With friends like these...

[Joe Steel]

Within the last week, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on funding the occupation of Iraq and free trade.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

[loosecannon]

Within the last week, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on funding the occupation of Iraq and free trade.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

The only potential silver lining is that the bill the dems agreed to likely will not even pass the congress.

They may have intended to capitulate in gesture only just to stall. Oh and pose behind the charade.

But yeah, They are really starting to piss me off.

[Mr. P]

Within the last week, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on funding the occupation of Iraq and free trade.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

No they caved to the public..which despite the left wing claim that they disapprove of the war, don't. I can go with unhappy maybe, disapprove is a stretch.

[avatar4321]

so funding the troops and free trade is bad? (Im not sure what you were refering to in detail on the free trade because I havent heard anything. Im just assuming based on the way you are stating it that you are objecting to free trade in and of itself)

[avatar4321]

But yeah, They are really starting to piss me off.

join the club.

[Yurt]

Within the last week, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on funding the occupation of Iraq and free trade.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

Don't the dems get something like 15 BILLION for "local" projects etc...

[Hugh Lincoln]

Within the last week, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on funding the occupation of Iraq and free trade.

With friends like these who needs enemies.

So you're starting to feel like your preferred political party has sold out. The leaders are out of touch with the base.

Hey, wait... that's the Republicans!

[Joe Steel]

so funding the troops and free trade is bad? (Im not sure what you were refering to in detail on the free trade because I havent heard anything. Im just assuming based on the way you are stating it that you are objecting to free trade in and of itself)

The Democrats made a backroom deal with the Bush Regime on NAFTA. The deal is so secret, the leadership hasn't even released the language to the Democrats in the House; probably because they completely ignored the concerns of American workers and soldout to Big Business.

And, yes. Free trade is bad. American workers can't compete with workers who'll work for pennies an hour. American business can't compete with foreign business who don't have to worry about funding employee healthcare or protecting the environment. We need fair trade not free trade.

[Gaffer]

The Democrats made a backroom deal with the Bush Regime on NAFTA. The deal is so secret, the leadership hasn't even released the language to the Democrats in the House; probably because they completely ignored the concerns of American workers and soldout to Big Business.

And, yes. Free trade is bad. American workers can't compete with workers who'll work for pennies an hour. American business can't compete with foreign business who don't have to worry about funding employee healthcare or protecting the environment. We need fair trade not free trade.

:link: I really want to see where you got your info on the backroom deal that even the democrats in the house don't know about.

[Joe Steel]

:link: I really want to see where you got your info on the backroom deal that even the democrats in the house don't know about.

This is from David Sirota's blog at Working for Change.


In a stunning interview with reporters, House Democratic leaders began bragging that the reason they kept the deal secret in the first place - and perhaps the reason the legislative text of the deal remains secret - is because they feared the concessions they were making to K Street lobbyists, the Bush administration and top congressional GOP leaders would elicit opposition from the majority of their own congressional Democratic colleagues.

SECRET TRADE DEAL - DAY 13: Dem Leaders Brag About Appeasing K Street By Keeping Dem Colleagues In the Dark (http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/secret_trade_deal_day_13_dem_l.html)

[loosecannon]

This is from David Sirota's blog at Working for Change.

This reminds me of the way B Clinton was transformed after a year in office.

[Birdzeye]

This reminds me of the way B Clinton was transformed after a year in office.

The GOPers had 14 years to show what scumbags they were; now the Dems are taking up the opportunity to show they're no better. :mad:

[loosecannon]

The GOPers had 14 years to show what scumbags they were; now the Dems are taking up the opportunity to show they're no better. :mad:

It is kinda sickening. Altho I still think 1/2 of the GOP party is concentrated evil.

Whereas on the opposite side I see 1/2 of the Dems as ineffectual flimsies.

Between the two the flimsies are less of a threat.

[5stringJeff]

Free trade is bad. American workers can't compete with workers who'll work for pennies an hour. American business can't compete with foreign business who don't have to worry about funding employee healthcare or protecting the environment. We need fair trade not free trade.

Wrong. Free trade is good. It works to make all economies involved more efficient. That means that manufacturing jobs will likely be exported to foreign countries; it also means that industries which cannot be exported, such as the service industry, will expand.

And as far as funding employee health care, such a decision should be made by the employer, not the government. No American company should be forced to provide health benefits to any of its employees.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong. Free trade is good. It works to make all economies involved more efficient. That means that manufacturing jobs will likely be exported to foreign countries; it also means that industries which cannot be exported, such as the service industry, will expand.

And as far as funding employee health care, such a decision should be made by the employer, not the government. No American company should be forced to provide health benefits to any of its employees.

Wrong.

Efficiency is secondary in importance to equity. The goal of public policy should be an equitable distribution of resources. If that requires forcing business to do whatever the policy demands, so be it.

[Gaffer]

This is from David Sirota's blog at Working for Change.

so it's just a bloggers opinion.

[5stringJeff]

Wrong.

Efficiency is secondary in importance to equity. The goal of public policy should be an equitable distribution of resources. If that requires forcing business to do whatever the policy demands, so be it.

Again, wrong. The goal of public policy should be the greatest spread of liberty, where people can rise and fall on their own merit. If that allows some people to become poor because they don't work for it, so be it.

[loosecannon]

Again, wrong. The goal of public policy should be the greatest spread of liberty, where people can rise and fall on their own merit. If that allows some people to become poor because they don't work for it, so be it.


Nice fake dig about people becoming poor because they don't work under a liberty centric public policy.

I happen to agree with Steel. It serves no benefit to the people as a whole to ensure the rights of a few to much more than their share.

A democratic society must serve the interests of the people at large. Meaning striving for equity and justice.

You want pure liberty, go live on the moon.

[avatar4321]

Wrong.

Efficiency is secondary in importance to equity. The goal of public policy should be an equitable distribution of resources. If that requires forcing business to do whatever the policy demands, so be it.

Efficiency is equity. You seem to not realize that resources are produced through labor and ingeniuity. The use of government to force resources from those who through their work develop skills and abilities that make their labor more valuable, to those who don't put in that sacrifice isnt equity. Quite the opposite. its slavery.

[avatar4321]

Nice fake dig about people becoming poor because they don't work under a liberty centric public policy.

I happen to agree with Steel. It serves no benefit to the people as a whole to ensure the rights of a few to much more than their share.

A democratic society must serve the interests of the people at large. Meaning striving for equity and justice.

You want pure liberty, go live on the moon.

How are the people benefited by punishing hard work and encouraging idleness?

[loosecannon]

How are the people benefited by punishing hard work and encouraging idleness?

Seeking equity does not equate with punishing hard work and encouraging idleness.

Besides the rich capitalists are the ones who don't work. Their money works for them.

[loosecannon]

Efficiency is equity.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

[5stringJeff]

Nice fake dig about people becoming poor because they don't work under a liberty centric public policy.

I happen to agree with Steel. It serves no benefit to the people as a whole to ensure the rights of a few to much more than their share.

A democratic society must serve the interests of the people at large. Meaning striving for equity and justice.

You want pure liberty, go live on the moon.

This country was founded on liberty, not on social equity. I'll take my liberty right here in America, thank you so much.

You want economic equity and social justice, go live elsewhere. I hear North Korea has a pretty good health care program. Very equitable.

[stephanie]

Wrong.

Efficiency is secondary in importance to equity. The goal of public policy should be an equitable distribution of resources. If that requires forcing business to do whatever the policy demands, so be it.

Man...reading crap like this...Makes me sick to my stomach...

If I wanted to live in a Socialist country.....I'd move to one...

[loosecannon]

Man...reading crap like this...Makes me sick to my stomach...

If I wanted to live in a Socialist country.....I'd move to one...


You live in one.

Rip up your SS check and move to any third world country!

Unless you were only bullshitting!

[Joe Steel]

Again, wrong. The goal of public policy should be the greatest spread of liberty, where people can rise and fall on their own merit. If that allows some people to become poor because they don't work for it, so be it.

The goals of public policy are stated in the Preamble to the U. S. Constitution. Among them are "promote the general welfare." To the extent efficiency does that, I can see your point. However, it does that very little when it permits the impoverishment of many to support the enrichment of a few. That's what happens when we allow good jobs to be exported. That's what free trade does.

[Joe Steel]

so it's just a bloggers opinion.

No. It's not just his opinion. He's reporting facts not in question.

[Joe Steel]

Efficiency is equity. You seem to not realize that resources are produced through labor and ingeniuity. The use of government to force resources from those who through their work develop skills and abilities that make their labor more valuable, to those who don't put in that sacrifice isnt equity. Quite the opposite. its slavery.

I'm familiar with both the factors of production and the concept of risk and reward. That's why I oppose "free trade." Working Americans should be rewarded for many years of service to the American economy with something other than low-paying service sector jobs. That's what they'll have when good jobs are "free traded" to China and India.

[Joe Steel]

This country was founded on liberty, not on social equity. I'll take my liberty right here in America, thank you so much.

No it wasn't. There's very little discussion of personal liberty as the ultimate goal in the lore of the Founding Era. The Founding generation was more interested in collective self-determination. The Preamble, for instance, speaks of the common defense and the general welfare as reasons for constituting a government while the Constitution, itself, paid little notice to personal liberty.

