Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!  (Read 13685 times)

NYU2011

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #220 on: February 16, 2008, 11:01:23 AM »
I like how I am a bigot because you have a love afair with Barack. 

i didn't bother reading past this first sentence because the bulk of your posts tend to be worthless. 

get this through your head: this has nothing to do with barack.  this has everything to do with the fact that you appeal to people's prejudices against muslims.  how hard is that for you to understand?

and fyi, you're an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere.
Just like he appealed to misogyny to argue against welfare.

Way to go, Troublemaker, it took you like one line to explain what took me about 20 pages.






You guys are jokes and should be ashamed of yourselves for acting like 4th graders.  You sit here and call other politicians different names, or don't say anything when others do, and then freak out when someone calls a politician you like a different name.  Do you not see how hypocritical you are being? Are you really that incapable of being even a little bit objective? 

Don't sit here and act like he called Obama Osama because he's a bigot against Muslims.  You know very well he called him that because he doesn't like him or his politics.  When you call Bush (or any other politician you don't like) a name that makes him sound retarded are you making fun of all mentally challenged people?

1654134681665465

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #221 on: February 16, 2008, 08:56:21 PM »
I was playing off peoples general dislike of terrorists-not Muslims. Why wasn't that your first assumption? Probably because that wouldn't have fit into you unfounded claim that I am a bigot.

hegemonyhog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #222 on: February 16, 2008, 09:27:59 PM »
Quote
First, how is it advocating anarchy?  The government has a role to play, just not taking money from some and giving it to others.  Society not only would exist, but it would be better if the government did not take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Second, since it isn't advocating anarchy, how is it asinine? 

Hint: Government has to be funded.

Even pre-income tax, a variety of tariffs and other fees/taxes funded government.  Money has to come from somewhere to provide for the services of government.  Without it...anarchy. 

What truly bothers me about arguments like this, though, is that they're inevitably based off a simplistic and falsely atavistic ideal - if we could just get back to the point where we were all rugged individualists blazing our own path, everything would be so much better. 

Do you have insurance on anything you own? 

And lastly, the "take it from the rich and give it to the poor" is, well, asinine.  If government doesn't address those in need and try to reduce the impact that the needy have upon the not-needy, then it's not doing its job.  Strong regulations help preserve the private market.  A strong military protects our way of life.  Social Security and Medicaid/care are two of the strongest antipoverty programs ever conceived of. 

What you're saying is so brutally ignorant and ill-conceived that its lack of basis in fact only serves to highlight the truly sad impulse behind it - relentless selfishness in the face of reality.
Accepted: Columbia, Chicago, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, The Ohio State University

Pending: Yale, Harvard

Please note that the schools are listed entirely in order of US News ranking.

LSN

1654134681665465

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #223 on: February 16, 2008, 09:55:30 PM »
I was playing off peoples general dislike of terrorists-not Muslims. Why wasn't that your first assumption? Probably because that wouldn't have fit into you unfounded claim that I am a bigot.

bull. 

Prove it.  Because unless you can, you are just throwing out random accusations (which will make your law school experience REALLY exciting if you keep the trend going). 

1654134681665465

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #224 on: February 16, 2008, 10:02:06 PM »
Prove it.  Because unless you can, you are just throwing out random accusations (which will make your law school experience REALLY exciting if you keep the trend going). 

considering that you start thread after thread after thread that subtly imply that you have nothing but contempt for racial/religious groups that are not your own?  i think i have enough evidence to convince a finder of fact. 

but more to the point, i don't really have to prove anything.  what matters is that i think you're a bigot and i'm going to continue telling you so until you at least CONSIDER the possibility that you are.

You don't HAVE to prove anything.  You sound like an idiot running around calling people names because they disagree with you.  That is the typical sign of small mindedness and lack of ability to engage in a discussion with others whose opinions differ from your own.  While you have proved nothing about myself, you have proven to everyone on this board that you are small and intellectually challenged.  Well done.   :D

NYU2011

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #225 on: February 17, 2008, 01:59:58 PM »
Quote
First, how is it advocating anarchy?  The government has a role to play, just not taking money from some and giving it to others.  Society not only would exist, but it would be better if the government did not take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Second, since it isn't advocating anarchy, how is it asinine? 

Hint: Government has to be funded.

