^Ha. Sorry. No can do. I DO think that some churches should be removed from their tax exempt status when they've got a wealthy CEO - I mean- preacher/paster/leader paying himself a ridiculous salary.

But, that wouldn't solve the problem. I don't think Gov. Schwarz has many options here. He's already taken other drastic measures up to this point (forced state employees to take unpaid leave) and now it's going to get difficult.

He has to take action NOW before the money disappears completely. Reforming the tax law isn't a feasible short-term solution.

The Government is not immune to this: http://www.videosift.com/video/SNL-Dont-Buy-Stuff-You-Cant-Afford

I'm starting the list from scratch in order to minimize "WIMP-OUTS." There were far TOO MANY over the months we regularly had roasts.

Like others of you here, I am an UNPAID volunteer.

I'll update the list during my next computer session.

Brilliant idea! I love it. Let's add it to the list of unpaid coding work we pile on lucky760.

some vigilante justice i found on Greg Gutfeld's wikipedia:

""Houseboys

Although Greg Gutfeld is married, another running on the show is the fact that Greg has "houseboys" of various ethnicities. These houseboys are unpaid, and are acquired through advertisements in foreign papers for students wishing to "learn a skill abroad." Some houseboys are said to have suffered an untimely demise. Popular houseboys from the past include "Dat Ho," allegedly Vietnamese, "Julio," intentionally mispronounced "Julie-Oh" with a j-sound, and the Greek "Pilates." Occasionally, the houseboy reference is altered to that of a "pool boy." Greg is always clear that every houseboy that he employs is over the age of 18, although the veracity of his claims is always subject to mirthful skepticism from the panelists.""

Because the religions of a society tend to be reflected in the policies made within governments. Or in other words, your religion effects me, so I care about what you believe because I dont want it to.

I live in Indiana and I cant buy any alcohol on Sundays. Not that big of a deal but, the mindset that went into that decision was a religious one. Why then, should I have to deal with that law?

Why should homosexuals be deprived of the right to marry because of one obscure verse in the bible? Our constitution invokes freedom of religion and no one is saying these homosexual ppl should be allowed to be married in a church, forcing the religion to change, just the laws involved.

1/2 of a male couple involved in some kind of emergency wouldnt be able to visit with the other half in a hospital because the rules are that only immediate family can visit. They cant even get a discount on car insurance for their partnership. The law is preventing them from doing that and religion plays a major role in that. THAT is why it is so important to people like us who have absolutely no stake in god.

Your a devout catholic you say, how would you feel if you were forced to take unpaid days off of work for Hanukkah(the way some atheists like myself feel for being forced to take off christmas) Why should I be forced to celebrate your holiday when I would like the day off of work for Charles Darwin's birthday?
Do you see what I'm saying.

Freedom of religion makes the US by law a secular society yet judaio christian ideas are invasive and perverting our government into something other than what the founding fathers intended. I dont want to be forced to believe something I dont, and I'm happy that I live in a country that supports my freedom in that regard, for now.

In reply to this comment by Dignant_Pink:
i'm a devout catholic. i believe in god and his son jesus. i believe that everything that happens, good or bad, is, to quote the joker, "all part of the plan." i dont presume to know that plan, but i believe there is one.

and yet i upvoted. why? because it's funny. too many times, atheists (and i'm not saying all atheists. i'm not bigoted.) expect us to respect them while at the same time, insulting our religion. (yes i realize that catholics do this too, but not all of us. thats the same problem) none of them seem to realize that religion is just one of someone's defining characteristics. god i'm sick of the God/no God debate. why can't people believe what they want?

>> ^Deano:
What's the difference between this and Geitner? Was his tax situation known upfront?

I don't know all the details of Daschle's tax issue, but I think part of the difference is that Geitner had paid some of his back taxes prior to ever being considered for Treasury. When Obama picked him, the vetting team realized that there were other taxes he had owed, but for which he was no longer legally responsible due to the statute of limitations. But, obviously, it still would have set a bad precedent.

The irony is that Daschle's unpaid taxes issue really doesn't have much bearing on his qualifications for H&HS, whereas for Geitner, he's going to be in charge of the IRS. I guess it goes to show a) just how f'ed up Washington is, and b) just how freaked out everyone is about the economy versus the health care system.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Bush accepted blame & apologized for a lot of things

I'm sorry, what planet are you from? Name one thing (other than failing to dismantle Social Security) for which he apologized and quote a verifiable source.

So lets do some high school economy here.

When you borrow a quarter from a friend for a candy bar, on loan with no interest (assuming your friend cannot calculate for interest at this time, or is nice enough to let you freely spend without risk of interest) how do you recoup that debt? You pay it back.

Or you face the wrath, with lenders it usually some repo man.

