As an assist to the OP trying to keep the thread on topic, No I am not better off than 4 years ago.

I am in debt, but I blame myself for that. I made purchases that put me here. Some were justified IMO, others I regret. Do I blame Obama, no. If he was the guy that stole my credit card number and charged $150 at the Home Depot then, yes, I blame him.

The yen rate is punishing me. I have lost 25% of my purchasing power since I am paid in dollars and almost all my expenses are in yen. Do I blame Obama, partially. I also blame George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, etc. The American enthusiasm for debt has harmed the dollar's value and while you can BS people stateside about what a dollar is worth, when it has to be converted into something else, the lies are apparent.

Do I think I will be worse off in four years? Yes. How much will be my fault? Less than the current snapshot as i see no real reform or responsability in government coming from either of these scumbags. I will have to get leaner and meaner and my idea of success will have to morph with circumstance. I will survive not because of government, but in spite of it.

So.....the point of the OP was to show that, regardless of government intervention, regardless of who sits in the oval office, the direction of our lives are all due to our own actions and choices? What a remarkable breakthrough! Why then is it that the left and right continue to battle at length to convince us otherwise? I agree with the findings of this thread, so why then continue to bloat a government, and expect it to help you? Why not move it out of your way, let it defend our borders and settle our disagreements, and otherwise GTFO? Why continue to struggle to give these breaks, or end these cuts, or put in this loophole, or end this subsidy, or start this program? Why not just move the government the hell outta the way and let life decide the winners and the losers?

While a "survival of the fittest" type of government works when there is fundamentally no government in place, it is not the way that "civilized" nations run. By that, I mean, that as a whole we are better off than as single units. A rancher in Texas would blame the government for not protecting his ranch if it were run over by a mob that stole and plundered. Or, should we just assume that since the rancher chose to live off-the-grid and provide the service of raising cattle or farming, that his own security is his own problem even though he's performing a service for society as a whole?

There must be some government, and it must have certain duties. That is the way of it. If you choose to live in that type of society, there's tons of countries that are anarchaical and willing to let you reside there.

My point was to pick your fights. We can't get rid of the government, we can't slash without cutting ourselves off at the knees. And, we can't afford to keep on expanding it, but we have to have some regulatory bodies in place to ensure that everybody is playing nice.

Either way you slice it, doesn't matter which person wins the presidency, it's going to suck for the next 20 or so years.

As an aside, my life would be better off if Mitt won. So, while people keep on tagging Obama as "socialist" and Romney as this great businessman, I just would rather have Obama in for another 4 years to see if he can right the ship and keep us going.

See thats the problem with stating a position of minimized government. Somehow the word "minimized" gets lost, and the oppositions just assumes you're an anarchist who wants NO government. That is not what I said. Yes of course we are a civilized people, and some form of government is required, but is the choice either huge bloated government, or none at all? Really?

First of all, we must define what constitutes legitimate law. My take? I have a very simple litmus test for what constitutes legitimate law in my books. Any action that violates another persons life, liberty, or property, is an illegal act, not by decree of a government, but by decree of a generalized understood morality. Not a morality built by one certain religion, but a basic, global morality understood by all civilized people. Anything else is out of the scope of government, with the exception of courts that settle civil matters.

Once you've defined what constitutes legitimate law, you tool your government to have jurisdiction solely over that established line of law. Any thing more is an overstep by the government, regardless of whether the majority wants it or not. We are ruled by law, not by majority.

That's where you're going to have issues. What is considered moral for one culture is not moral for another.

Case in point: the Korowai tribe in New Guinea still practices cannibalism and it is an accepted cultural norm. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/cannibals.html

American culture is so diversified and so ethnically varied that we do not have a standard moral or ethical compass that reads one true north. One other problem that American culture has is that we are very short-term oriented. 11 years after 9/11 most of the kids that should remember, don't. Yet, you can believe that 11 years after December 7, 1941 kids remembered what happened. Some cultures carry grudges for centuries and may go even beyond 1000s of years. Our culture is very tolerant, and must remain so for our melting pot theory to work.