Even pre-income tax, a variety of tariffs and other fees/taxes funded government.  Money has to come from somewhere to provide for the services of government.  Without it...anarchy. 

What truly bothers me about arguments like this, though, is that they're inevitably based off a simplistic and falsely atavistic ideal - if we could just get back to the point where we were all rugged individualists blazing our own path, everything would be so much better. 

Do you have insurance on anything you own? 

And lastly, the "take it from the rich and give it to the poor" is, well, asinine.  If government doesn't address those in need and try to reduce the impact that the needy have upon the not-needy, then it's not doing its job.  Strong regulations help preserve the private market.  A strong military protects our way of life.  Social Security and Medicaid/care are two of the strongest antipoverty programs ever conceived of. 

What you're saying is so brutally ignorant and ill-conceived that its lack of basis in fact only serves to highlight the truly sad impulse behind it - relentless selfishness in the face of reality.

A) I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that.  I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others.  I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.

B) Having insurance isn't even a close comparison.  I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force.  Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties  agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases). 

C) The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud.  This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system).  The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.

D) Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice.  People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter.  The same goes for Medicaid/care.  It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care.  In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell.  Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt.  Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done. 

E) Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said.  I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised.  I think that people should help one another.  I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.
 

Hammerstein

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #226 on: February 17, 2008, 03:43:40 PM »
A) I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that.  I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others.  I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.

B) Having insurance isn't even a close comparison.  I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force.  Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties  agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases). 

C) The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud.  This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system).  The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.

D) Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice.  People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter.  The same goes for Medicaid/care.  It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care.  In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell.  Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt.  Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done. 

E) Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said.  I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised.  I think that people should help one another.  I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.

Here are a few questions regarding the above.  These are meant to be serious and would need to be answered given your stated beliefs in the role of government.  I'll ask questions about each of your points, marking each set of questions using the same letter as you did to indicate that they are targetted towards that particular point.

A) When you state that "I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others," what is your view of the role of the courts?  As a future lawyer, it appears that someone could read this particular view as stating that you belief that the entire field of Tort law should disappear.  Let me explain my reasoning: in a tort case, government (via the courts) can take money from someone and giving it to someone else when a civil proceeding finds that one party has commited a tortious act and should compensate the harmed party for some financial sum. 

In addition, presumably, Tort law also needs a branch of enforcement (otherwise, those found liable will probably never bother to pay up), so other financial penalties and/or jail should further be attached to the requirement that the wrongful party pay the wronged party.  Again, there is a possible-issued government financial penalty.

B) Relying on similar reasoning, would it not seem that forcing people to purchase insurance is also a form of "stealing" as you see it?  If so, how would society compensate those who are wrongfully injured in car accidents and other situations where fault can reasonably be assigned if the guilty party has no insurance and little ability to compensate a harmed individual?  For example, consider a car accident where the responsible driver has no car insurance and is otherwise bankrupt or poor -- what remedy does or ought the harmed person have?  Even putting the guilty party in jail does not remedy the harmed person's plight, especially if there is the need for high medical bills or to replace a totaled car.  Furthermore, it would appear to be "stealing" again if the government provided financial remedy to the harmed person.

C) No questions here.  I'm using your assertion here to ask the questions above and below this one.

D) You say that Medicare and Social Security are sending the U.S. economy into hell?  What is your reasoning behind this?  Does it have to do with the fact that government deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, which consequently hurts the overall ability of business to borrow?  If so, how do you explain the general prosperity of America even during government deficits?  Or what particular explanation do you believe provides the most compelling evidence of the pernicious effects of the two aforementioned programs (as opposed to other reasons for deficit spending including military expenditures and discretionary expenditures of all sorts including the $18 billion in pork the U.S. spends a year)?

E) What should we do as a society if the demand for assistance among the poor and disenfranchised is more than the supply of available, freely given assistance?  (I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the case at the moment, because I don't have evidence either way).  However, suppose that that is the real situation, then what should the role of government vis-a-vis the generosity of individuals be?  And, if there is a gap, what should the role of government be vis-a-vis any protests among those who feel they are not given a fair deal?


CLS 2011.  All done.

Lotus12

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #227 on: February 17, 2008, 04:07:43 PM »
I appreciate Hammerstein expounding on these issues. I haven't read many of the other posts but merely want to comment on the government deficit issue.  A larger deficit doesn't necessarily mean a reduced money supply because of the government's reallocation (through various taxes) of money to pay down that debt. In fact, the entire point of perpetual debt is to finance your current debt with newly issued notes.

