The Full Nader Plus a Taste of Bush and Gore
from the are-you-scared-yet? dept.
This came out as a series of position papers rather than as direct answers to our questions. Reportedly, Mr. Nader "...wasn't going to answer any more questionnaires," so this is what we get. Note that not all questions were addressed. (Draw your own conclusions.)
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
Reply:
"Nader said the current war on drugs is a colossal failure that is costing the taxpayers dearly and coming up pitifully short on results."
Read More: "Sept. 8. "Nader Urges New Strategy for the War on Drugs"
"The War on Drugs has failed. It has corrupted many law-enforcement institutions and officials, it's filled our prisons with nonviolent offenders at a cost of billions of dollars a year to the taxpayer. We've got to look at the drug situation in this country the way we look at alcoholism and nicotine addiction - as a health problem, as a prevention problem... Drug addicts represent a serious health problem, and they've got to be dealt with in a very humane and effective manner. You don't throw them in jail with hardened criminals and allow corporations to build more jails with more tax dollars." Read More: "Ralph Nader Hemp Raider" interview in the Sept. 2000 issue of High Times magazine
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
No Reply
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Reply:
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like. We should tax stock market speculation. We should tax pollution. We should tax activities that we don't like, like sprawl, in order to get a better planning system and better zoning system. And we should lighten the taxes on things we do like, like honest labor, like food."
Read More: Jim Lehrer interview with Ralph Nader, June 30, '00
Corporate Vs. Individual Taxation
Hey, Corporate America! Show Taxpayers Some
Appreciation!
By Ralph Nader
February 23, 1999
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that April 15th of each year be designated Taxpayer Appreciation Day, a day when corporations receiving taxpayer subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare can express their thanks to the citizens who provide them.
Though it may not be evident, quite a few industries - and the profits they generate -- can be traced back to taxpayer-financed programs whose fruits have been given away to (mostly) larger businesses.
Read More: Ralph Nader's "In The Public Interest" column, Feb. 23, 1999
Also see:
Ralph Nader's "In The Public Interest" column,
"Distribution of Wealth"
June 12, 2000
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Reply:
Open up the two-party system: PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The two major parties, thanks to their addiction to big money, are converging into one corporate party with two heads. This leaves voters who are longing for alternatives without any significant choice on the ballot. This must change.
Every one of us has to stop saying that we are going to surrender to a winner-take-all political system. In our country we need a discussion about proportional representation and we're going to get it. With proportional representation, more votes count. There is greater voter turnout and more citizen interests can participate in government.
Read More: http://www.votenader.org/issues/politicalreform.html
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
Reply:
Then there is the Clinton/Gore policy on the scope of patents. The administration is embracing the policy of patenting "anything under the sun." This includes, for example, political campaigning on the Internet, picking stocks, accounting methods, uses of tax shelters and even golf swings. The administration is rushing through thousands of poorly conceived and unnecessary patents on business methods, including many which deal with e-commerce.
In the area of copyright protection, the administration has been extremely aggressive supporting legislation to reduce privacy and ban new technologies that could lead to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The theft of company trade secrets is now a federal crime.
Read More: Wired Debate, "Nader: Al Takes Too Much Credit"
In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?
In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.
But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.
During the government's antitrust investigation of Microsoft, Mr. Gore's daughter went to work for Microsoft. Could he at least respond to the repeated requests for the administration to talk about procurement and the free-software movement? Or find a way to use the federal acquisition regulations to fund the development of public-domain software?
And what can we expect from Mr. Gore on the issue of intellectual property rights? Right now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is pushing as hard as it can for the public to accept patents on business methods.
We have patents on methods of Internet auctions, patents on one-click shopping, patents on methods of picking stocks, patents on methods of avoiding taxes on credit card transactions, patents on methods of political campaigning on the Internet, and even patents on Internet Web standards.
Mastercard has foolishly sued me, claiming their trademark rights can stop my use of parody in political ads, including using the word "priceless" itself.
There are lawsuits over hypertext links in Web pages. The Girl Scouts are told to pay royalties on campfire songs. Trade-secret laws are now a federal criminal offense. Students have been thrown in jail for refusing to turn patents over to giant corporations who fund university facilities.
I am opposed to patents on software, and opposed to patents on business methods. I believe that parody should be protected in copyright and trademark, that copyright enforcement should not override privacy rights, and that use of patents, trademarks and copyrights should be limited by fair use, and when necessary, compulsory licenses.
The public domain should be protected, and public figures need to speak out against the ever-escalated march of corporate lobbying for expanding intellectual property rights.
There is finally the issue of the privatization of law and policy making on the Internet, and the easy way that Mr. Gore has pushed for the elimination of democratic institutions. The creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is at the center of the Clinton/Gore Internet strategy...
The next issue will be copyright, as ICANN considers corporate proposals to use the ICANN control over domain names and IP numbers, to become an ever-ambitious police for alleged intellectual property infringements. In the trademark areas, ICANN is already throwing concepts such as fair use or free speech out the window. Mostly, however, it is an issue of corporate privatization.
Read More: Wired Debate, "Nader: Al Isn't Net's Best Friend"
The entire Wired Debate can be viewed at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39293,00.html
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
No Reply
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Reply:
"Things have changed dramatically in the movement against corporate globalization in the last six months. However unlikely such large-scale protests against international financial institutions which cultivate secrecy might have seemed last year, they now appear to have emerged as a part of the political landscape.
The growing protest movement against the IMF, World Bank and the World Trade Organization -- and the even broader public disenchantment with these organizations -- in part reflects a demand for minimal accountability from public institutions...
Read More: "In the Public Interest" column, 4/18/00
- Also check out Ralph Nader's speech before the April 16 (A16) Protest against the International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC www.votenader.org/downloads/000416NaderSpeech.mp3
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
No Reply
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Reply:
Over the past twenty years we have seen the unfortunate resurgence of big business influence, generating its unique brand of wreckage, propaganda and ultimatums on American labor, consumers, taxpayers and most generically, American voters. Big business has been colliding with American democracy and democracy has been losing. The results of this democracy gap are everywhere to be observed by those who suffer these results and by those who employ people's yardsticks to measure the quality of the economy, not corporate yardsticks and their frameworks. What we must collectively understand about the prevalent inequalities is important because so many of these conditions have been normalized in our country.
Read More: Acceptance Statement of Ralph Nader For the Association of State Green Parties Nomination
Microsoft pays $0, and that's unfair to WHO? (Score:3)
You can bet that Bill Gates did not pay huge amounts of money in taxes either, because, like most Microsoft employees, he takes much of his compensation in the form of stock options, and stock capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than the "unfair" rates charged to me on my income (I'm in the highest tax bracket, but my income is less than 1% of Bill Gates's).