So, beware when you want to slim down government to just law.

Again, you misunderstand me. If you look at all major cultures/religions, and their moralities, you would find they echo a Venn diagram, one central zone of shared basic values, values that are intrinsic to being human, and then you have external zones that are not shared globally. If law is going to worry about morality, it only needs concern itself with the internal zones of the Venn diagram. Let each separate culture/religion manage its own fringes. You point at extreme examples and try to imply they bear some normalcy. They dont. Again, the test is simple, does an action deprive another of their life, liberty, or property? If so, you cant do it, if not, feel free, unless your pastor/minister/priest says no, and you respect his authority.

But that only handles one half of the equation, the right half. You also have to address the left half, the presumption of groups and classes, and their proclaimed superiority to the individual. Choosing winner and losers has consequences for anyone except nature itself. The unseen hand of supply and demand is the only force that can accurately drive our society in the right direction, not governmental policy.

You sound very Libertarian there man. Careful now.

You pretty much have the same litmus test I do. You have my vote.

(Marenta posting from Hijacker's computer)

I'm afraid I didn't misunderstand you. I'm just giving you another variable of the equation you must look at. While I absolutely believe that any ideology must be put aside and the very basis of law be restricted to depriving another of life, liberty, or property; it will never work, and rarely would it be that simple.

Take these few scenarios:

A woman gets raped and finds out she's carrying her rapists child. Should she not have the option of removing it? He defiled her once, and she will remain defiled for the entirety of her pregnancy until the child is born. So, from one lewd act you have permanently destroyed a woman and ensured that a child goes into a vicious foster system and will probably have its own horrible personality disorder.

A very devout religious couple has a child that is suffering from appendicitis and refuses to take that child to the hospital where a simple medical surgery will ensure their survival. Instead, they use the power of prayer, and the child dies. Is that not negligent homicide? What if the child begged and pleaded to be taken to the ER, but the parents refused and watched them suffer for days until their death?

A couple comes home and finds out that they've been robbed of a few items. The police trace the stolen items to a pawn shop and then eventually to the robber who is a single father who used the money to make sure his kids eat. Should the couple press charges knowing that he stole to feed his family, or should they punish him and rob the children of the only parent figure that they have for the sake of a few baubles? Should the police still seek a conviction?

You see, there are many different ways to spin a story. I'm not a bleeding heart, but I do donate to animal charities. I'm also not a gun-toting NRA freak, but I do have guns. I believe in the most balanced approach, in everything.

You sorta ping around there in your scenarios. Each of them play on emotional prejudice. Emotion has no place in law, only logic and reason.

A woman gets raped. Right off the bat you have a plethora of issues surrounding the act. First and foremost, it was a violation of the girl's individual liberty, and is thereby punishable as a crime. Though I realize you were not questioning the status of the origination act. So the scenario becomes increasingly complicated as we deal with the result of this heinous crime. First, lets start by framing up the abortion argument the proper way. The issue of abortion is nothing more than a conflict of individual rights. A conflict that can only be decided down one side or the other, there's no middle ground. On one side, you have the rights of the mother to choose how she handles the workings of her own body. On the other side you have the rights of the fetus to life. Anyone who frames the argument any differently is either intellectually dishonest, or blinded by righteous indignation. My personal position on the issue is that all things being considered equally, the mother and the fetus being considered to be equal, the mother has the right at any point to reject the remaining portion of her pregnancy. However, this does not mean a blanketed right to the termination of life. At some point, generally 26 to 30 weeks, the fetus begins transitioning from sole dependence on the mother, to having the ability to function on its own. Its at this point that no one has the right to refuse that life a fighting chance. Generally in a rape case, we won't ever get to this point anyway, the mother will most likely have made her mid up quite early as to whether or not she wished to keep the child, or to at least carry it to term. Some may disagree, and as long as they are willing to accept that they are in fact refusing the rights of one part of the other, I can accept their position as legitimate.