As a caveat, I will add this obviously becomes a problem when investors begin to lose confidence in whatever entity is issuing debt, as the demand weakens for said debt. However, aside from the doomsdayers, I think most would say they have a relative level of confidence in the U.S. government/economy if they really thought about it, even in times of recession.

A policy of running up the deficit becomes more problematic when taking inflation into account. Certainly the government has the ability to pay down that debt by printing more money, along with issuing new debt, but an increased money supply means "too much money chases too few goods", leading to inflation. This works jointly with the problem mentioned above to exacerbate situations quickly.

Of course, this is all theory. We could scrap it all in favor of Russia's system.

hegemonyhog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #228 on: February 17, 2008, 04:28:56 PM »
Quote
I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that.  I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others.  I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.

...And how, exactly, does government do that with no funding mechanism? 

Quote
Having insurance isn't even a close comparison.  I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force.  Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties  agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases).

Again, you're advocating anarchy.  The only way the government gets funds is to place taxes/tarriffs on things, unless it prints its own money, which destabilizes the entire system.  How does the government do even your basic (and woefully incomplete) list of tasks with no funding mechanism?

Quote
The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud.  This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system).  The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.

Which is why I asked about the insurance.  The very nature of insurance is that money is taken from all parties and distributed according to need rather than pay-in.  You may pay $250 a month to insure your car and I may pay $50 to insure mine, but if you never wreck yours and I get t-boned in an intersection, I get the $5,000 my car is worth...and you keep paying.

Government is fundamentally an insurance policy, and the reason the force you so decry is necessary is because there's no way to strategically opt people out of the services it provides to insure order.  In the case of a fire, for instance, the fire department can't just put out the fire of the people who decide to pay taxes, as any fire constitutes a threat to the entire community. 

And again, you've removed the entire funding mechanism, so have fun with your buckets of water.

Quote
Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice.  People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter.  The same goes for Medicaid/care.  It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care.  In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell.  Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt.  Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done.

Actually, they aren't "sending our economy into hell", and I have no idea what Congress you're watching.  Social Security under the most likely scenario can be funded with minor tweaks indefinitely, and the rise in Medicare/Medicaid costs has nothing to do with the program and everything to do with rapidly escalating healthcare costs outside of the program.

Also, Social Security in particular is the single greatest anti-poverty program in American history.  That's simply a fact.

Quote
Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said.  I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised.  I think that people should help one another.  I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.

Which inevitably leads to government interaction of the non-beneficial variety.  Suppose a community doesn't help those in need - there are no schools for the poor, no unemployment, no nothing.  Inevitably, those ignored problems become criminal problems, which simply exacerbate themselves unless some measure of prevention and remedy is put in place.

Everything you say is about relentless selfishness.  You shouldn't be "forced" to do anything unless you want to do it, except for those things you should be forced to do because you're okay with them, but you can't say how you'd be forced to do them, because it's contradicted in your basic statement of principles.

Asinine.
Accepted: Columbia, Chicago, Michigan, Virginia, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, The Ohio State University

Pending: Yale, Harvard

Please note that the schools are listed entirely in order of US News ranking.

LSN

NYU2011

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!
« Reply #229 on: February 17, 2008, 05:43:47 PM »
A) I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that.  I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others.  I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.

B) Having insurance isn't even a close comparison.  I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force.  Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties  agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases). 

C) The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud.  This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system).  The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.

D) Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice.  People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter.  The same goes for Medicaid/care.  It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care.  In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell.  Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt.  Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done. 

E) Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said.  I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised.  I think that people should help one another.  I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.

Here are a few questions regarding the above.  These are meant to be serious and would need to be answered given your stated beliefs in the role of government.  I'll ask questions about each of your points, marking each set of questions using the same letter as you did to indicate that they are targetted towards that particular point.

A) When you state that "I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others," what is your view of the role of the courts?  As a future lawyer, it appears that someone could read this particular view as stating that you belief that the entire field of Tort law should disappear.  Let me explain my reasoning: in a tort case, government (via the courts) can take money from someone and giving it to someone else when a civil proceeding finds that one party has commited a tortious act and should compensate the harmed party for some financial sum. 