What is equity? Home equity is the value of a homeowner's unencumbered interest in their property, i.e. the difference between the home's fair market value and the unpaid balance of the mortgage and any outstanding debt over the home. Equity increases as the mortgage is paid or as the property enjoys appreciation. This is sometimes called real property value in economics.

In short if your house costs 10 dollars, and you have payed 5 dollars. You can take a loan out on the 5 dollars that you still need to pay.

In short, don't do it, the asset is not liquid.

Liquid assets are the easiest to make into cash. Basically Commodities that you own.

An equity loan is a loan based on numbers, and in essence has no value.

In certain countries it is tax deductible meaning these governments reward this kind of thing.

FFS: You cannot continue to trade on numbers on paper. They have no value, promissory notes have no value. If currency has no real liquid asset behind it then it is not worth any thing.

Bottom line is that that was the best unpaid or paid 7 minutes Obama could have asked for at this stage. Very well put, and by explaining his rational Powell surely cemented many votes of centrist republicans across this country onto the already growing foundation Barack has amassed.

Bravo!

wide eyes.. blink blink blink gulp.

Joe's real name is Sam, and he's an unlicensed plumber who has approx $1250 in unpaid back taxes, plus another $1250 in unpaid medical bills (he has two liens against him).

There is more... look around.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.

That's pretty high praise right there.

It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.

I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.

Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.

Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.

I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?

That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.

In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.

We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.

Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.

Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.

Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?

That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.

You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.

Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.

To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).

As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.

Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.

I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?

You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.


Lemme tell you a little about Deedub81: I was raised with 5 siblings plus a foster sister. We lived in a 4 bedroom condominium in San Jose, CA. My parents got one room, my foster sister had another, my other two sisters had the third room, and us four boys shared the fourth. My mother and father both worked two jobs while I was in my elementary and middle school years, both of them have a BA from ASU. We ate oatmeal for breakfast, PB&J for lunch, and veggies from the garden with beans and rice for dinner. My mom would pick me up from school, when I was just 10 years old, and I would sit on the tailgate of our station wagon and throw the newspapers my mom had just rolled. I know "poor."

After I graduated high school, I took a job at the Grill on the golf course of a private resort in the Silicon Valley of California. The entry fee for membership in this club was $250,000. I was on a first name basis with many of the members -some of the wealthiest men in the world: John Chambers, Thomas Siebel, Ronnie Lott, and many others. Some of them would golf 7 or 8 times a month, often with only their caddy as a companion. One of the highlights of my job was the time I spent with these men as I served them their lunch on the terrace overlooking the golf course. My favorite thing to do was to ask them how they got to be where they were. How did they start? What made them successful?

Now I'm self-employed. I supply factory direct construction materials and arrange labor for large, custom built homes owned by some of the wealthiest men in Colorado. Today, for example, I spent all day working with a developer on his 15,000sf home. I've been working with him for the past 3 months and we're not done yet. In short, I know "wealthy."

The wealthy and the poor have more in common than you give them credit for. Many modern millionaires live in middle-class neighborhoods, work full-time and shop in discount stores like the rest of us. I tend to believe that millionaires are more average than most other people think.

In an article in the Reader's Digest, Kristyn Kusek Lewis writes, "The reality is that 80 percent of Americans worth at least $5 million grew up in middle-class or lesser households."

T. Harv Eker, author of Secrets of the Millionaire Mind says,“For the rich, it’s not about getting more stuff. It’s about having the freedom to make almost any decision you want.”

Being a self-made millionaire is the "American Dream" realized, isn't it? I'm not saying they don't have a responsibility to use their success for good. I do believe, however, that they should have the freedoms that we're all entitled to. They already pay a higher dollar amount than the rest of the country. Why isn't that good enough?



Back to McCain and his wealth: How could you possibly say that McCain led a life free of hardship? His family wasn't wealthy, he married into wealth. Also, consider the time he served in the military. Do you consider that "ease?"

Does the fact that Obama had, in your opinion, a tougher life than McCain make him a better candidate for President? Not at all. That has nothing to do with qualifications. When has Obama ever stood up to his party's leadership when he knows something isn't right? I can tell you when McCain has. What has Obama done to extinguish Pork Barrel spending? I can tell you what McCain's done. When has Obama reached across the isle to get legislation passed? Not very often.

Don't get me started (and I don't even like McCain)! I didn't choose John McCain to represent the republican party. It's just so hard to keep my mouth shut when the other option, at this point, is clearly a lesser candidate. All this talk of Obama's lack of experience is getting old, but they have a really good point. Of course, that's just my opinion.



I didn't mean for you to believe that I think the only cause of homelessness is laziness. What I mean to say is, thanks to the many social programs already in place, there is no reason for anyone to sleep without a roof over their head, warm clothes, and a full belly.


Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of us waste opportunities. I'm curious, what opportunities did most of your neighbors not have?



This question remains unanswered: I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.




Commentary on the more stable economy in other countries: I was in Japan this summer with my chamber choir. This was our second tour in Japan. I look up to the Japanese people for many different reasons. Americans could learn a lot from their attitudes, philosophies; not to mention their economy. One thing in particular stood out to me on this last trip. I couldn't ignore it. Everywhere I turned it was staring me in the face. "Made in Japan"

We have strayed too far from that kind of patriotism, haven't we?



I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?





In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Wow, quite a straw man argument you started off with. I'm more thinking places like Germany and Sweeden, or even Japan as countries who manage their economies more wisely than we do.

Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.

Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.

I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.

"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.

I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.

As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?

I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.

In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.

As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.

McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.

Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).

As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).

Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).


Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?

>> ^BansheeX:
Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please?

Force of habit, I'm used to bumping heads with Republicans, and rarely do Libertarians preach about the need to restrict the power of corporations to infringe on people's individual rights. Most just talk about the tyranny of regulation, and often go so far as to debate the necessity of OSHA, USDA and even the FTC (which seems to have faded from existence in my lifetime).

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

Not to lean too heavily on an appeal to authority, but are you saying there's something about Austria in the Great Depression that disproves the underpinnings of what 90% of economists believe? Shouldn't someone at Universities around the world be notified?

I'm just reacting to the insistence that there's something fundamentally flawed with liberal philosophy. Usually that "something flawed" is that "socialism doesn't work" or "the free market fixes everything" or some other nonsensical absolute assertion.

For example, you said I don't understand which powers of government are "justified" and which ones aren't. That's not true, we just have a different concept of what's justified.

You also questioned whether or not I'd go along with letting the government have and use a hypothetical mind control device -- and of course I'd be opposed to such a thing. I'm all for protecting individual rights, and limiting government's power over the individual, I just don't think free markets are always the best way to fulfill every need in society, merely most of them.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

I agree on that issue, that there's abuse of the power that needs to stop, but I don't think the solution is to remove government power to ban products.

I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything.

That's easy: show a schedule of payments to potential purchasers, so they know what their obligations will be with regards to the loan.

There's differing opinions out there about who's at fault for the crisis, but part of the problem did start with predatory lending practices, motivated by the hunger for those mortgage backed securities.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money.

Actually, since we're still under the auspices of the Bush administration, it's mostly going to help out banks who leveraged themselves to invest in mortgage backed securities. Regular people who got screwed by predatory lending are having to get by with the scraps the Democrats can attach to the legislation.

I know it's all socialism to you, but to me there's a vast difference in those things.

Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for.

I agree with the assessment of the current situation, it does seem like we're putting off the inevitable. I'm a cynic though, I think they want to make sure the next President gets the big market crash, and they're intentionally delaying things for that purpose, even at the risk of making that crash worse.

And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain [snip]

That's exactly how I see it too, and I couldn't be more happy at the thought of a new FDR-style administration, I just hope we don't have another Great Depression and World War to go with it.

Quite the discussion of economic philosophy, in the comments on a video of Obama talking about Republicans being pridefully ignorant on energy.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")

No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.


>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.

I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?

>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.

Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!

>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.

Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.

>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.


I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).

But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.

And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*

This advice may give you some peace of mind and pocketbook-hope lies in the Country you live in, there's the infrastructure and medical facilities to give you the care you need, and if you are unable to pay, you will be treated-county hospitals will bill you, and you simply pay them regularly, what you are able, every month like clockwork-Med bills in collection, etc- unpaid, affect your credit less than some credit card charge-offs, utilities unpaid, etc-you pay the county $10 a month, and they can't report you to a credit agency for non-payment....they won't send the enforcers to put you in the debtor's prison, because the whole place is a type of debtor's prison anyhow, the walls of your apt. long since replaced the bars and walls.....

I keep ins. for my kids because I have to, none for myself, because I can't afford it, nay won't afford it-the day I want to get a gauge on my body, by availing myself of a battery of tests from some Hosp., is the day I buy a personal policy, w/ all the bells and whistles, go get all the tests I want in the course of a month, then, dump it-

Eat right, stay active, keeping in mind that you are not Superman (wait, he's a fag) not an X-man, because those youthful injuries translate into chronic pain as you age, and you want to be pain-free as long as you are able......and rest easy in the fact that when Obama is elected, he will turn our health care system into something even illegal aliens can climb up and suck on that teat, which should be reserved for citizens, until you are taxed into oblivion to pay for the dilution of our language and culture, the more porous our borders become.....Viva La Amerimexicanada.....

It worked for L. Ron Hubbard and 419 scammers, too.

I'm glad my church has 100% unpaid clergy.