[glockmail]

Nice fake dig about people becoming poor because they don't work under a liberty centric public policy.

I happen to agree with Steel. It serves no benefit to the people as a whole to ensure the rights of a few to much more than their share.

A democratic society must serve the interests of the people at large. Meaning striving for equity and justice.

You want pure liberty, go live on the moon.

Who are you to limit what people can rightfully earn? Stalin?

[glockmail]

No it wasn't. There's very little discussion of personal liberty as the ultimate goal in the lore of the Founding Era. The Founding generation was more interested in collective self-determination. The Preamble, for instance, speaks of the common defense and the general welfare as reasons for constituting a government while the Constitution, itself, paid little notice to personal liberty. So that whole thing about the pursuit of happiness is lost on you?

[loosecannon]

This country was founded on liberty, not on social equity.

hogwash. Liberty was only one of a half dozen stated agendas.

Life liberty, pursuit of happiness, public welfare, common defense. There are also several amendments addressing equity directly.

[loosecannon]

Who are you to limit what people can rightfully earn? Stalin?

The constitution says not a word about any right to earn.

[Kathianne]

The constitution says not a word about any right to earn.

Nor about redistribution of income.

[loosecannon]

Nor about redistribution of income.

But redistribution of income up the ladder is all governments have ever done.

[avatar4321]

hogwash. Liberty was only one of a half dozen stated agendas.

Life liberty, pursuit of happiness, public welfare, common defense. There are also several amendments addressing equity directly.

marxism isnt equity

[loosecannon]

marxism isnt equity

Nobody said it was nimrod. We were talking about the constitution.

[5stringJeff]

No it wasn't. There's very little discussion of personal liberty as the ultimate goal in the lore of the Founding Era. The Founding generation was more interested in collective self-determination. The Preamble, for instance, speaks of the common defense and the general welfare as reasons for constituting a government while the Constitution, itself, paid little notice to personal liberty.

Self-determination is liberty, genius. And to say that the Founding Fathers had little interest in individual liberty is deceiving at best. Ever hear the quote, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Things like a common defense among the several States and Congress only being able to legislate over interstate commerce were designed to make a level playing field with equality of opportunity, not to ensure equality of outcome.

[loosecannon]

were designed to make a level playing field with equality of opportunity, not to ensure equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity is what many people mean when they say equity. In fact many people who speak of equity would not even consider true equality of opportunity to be practical.

But it should still be a goal. Even if it can not be acheived it should be where the compass is pointed.

But we don't have equality of opportunity. Not by a long shot.

[5stringJeff]

Equality of opportunity is what many people mean when they say equity. In fact many people who speak of equity would not even consider true equality of opportunity to be practical.

But it should still be a goal. Even if it can not be acheived it should be where the compass is pointed.

But we don't have equality of opportunity. Not by a long shot.

In today's America, how are people not given equality of opportunity?

[loosecannon]

In today's America, how are people not given equality of opportunity?

In so many ways it boggles the mind. Most of it begins with inherited status, class and wealth. But it gets magnified as those advantages translate into better and better opportunity.

Perfect example is GWB. From cradle to the governorship of TX, he basically was given everything. And he got to be the pres based at least 99% on advantages he inherited. That he did NOT earn.

This happens to every person in America for better or worse.

Giving each citizen an equal opportunity or a level playing field would involve handicapping or lending extra support to some to actually create an equal starting position.

We will never do it all the way but you gotta have it as a goal.

[Kathianne]

But redistribution of income up the ladder is all governments have ever done.

Not true. The best government is that which governs, (and takes) least.

[loosecannon]

Not true. The best government is that which governs, (and takes) least.

Governments have always protected the wealth of the elite at the expense of the majority.

Examples are in the millions but tax breaks for oil companies who are making record profits is one.

Giving the privately owned Federal reserve the right to charge interest on evey dollar the US treasury ever prints is another. I mean you simply can not invent a greater gift to somebody who is not in need.

Your head doesn't have to wander far beyond campaign financing to get the rift of the way the world really works.

Money buys influence and gets rewarded in spades.

[Kathianne]

Governments have always protected the wealth of the elite at the expense of the majority.

Examples are in the millions but tax breaks for oil companies who are making record profits is one.

Giving the privately owned Federal reserve the right to charge interest on evey dollar the US treasury ever prints is another. I mean you simply can not invent a greater gift to somebody who is not in need.

Your head doesn't have to wander far beyond campaign financing to get the rift of the way the world really works.

Money buys influence and gets rewarded in spades.

Let's say that's a given. The only recourse is No Government, a step I'd be unwilling to make, Hobbesian that I am.

[loosecannon]

Let's say that's a given. The only recourse is No Government, a step I'd be unwilling to make, Hobbesian that I am.

Well I agree. Either we haven't yet found a government form which is immune from operator errors, or we haven't been trying.

[5stringJeff]

In so many ways it boggles the mind. Most of it begins with inherited status, class and wealth. But it gets magnified as those advantages translate into better and better opportunity.

Perfect example is GWB. From cradle to the governorship of TX, he basically was given everything. And he got to be the pres based at least 99% on advantages he inherited. That he did NOT earn.

This happens to every person in America for better or worse.

Giving each citizen an equal opportunity or a level playing field would involve handicapping or lending extra support to some to actually create an equal starting position.

We will never do it all the way but you gotta have it as a goal.

So what you're saying, essentially, is that it is wrong/unfair for a couple to provide well for their children? If you wanted to "handicap" children of the rich, how is that fair to the parents, who worked and earned their wealth?

It doesn't take an Ivy League education to be successful. Just ask Bill Gates.

[Joe Steel]

So that whole thing about the pursuit of happiness is lost on you?

It appears one time, in one document. That doesn't make it a founding principle.

[Joe Steel]

Nor about redistribution of income.

Article 1, Section 8 declares a power of taxation to provide for the general welfare. Should Congress decide a redistribution of income is necessary (e.g. Social Security, various federal assistance programs) for the general welfare, it is permitted.

[Joe Steel]

Self-determination is liberty, genius. And to say that the Founding Fathers had little interest in individual liberty is deceiving at best. Ever hear the quote, "Give me liberty or give me death!"[quote]

I said collective self-determination, the right of the People of the United States to govern themselves, free control by Great Britain.

[QUOTE=5stringJeff;67142]Things like a common defense among the several States and Congress only being able to legislate over interstate commerce were designed to make a level playing field with equality of opportunity, not to ensure equality of outcome.

Says who? Not the Constitution.

[LOki]

Free trade is bad. American workers can't compete with workers who'll work for pennies an hour. American business can't compete with foreign business who don't have to worry about funding employee healthcare or protecting the environment. We need fair trade not free trade.Wrong. Free trade is good. It works to make all economies involved more efficient. That means that manufacturing jobs will likely be exported to foreign countries; it also means that industries which cannot be exported, such as the service industry, will expand.

And as far as funding employee health care, such a decision should be made by the employer, not the government. No American company should be forced to provide health benefits to any of its employees.Indeed. Free trade is actually fair trade.

American workers performing work that is worth pennies a day are absolutley competetive with foreign workers who do work worth pennies a day. Yet the American industries, where American workers work under your "fair trade" principles, can't compete against government subsidized, and protected industries in other countries where the notions of "fair trade" are different.




Wrong.

Efficiency is secondary in importance to equity. The goal of public policy should be an equitable distribution of resources. If that requires forcing business to do whatever the policy demands, so be it.Again, wrong. The goal of public policy should be the greatest spread of liberty, where people can rise and fall on their own merit. If that allows some people to become poor because they don't work for it, so be it.Spot on Jeff!<blockquote>"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
--Karl Marx</blockquote>In other words: Slavery of the competent by the incompetent.

Joe:
If by "equitable distribution of resources," you mean "equal distribution of resources," then you are talking slavery--enslaving those who produce more value than they consume, to the benefit of those who consume more value than they produce.

If by "equitable distribution of resources," you mean "distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value," you are talking about free trade.


The goals of public policy are stated in the Preamble to the U. S. Constitution. Among them are "promote the general welfare." To the extent efficiency does that, I can see your point. However, it does that very little when it permits the impoverishment of many to support the enrichment of a few. That's what happens when we allow good jobs to be exported. That's what free trade does.Yet the preamble does say "issue welfare checks." That what "fair trade" does.

If the welfare of all individuals (as opposed to just the incompetent) is promoted then the general welfare will be promoted naturally.


I'm familiar with both the factors of production and the concept of risk and reward. That's why I oppose "free trade." Working Americans should be rewarded for many years of service to the American economy with something other than low-paying service sector jobs. That's what they'll have when good jobs are "free traded" to China and India.
All you seem to be doing here is comparing communist "fair trade" to corporatist "fair trade" in what appears to be an effort to smear free trade. You're just wrong about free trade.


No it wasn't. There's very little discussion of personal liberty as the ultimate goal in the lore of the Founding Era. The Founding generation was more interested in collective self-determination. The Preamble, for instance, speaks of the common defense and the general welfare as reasons for constituting a government while the Constitution, itself, paid little notice to personal liberty.I think I would be checking The Bill Of Rights, and The Federalist Papers some before I made this uninformed statement.

[Kathianne]

Article 1, Section 8 declares a power of taxation to provide for the general welfare. Should Congress decide a redistribution of income is necessary (e.g. Social Security, various federal assistance programs) for the general welfare, it is permitted.

