She's Irish dancing to a Latino man rapping as Alexander Hamilton.

Give her some slack.

*quality

How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore
And a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot
In the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?
The ten-dollar Founding Father without a father
Got a lot farther
By workin' a lot harder
By bein' a lot smarter
By bein' a self-starter
By fourteen they had placed him in charge of the trade and charter
And every day while slaves were being slaughtered
And carted away across the waves
Our Hamilton kept his guard up
Inside he was longing for something to be a part of
The brother was ready to beg steal borrow or barter
Then a hurricane came and
Devastation reigned and
Our man saw his future drip drippin' down the drain
Put a pencil to his temple
Connected it to his brain
And he wrote his first refrain
A testament to his pain
When the word got around, they said, "This kid is insane, man!"
Took up a collection just to send him to the mainland
Getcha education, don't forget from whence you came
And the world is gonna know your name!
What's your name, man?

Alexander Hamilton, his name is Alexander Hamilton
And there's a million things he hasn't done
But just you wait, just you wait

When he was 10, his father split
Full of it, debt-ridden
Two years later, see Alex and his mother, bed-ridden
Half-dead, sittin' in their own sick, the scent thick
And Alex got better but his mother went quick
Moved in with a cousin, the cousin committed suicide
Left him with nothin' but ruined pride
Somethin' new inside
A voice saying Alex, you gotta fend for yourself
He started retreatin' and readin' every treatise on the shelf
There would've been nothin' left to do
For someone less astute
He would've been dead or destitute
Without a cent of restitution
Started workin', clerkin' for his late mother's landlord
Tradin' sugar cane and rum and other things he can't afford
Scannin' for every book he can get his hands on
Plannin' for the future, see him now as he stands on
The bow of a ship headed for a new land
In New York you can be a new man
The ship is in the harbor now
See if you can spot him
Another immigrant comin' up from the bottom
His enemies destroyed his rep, America forgot him
And me? I'm the damn fool that shot him

Alexander Hamilton
We were waiting in the weeds for you
You could never back down
You always had to speak your mind
But Alexander Hamilton, we could never take your deeds from you
In our cowardice and our shame
We will try to destroy your name
The world will never be the same, Alexander!

Yeah, I'm the damn genius that shot him

Post American Revolution - country in massive debt, can't even pay soldiers who fought for independence - Alexander Hamilton: "I know! Let's borrow even more." - Country grows to most prosperous nation on Earth.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

It's not an American Constitution. It's the United States Constitution. Documents like all things require the opinion of the reader. Everyone has one and they're almost invariably different from the other.

The Constitution was written by politicians united in revolution I get the feeling that they didn't really give two shits about who was what party.

Secular country? Hardly.

Sophomoric jokes about Alexander Hamilton's descent from a mountain, two tablets in tow, and the comparison of seeking constitutionality to rubbing Buddha's belly are generally a turn off to this mainstream media outlet. Then again that's all we ever see coming from Washington so why should the media be any different.

@blankfist, Barber cites the tea tax - an excise tax - as an injustice comparable to the income tax, and just as worthy of rebellion, yet the Whiskey Rebellion was also about an excise tax. So if he wants to trot out the tea tax, then he might as well know that the very same Founding Ghost Father at the table who said, "Gather your armies" had no problem with excise taxes, nor squashing any tax rebellions. Whether he is or isn't your favorite Founding Father is besides the point. These assholes are elevating all the Founding Fathers to demigod status, so let the truth about these giants from a long-forgotten golden age be told.

And personally I'd prefer wiener rubs with Alexander Hamilton. He was such a bad boy!

i struggled with this interview due to Woo being so vague and obtuse but in the third part he finally gives some insight to his possible reasons.

those reasons are quite simply an argument that stems to the beginning of this republic.his defense is an ideological one and is very hard to prosecute but easy to defend.the federalist papers were an ongoing argument between alexander hamilton and james madison (if i recollect properly) and the basic premise was,in summary,which is a more beneficial form of government in regards to the federal governments role.
1.a fairly weak federal government whose role is security and little else.leaving the bulk of responsibility on the states.
2.a strong federal government with not only security as a responsibility but also final say on states powers to regulate themselves.
this is the basic argument and we still have representative ideologies today in our political landscape i.e:democrat-republican.

Woo seems to be of the idea that it is the ultimate responsibility of the federal government,and more specifically,the executive branch that should wield greater power.
this is his right though you may disagree.
what i find perplexing is that Woo is a neo-conservative and a republican party member.this is the party of SMALLER government and weaker powers.why would he use a democrat philosophy?
answer=because he is full of shit and nothing of what he did had anything to with his political philosophy.he created the torture memos to absolve his superiors of any wrong-dong by manipulating the law.
it is either that or he is a confused,misguided tool.
considering he is a professor of constitutional law i am going to guess he was working at the behest of those who wielded power at the time.
he is a whore who traded his political ideologies for career asperations.
that or he is a closet democrat.

Okay, a founder-off then. Here's what Hamilton has to say:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Alexander Hamilton

In any case, the limits of "government" laid out in the Constitution weren't supposed to be a proclamation that no government shall intrude, merely that state governments were to be the sole arbiter of those matters.