The current system of taxation is unfair to whom? Certainly not to Cisco or Microsoft or Bill Gates or anybody who is truly rich.
Meanwhile, local retirees are up in arms because their property taxes have been raised to the point where their homes, which they worked hard for all their lives to buy, are about to be taken away from them. At the same time, local developers continue to line up for multi-million dollar subsidies from government, ranging from stadiums to "redevelopment" projects. So let's see... today's system of taxation is unfair to the guys lining up at the government teat?
Yeah, right.
-E
Re:Punish those who work hard [RANT] (Score:3)
How do you intend to motivate people to produce without the ability to get rich?
My father was once a mid-level manager for PG&E. He singlehandedly raised the output of every area he worked in while reducing the number of men needed. He now (despite being below retirement age) takes a much lower-paying job doing coordination and planning for a tiny town in the middle of a desert. He isn't producing as much. There are more people who could do what he does now than what he did then. However, due to your "progressive taxes", he decided that the extra effort wasn't worthwhile.
You may see this as fine -- after all, it doesn't seem to hurt the working class any. However, if this ONE MAN could cut the operating costs of a branch of a utility company by 20%, and you drive him out of this position, you just raised the utility bills of everyone in the area.
Okay, you say, that raise in utility bills is compensated for by the lower taxes they're paying, since my father's paying them instead. Oh, wait, he isn't. He quit that job, since the reward was no longer sufficient. Oops. By contrast, if you permitted my father a higher income ("unearned" or no), and he spent this money on purchases rather than taxes... who makes the stuff he buys? The working class. By permitting the "upper class" more effective income, you make jobs for the labor class and (by increasing the sales of the companies they work for) allow them to be paid more. By removing the ability of people with extrordinary abilities to make corresponding amounts of pay, you doom society to mediocrity.
What you forget is that the whole point to this "income" stuff that you're taking is to motivate to do things to the best of their ability. Take away that motivation and you just decreased the nation's productivity -- and it's that productivity that determines how much your beloved Working Joe pays for that new car he wants.
Remember that the thing that caused the Depression wasn't the stock market crash itself, but people who stopped spending what money they had because of their fear. What matters in terms of people's actual wealth isn't how much money they have but how much they spend, and taxes take directly from money that would be spent.
An even better measure would be elimination of the minimum wage. Keep in mind that every dollar that a store spends on its checkers is a dollar that's paid for by the markups on the items it sells. By eliminating the minimum wage which forces people to be paid more than their labor is worth (by definition -- its worth is what a free market would make it be) you decrease prices to consumers, thus compensating for their reduced pay and stimulating the economy further (as those are paid more than your "minimum wage" would have been are given still more buying power, permitting them to make more purchases, increasing jobs and pay). By eliminating this artificial inflation of costs, this also reduces the flow of jobs out of the country, which you so bemoan.
And one more thing. I'm expecting, right now, an attack as being from a family of rich people, and thus guaranteed a position of security while the poor are doomed to poverty. My father came from a family of 10 people trying to eat off a single living wage. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps. I've a friend from a family of immigrants, the first person in his extended family ever to go to college; He's a corporate lawyer. That people can't change their positions in society is a sorry excuse given by those without enough ambition and intelligence to do so themselves.
And one last thing. The labor class doesn't nearly get paid squat. Where I am right now (Chico, CA) a single person can easily live off of $6000/yr -- I've done it. Not a particularly high quality of life, but food/shelter/clothing are all there. The supposed "poverty line" here is in the range of $30K/yr. That leaves $2000 a month for luxuries (or for buying real milk instead of powdered, or owning a vehicle... I'll be the first to admit that when doing $6000/yr I was cutting it pretty close). And you say the working class here in America is paid squat? Hardly!
Flat tax is stupid (Score:3)
There's some other details -- tax breaks, tax credits, special exemptions galore -- and yeah, I think those should be wiped. Mostly because they are sneaky ways to give welfare to the rich. But the flat tax doesn't really change anything about those.
Taxes will be complicated. Does the flat tax get rid of deductions? Depreciation? I haven't heard anyone talk about these, but I'm sure it doesn't, because these (complicated) rules are methods of calculating people's real income. All forms of the income tax require calculating income. All forms of the income tax are somewhat complicated. The flat tax isn't any better.
Re:Questions for Nader (or Nader Raider's) (Score:3)
CEO's who earn $100 million a year aren't making honest money from honest labor -- you just can't make that much money from labor. You can make it by selling your influence with businesses and politicians, but that's not honest. You are just manipulating a corrupt system.
Extra taxation on wages that excede the lowest paid worker by a certain factor is one way of taxing this sort of situation. For example, all wages above 20x the lowest paid worker are subject to corporate taxes. I believe Nader supports something like this (though I don't know the specifics).
Capital gains certainly isn't money from honest labor, since it doesn't involve any labor. Right now capital gains taxes are much lower than taxes for other sorts of income, which seems quite unfair.
I don't think Nader would propose special taxes on certain professions, but rather makes a distinction between money earn by labor and money you get otherwise.
Re:Vote Nader if you're in a Bush state (Score:3)
truth can be stranger than fiction. . .
Re:Speculation is already taxed higher than invest (Score:3)
In other words, you can get taxed less by holding stock for at least 12 months, than you can by working. In other words, hard work is to be discouraged. Don't earn your money. Invest daddy's money. Don't build anything real, build paper.
Atheism is a religion? (Score:3)
[Atheist church service]
Atheist#1: There is no God.
Atheist#2: Nope.
Atheist#1: Nosiree. No God. Not one.
Atheist#2: No God.
Atheist#1:
Atheist#2: Nope.
Atheist#1: I knew this one guy who thought there was a God. I think he was wrong.
Atheist#2: Yeah. He thinks he's going to heaven when he dies, but he's just going to be dead.
Atheist#1: I can prove there is no God.
Atheist#2: That's ok, I'm convinced already.
Atheist#1: Nooooo God.
...
Have I left anything out?
Re:It's All Very Simple (Score:3)
The majority always were happy to do a lot of other things that we all know are great injustices. The duty of the country is to protect its citizens -- not to please the many by the harassment, theft or persicution of the few.
Of course, should be and is are worlds apart.