Try reading Madison's Federalist's papers 41 and 45. Also Try Anti-Federalist's #'s 5, 6

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Indeed. Free trade is actually fair trade.

All you seem to be doing here is comparing communist "fair trade" to corporatist "fair trade" in what appears to be an effort to smear free trade. You're just wrong about free trade.

I think I would be checking The Bill Of Rights, and The Federalist Papers some before I made this uninformed statement.

Free trade is never fair if the people who are actually making the products being traded are not compensated "fairly" for their work. CEOs who make 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes isn't, and never has been, "fair." The CEOs are free to make the trade but that does not constitute fair and it never has.

Dealing with a Communist state (that secures a large part of its labor force from the poorest of their poor and from slave labor whom they pay hardly at all) and then calling that trade fair is ludicrous. The advantage goes to the monopoly of the communist state to sell their labor at an unfair rate but the CEO cares nothing about that and reaps the profit from paying laborers $80 a day to paying Chinese (or Indian) labor 80 cents a day. Nothing fair about it.

Americans may get cheaper goods (made more cheaply) but they no longer have jobs to buy most of those goods. The standard of living is thus lowered for American workers. That may be fair to you but it isn't to me.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

From the 41 Federalist paper:


If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

Madison is saying in the italicsized phrase that the authors of the Constitution took a general phrase, i.e., necessary for the general welfare, as a cover all to be explained by quoting some particulars. But, in the bolded quote, he further explains that enumerated particulars that do not illuminate the meaning of "the general welfare" are of no help whatsoever and are used by people to confuse the matter which is not what the founders intended. The underlined section merely states that it is Congress that decides the matter. So, if Congress states that the XBYZ Bill promotes the general welfare of the nation and it becomes law, then the XBYZ Act promotes the general welfare. End of discussion.

If Congress then legislates that to provide for the general welfare a redistribution of income is necessary (e.g. Social Security, various federal assistance programs) for the general welfare, it is permitted and there is booya you can do about it because it is legal.

[LOki]

Free trade is never fair if the people who are actually making the products being traded are not compensated "fairly" for their work. CEOs who make 400 times what the lowest paid worker makes isn't, and never has been, "fair."...I'm not so sure that a CEO's salary isn't fair--if he negotiated fairly, and delivered according to his contract, it's fair. The difference in wages btween him and his lowest paid worker is irrelevent. Yet the lowest paid worker making making 400 times (or whatever "times") what his work is worth on the free market certainly isn't fair because its negotiated using the coercive force of government--it's armed robbery.


...The CEOs are free to make the trade but that does not constitute fair and it never has.

Dealing with a Communist state (that secures a large part of its labor force from the poorest of their poor and from slave labor whom they pay hardly at all) and then calling that trade fair is ludicrous. The advantage goes to the monopoly of the communist state to sell their labor at an unfair rate but the CEO cares nothing about that and reaps the profit from paying laborers $80 a day to paying Chinese (or Indian) labor 80 cents a day. Nothing fair about it.

Americans may get cheaper goods (made more cheaply) but they no longer have jobs to buy most of those goods. The standard of living is thus lowered for American workers. That may be fair to you but it isn't to me.

You, as well as Joe Steel, seem to also wish to confuse "fair trade" from corporatist principles with free trade. It won't work with me.

[Joe Steel]

Try reading Madison's Federalist's papers 41 and 45. Also Try Anti-Federalist's #'s 5, 6

What's your point?

The Federalist and the various anti-federalist papers (presumably you mean Brutus 5 and 6 which, by the way, support my point not yours) are not part of the Constitution.

[Kathianne]

What's your point?

The Federalist and the various anti-federalist papers (presumably you mean Brutus 5 and 6 which, by the way, support my point not yours) are not part of the Constitution.
I agree with Brutus supporting your pov, that was his whole point. The arguments side by side are what led to ratification, the reason things are as they are.

[Psychoblues]

That's when you refer to the Constitution.



What's your point?

The Federalist and the various anti-federalist papers (presumably you mean Brutus 5 and 6 which, by the way, support my point not yours) are not part of the Constitution.

Don't get caught up in the arguments that even our Supreme Court can't or won't sort out. Dig it?

[Joe Steel]

If by "equitable distribution of resources," you mean "equal distribution of resources," then you are talking slavery--enslaving those who produce more value than they consume, to the benefit of those who consume more value than they produce.

If by "equitable distribution of resources," you mean "distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value," you are talking about free trade.

"Equitable" is not necessarily "equal." Equity is whatever we feel is just. That doesn't mean quantitatively or qualitatively the same. American public policy once tried to ensure everyone had enough to eat but didn't guarantee steaks and fine wines to everyone. We wanted an equitable but not necessarily equal distribution of food.

[Psychoblues]

Are you quoting or are you just blowing out your ass?



"Equitable" is not necessarily "equal." Equity is whatever we feel is just. That doesn't mean quantitatively or qualitatively the same. American public policy once tried to ensure everyone had enough to eat but didn't guarantee steaks and fine wines to everyone. We wanted an equitable but not necessarily equal distribution of food.

You sound to me like a Clarence Thomas advocate.

[LOki]

"Equitable" is not necessarily "equal." Equity is whatever we feel is just. That doesn't mean quantitatively or qualitatively the same. American public policy once tried to ensure everyone had enough to eat but didn't guarantee steaks and fine wines to everyone. We wanted an equitable but not necessarily equal distribution of food."Equitable" has no meaning the way you're using it.

[Doniston]

"Equitable" has no meaning the way you're using it. Do you EVER agree with a Dictionary, or are you just too "SMART" for that.?? Or perhaps you either can't read, or don't understand what you are reading.

You disagreed with the dictionary in "SIN", "CONTEXT" and now "EQUITY"

-------For your information and "Possible" edification:


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
eq·ui·ty /ˈɛkwɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ek-wi-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.
2. something that is fair and just.

( and others which have no bearing on this issue)

[glockmail]

The constitution says not a word about any right to earn. Typical liberal: doesn't understand the basic premise of the Constitution is to enumerate the limited powers of the government granted by The People, not to grant rights to the people by The Government.

[glockmail]

It appears one time, in one document. That doesn't make it a founding principle.
Just the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Sure: meaningless. :rolleyes:

[LOki]

Do you EVER agree with a Dictionary, or are you just too "SMART" for that.?? Or perhaps you either can't read, or don't understand what you are reading.

You disagreed with the dictionary in "SIN", "CONTEXT" and now "EQUITY"

-------For your information and "Possible" edification:


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
eq·ui·ty /ˈɛkwɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ek-wi-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.
2. something that is fair and just.

( and others which have no bearing on this issue)Doniston, I am only too smart to you.

I happen to agree with the use of the precise dictionary definitions you submitted. I am well aware of them because I happen to be just that smart. But when "...whatever we feel is just" becomes a definintion, you also have to look up and consider "whatever", then you have to consider the validity of "whatever feelings" regarding the notion of "justice." Have you done that? I suspect not. Then again, words mean whatever you feel they do, right Doniston?

Making "equity" mean "whatever we feel is just" makes "equity" meaningless.

I have already suggested that perhaps "equity" might mean, in the context of the disribution of resources and goods, "...distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value."

I will accept that "value" might be a fuzzy term making my suggestion fuzzy, but it beats the shit out of "whatever we feel."

[Doniston]

Doniston, I am only too smart to you.

I happen to agree with the use of the precise dictionary definitions you submitted. I am well aware of them because I happen to be just that smart. But when "...whatever we feel is just" becomes a definintion, you also have to look up and consider "whatever", then you have to consider the validity of "whatever feelings" regarding the notion of "justice." Have you done that? I suspect not. Then again, words mean whatever you feel they do, right Doniston?

Making "equity" mean "whatever we feel is just" makes "equity" meaningless.

I have already suggested that perhaps "equity" might mean, in the context of the disribution of resources and goods, "...distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value." I have never suggested that you were smart, let alone too smart. That's your belief, not mine.

You speak a lot but say virtually nothing. What in Hell is the emboldened part supposed to mean and from whence did it come? From you amply immagination???

And no, words mean what they are defined as. not what I want them to mean. you seem to miss that fact.

[LOki]

I have never suggested that you were smart, let alone too smart. That's your belief, not mine.<blockquote><b>Doniston:
</b>"Do you EVER agree with a Dictionary, or are you just too "SMART" for that.??"</blockquote>I suppose you have your own personal notion of what "suggest" means too.


You speak a lot but say virtually nothing. What in Hell is the emboldened part supposed to mean and from whence did it come? From you amply immagination???I could tell you it did not come from my "amply immagination," but then I'd have to have access to your delusional notions of words to know what "amply immagination" means. I just don't.

