Western Europe has this or lower), and an age exception for partners that are no more than 4 years apart in age. Non-consensual sex must be harshly prosecuted regardless of age.

Frankly, this view with regards to sex with minors disgusts me, so much in fact, that it hard for me to think of anything else when a person support this. My thoughts can be summed up quite well in William Saltem's Slate article, The Mind-Booty Problem.

And FYI, most European countries that I am aware of prosecute cases where an adult has sex with a child. The law is only set at age 14 (in a place like Germany) in the rare case that the incident does not exhibit all the problems typically associated with an adult having sex with a child, or at least that is what my German friend told me.

 

[Smoke]

Frankly, this view with regards to sex with minors disgusts me, so much in fact, that it hard for me to think of anything else when a person support this. My thoughts can be summed up quite well in William Saltem's Slate article, The Mind-Booty Problem.

Did you read that article? Because what he's saying isn't that much different from what Mercy is saying.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

This scares the **** out of me.

No kidding.

Frankly, this view with regards to sex with minors disgusts me, so much in fact, that it hard for me to think of anything else when a person support this. My thoughts can be summed up quite well in William Saltem's Slate article, The Mind-Booty Problem.

Actually, I think you and I probably agree more than we disagree on this issue. Good article, BTW.

And FYI, most European countries that I am aware of prosecute cases where an adult has sex with a child. The law is only set at age 14 (in a place like Germany) in the rare case that the incident does not exhibit all the problems typically associated with an adult having sex with a child, or at least that is what my German friend told me.

Yeah. I ask people who want to maintain the status quo: How come Western Europe does not have nearly the problem with child molesters (with the exception of Catholic priests) that we do?

 

[Darkness]

No kidding.

Actually, I think you and I probably agree more than we disagree on this issue. Good article, BTW.

Perhaps I read your post wrong. I am a little high-strung on the issue because lately I have been debating with an American man and a Portuguese woman who believe a child should be able to have sex with an adult once they hit puberty. I am in favour of an age of consent law set at age 18, but with either a 3- or 4-year grace period before that. Then again, I am also a staunch opponent of the Californian law that allows 16-year-olds to get restricted licenses. I honestly think that a fifteen-year old cannot have a consensual relationship with an adult, because the relationship can never be peer-to-peer. There will always be an information asymmetry, among other things.

Yeah. I ask people who want to maintain the status quo: How come Western Europe does not have nearly the problem with child molesters (with the exception of Catholic priests) that we do?

To be fair, the United States is twice as violent as Western Europe. Additionally, cases may not be considered "child molestation," because in countries such as Spain, the age of consent law is set at 13-years-of-age. I am playing devil's advocate here. I would be grateful if you could link me to some good articles on the subject. I am staunchly passionate about anti-human trafficking, and by association sexual abuse of children at all levels.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Perhaps I read your post wrong. I am a little high-strung on the issue because lately I have been debating with an American man and a Portuguese woman who believe a child should be able to have sex with an adult once they hit puberty. I am in favour of an age of consent law set at age 18, but with either a 3- or 4-year grace period before that. Then again, I am also a staunch opponent of the Californian law that allows 16-year-olds to get restricted licenses. I honestly think that a fifteen-year old cannot have a consensual relationship with an adult, because the relationship can never be peer-to-peer. There will always be an information asymmetry, among other things.

I think it's safe to say that you're more conservative than I am on the issue, though not by much. And yeah, it's a tricky and very sensitive issue. Set the criteria too loose, and one exposes adolescents and maybe children to sexual exploitation. Set them too tight, and then normal and healthy sexual behavior is subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

To be fair, the United States is twice as violent as Western Europe. Additionally, cases may not be considered "child molestation," because in countries such as Spain, the age of consent law is set at 13-years-of-age. I am playing devil's advocate here. I would be grateful if you could link me to some good articles on the subject. I am staunchly passionate about anti-human trafficking, and by association sexual abuse of children at all levels.

Yeah. Keep in mind, also playing devil's advocate, that in most civilized nations, non-consensual sex is illegal regardless of the ages. Still, young adolescents often have no idea what they might be getting into... I don't know. I don't really know what the answer is.

 

[justbehappy]

Not at all. China is more powerful than us, does that mean they have a younger and better foundation? The point I guess I'm 'still missing' is what the **** does power of a country have to do with fairness, individual rights or it's determining how good its foundations are?

I'M NOT SAYING IT DOES.
Geez, nevermind. You fail to see around your own point and won't even answer my question.

 

[dust1n]

I'M NOT SAYING IT DOES.
Geez, nevermind. You fail to see around your own point and won't even answer my question.

Fair enough. I suppose I will never know exactly what criteria of 'justice' or 'fairness' you are using to come to the conclusion a flat tax is the most just or fair.

 

[justbehappy]

Fair enough. I suppose I will never know exactly what criteria of 'justice' or 'fairness' you are using to come to the conclusion a flat tax is the most just or fair.

Though I doubt it would make a difference to you, but I was simply wanting to you anwer the question.
Sorry for the annoyance, though - rough day.
Anyways, let's try a different approach. Because there are many reasons I have. Why should everyone not be taxed equally? This is what we've been for hundreds of years, right? Everyone wants to be treated equal. Now an unfair way to tax equally would just be to make everyone pay the same amount. $20,000, every person, every year - hand it over! But my logic does take into fact that everyone makes a different amount of money. I am not suggesting a harsh percentage for the poor to pay. You say you pay 15%? Let it stay 15%. But let it be 15% for everyone?
The thing is, though, this could not work until we get rid of the deficit. With a balanced budget, 15% (or close) for everyone should be enough.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

I need more information to accurately answer that question.

A Catholic talks about the teachings of the Church as it pertains to homosexuality, you know, that it is immoral (and thinks the teaching of the Church is correct). Would displaying these beliefs be considered hate speech? A liberal says that conservatives are like Nazis and need to be stopped, would that be considered hate speech?

Where does it protect legalized bribery? I haven't found it yet.

I'm talking about lobbying. The First Amendment protects lobbying; you are saying that lobbying is evil. I am arguing that lobbying, in and of itself, is not wrong.

Joe, let's put partisan politics aside for a moment and discuss something: How can we even hope to clean up corruption in Washington if we don't stop the lobbyists from essentially paying off our politicians? How can we have a dog's chance in hell of having a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if dollars hold more power than votes? See, to me, failure to do so is like saying that we can rehab a drug addict, while giving him free access to cocaine and heroin. Something is badly wrong with such a picture. Wouldn't you agree?

Two words: term limits. Lobbyists love consistency and they hate term limits.