---
seumas.com
It's All Very Simple (Score:3)
There are more people who will vote for Candidate X because their family has always voted the party-line or who don't like the other candidates' race/sex/religion. There are always more people who will vote for someone because Paula Poundstone, Alec Baldwin or Rosie O'Donnel told them they should. In short, in a country where religious orders, celebrities, television and commercials perform the functions of critical thinking for the majority of individuals, there will never be a drastic positive change. Governments will always grow larger, taxes will always climb (on the grand scale, though year to year they may fluctuate) and we'll always sacrifice our liberties "for the children".
I know of no way to resolve this dilemma, short of neglecting the entire philosophy that the country was supposedly founded on. So it seems that it is part of our political structure that we will always be forced into mediocrity -- at best.
---
seumas.com
Re:Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:3)
The government, though bloated, should still seek taxation as a form of revenue for the funding of things we as a country have deemed worthy. Too many political figures and groups seek taxation as a form of retribution.
And what are they seeking retribution against? Hell if I can figure it out. I guess hard work is no excuse for deserving money -- so you need to have yours taken away so those who make lesser wages can feel better about themselves.
Hell, I don't know. I don't like to sound so angry over money and taxes, but I'm disgrunted that I have relatives who could really use a bit of the 52% of my salary that the government is taking out of my checks.
---
seumas.com
Re:It's All Very Simple (Score:3)
That wasn't quite my point, however. To someone making six figures, seven figures is a lot -- tax the hell out of everyone making seven figurs cause they're richer than I am!
To someone making 50k, 100k is pretty good -- tax the hell out of those bastards!.
To someone sitting at home on wellfare or living off of their social security, someone making $25k is doing really well -- tax the hell out of those people!
To someone flipping burgers, most of us are doing pretty well I'm sure -- but that doesn't mean we should be taxed to death. I mean, at least leave us enough money so that potential for owning our own house isn't obliterated. Maybe leave us enough of our own cash to invest in our own retirement...
Certainly, someone who is wealthy enough that they're buying massive yachts and 10 million dollar houses and have a collection of 80 sports cars should pay more than someone who is struggling to feed their two kids and keep a house over their head and only earning $20k -- and you know what? They already are! That's the whole point of a flat-percentage tax. 10% of a billion is a lot more than 10% of $30k. I mean... duh... So why should the 'rich' have to fund the rest of the country?
It would be nice if the wealthier people just gave away all their money to the destitute so everyone could hold hands and live in harmony, but then we wouldn't be living in a capitalistic society and nobody would have their flashy computer systems, nice cards and funky techno-gizmos that everyone's fond of. Socialist countries aren't exactly the most thrilling to live in, as you may have noticed. There's a reason our quality of living is so high here and why we can buy disposable everything. Wellfare/re-distribution and capitalism just don't integrate very well. You either have to say "you should get to keep what you work hard to earn" or we need to just give up and let the government accept all of our income for us and let them hand out a little bit to us here and there, like an allowance from your parents, no matter what job you work.
I'm the first to admit that there are gross fortunes out there being wasted (Ted Turner, Bill Gates, many entertainers...) but I can't ever get over the fundemental injustice in forcing one man to give something that is his to another man. Taxation is no longer about funding the required elements of a government so that it can perform its duties. Taxation is a form of class-retribution and serves only to support every experimental program that some dreamy-eyed highschool graduate pulls out of their ass to fix the world. We're a country and people of contradictions and I really don't care about it anymore. Let me make my money, save my cash, buy my house, do my own thing -- and die. Elect who you want to, social-engineer the hell out of everyone.. whatever... I honestly don't care much anymore because I'll hopefully have croaked in another 50 years when the effects of all this idiocy is finally evident.
---
seumas.com
So... (Score:3)
--
Punitive taxation (Score:3)
Well, at least the man is admitting he wants to use taxes as a means of getting around the 4th and 5th amendments, to punish people without all the bother of convicting them of crimes.
The above sentence means he wants to punish people for investing in American businesses.
It means he wants to punish 401k plans and pension plans.
This basically negatively affects everybody who doesn't work in the fast food industry, and it affects them too if they're management.
-
Re:Encryption & DMCA (Score:3)
Wrong (Score:3)
Nader wants to tax ALL trades, believing that people who turn over their portfolios a lot will get hit, and thus be discouraged, while "grandma" who holds on to her portfolio will only incur nominal taxes when she sells. However, this is pretty foolish because, as I pointed out, they already are losing on average. Secondly, this does nothing to override windfall profits on a particular trade. Thirdly, even speculators (not all speculators are alike) can (and do) play a postive role in the markets, they can and do absorb risk (i.e., by buying a stock when it's falling). Fourthly, though I don't have the exact numbers on hand, I don't believe the more recent volatility in the markets is the result of "pure" day traders; rather, it's something in between. It's the mass of new and inexperienced traders that, although they aren't necessarily turning over their portfolio every day, they don't understand the fundamental nature of the market. They buy into the hype, the fear, the fud, etc, and are easily spooked as a result. It is doubtful that a tax would address these people, unless it was really high (in which case, it'd absolutely kill the economy).
As for your second point about people "buying" up large quantities of stock so they can profit, that's absolutely baseless. If it were anything close to a sure thing, it wouldn't be called speculation anyways.
It's the Internet! (Score:3)
:)
Re:Punish those who work hard (Score:3)
This is absolutely wrong by the definition of government of the USA. Why can't the federal government just provide defense, and postal services?
Tell me what is so bloody wrong with that? Nadar just said to tax the things that are not honest labor - government is crossing it's bounds. Sure, go vote for your different government, that's fine.. but don't cry when it's just the same old government pulling different tricks.
As for myself, I could give a shit less about Rocko the homeless guy who is able to work but panhandling is easier so he does it and collects welfare.
I think that for welfare to be collected, you should have to provide medical evidence of your inability to work or at least 3 rejection letters as to why you didn't get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds
It's easy to get a job, it's really easy. Anybody who says it's not is lazy and has too much pride to be accountable for their own stupid mistakes.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. It's not my responsibility - but I get forced to pay so bloody much so Rocko can constantly get my money. He's cheating the people who need help.. let him starve, if it means someone who needs help gets it.
Yeah I'm cold.. so what.. some people need to be that way to get things done. Until a person like that is in a position of power it's gonna be the same old shit, with the same old tricks.
Maybe I'm just bitter, but looking at my yearly tax summary and seeing that the money I pay in taxes in a year could pay for a complete college education for my kids - and I'm talking *good* schools.. Ivy leage not your local community college.
(Granted, I dont have kids.. but I will at some point).
Re:Atheism is a religion? (Score:3)
1) You don't really need a God to have a religion. Examples include Buddhism, Taoism and probably a lot others that I don't know. Yes, you can define religions as an organized belief system that must involve a God or Gods. But that will come to the following:
2) Organized religions are better protected than Atheism. For example, you will have a chance to exempt from military service if your 'religion' prohibited violence. Similar benefit is not enjoyed by a pacifist atheist, no matter how strong his belief is.