I can, however, hold your hand and guide you through what, the embolded portion of my post that you referenced means; in a foredoomed hope that sense will penetrate your enfeebled and delusional mind: <blockquote>But when "...whatever we feel is just" becomes a definintion,...</blockquote>This, Doniston, refers to Joe Steel's assertion that the phrase, "...whatever we feel is just" is the definition of "equity." <blockquote>...you also have to look up and consider "whatever",...</blockquote>This means, Doniston, that if you're going to use the phrase, "...whatever we feel is just," as a definition, one must look up the term "whatever" in the dictionary--the real one Doniston, not the one in your fatuous head. <blockquote>...then you have to consider the validity of "whatever feelings" regarding the notion of "justice."</blockquote>This, Doniston, means that once you have looked up the term "whatever" in the dictionary, and found out that it means "anything or everything," you must then apply it to the term "feelings" which are often unreasoned opinion or belief, such that now the term "equity" should mean "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice". <blockquote>Have you done that?</blockquote>This, Doniston, is a question for you regarding your consideration of wether or not "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice" imparts a meaningful meaning to the term "equity." <blockquote>I suspect not.</blockquote>This Doniston, expresses my suspicion that you have not considered wether or not "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice" imparts a meaningful meaning to the term "equity."

Do you understand now Doniston?


And no, words mean what they are defined as. not what I want them to mean. you seem to miss that fact.No Doniston, despite your false accuations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68193&postcount=61) about me disagreeing with the dictionary, I do not miss the actual fact that you decide for yourself (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64467&postcount=93) what words like "context," "sin," "lie," "suggest," and perhaps now also, "equity" mean.

[Doniston]

<blockquote><b>Doniston:
</b>"Do you EVER agree with a Dictionary, or are you just too "SMART" for that.??"</blockquote>I suppose you have your own personal notion of what "suggest" means too.

I could tell you it did not come from my "amply immagination," but then I'd have to have access to your delusional notions of words to know what "amply immagination" means. I just don't.

I can, however, hold your hand and guide you through what, the embolded portion of my post that you referenced means; in a foredoomed hope that sense will penetrate your enfeebled and delusional mind: <blockquote>But when "...whatever we feel is just" becomes a definintion,...</blockquote>This, Doniston, refers to Joe Steel's assertion that the phrase, "...whatever we feel is just" is the definition of "equity." <blockquote>...you also have to look up and consider "whatever",...</blockquote>This means, Doniston, that if you're going to use the phrase, "...whatever we feel is just," as a definition, one must look up the term "whatever" in the dictionary--the real one Doniston, not the one in your fatuous head. <blockquote>...then you have to consider the validity of "whatever feelings" regarding the notion of "justice."</blockquote>This, Doniston, means that once you have looked up the term "whatever" in the dictionary, and found out that it means "anything or everything," you must then apply it to the term "feelings" which are often unreasoned opinion or belief, such that now the term "equity" should mean "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice". <blockquote>Have you done that?</blockquote>This, Doniston, is a question for you regarding your consideration of wether or not "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice" imparts a meaningful meaning to the term "equity." <blockquote>I suspect not.</blockquote>This Doniston, expresses my suspicion that you have not considered wether or not "every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice" imparts a meaningful meaning to the term "equity."

Do you understand now Doniston?

No Doniston, despite your false accuations (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68193&postcount=61) about me disagreeing with the dictionary, I do not miss the actual fact that you decide for yourself (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64467&postcount=93) what words like "context," "sin," "lie," "suggest," and perhaps now also, "equity" mean. what I do recogniz is that you are apparently mixing me up woth Joe Steel. I am not he, thus when you quote him, it means nothing to me. And I do not decide for my self what a word means. that is your cup of tea. I do of course choose between the various definitions available to me. but apparently they are not also available to you.

[Joe Steel]

"Equitable" has no meaning the way you're using it.

Try using a dictionary.

[Joe Steel]

Typical liberal: doesn't understand the basic premise of the Constitution is to enumerate the limited powers of the government granted by The People, not to grant rights to the people by The Government.

Your "basic premise" is a figment.

Try some research.

[glockmail]

Your "basic premise" is a figment.

Try some research.

I have. The basic premise of the Constitution is to enumerate the limited powers of the government granted by The People.


The list of enumerated powers was long, but its very nature maintained the concept of the Union government as one of limited powers. http://www.futurecasts.com/Rakove,%20James%20Madison.htm

[Joe Steel]

I have. The basic premise of the Constitution is to enumerate the limited powers of the government granted by The People.

http://www.futurecasts.com/Rakove,%20James%20Madison.htm

Where does it say that?

[LOki]

what I do recogniz is that you are apparently mixing me up woth Joe Steel.See? There's your delusion again; there is no such mix up for you to recognize in the real world--it exists only in your mind.


I am not he, thus when you quote him, it means nothing to me.Of course it wouldn't, since you can't keep track of your own half of the conversaion, particularly where you dumbly chimed in (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68193&postcount=61) without, apparently checking the context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context) of the comment you were dumbly chiming in on. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68164&postcount=60)


And I do not decide for my self what a word means.You certianly do. The term "context (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=62296&postcount=75)" is a fine example.


that is your cup of tea.No. Using words in their valid, precise, and meaningful manner is my cup of tea.


I do of course choose between the various definitions available to me.Without regard to context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context), or their various actual meanings.


but apparently they are not also available to you.Please excuse me if I don't consider each and every definition and usage a word is subject to, to be universally valid in every context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context) it is used in; particularly your usages so divorced from reality.


Try using a dictionary.I am well aquainted with the dictionary Joe, and if you were, you would see that the term "equity" does not mean "whatever we feel is just."



Typical liberal: doesn't understand the basic premise of the Constitution is to enumerate the limited powers of the government granted by The People, not to grant rights to the people by The Government.

Your "basic premise" is a figment.

Try some research.
Try some youself. Let me suggest The US Consitution and The Bill Of Rights--You know, "We The People..." and all that. It first enumerates the limits of Federal powers, and then goes on to assert plainly, that rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government.

[Joe Steel]

I am well aquainted with the dictionary Joe, and if you were, you would see that the term "equity" does not mean "whatever we feel is just."

Sitting on it to reach to reach the table doesn't count. You've got to open it.


Try some youself. Let me suggest The US Consitution and The Bill Of Rights--You know, "We The People..." and all that. It first enumerates the limits of Federal powers, and then goes on to assert plainly, that rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government.

Where in the Constitution is this declaration?

[Kathianne]

Sitting on it to reach to reach the table doesn't count. You've got to open it.



Where in the Constitution is this declaration?

Article X of Bill of Rights.

[Joe Steel]

Article X of Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment deals with powers not rights. Presumably, you mean the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It deals with rights but it doesn't say (plainly or otherwise) "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." It does say that listing certain rights doesn't mean others don't exist. That would include the People's right to do make their government do whatever they want it to do.

[Doniston]

See? There's your delusion again; there is no such mix up for you to recognize in the real world--it exists only in your mind.

Of course it wouldn't, since you can't keep track of your own half of the conversaion, particularly where you dumbly chimed in (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68193&postcount=61) without, apparently checking the context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context) of the comment you were dumbly chiming in on. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=68164&postcount=60)

You certianly do. The term "context (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=62296&postcount=75)" is a fine example.

No. Using words in their valid, precise, and meaningful manner is my cup of tea.

Without regard to context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context), or their various actual meanings.

Please excuse me if I don't consider each and every definition and usage a word is subject to, to be universally valid in every context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context) it is used in; particularly your usages so divorced from reality.

I am well aquainted with the dictionary Joe, and if you were, you would see that the term "equity" does not mean "whatever we feel is just."


Try some youself. Let me suggest The US Consitution and The Bill Of Rights--You know, "We The People..." and all that. It first enumerates the limits of Federal powers, and then goes on to assert plainly, that rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government. I do beleive more and more strongly that you are an arrogant egotistical idiot. that can't distinguish fact from fiction.

[Kathianne]

The Tenth Amendment deals with powers not rights. Presumably, you mean the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It deals with rights but it doesn't say (plainly or otherwise) "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." It does say that listing certain rights doesn't mean others don't exist. That would include the People's right to do make their government do whatever they want it to do.

Actually I meant X:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Though IX can also work to a degree, but one must wonder why you asked in the first place, since you had an answer at hand.

[glockmail]

Where does it say that? My God, man. Have you read the Constitution? It starts out in bold letters with "We the People...". That means The People enumerate powers to the government, not the government grant rights to the people. It has consistently been interpreted as such by the SCOTUS.

[glockmail]

The Tenth Amendment deals with powers not rights. Presumably, you mean the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It deals with rights but it doesn't say (plainly or otherwise) "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." It does say that listing certain rights doesn't mean others don't exist. That would include the People's right to do make their government do whatever they want it to do.

The Bill of Rights merely affirms rights that are given to the People by their Creator, as codified in the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph: "that all Men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The SCOTUS has consistently affirmed this correct interpretation.

[LOki]

Sitting on it to reach to reach the table doesn't count. You've got to open it.:) Nice. But Joe, you presume wrongly that I haven't checked the dictionary on this. You might have been clued if you looked into my futile attempt to shed the light of reality upon Doniston's sensibilities. Plese show me where the dictionsary establishes that "whatever we feel is just" is "equity."


Where in the Constitution is this declaration?Ah, I see your point. I should have thown in the Declaration of Independence as a reference to the founding principle that glockmail asserted. My bad.

I also see that you disagree that the ninth doesn't explicitly assert "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." That's fine, yet I do believe that it is fair to argue that it does not assert that these rights are granted by the government either. It is further valid to argue that if the government's enumerations of rights is not limiting of rights--that our rights exist without such enumeration--that rights are NOT, in fact, granted by the government. Perhaps more research is required. Start with:
The Declaration Of Independence (http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,...This established the founding princples upon which we possess the right to break bonds with our old government to assert that "it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security...", in other words: form our own government, and that this right, among others noted, is intrinsic to us.

