GeorgiaDon

And how liberals interpret that is not what the founding fathers meant, as I've corrected to the actual wording. The original intent of the Constitution can be assessed by reading the Federalist papers. While I haven't done so, I'm gradually working my way there. I've noticed that conservatives like to substitute "promote" for "provide" in the general welfare clause. This allows them to argue that the government should only be a cheerleader, but not actually do anything concrete to provide for "the general welfare". Last year I heard an episode of "This American Life" where the host, Ira Glass, starts by talking about the story of how Van Halen had a clause in their contract that wherever they played the dressing room had to have a bowl of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. He took this as an example of "rock star diva" behavior. Then he read David Lee Roth's autobiography, where Roth has this to say about the M&M clause: "We'd pull up with nine 18-wheeler trucks full of gear in places where the standard was three trucks max. And there were many, many technical errors, whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages, because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in article number 126, in the middle of nowhere was, quote, 'There will be no brown M&Ms in the backstage area upon pain of forfeiture of the show with full compensation,' end quote." So, he writes, "When I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl, well, line check the entire production, guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed, you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to destroy the whole show. Sometimes literally life threatening." Apart from observing that this puts a completely different (and rather clever) spin on the M&M story, I'd also point out that in the music industry, the "promotor" doesn't just invite the band, do some advertising (cheerleading), then sit back and rake in the profit. The "promotor" has to provide the whole infrastructure: the stage, scaffolding, all the electricity set up so the band can come in, set up, plug in and go without worrying about the stage or scaffolding collapsing under the weight of the gear or having somebody get electrocuted. The "promotor" provides security and all the people and resources to unload and reload the equipment. The "promotor" also handles advertising, ticket sales, and so on. Everything so the band can roll into town, set up, play safely and efficiently,and then pack up and move on to the next gig. That's what it takes to "promote". So when people say the government should "promote" the general welfare, I think of those music promotors, and it seems to me that's not a bad way to think of the role of the government. Take care of the infrastructure (including an educated work force as well as physical utilities/roads/etc) so industry can "plug in and play". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I see some need and, growing up in the Los Angeles Metro, saw first-hand the benefits that came from cleaner air. On the other hand, I think the EPA moves from common issues like air and water to local issues like wetlands and the like. There are issues that can be easily handled by nuisance suits instead of the EPA. Because the EPA is a political body, it makes decisions that allow nuisances to go forward AND can prevent anybody from doing anything about it. Picture James Watt. It takes the issue of nuisance away from the people being harmed and puts it into the hands of those who don’t have a stake in it. Again – fifty fifty. The EPA should be responsible for those environmental matters in interstate commerce that the states themselves have not made agreements (states do it all the time). But the EPA moving in on an oil spill on a mountain road seems to be a bit much when state and local authorities can manage it and any damages that occur can be handled the way they’ve been handled for ages. I guess we're pretty much in agreement then. I also did see the news about states opting out of NCLB, and I can't be too sad about that as I think it has pushed teaching to the test to disastrous levels. One adverse consequence of getting the Federal gov't completely out of education would be the end of Pell grants and much assistance in paying for advanced education, which would certainly further limit access at a time when much of the rest of the world is actively investing in the education of their population. It's already hard to find qualified Americans in many fields, and further restricting access to education wouldn't help America's competitive position in the world. WRT the EPA, I think it's important to have uniformity in standards of how much a business (or individuals) can pollute communal resources. Otherwise, a state could seek to attract industry by lowering standards (and so costs) as long as the industry was located where river flow or prevailing winds would carry the pollution out of the state's borders, where it would become someone else's problem. I agree they don't have to get involved in every little local mishap, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree completely. Something that strikes me as particularly wrong with the current bailout proposal is that it includes $17 billion for reductions in the principle owing for "underwater" mortgages. So, my tax dollars are being used to pay off part of the principle for people who owe more than their house is worth. I'll go ahead and guess those are people without much equity in their house, which suggests they didn't put enough down to cover the cost of market downturns (cough cough shah cough). I on the other hand will not qualify for such a giveaway, as I made a decent down payment (a bit over 20%) on house #1 back in '96, and about 50% on house #2 last year. It would be sweet indeed if someone was to write off $17,000 on either mortgage, but because I (well my wife really) have been responsible and never missed or been late with a payment we get to pay off other people's mortgage too! Don't get me wrong, I don't think I should have been included in the giveaway, I disagree with the notion of the giveaway itself. I can see some argument for providing some security so people can refinance at today's rates, indeed I have a self-interest in that as I don't want more houses added to the foreclosure glut, but making me pay off someone else's principle pisses me off. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree, and there has been some interesting discussion in this thread. Just so I can be a little less confused about where you are going with your train of thought, would it be fair to say that you do not agree with the government providing for public education, and you do not agree with the government mandating environmental protections through the EPA? I can think of several other examples of "common good" services or protections, but those two will be a good start. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This is news to me and if you could provide links i would appreciate it. you say, "a number of stories", could you be more clear? somewhere between zero and a million?Quote Here's one from Atlanta. Some more from Colorado. Edited to add another recent news story. And another one. These are hard to find on Google as you get pages and pages of "how to avoid foreclosure" and similar links. I think these examples are enough to show the problem is real. Not a huge number, perhaps closer to zero than to a million, but certainly cases exist where houses were put into foreclosure despite paid-up or even paid-off mortgages. There are also cases where the homeowner was unable to resolve a situation because it was unclear until too late who actually held the mortgage; it had been bought and sold several times but the paperwork didn't follow in a timely manner. While it's clear the overwhelming number of foreclosures are due to people not making payments, there do also seem to be some cases where banks have lost track of paperwork and have initiated foreclosures on paid-up loans. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Better that than a smarting ass... _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

At which point he'll find himself in the afterlife with 72 super plus-sized virgin female engineers. With cankles. Forever. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Consistent much? With 3% down the market just has to sneeze and you're under water. 20% down is a lot for people who haven't been working long enough to save up a big down payment. Maybe somewhere in the middle, say 10%, would be a reasonable compromise. Were the other residents there when you bought your place? Were the "rules" there already, did you just assume they wouldn't apply to you? Somehow you don't come across as the best person to make the case that the rules are unnecessarily restrictive. So if you were to take control of the board, would you ban engineers? Women who are over size 8? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Answers.com seems to have changed their site, no doubt reflecting the use of the "force" (i.e. ridicule) by DZ.com. Well, perhaps Drew Eckhardt had a bit to do with it too (in bold at bottom of quote). Here's what the link brought me to: "Answer: Improve Operator error usually under an open parachute with Aircraft pilots calling such incidents mid-air collisions or controlled flight into terrain. Out of 12 2011 North American recreational skydiving fatalities 5 skydivers died when two jumpers under open parachutes hit each other 3 died landing under open parachutes 2 no pulls (one with an automatic activation device that didn't leave time for the reserve to open with the root cause potentially a medical problem, one without) 1 cutaway too low from a malfunctioning parachute 1 skydiver left his harness (possibly a suicide) Out of 21 2010 North American recreational skydiving fatalities 5 low turns into the ground 5 canopy collisions (one unable to deploy his reserve after the wrap) 3 no pulls 2 canopy collapse in turbulence 1 wrap in a canopy formation 1 collision under canopy with electrical cables 1 low cutaway from a malfunction 1 hard landing in high winds 1 low reserve opening followed by a hard landing (probably a medical problem) 1 suicide First answer by ID1266168122. Last edit by Drew Eckhardt. Contributor trust: 0 [recommend contributorrecommended]. Question popularity: 2" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This one looks tasty. I'll have it medium rare, and can I get it to go? Got to get to a fund raiser. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Underage drinking is something most people can relate to. If it comes up turn it to a positive (for the employer): the case was dismissed, but it made you realize how easy it is for innocent actions to be misconstrued, and you are now more careful to protect your reputation and so that of your employer (just try not to snicker when you're saying it). Lying on an application goes directly to your character, present day. Would you trust someone who has just demonstrated that they will lie if they think they can get some advantage? There are lots of applicants for every job these days; shit like that makes the choice easier for the HR trained monkey. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What are those three lumpy things on the left? Rodents with leprosy? The middle one looks like a diseased penis with herpes sores. A pig that they need to circle to make sure you see it isn't the biggest problem with this design, the whole thing is amateurish. And, if the decals were made by state prisoners, where is the "cost to taxpayers"? I think it's pretty funny, maybe there's a doughnut in there somewhere too. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder if the building knows it won't be getting any more blow jobs? And isn't that Sean Pen in the audience (photo #7)? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's kind of hard to understand current events in the world, and world history for that matter, without knowing anything about one of the primary factors that motivates people (and societies) to do what they do. Some "just-the-facts" about such influences, without any judgmental crap about "how could they be so stupid" is essential if students are to get get beyond memorizing events and dates and start to see why things happened as they did. Can you imagine teaching Greek history without any discussion of the Greek gods? "They built the Acropolis where they did because, well, ummm... they liked the view from the top of the hill. They could see their house from up there. Yeah, that's the reason." Don Teaching current events and that wars are fought for two reasons - geography and religion and mentioning the different religions is not teaching religion. It's like teaching about the crusades and not mentioning Catholicism, You can't teach about the outside of a cup without teaching about what the cup is made of... but, that doesn't mean you have to teach them about what goes in the cup. I think we agree on this issue. I didn't mean my post to sound as if I disagreed with what you wrote in any major way, it's just that the line about "what business is that of the education system?" was a good starting point. The problem I see is that religion is a fact of life, and it isn't practical for the education system to pretend there is no such thing without gutting some subjects (history and art, for example). On the other hand it has no place in a science class, and as I said in another thread people who put a lot of stock in their religious "explanations" of the natural world would not be very happy with the treatment such mythologies would get in my classroom. Not that I would openly deride such fables as childish nonsense, but holding them up side-by-side with real science would just underscore their fundamental vacuousness. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While it might be nice to think so (for some), the attention span of the American public is so short that all this will be dead and buried by the time the election comes around. Many past primary campaigns were quite nasty, yet little evidence of that was seen at the polls. It's kind of like a basketball game where it all comes down to who sinks the last basket (or gets in the last attack ad) a millisecond before the buzzer to win by 2 points; all the back-and-forth of the game counts for little and the first half often could be skipped entirely. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's kind of hard to understand current events in the world, and world history for that matter, without knowing anything about one of the primary factors that motivates people (and societies) to do what they do. Some "just-the-facts" about such influences, without any judgmental crap about "how could they be so stupid" is essential if students are to get get beyond memorizing events and dates and start to see why things happened as they did. Can you imagine teaching Greek history without any discussion of the Greek gods? "They built the Acropolis where they did because, well, ummm... they liked the view from the top of the hill. They could see their house from up there. Yeah, that's the reason." Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Would that be a cut of 18% below current levels of spending, or below projected spending? From the CBO: "In 2002, the federal government spent over $450 billion to provide Social Security benefits to more than 46 million retired or disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. According to CBO's projections, under the current structure of benefits, spending will exceed the tax revenues earmarked for Social Security beginning in 2017. By 2030, total spending (in 2002 dollars) will reach about $1.2 trillion for 85 million beneficiaries. On average, beneficiaries will receive about $14,000 per year in 2030, compared with about $10,000 in 2002. " Elsewhere in the report they say that workers paying into the system will increase by only 15% in the same time frame. So, a cut of 18% in benefits paid would bring the average benefit to $11,480, which I can't imagine having to live on (should some future Bernie Mac abscond with my 401K), and that would still require more than doubling ($984 billion) annual federal expenditures on SS alone (but only 15% more people paying in). A cut of 18% below current funding for the whole social security program would bring the average benefit down to $4,341 by 2030. It's hard to imagine medical costs, food, shelter, gas etc will decline in cost at all over the same time, so at that point the govt might as well keep the change. Kallend and Billvon are both right, benefits will have to be cut and the program will have to be means tested. It will have to become a port-of-last-resort for those whose pensions/investments went totally in the toilet, and even then it won't come close to a poverty level income. Alternatively, we could just let the old folks freeze in the dark. Or soylent green them. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apparently, automatic hikes are built into everything. What they're doing is cutting back a little on the automatic hike. Net/net, there's still an increase in spending. That's my understanding. I don't know about automatic hikes being built into everything. Maybe so, but I can tell you that for a number of years now we have not been able to budget for inflation in NIH grants, although we used to do so in the past. Very hard to budget for a 4-5 year project without any allowance for cost increases over that time. Anyway, I think the major issue with built-in increases is with entitlement programs, and most of that is due to growth in the retiree population. Even if there were no cost-of-living adjustments to social security/medicare benefits paid to individuals, the program will still eat more and more of the budget because of the number of baby boomers retiring. Anyone who advocates rolling these programs back to 2007 levels and holding them there has to at least be honest that that will require a big cut to individual benefits, because there are more slices to the pie and more are added all the time. And retirees tend to vote. Although it's popular in some circles to bash government bureaucrats as power/money hungry out-of-control demons who won't be happy until they control the whole economy, that position ignores the real structural issues that drive growth in government spending and lead to moronic ideas such as thinking we can balance the budget by eliminating foreign aid. As Lawrocket points out regularly, these programs grow automatically (by law) as the client population grows. So in those cases cuts to projected growth are, in fact, real cuts to real people. For those who think they are not, consider how you would react if your employer announced they were going to increase their workforce by 10% but they have no money so all the current employees will have their pay cut to make up the difference. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Good question. I'm not a stock guy, so I'm probably not the best person to answer. I believe the company gets its money only in the IPO. Once the stock is in play, that company can claim it as an "asset" (not sure that's the correct word, I'm not an accountant) and use it for other financial purposes (getting loans, "Hey look out our stock capitalization, we're a thriving company!" ). Thanks. These comments are addressed to everybody, not just StreetScooby: Something I wonder about, then, is if the majority of stock trading does not directly generate revenue for the corporation that issued it, does it make sense to tax it as if it did? If the goal is to reward investment in industry, then the guy Lawrocket talked about a while back who invests in a company in the sense of putting in money to lease a factory, buy machinery, hire workers etc should get a tax rate that provides an incentive to take on the risk. If stocks are more like Pokemon cards, where after the IPO any profit generated goes to the investor but is not available to the company to spend on growth, why does that deserve special tax treatment compared to income from wages? Maybe part of our problem is that much of what we call "investment" doesn't really put money in a place to grow factories, it just grows financial markets that are based on models, projections, and perceptions but not bricks and mortar. Maybe we need to think about rewarding investment that puts money where it can be used to hire people and build industry, and not favor financial markets that spin a bit of real investment sugar into a big fluffy ball of inflated stock market cotton candy. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here's the rationale behind taxing long term capital gains at a lower rate.... Let's say I'm an investor, and I've put my money into a stock that has been successful. I keep my money in that stock, because it's working. My understanding (kelpdiver help me out here) is the government actually taxes your "unrealized gains". Even though you haven't cashed out the stock, the government steps in and taxes your gains, anyway, every year. Thus, as an investor facing a call from the tax man, I have to go and sell my successful stock to pay the tax man. In order to ease what many consider the unfairness of taking cash from something that hasn't been cashed, the government graciously accepts just 15% instead of the normal amount. I can certainly see why that would be a problem, not unlike the problem homeowners face with property taxes when house values are escalating faster than their income. If that's the issue, an increase in capital gains could be accompanied by a change so the tax is due only when the stock is sold. Stock values go up and down, one year it might be up so you'd pay taxes in that year even though the gains are just on paper. The next year the stock might decline, so when you actually sell it you don't make any money on it. You may not be taxed then but it doesn't seem right to be taxed on transient "virtual" profits that don't really exist until you sell the stock. Here's a real naive question. People refer to buying stocks as investing in a company. I can see how the money goes directly to a corporation when they initially have a stock offering. Lets say Joe buys stock directly from ACME Roadrunner Control, and after a couple of years the stock appreciates by 20%. Joe then sells his stock to Mary. A while later Mary sells to Bob at a further increase of 15%. So Joe has invested in the corporation by buying stock from them, but the profit he made doesn't go back to the corporation, and after that the money that exchanges hands when Mary sells to Bob doesn't go back to the corporation either. So in what sense is Mary and Bob investing in ACME, as none of the increased value of the stock is directly available to ACME to build new factories or hire new workers? Isn't it all a bit like trading Pokemon cards? I can see that ACME might hold onto some stock, which would go up in value, and they could sell it or use it for collateral and raise money that way. But that effect is pretty indirect. Since when Mary and Bob bought there stock none of the money that changed hands went to ACME, can they really be said to be "investing" in ACME in a way that directly puts resources into ACMEs hands to build their operation? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