The religious refusal of treatment is admittedly a tough spot to be in. For one, I dont like government being the one to call the shots on these issues. Again you seem to have a crossroads of rights. The right to life for the child, and the right of religious practice of the parents. When the life of a child is at risk, the family should, at the very least, be able to provide first hand testimony of their religious leaders who confirm that the family is standing on the accepted tenants of the religion they are practicing. I say this because some of the cases I've read about involving christians, the family was acting solely on their own accord, not supported by their place of worship.

The final scenario is a bit nutty. Again, emotionally charged, which is a recipe for misdirection. Perhaps being convicted is exactly what the family needs. Perhaps the man learns some new life skills while incarcerated, and is better able to provide for his family once his penance is served. Perhaps if the man had asked for help, from any number of sources, he would have received it, and would not have been driven to commit a crime. Perhaps the couple DOES find it in their heart not to press charges, but then again, perhaps the charge is high enough to be a felony, and the thoughts of the couple are irrelevant.

I guess the overall theme, is when structuring law, emotion has little to no place in the equation.

themadscientist wrote:You sound very Libertarian there man. Careful now.

You pretty much have the same litmus test I do. You have my vote.

Most true conservatives end up finding out they are actually libertarian

About my only breaking point from libertarianism, is its view of isolationism.

stebo0728 wrote:Most true conservatives end up finding out they are actually libertarian

I suspect you are right about that!

Z

stebo0728 wrote:

themadscientist wrote:You sound very Libertarian there man. Careful now.

You pretty much have the same litmus test I do. You have my vote.

Most true conservatives end up finding out they are actually libertarian

About my only breaking point from libertarianism, is its view of isolationism.

That's one of Ron Paul's opinion I diverge from. we are too involved in the world, but going all the way the other way is not reasonable either.

stebo0728 wrote:You sorta ping around there in your scenarios. Each of them play on emotional prejudice. Emotion has no place in law, only logic and reason.

I concur.

stebo0728 wrote:A woman gets raped. Right off the bat you have a plethora of issues surrounding the act. First and foremost, it was a violation of the girl's individual liberty, and is thereby punishable as a crime. Though I realize you were not questioning the status of the origination act. So the scenario becomes increasingly complicated as we deal with the result of this heinous crime. First, lets start by framing up the abortion argument the proper way. The issue of abortion is nothing more than a conflict of individual rights. A conflict that can only be decided down one side or the other, there's no middle ground. On one side, you have the rights of the mother to choose how she handles the workings of her own body. On the other side you have the rights of the fetus to life. Anyone who frames the argument any differently is either intellectually dishonest, or blinded by righteous indignation. My personal position on the issue is that all things being considered equally, the mother and the fetus being considered to be equal, the mother has the right at any point to reject the remaining portion of her pregnancy. However, this does not mean a blanketed right to the termination of life. At some point, generally 26 to 30 weeks, the fetus begins transitioning from sole dependence on the mother, to having the ability to function on its own. Its at this point that no one has the right to refuse that life a fighting chance. Generally in a rape case, we won't ever get to this point anyway, the mother will most likely have made her mid up quite early as to whether or not she wished to keep the child, or to at least carry it to term. Some may disagree, and as long as they are willing to accept that they are in fact refusing the rights of one part of the other, I can accept their position as legitimate.

Emotionally charged or not, you're still refusing the life of a child, which is against the law.

stebo0728 wrote:The religious refusal of treatment is admittedly a tough spot to be in. For one, I dont like government being the one to call the shots on these issues. Again you seem to have a crossroads of rights. The right to life for the child, and the right of religious practice of the parents. When the life of a child is at risk, the family should, at the very least, be able to provide first hand testimony of their religious leaders who confirm that the family is standing on the accepted tenants of the religion they are practicing. I say this because some of the cases I've read about involving christians, the family was acting solely on their own accord, not supported by their place of worship.