So forgive my lapse, Joe. The Declaration explicitly asserts that our rights are intrinsic to us, rather than granted to us by the government; and the government powers are granted by the people. The Consitution enumerates the powers granted, thus executing the presumed premise of limited powers; and the Bill of Rights, executing the presumed premise established in the Declaration, recognizes the rights of the people, establishes that such enumeration does not limit our rights by such enumerations--for the implied purpose that such rights be protected with the understanding that violation of such rights is justification for the people "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

[Gunny]

:) Nice. But Joe, you presume wrongly that I haven't checked the dictionary on this. You might have been clued if you looked into my futile attempt to shed the light of reality upon Doniston's sensibilities. Plese show me where the dictionsary establishes that "whatever we feel is just" is "equity."

Ah, I see your point. I should have thown in the Declaration of Independence as a reference to the founding principle that glockmail asserted. My bad.

I also see that you disagree that the ninth doesn't explicitly assert "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." That's fine, yet I do believe that it is fair to argue that it does not assert that these rights are granted by the government either. It is further valid to argue that if the government's enumerations of rights is not limiting of rights--that our rights exist without such enumeration--that rights are NOT, in fact, granted by the government. Perhaps more research is required. Start with:This established the founding princples upon which we possess the right to break bonds with our old government to assert that "it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security...", in other words: form our own government, and that this right, among others noted, is intrinsic to us.

So forgive my lapse, Joe. The Declaration explicitly asserts that our rights are intrinsic to us, rather than granted to us by the government; and the government powers are granted by the people. The Consitution enumerates the powers granted, thus executing the presumed premise of limited powers; and the Bill of Rights, executing the presumed premise established in the Declaration, recognizes the rights of the people, establishes that such enumeration does not limit our rights by such enumerations--for the implied purpose that such rights be protected with the understanding that violation of such rights is justification for the people "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."

You're supposed to leave enough of the body for proper burial.:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Actually I meant X:



Though IX can also work to a degree, but one must wonder why you asked in the first place, since you had an answer at hand.

The other poster mentioned rights. Why did you cite an amendment dealing with powers?

[Joe Steel]

My God, man. Have you read the Constitution? It starts out in bold letters with "We the People...". That means The People enumerate powers to the government, not the government grant rights to the people. It has consistently been interpreted as such by the SCOTUS.

You're interpretation is incorrect.

Nowhere in the Constitution does any text say the powers of the government are limited to those enumerated.

[Joe Steel]

The Bill of Rights merely affirms rights that are given to the People by their Creator, as codified in the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph: "that all Men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The SCOTUS has consistently affirmed this correct interpretation.

Nonsense.

The Declaration of Independence has no standing at law. It' a hack manifesto intended to inspire rebellion in a people not much inclined toward it. It has some catchy phrases but they're just fluff.

[avatar4321]

You're interpretation is incorrect.

Nowhere in the Constitution does any text say the powers of the government are limited to those enumerated.

You've just lost all credibility when it comes to discussing the Constitution of the United States.

[glockmail]

You've just lost all credibility when it comes to discussing the Constitution of the United States. ....as well as the Declaration of Independence. The boy's a troll. :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Sitting on it to reach to reach the table doesn't count. You've got to open it.


:) Nice. But Joe, you presume wrongly that I haven't checked the dictionary on this. You might have been clued if you looked into my futile attempt to shed the light of reality upon Doniston's sensibilities. Plese show me where the dictionsary establishes that "whatever we feel is just" is "equity."



equity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equity)

3. Law. a. the application of the dictates of conscience or the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.

...

Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.



Where in the Constitution is this declaration?


Ah, I see your point. I should have thown in the Declaration of Independence as a reference to the founding principle that glockmail asserted. My bad.

I also see that you disagree that the ninth doesn't explicitly assert "rights are not to be granted (for they are intrinsic to us), but rather protected by the government." That's fine, yet I do believe that it is fair to argue that it does not assert that these rights are granted by the government either. It is further valid to argue that if the government's enumerations of rights is not limiting of rights--that our rights exist without such enumeration--that rights are NOT, in fact, granted by the government. Perhaps more research is required. Start with:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,...

This established the founding princples upon which we possess the right to break bonds with our old government to assert that "it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security...", in other words: form our own government, and that this right, among others noted, is intrinsic to us.

So forgive my lapse, Joe. The Declaration explicitly asserts that our rights are intrinsic to us, rather than granted to us by the government; and the government powers are granted by the people. The Consitution enumerates the powers granted, thus executing the presumed premise of limited powers; and the Bill of Rights, executing the presumed premise established in the Declaration, recognizes the rights of the people, establishes that such enumeration does not limit our rights by such enumerations--for the implied purpose that such rights be protected with the understanding that violation of such rights is justification for the people "to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."


Your faith in the Declaration of Independence as a font of founding principles is misplaced. As I have stated elsewhere, that document is little more than a hack manifesto written to inspire rebellion in a people not much inclined to it. It wasn't very effective (only about a third of the population supported the rebelllion) but it does have some catchy phrases. Although you seem enamoured of them, others have described them as "nonsense on stilts." Count me among the latter.

The natural (unalienable) rights of the Declaration exist only in the imaginations of the hopelessly romantic. Humans have natural interests but only the rights the People declare for them in statutes, consititutions and, in some cases, by convention. The Ninth Amendment declares, in the stilted prose of the time, the People's power to declare rights which they do with the aid of their creature, the government.

This may be a bit of a dilemma for some. An enumeration of powers may seem absolute and inviolable. However, because the People, ultimately, hold both all power and control of their government, they essentially are unlimited in what they may do. Should they wish services other than those they have empowered their government to provide, they merely need command their government to deliver them. That's one of the prvileges of being sovereign.

[diuretic]

I haven't heard that for ages - "nonsense on stilts" - Jeremy Bentham :laugh2:

[LOki]

url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equity]equity[/url]

3. Law. a. the application of the dictates of conscience or the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.

...

Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.Not one mention of whatever feelings we might have. I don't have a problem with this definition Joe, I only have a problem with the one where "whatever we feel" is the determinant value.

To return to the point before (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=67550#post67550) the discussion of equity departed, I will affirm that my assertion that the distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value, is precisely equitable by the very definition you provided above--it is also free trade.

Truly free trade, which is capitalist free trade, is ethical, fair, just, and consistent with principles of natural justice and the dictates of conscience.

I predict you're about to jump Joe, but before you blast into capitalist free trade, make sure you're not describing the consequences of corporatist notions of fair trade--it would be a welcome change of pace to see a rational critique of capitalist free trade that does not suffer from the error of misplaced equivilancy.


Your faith in the Declaration of Independence as a font of founding principles is misplaced.I'm not expressing faith. I'm submitting the Declaration as evidence of the existence of premise discussed, and its relevence to the founding of this nation.


As I have stated elsewhere, that document is little more than a hack manifesto written to inspire rebellion in a people not much inclined to it.Well, as far as manifestos go, which ones are immune from being described "hack?" Hack manifesto, or otherwise, the premises that the Declaration asserts were accepted by a rather significant portion of the population--significant enough, I'd argue, that since that significant portion of the population essentially succeeded in establishing this nation on the premises expressed in the "hack" Declaration they bought into, that the premises we're discussing are validly premises upon which this nation was founded.


It wasn't very effective (only about a third of the population supported the rebelllion) but it does have some catchy phrases.If only a third is accurate, then it was actually, petty fucking effective. And I agree, the phrases are catchy. :D


Although you seem enamoured of them, others have described them as "nonsense on stilts." Count me among the latter.I consider myself obliged to do so. ;)


The natural (unalienable) rights of the Declaration exist only in the imaginations of the hopelessly romantic. Humans have natural interests but only the rights the People declare for them in statutes, consititutions and, in some cases, by convention.These two statements contradict each other. Either rights are wholly in the imagination of hopeless romantics only, or they actually exist "in statutes, consititutions and, in some cases, by convention."

I'm all for asserting they exist. These statutes, consititutions, and conventions, you describe contain the evidence that they exist beyond the imaginations of the hopelessly romantic.


The Ninth Amendment declares, in the stilted prose of the time, the People's power to declare rights which they do with the aid of their creature, the government.No, the Ninth Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am9) declares, in the stilted prose of the time, the People's power to declare rights which they do, without mentioning any necessary aid of their creature, the government. Regardless, the actual point of the Ninth Amendemt was to esablish that such declaration, as you put it, or enumeration, as is was put in the text, does not place limits on any rights already presumed to already exist independently of the consitution; i.e. the formation of the government.


This may be a bit of a dilemma for some. An enumeration of powers may seem absolute and inviolable.It's not a dilemma to those who understand that the Consitution includes provisions for amendment of the Consitution.


However, because the People, ultimately, hold both all power and control of their government, they essentially are unlimited in what they may do. Should they wish services other than those they have empowered their government to provide, they merely need command their government to deliver them.Yet they must do in accordance with the law, and within the limited powers the government possesses--so it is not merely wishing and receiving as you would seem to have it.


