Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

No one I know voted to give the rich big bailouts and bonuses

You voted into power the people who voted for the bailouts.

the ballot box has no power when the wealthy run the system.

Then why is it that nearly 75% of government spending is for programs that forcibly redistribute wealth in order to assist the less fortunate?

Most people want a single payer health plan

No, they don't.. But even if they did and we ended up getting a single payer system, that would be yet another government program to benefit the less fortunate at the expense of everyone else.

wealth in the hands of a tiny minority IS a violation of the rights of the many.

How is that a violation and what right is being violated?

Without some measure of equality there can be no level playing field.

Having the government protect the individual rights of all Americans equally is equality. When you use the term equality, you appear to want financial equality, which again fits the #2 definition of Egalitarianism that you said you did not agree with.

How many people's lives are you willing to expend for someone's right to have billions of dollars in a private hoard?

How many individual rights are you willing to violate in an attempt to eliminate need?

You seem to have this cartoon concept of wealthy people where money is concerned, as if they all have a Scrooge McDuck style vault in the back yard where they "hoard" money and swim around in it.

In real life, those "billions of dollars in private hoard" are sitting in banks but those banks use that money to lend out to other people and keep the country moving. That money is invested into new business ventures that create jobs, or existing business to help them expand or research new product lines and in many cases, donated en masse so that charities and non profits can remain in existence.

I think your talk of protecting rights is disingenous when you begin by advocating the rights of the rich to be rich in the face of national poverty.

It sounds like you are saying that if poverty exists, nobody has a right to keep the products of their labor. Is that what you are saying?

saying that those bailouts were EARNED by the rich

That money was not earned and I was agaisnt the bailouts, but I'm curious:

Why you would suggest that people should only get money if they have earned it?

Please answer that question.

and the people who are being thrown out of their homes deserved to to lose them for the benefit of the banks.

Banks do not "benefit" on foreclosures, most of the time they lose money. If you take out a loan for something you cannot afford, you do not deserve to keep it if you cannot make the payments. You claim to be a business owner, if someone ordered something from you and didn't pay, it would be a violation of your rights. You would not be violating their rights in repossessing what they haven't paid for.

If you want peace, work for justice.

I am. Ending the violation of individual rights is a moral, ethical and just endeavor. Again, like your intentional misuse of the word equality, you don't appear to want justice, you appear to want social justice and they are not the same thing.

A feudal system with a minority of vastly rich owners and a population of serfs is NOT justice.

But a society where the people with needs are the slave masters to the people of ability, that is your idea of justice?

 

[PLC1]

Then why is it that nearly 75% of government spending is for programs that forcibly redistribute wealth in order to assist the less fortunate?

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that a lot of government spending, particularly lately, is about redistributing wealth to the more fortunate.

 

[GenSeneca]

Money is the ideal and you'll do what you need to do to get it.

This is your ideal, is it not?

I think you are the first person who ever intimated that Bush was a Progressive.

Bush was a Progressive, so is McCain and a slew of other "moderate" Republicans.

In the end, I don't think the labels matter all that much

Labels are very important. We label food for the same reason we label ourselves, so that people are aware of the content. There are only two reasons someone would object to labels, because they are ignorant of what it is they believe or because they know what they believe but are ashamed to admit it.

 

[citizenzen]

The social progressive would argue that it is the government's role to authenticate marriages. In the mind of the progressive, there really isn't a whole lot that is outside the scope of the government's authority. The progressive would argue that yes, the government must process marriages, however they cannot discriminate based on any traditional interpretation of what marriage is. So you see, the social progressives and I agree on the subject of gay marriage, but we fundamentally disagree on exactly how. That disagreement is the wall between us on nearly every single issue. I say that the government (in our constitutional republic) is not given authority beyond the enumerated powers. Progressives believe that the authority of government almost unlimited so long as it's will is also the will of 50.1% of the population.

Your habit of reading people's minds and telling them what they believe has cropped up again. This you up the ante. Not only can you read millions of minds, you also believe that all of those minds think exactly the same thoughts. As usual, reality is not as simple and neat as you portray. I will answer your post by telling you what I think. Please note that nowhere in my answer will I tell you what you think. I have far too much respect for the complexity and subtlety of the human mind to make that leap.

The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation. Any law that violates it should be made to conform to its principles, or be struck down if it can not. Our government must conform to its principles or be reformed so that it does. The will of the people, whether 50% plus one, or an even greater percentage*, does not supersede the constitution... something that the people often seem to forget.

I support gay marriage. And I believe that the Constitution allows for it because of the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; But the federal government should have no role in creating marriage laws. The federal governments only role is to insure that the local marriage laws that do exist do not violate the Constitution.

So you see, there is at least one social progressive who doesn't worship at the altar of the central government. I believe that if you look a little deeper, you'd find many more like me.