Religion has no say about law, and therefore should not interfere. They have taken the life of a child. Period.

stebo0728 wrote:The final scenario is a bit nutty. Again, emotionally charged, which is a recipe for misdirection. Perhaps being convicted is exactly what the family needs. Perhaps the man learns some new life skills while incarcerated, and is better able to provide for his family once his penance is served. Perhaps if the man had asked for help, from any number of sources, he would have received it, and would not have been driven to commit a crime. Perhaps the couple DOES find it in their heart not to press charges, but then again, perhaps the charge is high enough to be a felony, and the thoughts of the couple are irrelevant.

While this outcome is unlikely, it is also just as unlikely that the couple would decide to not press charges. He broke the law, he should be punished, regardless of how altruistic his intentions are.

stebo0728 wrote:I guess the overall theme, is when structuring law, emotion has little to no place in the equation.

If you remove emotion from the equation, you remove what makes us human.

There are only two things that define us as "higher functioning" and that is that we emphatically know we feel emotion and we have the free will to decide to do right, wrong, or nothing in any situation. Going to a pure law void of emotion reduces us to an almost entirely totalitarianism society or we could just use the laws of nature.

stebo0728 wrote:See thats the problem with stating a position of minimized government. Somehow the word "minimized" gets lost, and the oppositions just assumes you're an anarchist who wants NO government. That is not what I said. Yes of course we are a civilized people, and some form of government is required, but is the choice either huge bloated government, or none at all? Really?

In fairness, you treat taxation in terms of illegitimacy. You'll have to forgive us when we treat you as the extremist your rhetoric makes you out to be.

IBCoupe wrote: In fairness, you treat taxation in terms of illegitimacy. You'll have to forgive us when we treat you as the extremist your rhetoric makes you out to be.

I don't treat taxation in terms of illegitimacy. Again, any government is going to require a responsible amount of taxation. What I treat as illegitimate is the way we tax. We tax the way an indentured people would be taxed by an oppressive government. Taxation should be a choice, and the choice base is consumption.

The "fair tax" if it is prosecuted across the board without taking on the understanding that at the lower income brackets there is a significant amount of consumption which is unavoidable will functionally become a regressive tax.

themadscientist wrote:The "fair tax" if it is prosecuted across the board without taking on the understanding that at the lower income brackets there is a significant amount of consumption which is unavoidable will functionally become a regressive tax.

False. This aspect of a consumption tax was considered when the FairTax plan was drawn up. This is why the prebate was included in the plan. The prebate removes tax liability on such "unavoidable" consumption, thereby flipping the plan back to a progressive system.

EDIT - Whats even more beautiful about the prebate, is that rather than much up the tax code by trying to identify what is and is not something that should be tax exempt, thereby basically just recreating a different version of what we already have, it tackles the problem a bit differently. By figuring what a given sized family would spend in taxes on basic life necessities, that amount is sent to the head of household, monthly, thereby negating any taxes on those items. Whats great about that is, first of all, the government only concerns itself with how much money your family should need, its doesn't bother with specifying the items, they decide for themselves what constitutes necessity, and if it fits below the given amount, its tax free. Additionally, excessive purchases of what would otherwise be deemed tax exempt, will encounter tax when purchased in excess. Wealthy people may buy premium name brand items, while poorer people by store brand, but the wealthy aren't going to just squirrel hole all their money all of a sudden. They may chose to live at the poverty level, and if so, fine, but most wont, and their excessive purchases will be taxed. Now, there is another theoretical side to the fair tax the UPS the progressive nature of the plan. Again its theoretical, but historical data supports the theory. Since the FairTax removes all hidden "value added" sort of taxes that are embedded into the costs of goods and services, sheer market forces should theoretically cause the prices of goods and services to fall to match the absence of these hidden taxes, thereby putting even more purchasing power into the hands of the people. The estimated amount of this difference is about 18-20%, and given the FairTax to be 23%, this means that goods and services now only cost 3-5% more, and consumers dont have to swallow the entire 23%.