That's one of the prvileges of being sovereign.That the priviledges of the sovereign being subject to the rights of the people, is the point of this country making government powers limited, and recognizing that rights exist independently of their recognition by the government, or enumeration in the Constitution.

[5stringJeff]

Your faith in the Declaration of Independence as a font of founding principles is misplaced. As I have stated elsewhere, that document is little more than a hack manifesto written to inspire rebellion in a people not much inclined to it. It wasn't very effective (only about a third of the population supported the rebelllion) but it does have some catchy phrases. Although you seem enamoured of them, others have described them as "nonsense on stilts." Count me among the latter.

And as such, I will also count you among the enemies of my country and my Constitution. :mad:

[Joe Steel]

url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equity]equity[/url]

3. Law. a. the application of the dictates of conscience or the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.

...

Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.

Not one mention of whatever feelings we might have. I don't have a problem with this definition Joe, I only have a problem with the one where "whatever we feel" is the determinant value.


The dictates of conscience are feelings as are principles of fairness.



To return to the point before the discussion of equity departed, I will affirm that my assertion that the distribution of resources based on a voluntary, and mutually agreed upon, exchange of value, is precisely equitable by the very definition you provided above--it is also free trade.


It isn't. It's inconsistent with our standards of justice.

Where prices are so high some can't afford goods the community feel are necessary, we judge the situation to be inequitable and step-in to mitigate the distress; we provide food assistance to the poor; we've rationed gasoline. In each case it was because we judged free trade to be unfair.






The natural (unalienable) rights of the Declaration exist only in the imaginations of the hopelessly romantic. Humans have natural interests but only the rights the People declare for them in statutes, consititutions and, in some cases, by convention.

These two statements contradict each other. Either rights are wholly in the imagination of hopeless romantics only, or they actually exist "in statutes, consititutions and, in some cases, by convention."

I'm all for asserting they exist. These statutes, consititutions, and conventions, you describe contain the evidence that they exist beyond the imaginations of the hopelessly romantic.

You're confusing natural rights with rights. Jeffererson's natural or "unalienable rights" are nonsense. Declared rights are not.





The Ninth Amendment declares, in the stilted prose of the time, the People's power to declare rights which they do with the aid of their creature, the government.

No, the Ninth Amendment declares, in the stilted prose of the time, the People's power to declare rights which they do, without mentioning any necessary aid of their creature, the government. Regardless, the actual point of the Ninth Amendemt was to esablish that such declaration, as you put it, or enumeration, as is was put in the text, does not place limits on any rights already presumed to already exist independently of the consitution; i.e. the formation of the government.

Where?

What are their sources?

[Joe Steel]

And as such, I will also count you among the enemies of my country and my Constitution. :mad:

You're making a mistake. Those of us who understand the difference between natural rights and rights are the true patriots.

[glockmail]

You're making a mistake. Those of us who understand the difference between natural rights and rights are the true patriots.You lose an argument handily so you question our patriotism.:fu:

[Joe Steel]

You lose an argument handily so you question our patriotism.:fu:

I've never lost an argument.

[nevadamedic]

:laugh2:
I've never lost an argument.

:laugh2: That's the funniest thing ive herd in a long time

[5stringJeff]

You're making a mistake. Those of us who understand the difference between natural rights and rights are the true patriots.

True patriots, eh? Вниз с свободой! Длиной живет виток!

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/efalwell/posters/lenin1.jpg

[glockmail]

I've never lost an argument. You mean you're too dumb to realize that you've been pwned.

:lol:

[LOki]

The dictates of conscience are feelings as are principles of fairness.It appears then that you wish to maintain that the term "equity" really amounts to every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice (or conscience, or fairness). Since this notion of yours allows that women are treated equitibly under the Taliban, Jews were treated equitably by the Nazis, and black folks were treated equitably under slavery in America, I'm going to withdraw my assertion that the free market is "equitable" by your standards.


It isn't. It's inconsistent with our standards of justice.It is. Demonstrate otherwise.


Where prices are so high some can't afford goods the community feel are necessary, we judge the situation to be inequitable and step-in to mitigate the distress; we provide food assistance to the poor; we've rationed gasoline. In each case it was because we judged free trade to be unfair.I warned you about this. We judged "fair trade" to be unfair.


You're confusing natural rights with rights. Jeffererson's natural or "unalienable rights" are nonsense. Declared rights are not.Well, I can see that "unalienable rights" is somewhat misleading, otherwise thes rights would not need to be protected. "Unalienable rights" are unalienable to the extent that they cannot by justly alienated. And your notion that existence of "natural rights" is nonsense, is a shortsighted as the notion that the existence of ant-hills is nonsense because they're not "natural."


Where?The Ninth Amendment.


What are their sources?Their rational capacity.

[LOki]

I do beleive more and more strongly that you are an arrogant egotistical idiot.You're free to believe whatever you like. Thanks for sharing.


that can't distinguish fact from fiction.You speak for your delusional self here.

[Psychoblues]

Equitable is code for profit, LOki.




"Equitable" has no meaning the way you're using it.

Count your dollars. They are constantly building up on the equitable backs of your constituents. Or, didn't you know?

[Doniston]

You're free to believe whatever you like. Thanks for sharing.

You speak for your delusional self here. Can't you respond to a full and complete sentence? or doesn't that fit your "Spin" technique???

[LOki]

Can't you respond to a full and complete sentence? or doesn't that fit your "Spin" technique???Considering that I responded, in actual fact of reality, to both the complete sentence, and the sentence fragment you posted, I'd have to say your delusional state is fully intact, and I predict that you'll deny I'm responding to your post now.

[Joe Steel]

It appears then that you wish to maintain that the term "equity" really amounts to every or any, unreasoned opinion or belief of justice (or conscience, or fairness). Since this notion of yours allows that women are treated equitibly under the Taliban, Jews were treated equitably by the Nazis, and black folks were treated equitably under slavery in America, I'm going to withdraw my assertion that the free market is "equitable" by your standards.

That's absurd.

I'm sorry this is so difficult for you.

[SassyLady]

You live in one.

Rip up your SS check and move to any third world country!

Unless you were only bullshitting!


Actually, I've contributed quite a bit to SS and fully intend to collect that money. And the companies I worked for, including my own, contributed part of their profits to SS in my name so that I could collect on it when I can no longer work.

It's people like yourself and those who feel that the money I put in there should be redistributed to those that haven't worked for it and the friggin government is giving it to them through numerous welfare programs. So, unfortunately the money I earned and saved and put away has already been spent!!!

So, tell me again why I need to rip up my SS checks? So you can give it away????????????

Edited to delete the "fu" emoticon. Not very ladylike. Sorry guys.

[SassyLady]

Money buys influence and gets rewarded in spades.


I'm OK with this. I like feeling that my hard work has paid off.

It's why I went to school, it's why I work, it's why I save, why I invest and why I donate to worthy causes and charities. Because I earned it! I took advantage of every opportunity I was given,

EXCEPT,

the opportunity to say..........."hey, I deserve half of what you make!!!"

[Joe Steel]

It's people like yourself and those who feel that the money I put in there should be redistributed to those that haven't worked for it and the friggin government is giving it to them through numerous welfare programs. So, unfortunately the money I earned and saved and put away has already been spent!!!

First, SS revenue is not used to fund welfare programs. It stays entirely within the SS program.

Secondly, generally speaking, SS benefits don't go to those who haven't worked for it. True, survivors of beneficiaries can receive benefits but only because they had a relationship with someone who was qualified under the program.

[SassyLady]

After reading this entire thread I declare Loki the victor!!!! :dance:

Joe Steel gave a good fight and Doniston is just unconscious or channeling a nut right now.:cheers2:

Please to meet you Loki, don't think I've ever read any of your posts before. Must say I'm impressed with your writing style and you've been very respectful even in the face of personal attacks! Keep up the good work.:clap::clap:

[Nukeman]

First, SS revenue is not used to fund welfare programs. It stays entirely within the SS program.

Secondly, generally speaking, SS benefits don't go to those who haven't worked for it. True, survivors of beneficiaries can receive benefits but only because they had a relationship with someone who was qualified under the program.

The Feds have been diping into the SS fund for decades and you have the nerve to say it isnt funding welfare... Are you high or do you live under a rock??

Why do you think the SS program is due to be insolvent in 2027. they spend to damn much yo moron.....

[SassyLady]

First, SS revenue is not used to fund welfare programs. It stays entirely within the SS program.


By law, the Social Security program is treated as an "off-budget" entity, and its financial figures are displayed separately from the rest of the budget. The separate display, along with the use of trust funds as an accounting device, is a means of distinguishing the program's finances from those of other government activities. However, the distinction can be confusing when it leads people to think of Social Security as an independent financial entity. Social Security is a federal program, and as such, all of its taxes are received by and its outlays dispensed from the U.S. Treasury.
Focusing on an accumulating balance in the Social Security trust funds can also be misleading. The only economically significant way that the government has a surplus is if there is a unified budget surplus--when total receipts are greater than total outlays. Although separate taxes are collected for Social Security, the money left over after benefits are paid is used to fund other government programs or to pay down the debt held by the public. Moreover, in the future, those separate tax receipts will become insufficient to maintain the program once the post-World War II baby-boom generation begins drawing federal entitlement benefits. Social Security and other entitlement programs will then be dependent on the federal government to cover their costs--at the same time that the government must pay for its many other functions.