*Unless that greater percentage amends the Constitution.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that a lot of government spending, particularly lately, is about redistributing wealth to the more fortunate.

Can you give me a specific example?

 

[GenSeneca]

The Constitution is the supreme law of our nation.

It is a shame he has me on ignore...

I would like to know if he thinks the Constitution is a living document.

 

[dogtowner]

It is a shame he has me on ignore...

I would like to know if he thinks the Constitution is a living document.

saw this so I'd have to say no

*Unless that greater percentage amends the Constitution.

 

[PLC1]

Can you give me a specific example?

Bailing out corporations that are too big to fail,
Allowing the CEOs of said corporations to keep multi million dollar "bonuses",
Purchasing most of GM stock to keep it from going under,
Farm subsidies to big agribusiness,


Off the top of my head. Maybe there is more.

 

[GenSeneca]

saw this so I'd have to say no

But he believes the welfare state to be constitutional. The only way you could hold both opinions is if you believe that the SCOTUS decision under FDR was actually based on original intent rather than a "living constitution" interpretation. SCOTUS shot down the welfare state on more than one occasion until FDR threatened to pack the courts, at which time the court miraculously reversed themselves and declared the welfare state constitutional.

 

[citizenzen]

saw this so I'd have to say no

The document is not alive.

The people who interpret it are.

We talked earlier about slavery. What was acceptable one era became unacceptable in another... because people's attitudes and understanding changed.

I don't know any way to prevent this from occurring. I don't think I'd want to try.

 

[GenSeneca]

Bailing out corporations that are too big to fail,
Allowing the CEOs of said corporations to keep multi million dollar "bonuses",
Purchasing most of GM stock to keep it from going under,
Farm subsidies to big agribusiness,

Are you trying to make the case that we spent as much or more on forced redistribution of wealth to the rich than we did to the poor?

Because if you're simply pointing out that the forced redistribution of wealth goes both ways, welcome to the real world. I have been saying that for quite some time.

Do you agree with Mare and Zen that we should only end the forced redistribution of wealth that flows to the wealthy, or do you agree with me that we should end the forced redistribution of wealth altogether, or do you have some other opinion on the issue?

 

[GenSeneca]

The document is not alive.

The people who interpret it are.

We talked earlier about slavery. What was acceptable one era became unacceptable in another... because people's attitudes and understanding changed.

I don't know any way to prevent this from occurring. I don't think I'd want to try.

It's the difference between interpreting the constitution based on original intent and interpreting it based on social opinions of the day.

Based on his answer, Zen does believe in the "Living Constitution" concept of interpretation.

 

[Gipper]

It's the difference between interpreting the constitution based on original intent and interpreting it based on social opinions of the day.

Based on his answer, Zen does believe in the "Living Constitution" concept of interpretation.

Living Constitution is garbage.

That is code for we will do whatever we want. And, that is exactly what the stinking politicians in both parties have done for the past 100 years.

If nothing is absolute, then everything is far game. If the filthy progressives want to push their socialism on America then they should amend the Constitution by Amendment. But, they know that won't work so they just subvert the Constitution altogether.

Imagine how great this country would be had we followed original intent.

 

[dogtowner]

It's the difference between interpreting the constitution based on original intent and interpreting it based on social opinions of the day.

Based on his answer, Zen does believe in the "Living Constitution" concept of interpretation.

had to amend it to ban slavery as he suggested earlier.

 

[PLC1]

Are you trying to make the case that we spent as much or more on forced redistribution of wealth to the rich than we did to the poor?

Because if you're simply pointing out that the forced redistribution of wealth goes both ways, welcome to the real world. I have been saying that for quite some time.

Do you agree with Mare and Zen that we should only end the forced redistribution of wealth that flows to the wealthy, or do you agree with me that we should end the forced redistribution of wealth altogether, or do you have some other opinion on the issue?

Of course, redistribution of wealth goes both ways, but I think your estimate of 75% going to the poor is way high. The rich can pay for lobbyists to see that more of the gravy flows their way, after all.

I don't quite see the issue in the same black and white way that you do, but I generally agree that redistribution of wealth is not a good thing, regardless of which way it flows. Taking tax dollars from one person to give to another is a problem. The function of the government is not to give one person charity at the expense of another, but to help ensure that everyone has an opportunity to earn their share of the pie.

The extreme poor that Mare talks about would be better served by private charity for the most part. That would be a distribution of wealth, but a voluntary one.

Giving money to farmers to grow crops that would not be profitable is not a good use of our tax money, nor is bailing out banks and other corporations whose management has bankrupted them. Giving huge bonuses to those same managers is beyond absurd.

There are some things that benefit society collectively, and should be paid for collectively. Among them are highways, bridges, railroads hospitals, schools, and public buildings.