U.S. Politics, 8

[Guest Raidne]

I agree. I just don't think having a legitimate interest in something is enough to justify legislation.

I'm sorry, I meant to say that the government has a compelling interest in being able to practically carry out a lawfully obtained warrant and that there is no "more narrowly tailored" method of allowing them to do that. "Hire better hackers who can break encryption codes" is both overbroad, as it implies that the government should be able to get into anything it's capable of breaking, and too narrow in scope, on its face, this alternative does not lend any assurances that the government's interests regarding efficacy and/or time constraints will be met.

Seriously, when a nuclear bomb blows up the White House, and it could have been prevented if a lawfully obtained warrant could have been executed, I'm coming back from the grave to hold it against you and Lord Caspen.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Because search warrents are really hard to obtain in the American judicial system? It's a minimum protection.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Check out this study and charts. It shows how people don't realize the extent to which wealth is consolidated among the wealthiest people, and that they think that it's too highly concentrated once they do see where it is.

That's true, but I also think those same folks don't quite understand how little money you could really raise by taxing those ultra-wealthy people.

[Shryke]

Here's some interesting news to take into account on the Tax Rates front:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39317328/ns/politics/

"Small Business" =/= An Actual Small Business

a variety of sources including court documents confirm that when republicans talk about the small businesses they're trying to help with their tax cut , they're actually talking about some of the biggest companies in the world and some of the richest people in this country. mr. boehner admitting this summer that his tax cuts only benefit 3% of so-called small businesses

"according to the joint committee on taxation , 94% of all u.s. businesses in 2007 were "s" corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. pass-through business types commonly used by small businesses ." they call them pass-through companies because they file no taxes, passing through profits to the owners who report them on their individual tax returns instead. in short, they are considered small , not because they have a small payroll, but because they have a small number of owners. it's not the income that's small , it's not the number of employees that's small , it's just the total number of owners that's small . in the case of "s" corp .s, up to 100 owners. when politicians talk about small businesses , they are including any company that pays taxes as a pass-through.

Which includes companies like:

Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., a pipeline company with 2009 revenues of $25 billion.

A small company. :)

[Guest Raidne]

Check out this study and charts.

Coco linked to the study itself upthread, FYI.

That's true, but I also think those same folks don't quite understand how little money you could really raise by taxing those ultra-wealthy people.

What on earth are you talking about? The study is about income distribution. Therefore people were asked about, you know, income distribution. Not tax burden distribution.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What on earth are you talking about? The study is about income distribution. Therefore people were asked about, you know, income distribution. Not tax burden distribution.

The point about income distribution was offered not out of purely academic interest, but as part of a discussion regarding party platforms and, presumably, policy advocacy. The logical "next step" when mentioning the income disparity from a Democratic political perspective in terms of appealing for votes is advocating higher taxes on the wealthy to finance either specific government programs, or perhaps simply to redistribute that wealth. So if we're going to evaluate the political appeal of that argument, then it's relevant to ask whether people also have an accurate appreciation for how much -- or how little -- could be raised by taxing the "wealthy" more heavily.

[Guest Raidne]

You pretty much make sense until the very last sentence, which totally missed the point. Will it reduce the disparity to the point that it will look like the distribution preferred? Good, then it's "enough."

Maybe it would help if you'd read Rawls. Although I bet you haven't even read the abstract of the study you're criticizing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You pretty much make sense until the very last sentence, which totally missed the point. Will it reduce the disparity to the point that it will look like the distribution preferred? Good, then it's "enough."

Maybe it would help if you'd read Rawls. Although I bet you haven't even read the abstract of the study you're criticizing.

First, I've read Rawls. Second, I wasn't criticizing the study, although I suppose you could criticize the conclusions some draw from that data. Just because people have in mind a preferrred distribution does not mean they'd support government actions to force that preferred distribution. There are a great many things I'd prefer but would be unwilling to compel through government fiat.

[Guest Raidne]

Just because people have in mind a preferrred distribution does not mean they'd support government actions to force that preferred distribution.

That's a much better point.

[awesome possum]

Rand Paul's lead in Kentucky is shrinking. That would be a pretty crushing loss for the GOP. I would still be on him winning with the conservative leanings of the state, but that it's even in play is something.

So much has been made of the GOP's likely wins in November that it will almost feel like a win for the Democrats if they keep the Senate. Expectations have been raised quite a bit.

One can only hope that people are beginning to realize that it doesn't matter which political party is in power- you're going to get fucked. The difference is that Democrats at least have the courtesy of offering a reach-around.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a much better point.

Well, that's kind of why I made the earlier point. I don't think voters are willing to do a "soak the rich" strategy simply for the purposes of evening up that distribution. I think the unequal distribution of wealth issue usually manifests itself in discussions regarding tax policy.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, that's kind of why I made the earlier point. I don't think voters are willing to do a "soak the rich" strategy simply for the purposes of evening up that distribution. I think the unequal distribution of wealth issue usually manifests itself in discussions regarding tax policy.