Jesus.. you would think they'd know better... (Score:3)
Silly me, I thought the reason we had a tax code was to raise revenue, not to engage in this sort of asinine social micromanagement..... Until we get smart and implement a flat tax, people are just going to engage in whatever sort of financial misdirection they can to avoid paying taxes (as they should).
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break, not just those of us who engage in whatever behavior the government wants to encourage....
Missing option (Score:3)
Where is the "I wish I wasn't a US Citizen" option?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
I prefer Harry Browne (Score:3)
Re:Only answered 6 out of 9 ??? (Score:3)
Why I want to be taxed more (Score:3)
You've answered your own question. You did well in life because you got a good start: your parents were well-educated and supportive. If they had been illiterate, I doubt that you would have fared as well. Poverty breeds poverty.
There are about one million Americans who work full-time, but are still homeless. Moreover, there 1.2 billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. I find this unacceptable. Since I earn far more than most, I think it's right that I should give a large portion of my income to help those who are less well-off.
For more about global poverty, see this [undp.org].
For the causes of poverty, see this [corpwatch.org].
Then read this [attac.org] or this [zmag.org] or this [monde-diplomatique.fr] to find out more about what can be done.
--
Re:Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:3)
In response to a post where I said I preferred Bush to Gore on Heinlein's "find a well-meaning fool, ask him how he intends to vote, then vote the other way" strategy, someone wrote back:
> By this you mean that Bush is a malicious fool?
My response was "Actually, yes [as in yes, I agree Bush is a malicious fool] ;-)"
The difference is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that the malicious at least sleep. Those who mean well never rest.
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes. Nader wants to tax "things he doesn't like". Both are using the power of the state to micro manage individual behavior.
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush. A fool? Sure. Malicious? Perhaps. But at least malice sleeps at night. Those with good intentions never rest.
Re:Vote Nader!! -- www.votenader.org !! (Score:3)
First of all, the "body" inside the womb is the combination and product of two humans. Without the support of at least one of them, that "body" will most certainly die. You can coerce the woman to have the child, and you can even take the child away from her, but you're fighting an uphill battle to bring to child to a worthwhile life.
Beyond that, the fetus does not belong to the mother anymore than the body belongs to the mother. We are in turn products of the earth. Divine significance is left as an exercize to the reader. The point is that there is no such thing as physical ownership. There is only brute force (either psychological or physical) protection of materials. It is the perception of ownership that allows us to commit "atrocities". I own this land, I can burry what-ever I want here.. I own this forest, I can cut it down and make a profit. These are my children, I can discipline them however I choose. This is my wife, I can have sex with her whenever I like (anybody remember this old addage?)
So from that, you should be able to morally justify that a woman can't just claim that this is my fetus, and I can rid myself of it however I choose. You'd be right except for one small detail... Circumstance. Assuming that I can convince you that we do not "own" anything, but merely protect our possessions, then take that every cell in your body is an independant possession. Each of which has had it's destiny mapped out for it.. Depending on what part of the body it happened to start out as, it is designed to have a certain life expectancy.. They are individual life forms, no less significant or magnificant than a fully functional Einstein. Man, in all his knowledge has never reverse engineered cellular life. These cells have been chosen (through divinity or natural selection) to work together as a team, and thus take part in their destiny. Most of these cells will sacrafice themselves for the good of the many. Your epidermous, your hair, your red blood cells.. All of which go through a living stage and will physically die in order to fullfill some organized purpose. In fact, the act of consciousness is little more than a high level functioning machine. The potential supernatural aspect is wholely independant of the mechanical wonders of the mammal's body.
Given this, you _must_ accept that death is a part of life.. That life regularly chooses who among them will die before their time.. There is nothing un-natural about death or selected killing (even indiscriminant killing). The question becomes what is best for the species, the individual, the particular organ... Or fetus. 99% of the time, our conscious selves are shielded from these sorts of descisions.. We don't have to make life-and death descisions (or at least we tend to delegate such authority to a select few). That's fine as a way of handling order and peace. But that is a choice of a particular community. Each of us regularly subconsciosly chooses the death of innumerable living beings.. Everything you eat is evidence of this.. Every wooden structure you utilize, every blade of grass you stomp apon... We think little of it, and so we should.. But we can't neglect that death is around us, and is wholly natural.
Variously religious Dogma's have placed priority on human collective life, as would be expected by any life form... Life always looks after it's own (it's more of that evolutionary/engineered rationalle). We also place heavy emphasis on the new-born... Sub-consciously, this is our hope for survival as a race... The Motherly protective instincts in most of us.
But you have to understand that life is about choices.. That choosing to take a baby into an unwanting family (especially in the cases of rape, or if it caused the death of the mother), will do no species good. In nature, unwanted children are physically killed by their families. You may claim that we have the benifit of a collective peer consciousness, but understand that we don't have all the answers... I make the claim that if we continue on with our "collective" wisdom as we have done for the past 200 years, we will eventually rid the Earth of our grotesque selves. Learning to vote ourselves tax breaks, allowing every human wanting desire to be fullfilled in part or whole... To promote greed, wastefulness, anonymity and thus removal from responsibility... When natural resources are so scarce that we must fight for them, I garuntee you that the fat cats of the world will not gratiously share with one another.. War will be eminant, and life will be scarce thereafter. Heven help us if we learn to travel through space to other colonizable worlds.. Has anyone actually seen Independance day?
In summary. Life is wonderous and prescious, but there are powerful forces that choose expiration dates. We are one of those forces, and it is merely politics (at the personal and pseudo-religious level) that decides who and how we should exercize that right. Never forget that you have Godlike powers across the earth (in terms of the level of control you wield), and with that comes God-like responsibilities. You may very well choose to limit your influence on death, but just as you must eradicate the very much alive cancer and bacteria in your body, you must sometimes allow for sacrafices.. Even of your own kind....
-Michael
Me Too! Vote Liberal! (Score:4)
Canadian Alliance? Nope, Stockwell gives me the shivers. I liked Preston (Refooooooooooorm Party!) but Stockwell has that weird look in his eyes...
Progressive Conservatives? Not on your life. I'm looking forward to the day when the party of Mulroney no longer exists. And poor Joe Clark... shouldn't someone tell him that everybody else left?
Bloc Quebecois? *snort* Even Hop-Along Lucien wants nothing to do with them anymore.
NDP? After seeing what an NDP government did to BC? Not freakin' likely.
So it's Liberals for me.