In addition, presumably, Tort law also needs a branch of enforcement (otherwise, those found liable will probably never bother to pay up), so other financial penalties and/or jail should further be attached to the requirement that the wrongful party pay the wronged party.  Again, there is a possible-issued government financial penalty.

B) Relying on similar reasoning, would it not seem that forcing people to purchase insurance is also a form of "stealing" as you see it?  If so, how would society compensate those who are wrongfully injured in car accidents and other situations where fault can reasonably be assigned if the guilty party has no insurance and little ability to compensate a harmed individual?  For example, consider a car accident where the responsible driver has no car insurance and is otherwise bankrupt or poor -- what remedy does or ought the harmed person have?  Even putting the guilty party in jail does not remedy the harmed person's plight, especially if there is the need for high medical bills or to replace a totaled car.  Furthermore, it would appear to be "stealing" again if the government provided financial remedy to the harmed person.

C) No questions here.  I'm using your assertion here to ask the questions above and below this one.

D) You say that Medicare and Social Security are sending the U.S. economy into hell?  What is your reasoning behind this?  Does it have to do with the fact that government deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, which consequently hurts the overall ability of business to borrow?  If so, how do you explain the general prosperity of America even during government deficits?  Or what particular explanation do you believe provides the most compelling evidence of the pernicious effects of the two aforementioned programs (as opposed to other reasons for deficit spending including military expenditures and discretionary expenditures of all sorts including the $18 billion in pork the U.S. spends a year)?

E) What should we do as a society if the demand for assistance among the poor and disenfranchised is more than the supply of available, freely given assistance?  (I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the case at the moment, because I don't have evidence either way).  However, suppose that that is the real situation, then what should the role of government vis-a-vis the generosity of individuals be?  And, if there is a gap, what should the role of government be vis-a-vis any protests among those who feel they are not given a fair deal?




A) I am sorry for not making the argument more clearly.  I erred in that I did not explain that it is the redistribution of money from some citizens to others without just cause (and I do not believe "you have the money and they don't" is just cause) that I think is wrong.  I have no problem whatsoever with tort law.  I also have no problem with requiring child support payments, and things of that sort, as that will probably come up as well.

B) I also do not believe that forcing people to purchase insurance is stealing either.  Forcing a consumer to buy a product at a reasonable price really isn't stealing.  That is not to say that I think it is a good regulation.  I do not see why the government should require every driver to have auto insurance.  It seems another instance when the government is telling people how to live their life when it shouldn't be.  A much better regulation would be that people are required to show that they have the financial capabilities to pay for an accident to the extent of the minimum insurance requirements OR to have insurance.  In this the government would be protecting the rights of other citizens rather than infringing upon mine.

D)  The crowding out effect (which as you mentioned reduces the supply of loanable funds) and the inefficiency of the Government. I can't say that the crowding out effect is the sole issue here because then the logical step would be to just increase taxes to an amount that facilitates the spending.  The crowding out effect would disappear but it would still severely weaken the economy.  The government is not anywhere near as efficient as the market is in deciding how resources should be spent.  America has prospered because of the amazing ingenuity of the business owners in this country.  And because it is one of the most economically free countries in the world.  I have no doubt that if there was less government involvement in the economy America would be even better off.  America has prospered despite government intervention, not because of it.  My evidence is that of economics. 

You asked why point to those to programs and not all of the others?  Because those were the two that were brought up, and because those two make up such a large portion of spending and will be spiraling out of control in the coming years.   I disagree just as much with many other types of government spending, including all of the pork, and all welfare programs.  I also do not like our foreign policy.

As I alluded to earlier in this response it is not the deficit which worries me as much as the percent of GDP the government is involved in.


E) The government should do nothing if this is the case.  It is not my right, nor the right of government, to tell anyone that they must give their money to someone else.  In general society could pressure some to give more money as long as it was done in a peaceful manner.  For example if we thought Bill Gates did not donate enough money make our protests heard by purchasing products of that nature from another business.  I don't think this would actually happen because I don't think that most people in society really care enough to do this.

As far as protests the governments role should be the same as with any other protest.  There are those now who do not feel like they have been given a fair deal and there always will be.  The poor now have a better standard of living now than they did in the past (if you do not agree with this I will show evidence) but to me there seems to be just as many protests over income inequality.