Regardless of how any federal program is financed and accounted for--and whether it is presented as on- or off-budget--a full understanding of the government's looming fiscal strains and the potential economic impact of its fiscal condition requires that all government functions be considered together. It is the federal government's total claims on the nation's resources that affect the economy—not the individual components that make up those claims.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3650&type=0&sequence=0

[shattered]

After reading this entire thread I declare Loki the victor!!!! :dance:

Joe Steel gave a good fight and Doniston is just unconscious or channeling a nut right now.:cheers2:

Please to meet you Loki, don't think I've ever read any of your posts before. Must say I'm impressed with your writing style and you've been very respectful even in the face of personal attacks! Keep up the good work.:clap::clap:

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Steel]

The Feds have been diping into the SS fund for decades and you have the nerve to say it isnt funding welfare... Are you high or do you live under a rock??

No. They haven't.

SS buys U. S. Treasury securities just like many other investors. Whatever the U. S. government does with the money is of no concern to SS and it doesn't mean they're participating in the use of the money. It's no different than you or any other investor buying a bond. Do you say you're a computer manufacturer because you bought Dell bonds?


Why do you think the SS program is due to be insolvent in 2027. they spend to damn much yo moron.....

You're wrong, at least in substance.

While the SS program is facing technical insolvency, it is not facing a major problem. Its financial difficulties are trivial and easily fixed.

You've got to stop listening to wingnuts.

[Joe Steel]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3650&type=0&sequence=0

Like most of what the Bush regime puts-out this a misrepresentation. In fact, given the regime's sorry record, I'd say it's a deliberate attempt to deceive. Bush wants to privatize Social Security and is not above lying.

[Joe Steel]

After reading this entire thread I declare Loki the victor!!!! :dance:

Joe Steel gave a good fight and Doniston is just unconscious or channeling a nut right now.:cheers2:

Please to meet you Loki, don't think I've ever read any of your posts before. Must say I'm impressed with your writing style and you've been very respectful even in the face of personal attacks! Keep up the good work.:clap::clap:

Are you using drugs?

[Nukeman]

No. They haven't.

SS buys U. S. Treasury securities just like many other investors. Whatever the U. S. government does with the money is of no concern to SS and it doesn't mean they're participating in the use of the money. It's no different than you or any other investor buying a bond.

.

Let me get this straight the SS administration ( a government body) buys U.S. Treasury notes form.... work with me here... THE GOVERNMENT

You can spin it however you want but the US government has been dipping into the SS fund for years the US reasury securities is a IOU

By your reasoning I should be able to go to the local bank and by simply saying even though my current financial status is poor you can give me billions of dollars because I'll sign this lovely little IOU.

Face it the Feds are spending mine and your money on programs that it was not ment to be spent on. If they want to invest the SS funds let me decide what I want to buy.. Or at least not buy thier own notes.......

[Joe Steel]

Let me get this straight the SS administration ( a government body) buys U.S. Treasury notes form.... work with me here... THE GOVERNMENT

You can spin it however you want but the US government has been dipping into the SS fund for years the US reasury securities is a IOU

And you can believe whatever you like but SS owns U. S. Treasury bonds and they are the definition of risk-free securities. SS assets are safer than any other in the world. They are safer than any you or I can buy unless we buy U. S. Treasuries.

By the way, dismissing U. S. Treasuries as IOUs, is a wingnut tactic to distort the issue. You should avoid doing it unless you wish to be dismissed yourself.

[Nukeman]

And you can believe whatever you like but SS owns U. S. Treasury bonds and they are the definition of risk-free securities. SS assets are safer than any other in the world. They are safer than any you or I can buy unless we buy U. S. Treasuries.

By the way, dismissing U. S. Treasuries as IOUs, is a wingnut tactic to distort the issue. You should avoid doing it unless you wish to be dismissed yourself.
Let see the government uses your money for a period of time and pays you the money back when others buy notes. I think that is the classic deffinition of an IOU. Any way you look at it the government is borowing money from you and I to pay someone else than they borrow from others to pay you and I.

Ever hear the term "rob Peter to pay Paul" unfortunately what do you do when you run out of Peter's'

[SassyLady]

Are you using drugs?

Apparently not enough because nothing you say makes an ounce of sense. :slap:

Oh, by the way, what school did you go to - The University of DU or the University of PD? You've got quite a arsenal of "deflection" techniques. I absolutely love this one........


Like most of what the Bush regime puts-out this a misrepresentation. In fact, given the regime's sorry record, I'd say it's a deliberate attempt to deceive. Bush wants to privatize Social Security and is not above lying.

:laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

Apparently not enough because nothing you say makes an ounce of sense. :slap:

Oh, by the way, what school did you go to - The University of DU or the University of PD? You've got quite a arsenal of "deflection" techniques. I absolutely love this one........

:laugh2:

The Bush regime's distortions, misrepresentations and lies are well-documented. The bit about using SS money is one of them.

SS buys U. S. Treasuries just like millions of other investors. Saying it's funding government programs is no more accurate than saying you're funding government programs because you own some U. S. Savings Bonds.

[Joe Steel]

Let see the government uses your money for a period of time and pays you the money back when others buy notes. I think that is the classic deffinition of an IOU.

You're wrong.

An "IOU" commonly is regarded as a near-worthless promise to pay. U. S. Treasuries are regarded around the world as "good as gold." No one ever has lost a penny invested in U. S. Treasuries. Plenty of IOUs have gone unredeemed. Big difference.

[Nukeman]

You're wrong.

An "IOU" commonly is regarded as a near-worthless promise to pay. U. S. Treasuries are regarded around the world as "good as gold." No one ever has lost a penny invested in U. S. Treasuries. Plenty of IOUs have gone unredeemed. Big difference.
Thats because they continue to take money from the SS fund to pay for the "good as gold" treasury notes where the hell do you think the government gets the money to pay those notes. I'll give you a little hint TAXES and when taxes aren't enough or they have a short falll somewhere else they dip into the SS fund.....

[Nukeman]

This is for you Joesteele

Here's a great read on the current state of the SS system. I especially like page 4.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/sstw/sstw07-15-05.pdf


The core funds may not be used at this time but they (the feds) sure as hell are using any surplus thats being payed in. Last I checked all that surplus belongs to the people and companies that payed it in. It's for my use in the future not for the Feds right now. That is my major problem with SS being used to fund other programs......

By 2017 there will be more people recieving than paying into SS.....
So why does the government continue to spend the surplus of the current years

[Gunny]

And you can believe whatever you like but SS owns U. S. Treasury bonds and they are the definition of risk-free securities. SS assets are safer than any other in the world. They are safer than any you or I can buy unless we buy U. S. Treasuries.

By the way, dismissing U. S. Treasuries as IOUs, is a wingnut tactic to distort the issue. You should avoid doing it unless you wish to be dismissed yourself.

You mean calling IOUs IOUs is a wingnut tactic? I'd say calling IOUs "risk-free securities" is just as "wingnut" then.

It's the government "borrowing" our money. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if they're risk free or whatever other misleading qualifier you wish to attach to them. It doesn't even matter if the government actually pays up on them.

What matters is, I can make the money I am forced to invest in a government program with possibly the lowest yield of any investment there is do a WHOLE lot more walking than the government currently is.

In effect, the government is screwing over my retirement by forcing me to fund its retirement program. But let's just cut to the chase, if I want to spend the damned money on beer NOW, then that should be my right. The government isn't out busting a nut to earn it. They're justing taking what I have earned.

It's a bunch of socialist bullshit, is what it is. If you need someone to hold your hand and walk YOU through life, that's YOUR problem. I don't.

[Nukeman]

You mean calling IOUs IOUs is a wingnut tactic? I'd say calling IOUs "risk-free securities" is just as "wingnut" then.

It's the government "borrowing" our money. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if they're risk free or whatever other misleading qualifier you wish to attach to them. It doesn't even matter if the government actually pays up on them.

What matters is, I can make the money I am forced to invest in a government program with possibly the lowest yield of any investment there is do a WHOLE lot more walking than the government currently is.

In effect, the government is screwing over my retirement by forcing me to fund its retirement program. But let's just cut to the chase, if I want to spend the damned money on beer NOW, then that should be my right. The government isn't out busting a nut to earn it. They're justing taking what I have earned.

It's a bunch of socialist bullshit, is what it is. If you need someone to hold your hand and walk YOU through life, that's YOUR problem. I don't.
:clap::clap::clap:

[Joe Steel]

This is for you Joesteele

Here's a great read on the current state of the SS system. I especially like page 4.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/sstw/sstw07-15-05.pdf


The core funds may not be used at this time but they (the feds) sure as hell are using any surplus thats being payed in. Last I checked all that surplus belongs to the people and companies that payed it in. It's for my use in the future not for the Feds right now. That is my major problem with SS being used to fund other programs......

By 2017 there will be more people recieving than paying into SS.....
So why does the government continue to spend the surplus of the current years

You're drinking the kool-aid. Wise-up.

This site is just another wingnut smoke screen.

[SassyLady]

:no::no:
You mean calling IOUs IOUs is a wingnut tactic? I'd say calling IOUs "risk-free securities" is just as "wingnut" then.