Besides, you gotta like having a leader who'll take the time to punch out a whiny protestor.
Bush supports privacy, Gore law enforcement? (Score:4)
"In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system -- including encryption export laws -- to allow companies to export products..."
while Gore still wants to maintain the FBI's right to choose:
"I believe that the best encryption policy is one that balances our commercial and privacy interests with national security and law enforcement concerns"
He also goes on to say that what they've done in the current administration has been the right balance.
I don't see how anyone interested in privacy could waste a vote on Gore, who wants more of the same (Clipper, government key escrow, etc.).
I understand that most people on Slashdot aren't likely to put their vote in the (R) column on November 7th, but at least Nader or Browne would support strong encryption and privacy concerns.
One last gasp... (Score:4)
Probably, way too many people (even on Slashdot) are voting for Bush on the theory that he's the "Christian" candidate. After all, Clinton/Gore are morally pretty icky, and they support abortion, right?
However, if you are in that position, I want you to think about the following propositions:
- Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible once. Not once.
- Failing to care for the poor is repeatedly mentioned (especially in the minor prophects). Its specifically mentioned 147 times. How 'bout Proverbs 29:7, which says "The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, The wicked does not understand such concern?" That is just one example.
- The Bible is distinctly opposed to some things that are core parts of corporate practice. For example, hoarding of property and charging interest.
- If you think there are no poor people in this country, then you've lived a sheltered life. My wife runs a food bank (I help) -- I meet poor people regularly. There are people with no place to stay. There are people who can't work and have to live on a wopping $512/month from social security. (And no, they really can't work.) There are people working their butts off at dead-end jobs who can't afford to feed their families. (And a lot of dead-beats. The solution is not to cut off the people who really need it to get the dead beats.)
- Stop whining about the "marriage penalty" -- every day families are broken up by the welfare system, and not so Suzie can have a new radio for her SUV, but so that the family can survive. The solution is not to abolish it, but to really fix it. It's going to cost more -- so be it.
- Let's not forget issues like the fact that in 10 years we're going to have to pay taxes on our thoughts because some company will have patented them!
- What's the first responsibility that God gave man? To cultivate the ground. Genesis 2:5. That doesn't mean clear-cutting it. Guess what people: Christians SHOULD be environmentalists.
- Guess what: there are people who can't afford medical care, and who can't buy health insurance at any price. My mother was one of them. Here last 36 hours cost $37,000 at a time when my father was making $40K! Should we just allow those people who can't afford health insurance to die in the service of the almighty buck?
- And, oh yeah, the federal government created a lot of these problems. The welfare system, for example. Or the high cost of healthcare, which was created back in the days when Medicare/caid would pay pretty much any charge without blinking. The federal gov't is the only one who can fix them.
So who am I voting for? Not Bush, with the silver spoon stuck to his tonsils and the big oil backers who would rather die than see real environmental regulation.But not Gore either. As far as I'm concerned, he lost my vote when he supported a known felon and adulterer as president of the United States because it was politically expedient. (I am also voting againt Senator's Warner and Robb, as well as my representative, on those grounds.) Not to mention the fact that he supports aggressive expansion
As for Harry Browne -- well, Laisez Faire economics is bull, always has been and always will be. Anyone who thinks that corporations will take care of their workers in the long term needs to go back and read some history. Start with the industrial revolution. (Besides, the end of that path is corporate Feudalism and "the Company Store". Why don't we just repeal the Thirteenth ammendment -- which abolished slavery -- and get it over with?)
I guess its Nader. There are some things I'm not comfortable with. His stance on abortion. His stance on homosexuality. His desire to expand government without bound. But what's my choice?
I would really like to see a candidate with a bit of common sense. Sadly, no one with any sense would want the misbegotten job.
--
Evaluation of Gore and Bush's encryption answers: (Score:4)
Bush's answer, on the other hand, is a complete, detailed response that not only addresses the concerns surrounding use and export of encryption, but also points out that the Bush campaign has taken the time to deal with the important issue of information collection and notification. With specific examples of how they are enacting these principles today:
Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
Access. Individuals have the right to correct any inaccurate personal information.
Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.
Bravo, Bush! Say what you like about George Doubya personally, or Republican policies in general, but you have to admit that they seem to care a whole lot more about the rights and freedoms of individuals.
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:4)
"I'd really put meat in the process of progressive taxation. The richer people are, the more the percentage you pay. After all, it's their influence that rigged the system to get them that rich to begin with. And, second, we should tax things we don't like.
And just who is this "We" that gets to decide what "we" like and what "we" don't?
Just another quest for power. Who is he to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like?
Re:The question that should have been asked... (Score:4)
Actually, it's clear to me that the overwhelming majority of US citizens are either oblivious to or are in deep denial about the way corporations do business, and that corporations are ever so happy to encourage them to stay that way.
Why vote Nader? (Score:4)
What is his stance on why he should be Commander in Chief? Why does he deserve to command foreign policy? What would he do as President to overcome his low stature as a diplomat? How will he work with a congress divided between two parties he has no influence in?
No! This is not a time to protest-vote, not for me anyway. If I vote for a man to be President, he should in some way resemble a national leader with an ability to conduct foreign, not just national, policy. I will vote _only_ for someone I want to actually be President. Not this populist gadfly who I simply cannot take seriously.
-Ben
no taxcut for you sucka (Score:4)
Me, I'm voting for Bush, since I think we all deserve a tax break, not just those of us who engage in whatever behavior the government wants to encourage....
Christ on a crutch, you really think you will get a tax break worth lifting your eyelids to see from a Dubya Administration? Mr. Bush plans to hand out a huge honking tax slash extravagnza to all the people who are millionaires already and don't even know now how to spend all the money they've got, and for you, guy-who-works-for-a-wage, you'll get some trifling little bonus that isn't worth half the value of this or that existing government program, which you rely upon, that he plans to dig out from underneath your feet.
Don't take my word for it because a.) I am nobody and b.) you can't believe everyone you read on the Internet, obviously. But would you grant any authority to, say, a full professor of economics at MIT? who is also a regular columnist for the New York Times? I mean, you might not agree with such a fellow on every nuance of policy but will you not go along with the notion that here, at least, is a man who can add?
This MIT professor is named Paul Krugman, and if you have the stomach to put up with the NYT web site's totally annoying password nonsense, then please examine this [nytimes.com] column from October 1st,, entitled "Oops! He Did It Again" [nytimes.com] which contains (short "fair use" quote, thank you) the following:
But I guess some people get special treatment.