First off, I want to thank you and almost everybody else for the civil and highly informative discussion. I'm learning some things, and have a better appreciation for the rational arguments behind some positions, and I greatly appreciate that. If the government is funding it, there's a side of me that feels is should be public domain. Question concerning this - "Bayh-Dole requires that NIH grant recipients: (a) patent and (b) favor small, USA companies when they license". I appreciate people need to make money in life, and that those that work hard and produce should be able to make alot of money. What's being patented by Bayh-Dole? The basic research, or the process by which that research is delivered to consumers? Great questions. Most of the research funded by NIH is published in peer-reviewed journals and is public domain. This is especially true of the basic research, concentrating on basic biology and the factors causing disease. An example would be the human genome, where all the data is available to any researcher, or even to you. The idea is (1) in order to know what is causing a disease, you have to know how the system functions when it is healthy (hence the support for basic biology research), and (2) once causes of specific diseases are released to the public domain, private corporations compete to develop and patent/produce treatments. This way we get a variety of drugs or other therapies and can choose the best for the patient's circumstances. In the alternative model, where corporations patent the gene/virus/whatever that causes a disease, that corporation can prevent anyone else from marketing a treatment, so the consumer ends up with only one treatment and there is no opportunity to develop alternatives without infringing the first corporations patent. Now it sometimes happens that in the course of doing basic research you will discover something that has obvious practical applications. Here there is the problem that the road from discovery to FDA registered drug is long (cell culture assays, then animal studies, then small and finally large scale clinical trials), takes years, and costs as much as $500 million dollars according to the pharmaceutical industry. No corporation will undertake this without patent protection, as without protection the day a drug goes on the market it will be reverse engineered by generic drug manufacturers and the corporation that ponied up the $500 million will not be able to earn back their R&D costs. So, Bahy-Dole removed some regulatory impediments and also put the onus on NIH-funded researchers to patent such discoveries before disclosing them, so they could potentially be available for commercial development. I have personally patented a couple of discoveries that could lead directly to new drugs for treating bleeding disorders, inflammation, and Lyme disease, though none have been licensed by a pharmaceutical company yet (still hoping!). Since Bahy-Dole there has been a lot more translation of NIH-funded research into US-produced commercial products. The intent of the law is to make NIH-funded discoveries available for commercial development, but there also has to be some incentive to the university researchers to go through their side of the process. For example, as the inventor I had to spend weeks working on the patent narrative, and I was unable to publish or discuss my work until the patent was filed, a delay of about a year in each case. There is a cost/risk to this in the publish-or-perish environment of academia today. To make it worthwhile for researchers to take on this burden, all universities (who actually hold the patents) have royalty-sharing arrangements in their faculty contracts. Should anyone license my patents, I would receive the first $10,000 in royalties, and after that royalties would be spit between myself and the university on a sliding scale. A researcher at my university patented the drug Ristacin, and her share of the royalties amounted to over $30 million over the lifetime of the patent (now expired). It would be interesting to see who came up with those numbers, and how they came up with them. I'm not disputing it, just interested to see how they come up with these numbers. Agreed, but I don't know right off hand. My son is a junior in high school, and very much wants to be a doctor or pursue medical research. He's very motivated to make a difference in people's lives, and I think he'll be great at it. I've forwarded him this document. Having gone through graduate school, the above quote statement is disturbing. Not sure how that part of the system could be improved upon. Any suggestions you could offer him? The system is discouraging, and not getting any better, but it's still possible to make a reasonable living. Most importantly, if you have to work for a living it might as well be at something you really love, find challenging, and can believe makes a difference. In the sciences you should get paid a stipend or be able to TA as a grad student; it's not much but you can live off it. Postdocs used to be slave labor (it was when I was a postdoc) but postdoctoral salaries have improved and now you can expect $30-40,000 depending of years of experience post PhD. Although permanent jobs are scarce, the most productive researchers seem to land on their feet and I don't know anyone who is