It's the government "borrowing" our money. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if they're risk free or whatever other misleading qualifier you wish to attach to them. It doesn't even matter if the government actually pays up on them.

What matters is, I can make the money I am forced to invest in a government program with possibly the lowest yield of any investment there is do a WHOLE lot more walking than the government currently is.

In effect, the government is screwing over my retirement by forcing me to fund its retirement program. But let's just cut to the chase, if I want to spend the damned money on beer NOW, then that should be my right. The government isn't out busting a nut to earn it. They're justing taking what I have earned.

It's a bunch of socialist bullshit, is what it is. If you need someone to hold your hand and walk YOU through life, that's YOUR problem. I don't.

I don't know Gunny, he sounds like a puppy that isn't potty trained yet. We'll just have to patiently keep rubbing his nose in his puddles until he understands the consequences of his actions.

[Joe Steel]

You mean calling IOUs IOUs is a wingnut tactic? I'd say calling IOUs "risk-free securities" is just as "wingnut" then.

It's the government "borrowing" our money. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if they're risk free or whatever other misleading qualifier you wish to attach to them. It doesn't even matter if the government actually pays up on them.

What matters is, I can make the money I am forced to invest in a government program with possibly the lowest yield of any investment there is do a WHOLE lot more walking than the government currently is.

In effect, the government is screwing over my retirement by forcing me to fund its retirement program. But let's just cut to the chase, if I want to spend the damned money on beer NOW, then that should be my right. The government isn't out busting a nut to earn it. They're justing taking what I have earned.

It's a bunch of socialist bullshit, is what it is. If you need someone to hold your hand and walk YOU through life, that's YOUR problem. I don't.

Social Security is an insurance program You don't get market returns because it's not an investment program. It's sort of like whole life insurance. No market returns there either but no one complains because that's not its purpose and wise investors understand it.

[Joe Steel]

:no::no:

I don't know Gunny, he sounds like a puppy that isn't potty trained yet. We'll just have to patiently keep rubbing his nose in his puddles until he understands the consequences of his actions.

You've greatly overestimated your abilities. The more you post, the more you display your ignorance.

[SassyLady]

Social Security is an insurance program You don't get market returns because it's not an investment program. It's sort of like whole life insurance. No market returns there either but no one complains because that's not its purpose and wise investors understand it.

"Wise" investors wouldn't keep investing into life insurance if they thought the insurance company wasn't going to make that money available when needed.

How would you like it if you had paid the whole life for twenty years and when you needed it the insurance company said ....."oh, we gave it to your neighbor"? You didn't seem to need it and they did. :slap:

[Joe Steel]

"Wise" investors wouldn't keep investing into life insurance if they thought the insurance company wasn't going to make that money available when needed.

How would you like it if you had paid the whole life for twenty years and when you needed it the insurance company said ....."oh, we gave it to your neighbor"? You didn't seem to need it and they did. :slap:

Sure, that could happen. If it did, you could sue the company for benefits you didn't receive. That's not likely to happen, though, with Social Security because the legislators who control it are accountable to the public. They're not going to let it fail because they want to get reelected.

[SassyLady]

You've greatly overestimated your abilities. The more you post, the more you display your ignorance.

Thanks for making me chuckle joey......what abilities are you referring to?

Just exactly what am I ignorant about........please enlighten me.

I do have to admit that I am woefully lacking in the "stinging retort" abilities and the deflection tactics. You have definitely owned me there.:coffee:

[SassyLady]

Sure, that could happen. If it did, you could sue the company for benefits you didn't receive. That's not likely to happen, though, with Social Security because the legislators who control it are accountable to the public. They're not going to let it fail because they want to get reelected.

Now who's on drugs?:lame2:

[Joe Steel]

Now who's on drugs?:lame2:

Certainly not me. Reelection is the most effective way of holding legislators accountable

[SassyLady]

Certainly not me. Reelection is the most effective way of holding legislators accountable

Really - it seems to me that we just elect new idiots.

[Joe Steel]

Really - it seems to me that we just elect new idiots.

Voters vote for whomever they thing best represents their interests. If you think they're "new idiots" it's because you're out-of-step.

[Nukeman]

Voters vote for whomever they thing best represents their interests. If you think they're "new idiots" it's because you're out-of-step.

No there not idots actually they are all CROOKS.. So we try to elect the least crooked....

[Gunny]

Social Security is an insurance program You don't get market returns because it's not an investment program. It's sort of like whole life insurance. No market returns there either but no one complains because that's not its purpose and wise investors understand it.

What it is is the US government garnishing my wages to fund an antiquated retirement plan that they have decided I will participate in whether or not I want to under the presumption that it knows better what to do with my money than I do.

And if they keep jacking up the age of eligibility, you're damned right there'll be no return because no one's going to live long enough to collect.

[SassyLady]

Voters vote for whomever they thing best represents their interests. If you think they're "new idiots" it's because you're out-of-step.


Idealism = voting for whomever we "think" best represents our interests
Reality = they will represent their own best interests first or the interests of the largest lobby in their district

How many elections have you voted in? Did 100% of who you voted for get elected? Do you feel that everyone you voted for has represented your best interests?

[Gaffer]

What it is is the US government garnishing my wages to fund an antiquated retirement plan that they have decided I will participate in whether or not I want to under the presumption that it knows better what to do with my money than I do.

And if they keep jacking up the age of eligibility, you're damned right there'll be no return because no one's going to live long enough to collect.

When SS was started the retirement age was set at 65 because few were expected to live much past that. It was a democrat program and, as usual, they didn't plan for the future.

[Joe Steel]

When SS was started the retirement age was set at 65 because few were expected to live much past that. It was a democrat program and, as usual, they didn't plan for the future.

I've heard this said more than once and I don't think it's true. I remember reading that the SS actuaries, in the late '30s, made a prediction of the portion of the U. S. population who would be over 65 years old in 1990. When 1990 came around, someone checked the prediction and found the actuaries were only a percentage point or two off the actual over-65 portion of the population.

The program is well-designed and is in no significant trouble except that created by rightwing hacks and wingnuts.

[LOki]

That's absurd.Abusurd is your notion that the term "equity" is meaningful when it subtantive defining characteristic is "whatever we feel." Absurd are the notions that women are actually treated equitably under the Taliban, that Jews were treated equitably under the Nazis, and black folks were treated equitably under American slavery--but then those notions are validated by your notions of "equity" that aren't subject to being actually fair, actually just, or being consitent with a validly moral conscience.

I suppose I prefer to use the term "equity" in such a manner that it is subject to rational notions of fairness and justice; and is subject to a rationally validated moral conscience, rather than "whatever we feel is just."


I'm sorry this is so difficult for you.This is not difficult at all for me. I suspect you are engaging is some flavor of transferrence of the difficulty you are experiencing in having to face the objective consequences of your own absurd notion of a reality that is subject to emotion.

[LOki]

Social Security is an insurance program.No. Its a wealth redistribution program.


You don't get market returns because it's not an investment program..That, and thieves don't pay you back with interest.


It's sort of like whole life insurance..It's much more like armed robbery.


No market returns there either but no one complains because that's not its purpose and wise investors understand it.There's plenty of complaining, and lack of market returns has less to do with investment wisdom, and more to do with the purpose of redistribution of wealth along irrational, and morally ambiguous lines.

[Joe Steel]

Abusurd is your notion that the term "equity" is meaningful when it subtantive defining characteristic is "whatever we feel."


You're wrong.

Ignoring your attempt to misrepresent this issue, equity is exactly that.

[LOki]

You're wrong.By your own ambiguous standards of what "equity" means, you cannot validly make that judgment.

So you're wrong.


Ignoring your attempt to misrepresent this issue, equity is exactly that.There is no attempt to misrepresent the issue. I still prefer to use the term "equity" in such a manner that it is subject to rational notions of fairness and justice; and is subject to a rationally validated moral conscience, rather than "whatever we feel is just." I prefer to do so, because the term "equity" then actaully means something, and not just "whatever..."

And I'm not about to ignore my suspicion that you prefer this "whatever..." terminology, because then you get to use the term "equitable" to describe your prefered actions that are objectively unfair, unjust, and subject to an irrationally validated moral conscience.

[glockmail]

Social Security is an insurance program You don't get market returns because it's not an investment program. It's sort of like whole life insurance. No market returns there either but no one complains because that's not its purpose and wise investors understand it.Its the biggest rip off ever devised by socialist democrats to keep the poor man voting for them. It sucks.

[Joe Steel]

You're wrong.

By your own ambiguous standards of what "equity" means, you cannot validly make that judgment.

So you're wrong.


You're piling error on error.

My understanding of equity is not ambiguous but precise. Equity is intrinsically subjective. It varies not only from person to person but from situation to situation because each of us has, by our nature, a different idea of what is fair and just in varying circumstances. At best, equity on a societal level, is the aggregate of these personal notions. It can't be measured but must be felt.





Ignoring your attempt to misrepresent this issue, equity is exactly that.

There is no attempt to misrepresent the issue. I still prefer to use the term "equity" in such a manner that it is subject to rational notions of fairness and justice; and is subject to a rationally validated moral conscience, rather than "whatever we feel is just." I prefer to do so, because the term "equity" then actaully means something, and not just "whatever..."


Whose reasoning? Who validates my "moral conscience?" Who does yours?