I really, truly wasn't planning to write any more columns about George W. Bush's arithmetic. But his performance on "Moneyline" last Wednesday was just mind-blowing. I had to download a transcript to convince myself that I had really heard him correctly. It was as if Mr. Bush's aides had prepared him with a memo saying: "You've said some things on the stump that weren't true. Your mission, in the few minutes you have, is to repeat all of those things. Don't speak in generalities -- give specific false numbers. That'll show them!"
Note that this isn't Krugman's first column on the numerical anomalies in Mr. Bush's proposed budget, it's just the others scrolled off the NYT web page by now. Krugman goes on from there; concluding:
While I'm quoting Krugman, here [nytimes.com] is his column of the 25th of October, a cheery little note entitled "Fuzzier and Fuzzier" [nytimes.com] which ends on this upbeat note:
Indeed, the motto for this election year -- and the epitaph for the soon-to-be-departed budget surplus -- should be: Real men don't think. Unfortunately, what you refuse to think about can till hurt you.
If you began paying into SS last year, excuse me for annoying you with my trivial personal concerns. I've been paying into SS for thirty years. Believe it or not I would be very displeased to find out, in the unlikely event that I live to retirement age, that I will get no money back because the so-called Social Security Trust Fund has been handed over, in the main, to millionaires and stock-jobbers.
I expect certain things from slashdot readers, which I would not expect from randomly selected members of the general public. In this case, specifically, a decent respect for the laws of arithmetic. You can't expect the average guy to know or care too much about numbers, but, like, "news for Nerds," right? The point to all this typing, then, is that Duh-byuh's stuff just plain doesn't add up.
It follows then that somewhere in the big scheme of things, certain promises will not be kept. There are 800 or so people have contributed $95-million out of $100-million his election campaign has brought in. Mr. Bush has promised their social class, in which he also personally enjoys membership, a vast and majestic tax cut. Also Mr. Bush has promised you, Mr. Nobody #26,981,102, and me, Mr. Nobody #165,220,748, some trifling sort of tax relief. Now assume Mr. Bush gets elected President. Also assume, optimistically, that the laws of arithmetic continue to hold into the near future. Then one of those two groups - the campaign contributors, or the nobodies, is in for a letdown.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
voteexchange2000 and voteswap2000 shut down (Score:4)
Nader Trader [nadertrader.org] is still up, though.
--
Vote !Gore (Score:4)
Re:Jesus.. you would think they'd know better... (Score:4)
Here is an excellent justification for, as Nader puts it, taxing the activities that we don't like. Those "activities that we don't like" are, more specifically, activities that negatively affect society as a whole. By taxing them, the taxpayer repays society for the harm caused, and the taxpayer is also encouraged to cause less harm.
Take pollution for example. A company that pollutes is harming shared public resources -- air, water, land, etc. -- and is directly or indirectly causing harm to thousands or millions of people. Taxing that company proportional to the amout of pollution its factories emit will generate revenue which can be used by the government to help the environment, and will encourage the company to pollute as little as possible.
I think it's an excellent system that fits in with a free market very well.
If You're Not In A Swing State, Go Ahead (Score:4)
Actually, it's possible to change this. Especially if your state has an initiative system. While the electoral colege is a federal institution, the method of selecting a state's electors is up to the state. So, this can change, by bits and pieces.
Remember, the only significant part of the election as far as the Presidency is concerned is the electoral vote. The popular vote is unimportant, except for the fact that it can qualify third parties for federal matching funds. As long as the Green vote doesn't impact the electoral vote significantly, it's hardly "giving the country to the Republicans".
So, it is safer to vote Gore than Nader in a swing state, but in a state that's already locked up, it hardly matters. In that case, vote your conscience, comfortable in the fact that it won't negatively effect your second choice.
California looks to be essentially a lock for Gore, despite Bush's recent efforts, so I'm voting Nader. Gore doesn't need my vote here.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Questions for Nader (or Nader Raider's) (Score:4)
I mean, in the good ol' days, I guess honest labor good be catergorized by some blue workshirt wearing, hardhat guy with a shovel, hammer or rivetgun building the American dream.
What is "honest labor" categorized as today?
Also, Nader claims he wants to tax certain things. For instance he mentions "sprawl". I take it that means urban sprawl. I will admit many of those areas are butt ugly, but who gets taxed? The parent company who bought the land and planned the buildout? The builder? The city or county officials who approved it? The homeowner? [Personally, I just want them to tax the people who come up with those stupid names - Horizon Vista Hills Community, etc. Blah].
Polluters get taxed? Who? Me and my car which is the only option available to me based upon size, use and price? Or me, because I drive a car and there is no mass transportation that works for my needs? Or GM/Chrysler/Ford/etc for only providing internal combustion engine transportation? Is location a factor here? In many Northeast burgs, there is a variety of train, bus, and other mass transportation that the folks in Montana simply don't have. Who gets penalized?
Does anyone have answers for these questions? If not, I am afraid Nader is no different than any other politician who makes statements and policy without telling me how it is going to work.
PS - I have been to the Green Party website. No luck.
I'm pro choice! (but not how you think) (Score:4)
No! if the balance on the court tilts, abortion rights are back in the hands of the people where they belong in a democracy. In a democracy, the definition of murder, manslaughter, medical care, legitimate, illegitimate, you name it, is in the hands of the people. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, The People will get the choice again, and many states (New York, Mass, Calif, etc) would not outlaw abortion, though they would probably curtail disgusting procedures like the infamous brain sucking late term techniques.
Furthermore, I think if The People were able to express themselves on the abortion issue, we'd see less polarization and more acceptance of differing opinions. If you don't trust The People with Choice, how can you trust them with children? ;)
Re:"Humanness" is not dispositive of murder (Score:4)
I have the right to defend my womb from foreign agents who would suck my life force for their own benefit.
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you can't separate your body from its fundamental function of reproduction. Your body is more than the vessel for your brain. Part of being human means reproduction, and being a woman means you have the potential to host a new human being.
What this means is that a woman is NOT totally a sovereign entity. Once your womb is carrying a new human being, your body has temporarily become "owned" by that new human being.
I know you don't like to think about it this way, but you can't separate your brain from your biology. New humans come into existence through the sharing of another body, and thus they have a fundamental right to the use of "their" host.
Bottom line, your womb is not only your womb. Your womb becomes joint property once a new sovereign human being starts growing within it. Now, if that new life really was a real and imminent threat to the life of the host (kind of like violating the terms of the "joint ownership", so to speak), then there is a justification for aborting the new human.
You're probably angry at this, but don't get angry at me. This is biology, pure and simple. You can't separate your brain from your biology.