To take Madison's side is not to say that no government shall mandate things like a universal health care program, it's to declare that the national government has to rely on state governments in order to do it if they want to.

To push states' rights in such a way is just silly, unless you seriously think we need to go back to some sort of highly Federated system where we're supposed to identify with our State more than the nation called the United States. Actually, we'd have to go back to thinking of the phrase "United States" as being plural -- call it these United States.

It also means you really have to declare that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, since obviously that's a matter for the states to decide on...

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
Deregulation is the answer? Has this not been de-bunked a thousand times over yet?
How about the US actually make something that the world wants to buy, wouldn't that be better?


not really.
i think the death is in the details.
regulations have literally brought americas manufacturing to its knees.
they could not compete with so much regulation weighing in against their profit margin.
this is where the financial district became so appealing.
so where GM would offer a 3% on avg return,it was the DEREGULATED financial institutions who could offer up to 20%.
while unrealistic in the long run,you cant blame an investor for jumping on the bandwagon,anyone of us would have.
im not saying that the regulations in finance should be blanket,just the safegaurds that were slowly,over twenty years,picked away and brought us the disaster we find ourselves in today.
glass/steagle to be specific,but there were a myriad of safegaurds that the financial institutions lobbied to excise.
i agree with schiff on many things.
giving financial institutions free reign is not one of them.
the biggest thing i DO agree on is america needs to go back to manufacturing again.
in peter schiff's book "crash proof" he does not make it sound like that is going to be a walk in the park,but it is utterly vital that we sacrifice and start making the changes now.
article 76 of the federalist papers,alexander hamilton laid out an industrial nation plan.which america followed until the late 70's.
it was a outline that had america importing more raw material,manufacturing and lending more than ANY other nation in the world.
those statistics have literally flipped.
by definition,america is a third world nation.
one of the worst shifts in the american philosophy was going from "making/building stuff was good"
to...
"greed is good".
now..milton friedman said greed was good but that was based on the assumption people were playing by the rules of the free market.
and those rules have been ignored for almost thirty years.
we do not have a free market,we have an oligarchy of corporations.
the free market works.
this is a main reason why i am for a single payer system.
bring in the health insurance that will force the industry to cut its fat,and lower prices.
everybody wins.
thats my 2c's anyways.

under the bush administration the DEA and other related federal institutions (DOJ)were given the authority to over-ride state laws.
i believe it was in 2004.
they have been selective in their prosecution of said authority,mainly in california.
the question of state rights/laws trumping federal law has been a contentious subject since the beginning of america.
i would refer to the federalist papers,article 51,in which alexander hamilton and james madison make such an argument on state vs federal powers.
i swear,its almost like we are living in bizzaro world,where republican and democrat have flipped ideologies on these matters.
how can something you do in the privacy of your own home,harm noone,can be considered against the law?
thanks to henry anslinger and his propaganda machine in the late 30's and early 40's demonizing weed,the american citizen has had to endure this egregious breach in our right to privacy.
its an inane,ill-thought and redundant law,based on bad science and even worse social engineering.
and we call ourselves free..pfffft.

From James Madison's (author of said document) own mouth from the federalist papers (a counter point is made by alexander hamilton on the contrary) the general welfare clause is meant to justify spending, so long as it is tangentially related to other enumerated powers in the constitution. I am really swamped right now with school and work, so i don't have too much time, but i promise we can talk in a week or two. cool?

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Just saw this comment. I'm interested why you think Socialism and the Constitution can't co-exist. The Constitution allows for multiple people to own the same property (otherwise corporations could not exist) so why would it be against the Constitution for the government and the people to collectively own and operate a system such as, say, health care? Additionally, the Constitution doesn't explicitly restrict against a redistribution of wealth. You could even argue it actually encourages it through the General Welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8. So again, why couldn't Socialism and the Constitution co-exist?

In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
The constitution and the bill of rights are very adamant about defending individual rights, individual freedoms, individual choices, so long as they do not interfere with an individuals "Life, Liberty,and Happiness (or property, if you like Locke)" which are defined as inalienable.
Property - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
Socialism - a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Now, defenses aside, the constitution, the guiding force of the United States, seems very very explicitly against many of the policies that are reveled here on the sift.
If you feel that it is outdated, then maybe you should begin a campaign to disband the constitution. But I, and many many others will not allow it.

An interesting fact:

Salmon P. Chase is one of only three non-presidents to be commemorated on cash money (since the introduction of the Federal Reserve System). The other two are Alexander Hamilton ($10) and Ben Franklin ($100).

And, finally, we cut to Chase: A link from the Treasury's currency page told us everything we wanted to know and more about the enigmatic Salmon P. As it turns out, he was the 25th Secretary of the Treasury, serving under Lincoln. Due to a monetary crisis brought on by the Civil War, he reluctantly implemented the first printing of paper money in the United States.

In fact, Chase's portrait appeared on the original $1 bill, thus earning him the nickname "Old Mr. Greenbacks." The name didn't stick, however, due to the fact that after the war, Chase, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, declared paper currency to be unconstitutional.
- Yahoo.com Coins and Currency Q&A

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

Poor tool....how many times can you watch a train wreck??...in bits and agonizing pieces...? What would Alexander Hamilton do???...A:(-kill some motherfuckers.)...or push more daisies up through cracks....