EDIT 2 - Stop bringing up the FairTax, it makes me type too much! LOL

My plan is working perfectly.

entice stebo + induce excessive typing = CARPAL TUNNEL!

Im just a really huge proponent of the plan, and its sad how much the plan is either misunderstood, demagogued, mischaracterized, or just flat lied about. Im not implying you did either of those, but I just always leap to defend it, to explain what the plan really is about.

Its just so commonly "misunderestimated"

How about we just put a flat tax of 20% on all income, close all loopholes and call it a day?

Doing that would increase the revenue so extensively (especially if we stop giving people more than they put in) because all income is the same.

This does hurt donations and other not for profit organizations that rely on people using that as a tax write off, though.

But, a few years of pain could help us out in the long run. I mean, I'd be okay with just paying a flat 20% and calling it a day, especially if it were only for a few years.

And, before anybody goes all crazy.. I pay close to 7K in taxes to the Fed every year (I claim 0, since I don't mind giving the gov't more of my money to pull interest from) and I don't mind doing it at all. Could I afford the ~12K that the 20% would be, I sure as hell can.

Marenta, Im not necessarily DEAD SET against a flat tax. I do happen to believe that consumption tax is the better way to tax, because it puts the power of choice of taxation in the hands of the people, BUT, a large majority of people are so used to income tax that its tough to convince enough that consumption tax is a better way to go, or at least, its tough to convince enough people to make ANY kind of major change.

IF, and this is a big IF, IF I am going to sign onto a new income tax system, such as a flat tax, theres a few things I need be assured of:

1. That a super majority is required to make ANY changes to the rate, or to add any future sorts of loopholes or exemptions. Id prefer that NONE were ever added, but we can't control future generations, only make it very tough for them to implement the changes.

2. We need to keep some sort of standard deduction system, for EVERYONE, this insures that taxation is removed from those that can't pay both taxes and living expenses. Standard deduction is how we currently handle this, and the FairTax handles it with the prebate. The standard deduction should not be a political tool, it should be tied to some sort of metric, perhaps the same as the FairTax prebate, the average income at the poverty line. It should also not be any greater than 100% of this metric, we dont need to create a buffer zone of free loaders in between the extremely poor, and the moderately wealthy.

3. The tax should be in the form of a bill, not a withholding. Withholding is a tool for masking the reality of taxation, and allows for easier manipulation. It doesn't necessarily have to be an annual bill, it could be bi-annually, or maybe even quarterly, but it HAS to be a bill. People need to KNOW what they are paying in taxes, not just what they are getting back after cashing in the interest free loan they gave the government all year. The private sector could set up an escrow system that people could take advantage of if they choose, or they could create their own escrow and reap their own interest.

4. The standard deduction should be the ONLY deduction, no mortgage interest, no daycare, no tuition or office supplies deductions, no itemizations period, and we have to end refundable tax credits like the EIC. I dont mind poor people having their tax liability zeroed out, but to get money out of the deal to boot, that has to stop.

5. No imputing income in order to increase tax liability. Im not sure that we actually do this now, but I know its been discussed heavily in the past, such as imputed income for home owners who are mortgage free. Whether we do it now or not, we have to be sure we DONT do it with the new plan.

6. Income taxes for businesses go away. They don't pay them anyway, we do. All income tax should come from individuals only. This would decrease the cost of living, and would further aid lower income families who would fall under the standard deduction anyway.

7. Capital gains stops being a separate tax. Any capital gains get written in on the income tax forms, and taxed same as any other income source.

This is what I need to play along. I still think income tax is fundamentally wrong for our nation, and that consumption tax is the right way to go, but for the sake of compromise, income tax can stay if it plays by the rules.

I would think, regardless of political persuasion, not focusing on specific percentage figures, we can all agree that the current tax code is overly complicated and needs to be simplified, yes? We just differe on what breakdown and methodology the new simpler system would take?