And by the way, yes, if I was capable of having children, I would feel exactly the same way. It's not a question of whether society (or "me") have dominion over another person's body, it's whether the new human life does. And it does.
--
Where's the I'm Too Stupid To Vote category? (Score:4)
Oh, wait, I guess we're supposed to vote for Bush, right?
Can we write in Linus Torvalds for President instead? I know he's Finnish, but I don't mind voting for people from other religions, and since this Linux thing must be a religion or something, he might not do too well down south.
Also, if Linus wins, does that mean that we keep Bill Gates as CEO of the World, or do we have to have another election afterwards?
What exactly are you CHOOSING, and why? (Score:4)
There are medical situations that may justify an abortion. For instance, if the mother and baby are both in jeopardy, then I would suggest that the mother's health should be the first consideration. What really ticks me off, though, is when BABY MURDER is used as a means of birth control. And don't doubt for a moment that it is used in such a heinous fashion.
In todays world, there is very little need to resort to such brutish, evil behavior to satisfy anyones pursuit of happiness. With all the modern methods of preventing conception today, there is NO excuse for multiple unwanted pregnancies. Supposedly the 'pill' is what 98% effective? And condoms are 99% effective? Hell, add those two up and you have 197% protection! (oh yeah, I do know that that doesn't pan out exactly statistically speaking) Add to that a diaphragm and some spermicidal lubricant, and you would be hard pressed to get knocked up.
Of course, if that is too much trouble, there is the old fashioned, but guaranteed 100% effective method of keeping it in your pants(men), or keeping your legs closed and pants on(women). Oh yeah, all those things get in the way of my instant gratification, poor me.
Gosh, you know, my parents are becoming a real inconvenience. Maybe that day after pill will do them in, too {{SARCASM}}, and don't get me started on that good for nothing grandma of mine {{MORE SARCASM}}.
This is getting a little nastier than I intended, so let's change the pace. I don't know how many of you out there have children, or how many of you have had abortions. I have my first son now. He is 6 1/2 months old now. My wife and I dated for 6 years before we married, and have been married for 5 1/2 years now. You know what? She has not had to choose an abortion, for any reason. I miss the three times a day sex now that we have a baby (OK, lets get honest, since we have been married - you married guys know what I mean;-), but I do not regret it one bit.
I saw the ultrasound at 4 months. There was a heart, and it was beating. There were arms and legs. There was a spinal cord and a head. There was even a penis. He was moving around.
What is the definition of life? What is a baby? What is innocence? Does life experience and memory have anything to do with it? If so, then what about permanent amnesia sufferers. What about Alzheimers. What about the idiot savant.
Abortion for medical reasons, maybe. This is the area where choice is appropriate. Abortion because of carelessness? Recklessness? Irresponsibility? Inconvenience? That is just plain old murder.
sane_one@wowmail.com
Re:Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:5)
I see nothing wrong with using tax as a way to fight this kind of thing.
First, the tax system was not intended as a carrot and stick system to punish behaviour the government doesn't like, and reward behavious it does. It's purpose was, and should be, revenue generation. If a behaviour is so bad that you want to stop it, criminalize it. But, that won't work, because outright criminalization of certain activities, like tobacco use or alcohol consumption would cause an uproar in the populous, not to mention raise serious constitutional challanges. So, they instead play games with the "cost" of these activities. It's a way of controlling your behaviour without getting you all hot and bothered about it.
Secondly, it is all to easy for the "we" to start to include only those who think like we do. We are a society which was built by those who feared tyrany, be it tyrany of a king, or tyrany of the majority.
It's a slippery slope, deciding which behaviours "we" approve of, and which we don't. Govenrment should be kept out of my daily life as much as possible. Let me make decisions for myself, as long as I'm not depriving anyone else of their rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because you don't like my choices doesn't mean you have to take them away from me. You don't always know what is best for me!
</rant>
Re:Ug. Pollution (Score:5)
What is wrong about asking those responsible for pollution to contribute the most to fix.
Similarly, I believe there should be a HIGHER tax on gas, and maybe even cigarettes. By increasing the cost of driving around a big honkin' INEFFICIENT SUVs or whatever, it will tend to make people buy more efficeint vehicles. Same thing with cigs. If they are more expensive, people will smoke less beause they have an economic incentive.
Re:Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:5)
What's really sick is that most of the people voting for him really don't have much to lose. They're rich white college kids. If Bush wins, they'll probably BENEFIT, though they don't see it that way. They'll be disappointed, but they wont see their _personal_ interests torn to shreds. No, they can parade around their big moral victory of a Nader vote while gays, blacks, unionists and pretty much the recipients of progressive movement get screwed.
You can't ignore The Abortion Issue (Score:5)
The fact is, Roe v. Wade was upheld 5-4 in the last battle. So, if ONE Supreme Court justice is replaced by another yes-man like Clarence Thomas, abortion rights are history. If you look at the last major abortion opinion, Stenberg v. Carhart [findlaw.com], you will find the following:
Five justices who voted to strike down the law restricting abortions: Breyer (delivered opinion), joined by Stephens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter. Notice that the two appointees of Clinton's, Breyer and Ginsburg, are solidly in the pro-choice camp.
Four justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Every one of these justices was appointed by a Republican. And, of course, Mr. Thomas was appointed by Bush, Sr.
Now, Justice O'Connor is sick (she has ovarian cancer), and justice Stephens is getting quite aged. It is very likely that one of these two liberal/middle-of-the-road justices will retire in the next four years. On the other hand, all of the conservative justices are young & healthy. So, the fact is your vote will affect a woman's right to choose.
Hope that clears up the confusion,
Thalia
Re:Ug. Social Engineering! (Score:5)
First, you're absolutely right that any standard tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor. The rich pay most of the income tax in this country; it stands to reason that any cut across all tax brackets will benefit them more on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
That said - I disagree when you say that Gore had no choice but to implement his cuts the way he did. It's a question on what you mean by "cut taxes across the board". Cut tax rates across the board, and you'll favor the rich. But you can cut taxes across the board and maintain any degree of progressivity you like in the tax system.
Here's a snapshot of the federal tax rates for a single filer (ignoring standard deduction, we're talking rates here):
$0-25,350 - 15%
$25,350-61,400 - 28%
$61,400 - 128,100 - 31%
$128,100 - 278,450 - 36%
$278,450 and up - 39.5%
There are zillions of ways to "target the middle class" without "rewarding those who do what we like" while still "giving everyone who pays income tax a tax cut".
- Make the 15% into 10%, and the 28% bracket 15%".
- Change the numbers - $25350 -> $30000, $61400 -> $100000, $128100 -> $200000, $278450 -> $300000.