I don't think there's much of a correlation between people who are inherently wary of government action (i.e. what I termed the "good" argument) and people who would be persuaded if taxing the wealthy would generate lots and lots of income (the "bad" argument). So no, it's not at all the same point. Two different totally different objections - one ideological and one pragmatic.

And I think what the study shows is that Americans do want a more even distribution for the sake of it. But, like you say, that doesn't mean they want to "soak the rich" for the sake of it. But it does mean they want a more even distribution, not a greater tax base. It is, for Americans, something worth considering as an ends, not just a means.

That sort of surprises me. I'm not used to agreeing with TAA.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'll just leave this here and go back to wondering what the fuck is wrong with people -

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'll just leave this here and go back to wondering what the fuck is wrong with people -

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So would that have turned Taliban Johnny Lindh into a battlefield superhero, unable to be killed until there has been due process?

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

If you ever thought it was going to change, I will laugh at you. For like, a solid minute. At least. No one here can be that fucking naive.

I don't know. Every last domestic I've hired stole my cutlery. I interview a man who says he's honest -- but I suppose if I actually believe he has integrity, that makes me a fool?

You're cynicism is a disease -- if not for you personally, then for the rest of us who are polluted by it.

And if you wanna get into the whole "Well, they shouldn't be doing it at all", then we need to start talking about why countries have intelligence agencies at all.

That seems a fair question, but I see a pretty broad distinction between "gathering and analyzing information" on the one hand, and ordering hits, destabilizing resistance, and compelling people not to be "too secure" under penalty of law on the other. The one is a matter of just being aware of dissent -- the other is a concerted effort to quash it.

Again, I find the fact that him being American suddenly makes this beyond the pale to be a crock of shit.

Interesting. Those domestics now aren't stealing from me, but from you. You've been wearing a blindfold this whole time, so you didn't know it was happening. Doesn't matter how the blindfold got there or why you've waited till now to take it off -- the point is you've now caught the bastard in the act, his hand in the drawer, with a sackful of your silver in a swag bag.

You're saying it's a crock of shit at this point to so much as fire him for robbing you? Jesus, I'd like to work for you.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So would that have turned Taliban Johnny Lindh into a battlefield superhero, unable to be killed until there has been due process?

Uhh....what? John Walker Lindh was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, and stuck a plea bargain. He got 20 years.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think there's much of a correlation between people who are inherently wary of government action (i.e. what I termed the "good" argument) and people who would be persuaded if taxing the wealthy would generate lots and lots of income (the "bad" argument). So no, it's not at all the same point. Two different totally different objections - one ideological and one pragmatic.

I honestly don't understand your point at all. Someone made the point that the income disparity is really bad and that people don't like it once they are aware of it. I was pointing that when it comes to practical policy arguments, it turns out that you can't raise quite as much money as you think just by focusing on the wealthy. The point being that the political utility of the wealth disparity may not be as good as some people think.

Now maybe that's not a point you intended to make, but I'm not sure why it's wrong for me to raise it.

[Lord Mord]

Raidne,

Seriously, when a nuclear bomb blows up the White House, and it could have been prevented if a lawfully obtained warrant could have been executed, I'm coming back from the grave to hold it against you and Lord Caspen.

I've got nothing against warrants, have I? I just think that it's up to you to enforce them. Suppose I have a safe, and there's no way to open it. You have reason to believe I dropped evidence in that safe you've no way to retrieve easily.

Am I not allowed to have such a safe in the first place? Or is it up to the gov't to bring the proper tools for the job? And if they haven't got the tools, then that's too damn bad.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Uhh....what? John Walker Lindh was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, and stuck a plea bargain. He got 20 years.

Okay, if you're going to be like that, I'll do it the long way.

Assume that Lindh didn't surrender the way he did, and was instead operating with the Taliban. Now picture him and a Taliban patrol detected by some of our troops. Does a sniper have the right to take him out at 1500 meters, knowing that he is an American citizen?

How about if he rose up through the ranks, and was running a Taliban operational headquarters near the border with Pakistan. Do we have the right to take out his headquarters, with him in it, with an armed Predator drone?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Am I not allowed to have such a safe in the first place? Or is it up to the gov't to bring the proper tools for the job? And if they haven't got the tools, then that's too damn bad.

I could not agree more. To say otherwise is really to disregard the entire concept of private property.

ETA:

Assume that Lindh didn't surrender the way he did, and was instead operating with the Taliban. Now picture him and a Taliban patrol detected by some of our troops. Does a sniper have the right to take him out at 1500 meters?

This does not merit argument, it's an obtuse point and you know it.