unemployed after grad school, though some are working as sales reps for the pharmaceutical industry and not directly in research. More disturbing is the trend in research funding, and so availability of grad student and postdoctoral positions. The document I linked showed the funding rate for NIH proposals as 20% in 2009, but by the end of 2011 the rate is down to 10% and a lot of university researchers have no grant support for their work. Anyway if it's what he wants to do I think he should go for it. If you want to PM me I'll give you my email and I'll be glad to "talk" to him. I've attached a chart taken from today's WSJ. Granted, it's not a complete comparison of apples to apples, but I believe it illustrates the point we're discussing. Folks like to throw out results from "the Bush tax cuts". Bush didn't just cut taxes, he kept spending like a drunken sailor, also. Thanks, I'll look at that. I agree that increasing spending while cutting taxes is a bad combination. Personally, I think Clinton had found a reasonable balance in his policies (not just tax policies). Not sure where you're getting that. If you consider that most new employment is driven by entrepreneurs in the US, lowering tax rates absolutely helps them in their business. If you look at my voter registration, you'll see "NONE". Really wealthy people live off capital gains. That's an incredibly small portion of our population. Even it you took all of their money, we'd still have a deficit. My voter registration is the same. I agree that we can't get out of this mess only by taxing the wealthy. Perhaps there is data (as opposed to anecdote or intuition) to support the idea that people won't invest their money if taxed at a higher rate than the current 15%, but it seems to me people still invested when tax rates were significantly higher. Still, maybe a case can be made to tax investments at a lower rate, as long as those profits are plowed back into further investments. What I think is corrosive, though, is taxing the profits that are taken out to cover living expenses at a lower rate than people pay on income from wages, especially if one considers that investment income is not subject to payroll taxes. I like Rehmwa's idea that income is income, the government shouldn't be pushing the idea that some types of income (from investments) is somehow special and "better" than income from wages. Of course I also think we need to get more of the bottom 50% to ante in as well. As long as it's easy for everybody to point to segments of society who get (or who are perceived to get) a free ride, it'll be difficult to convince people to take a share of the pain (either as increased taxes or as decreased government services) that will be needed to get us out of this mess. People need jobs, which requires companies, and entrepreneurs to start those companies. There's alot that can be done to minimize the hurdles being faced here. Our government should expect a work ethic from our citizens. It should be expected that if you are a father, you get up in the morning and go to work, and provide for your family. End of story. If you need to better yourself to make more money, then you do so. No disagreement from me. Agreed. Agreed. The material I read (e.g. WSJ) shows this all of the time. What are you reading? I try to sample lots of different sources with varying perspectives, can't think of any one that predominates right now. The WSJ is one, but it has a definite slant on things. Regarding the statement, it's largely based on the fact that the Bush tax cuts (for one example) did not produce the promised increase in economic activity and government revenue, in fact revenue went down, suggesting we are on the wrong side of the optimum. You can't measure just this. You also must account for the fact that Bush kept spending like a drunken sailor. Agreed that complicates things, but you still look at revenues and not just the deficit. The government has so many "obligations" now that it couldn't meet them even if they took all the money from millionaires and billionaires, and all corporate profits. True enough, which is why we need to prioritize and greatly trim those obligations. Lawrocket makes a good case that entitlement spending will soon consume the entire budget, and changing population demographics makes it certain the situation will just get worse. Clearly those programs will have to be refocused and downsized, but I wonder where we will find the political will to do it. Even the Tea Party says "hands off my medicare". Thanks for the reasoned reply. I learned somethings from your material. Much appreciated. And thanks for yours. I hope this isn't getting too civilized for Speakers Corner. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well that's fine, if that's all you want. But there's a difference between having a discussion with the world at large and just singin' to the choir. I'm just looking to identify the members of the choir within this forum. Cool. I've seen dogs do that, with a different method. Brilliant! Now I've got to go find something to clean the coffee off my keyboard. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While it would obviously be silly to claim that the only way to get out of debt is to go deeper into debt, there are many times when it makes good sense for a business to borrow to invest in infrastructure that improves productivity and profitability. As long as the return is greater than the cost of borrowing it makes sense. In fact I'd guess that just about every small business starts out with a loan, as few people would have the cash in hand to buy a building for the plant or store, fleet of trucks to deliver the goods, hire staff, etc. Here's a 2009 analysis that shows that every dollar the government spends on the National Institutes of Health to fund basic biomedical research and train researchers leverages $3.50 in spending by the pharmaceutical industry. This industry is one of the few where the US has a significant trade surplus. There are numerous other examples where government programs leverage significant private sector activity that otherwise wouldn't be feasible for logistic or economic reasons. Two points in response to this: First, where is the evidence that lowering tax rates increases economic activity? The economy was growing at a much faster rate at times in the past when tax rates were also significantly higher (such as during the Clinton administration). On the other hand, lowering tax rates has historically not led to increased employment or manufacturing activity. Maybe that's due to the structure of the tax code, where reductions are not paired with incentives to keep the savings in the US, so much of the money ends up going offshore? Anyway, although tax cuts for the already wealthy has risen to the level of dogma in Republican circles, it's inherently contradictory to the concept of supply and demand driving economic activity. Just putting more money into the end of the pipeline (profit to businesses due to lower costs) won't do anything to encourage growth if demand stays flat or shrinks, and stagnant or declining income to the middle and lower income classes (who make up the overwhelming majority of the consumer market) ensure that demand will stay flat. Secondly, chemical engineers should know that even inverse responses only happen over a defined range of variables (such as concentrations of reactants) and conditions. There is always an optimum set of conditions where the reaction is most efficient. WRT to taxes, obviously if the government taxed at 100% there would be no private sector investment and eventually tax revenues would go to 0. Similarly, if the tax rate was 0%, revenues to the government would be 0. There must be a non-zero tax rate that optimizes revenues. The assumption that lowing tax rates will increase revenues assumes we are currently above that optimum rate, but there is no evidence for that being the case. We could just as well be below the optimum, so lowering rates will just lower revenues. Given what has happened following the Bush tax cuts, I think the evidence is that we are below the optimum now, and further cuts will just further ensure the government can't meet its obligations. Obviously, those obligations will have to be re-examined and cut back quite a lot. Unfortunately what I see happening is that political pressure to preserve popular entitlement programs will direct the cuts to less visible programs that actually stimulate economic activity (such as NIH) and in the end we will be worse off. Blind faith (i.e. belief without evidence) that tax cuts will stimulate the economy also has potential for great harm. If welfare/social security/medicare is "bread and circuses" for the 99%, further cuts to capital gains tax rates (as one example) may well be "bread and circuses" for the 1%. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While I don't see how this is "gun control", I very much like the idea of getting rid of programs that aren't accomplishing their aims. I think every law creating a government program should clearly state the objectives of the program, and have a timetable where the program is automatically reviewed, and those that aren't working are cancelled instead of living on forever due to political considerations. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not really. There is currently no provision in Tennessee law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so discriminating against gay people on the basis of their orientation is not a discriminatory practice under current Tennessee human right law. The law states: "This bill specifies that such task forces, programs, and other initiatives may not include materials or training that ... teach or suggest that certain beliefs or viewpoints are discriminatory when an act or practice based on such belief or viewpoint is not a discriminatory practice under present human rights law." The plain language of the bill states that anti-bullying initiatives cannot address anti-gay bullying based on religious beliefs, as anti-gay discrimination is not in itself illegal under Tennessee law. Suspicion about the real motives of the law probably are stoked by the spate of anti-gay laws passed by the Tennessee legislature recently. For example, the Nashville city council passed a municipal ordinance stating that companies doing business with the city had to abide by a non-discrimination policy that included discrimination against gay or transgendered people. The legislature responded with a bill (Selective Access to Discrimination Act) barring municipalities from passing non-discrimination policies that are more stringent than the protection afforded by state law. The catch is, again, that state law provides no protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. It turns out that law was written by the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT), an ultra-conservative lobbying group with close ties to the Southern Baptist Convention. Sponsors of the bill claim it is intended to keep businesses from dealing with a multitude of different municipal laws (and it would in fact do that), but emails between FACT and state legislators suggest the real reason for the act is to block municipalities from outlawing anti-gay discrimination. Another recent Tennessee law bans teachers from discussing homosexuality, or from using non-traditional families in class exercises. Seems to be a pattern developing. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)