Bush's plan is similar to one of these - everyone gets a cut.Don't wanna give "the rich" a break? Fine, go with the earlier variation.
But for the love of God, don't go the Gore route and say "If you have a kid under age one, and pay $FOO in child support, and earn less than $BAR, you'll be able to deduct $BAZ, and if you have a kid in college, and earn less than $FROTZ, you'll get a $XYZZY deduction, and if you..."
If the tax system is "code", the Bush approach involves changing some constants. The Gore approach is to cruft on a whole series of if/then/else structures. Ug. Gore's proposal a kludge, a horrible kludge to an even kludgier system.
Given the wide range of options available, the Gore approach is clearly more concerned with behavior modification than tax relief.
(And the cynic in me says that both approaches are engineered as efforts to pander to specific demographics - Gore for the "Soccer Moms" in his party's base, and Bush for the economic conservatives in his party's base.
That the Slashdot rhetoric mirrors the campaign's rhetoric -- "Big Oil vs. the middle class" (if you vote Gore or Nader) and "big government vs. your paycheck (if you vote Bush or Browne) is indicative that both campaigns have succeeded.
Both the progressive and the libertarian want "fair" tax cuts - but can argue for megabytes over whose cuts are "fair" - because they disagree at the most fundamental level on what constitutes "fairness".
(Of course, they also disagree on what constitutes "middle class" - $70K is dangerously close to poverty in the Bay Area!)
"I'm not a US Citizen" wins!!!! (Score:5)
Wow, where does one start... (Score:5)
First, and most bluntly, the wealthy have the most to lose, and therefore, gain the most from the societal structure of law and order that keeps them in their privileged position. Treat the masses like dirt while giving the wealthy a free ride, and you can expect another Soviet-style revolution.
Secondly, as many others have pointed out, basic neccesities of life need to be exempted from the tax scheme, and since the wealthy spend so much less (as a percentage) on those items, they will end up paying more in tax.
Lastly, I think you'd rather be angry over money and 52% taxes, than over the daily battles of living paycheck-to-paycheck without any hope of building a future through home ownership or higher education. If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?
Vote Nader!! -- www.votenader.org !! (Score:5)
Michael Moore [michaelmoore.com]
Tuesday, July 18, 2000
I think the first time I remember hearing this political urban myth was in the 1976 presidential election. Somebody told me the reason I had to vote for Jimmy Carter was because if Gerald Ford was elected, women would lose their right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion had been legal for only three years at that point. It was considered a great victory, one we all wanted to support.
So, I voted for Jimmy Carter -- and guess what? One of the things he did was to stop all abortions provided for women or wives in the armed services! He also stopped any further funding to birth control groups overseas that offered abortion as an alternative. And he ended all Medicaid payments for poor women in need of an abortion.
I felt a bit abused. I mean, Gerry Ford had been pro-choice. His wife was an ardent supporter of women's rights. And it was a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court -- Justice Blackmun -- that wrote the majority opinion making abortion legal. What was I thinking? (Other than that the Nixon Nightmare years had to come to an end! That, I correctly rationalized, was worth the vote for Carter.)
Four years later, Democrats and liberals were going nuts over the possibility that Ronald Reagan might unseat Carter. Dire warnings were issued to all: If Reagan gets in, abortion will be illegal, period.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan OR Carter, Reagan got in, and then something strange happened: Abortion remained legal! Sure, Reagan built on Carter's abortion restrictions, but Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when the Gipper rode off into the sunset eight years later.
Yet Reagan had appointed plenty of wingnuts to the Supreme Court, so when the doomsayers in 1988 warned that George Bush would CERTAINLY send women back to the alleys to have illegal abortions, another bizarre thing happened -- Bush got elected, and ... four years later ... ABORTION WAS STILL LEGAL!
But Bush did leave us with Clarence Thomas, so when the Democrats came to scare the bejeepers out of me with what Bush would do to a woman's right to choose if he got a second term, I decided to vote for Bill Clinton.
So what's happened under our first feminist-man president?
Perhaps Clinton misunderstood his mission: he was supposed to support a womanÕs right to choose, not his right to choose women. Roe v. Wade is still on the books (mainly because of the consistent and unwavering support from the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor, the Ford-appointed Justice Stevens, and the Bush-appointed Justice Souter! They have voted to uphold abortion rights every single time). But it is now twice as hard for a woman in America to obtain an abortion as it was when Clinton took office. The anti-abortion terrorists have been so successful in their campaign of violence against abortion clinics and doctors and hospitals who perform abortions that a woman can now get an abortion in only 14% of the counties in the United States. That's right. Terrorism has scored its first victory on U.S. soil by assassinating enough doctors and firebombing enough clinics so that no one wants to perform an abortion. So if you live in one of the 86% of counties where not a single doctor will do an abortion, let me ask you this: what good is a "right" to an abortion if you can't get one?
The stunning thing about this virtual elimination of abortion in America is that it has occurred at a time when nearly 70% of the country supports some form of legal abortion. The terrorists have literally gotten away with murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C., doing damn little about it. About the only reason I voted for these clowns was because of this issue -- and where the hell have they been?
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, if 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue. He is already moving to the center on abortion and has been doing so since the primaries. He wants to win. He already has the majority of women supporting him in the polls, in part because a lot of women are confident he will not upset this apple cart.
3. The New York Times two weeks ago did a study of Bush's court appointees in Texas and found that he did NOT appoint right-wing crazies, but rather moderates or moderate conservatives who have upheld legal abortion in Texas and struck down some cases that tried to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
4. Sometimes even conservatives end up accepting that the tide has turned against them. The most stunning example of this came last month when ultra-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted on writing the MAJORITY opinion for the court upholding the Miranda ruling that requires the police to inform an arrestee of his or her constitutional rights. Now, you know a guy like Rehnquist personally just hates forcing the police to read someone their rights. But in his decision keeping Miranda the law of the land, Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda rights are now "part of the American culture" and therefore should not be done away with. Even pro-Miranda liberals had never heard that line used by the Supreme Court in backing a decision, but it was, in essence, the truth. Reading someone their rights is now like apple pie -- and so is a woman's right to choose what to do if she should become pregnant. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it a decision best left with a woman, her doctor, her God -- and it's nobody else's dang business. That, too, is part of the American culture. It's called privacy, and it's been around for over 200 years. Nobody, regardless of their political stripe, wants the politicians or the justices in their bedroom.
So, this year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience. And I'm not going to let the Democratic candidate for president cynically use this issue when he himself has served in D.C. for 8 years allowing the right to get an abortion to be whittled away to near nothing.
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
--