New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Woolley Arguments.

trapdoor

Governor
imreallyperplexed;455810[QUOTE said:
]I think that you just told me that you are a conservative and don't really think that progressivism is REALLY legitimate (i.e. constitutional). I already knew that. I think that progressivism is TOTALLY legitimate (i.e. constitutional) and I think that the "living document" perspective is totally legitimate. (The opposite of a "living document" is a "dead document." Do you support the "dead document" theory of the constitution?)
No, I didn't say progressivism isn't a legitimate viewpoint. I said the methodology used by modern liberals to achieve their goals has not been legitimately within the Constitution. As I've told you in the past, there are a number of liberal programs that I also favor, but without Constitutional sanction, I still think they're unconstitutional. Yes, I basically favor the "dead constitution." A constitution that can change meaning via reinterpretation amounts to no constitution at all. If we can say that yesterday (or two decades ago), the Constitution meant one thing, and today, it means another, then why bother having it?

I also think that you exaggerate and mischaracterize liberal and progressive views. You claim that liberals "love" and "trust" government while objecting (above) when I say that you "admire" the gilded age and arguing that you just don't "loathe/fear" it as much as liberals do. Given your precedent, I think that it is fairer to say that degsme and I do not fear or loathe the governement as much as you do.

I do not loathe my government -- but government, like fire, a hammer or an automobile, is a tool. And when a fire is let out of control, a hammer dropped from the top of a worksite, or an automobile is mishandled, bad things happen. The controls that were designed to keep this from happening to our governmental tool were written into the Constitution. I think that reinterpreting or outright ignoring those controls is as dangerous as letting the campfire sit unattended.

I certainly don't have total confidence or blind trust in the government. A good government depends on an informed and engaged citizenry. I am an engaged citizen. The government is capable of enhancing both individual liberty and collective prosperity. It is also capable of threatening individual liberty and collective prosperity. The government should be as small as possible but no smaller.
Here we agree -- and I don't think we agree on how small is "as small as possible," but where we really disagree is on the method for making it larger where we need it to be larger. What Degsme and a lot of liberals do, and have been allowed to do by SCOTUS since the 1930s, is to lump any new governmental power under one of two authorities -- a new power is either to benefit the "general welfare," or a new power is, no matter what it controls, a means of regulating commerce. We've started to see some departures from the latter reasoning in SCOTUS, with the rulings in both U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and the Obamacare ruling, but it still remains. The general welfare reading, and Helvering v. Davis essentially means that Congress can decide for itself if something is a constitutional usage in the name of general welfare, is both more pernicious and more durable.

The result of all this has been exponential growth in government, into areas that someone like myself would say are outside the authorities designated in the Constitution. Degs, and possibly yourself, would say, "no, the authority comes from the general welfare authority." I can't see that as valid constitutional reasoning because if general welfare is not bound by the detail of authorities, there's really no need for the other authorites -- why write into the Constitution that Congress has the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" if it could do so simply by saying, "an ability to borrow money is good for the general welfare, so we are going to borrow money in the name of general welfare?"

On that line, I think that in addition to good roads and good schools, I think that the government has a role in regulating commerce (state governments for intrastate commerce and federal government for interstate commerce) and in promoting the general welfare.
"Promoting" the general welfare is something separate from providing it.

I know that we disagree about what this means but the arguments that we might have about these things demonstrate that - in practice - the Constitution is a "living document" and that the Supreme Court and the judicial system is a "living institution." The Constitution is not a dead document and the Supreme Court is not a dead institution.
I think the Constitution provided, within its original content, the means for changes to the Constitution and by extension, changes to our system of government. It's a living document in the sense that it can be amended to accommodate changes to society, not in the sense that we can read it as meaning one thing today and another tomorrow. SCOTUS doesn't exist to reinterpret the Constitution, but to determine if laws passed by Congress conform to the Constitution.

BTW, I don't think that a "strong military" is equivalent to "providing for national defense" or an aggressive foreign policy where the United States is the supreme military power in the world, the world's policeman, and the United States attempts to impose its will on the world. I do think that that is the establishment Republican foreign policy and the foreign policy preferred by the Dick Cheneys of the world and the bulk of conservatives. I do not think that the "founders" envisioned this sort of aggressive foreign policy. They envisioned something more modest.
Although I largely agree and am by no means one of the many neo-cons who favors an all-interventionist, all-the-time military policy, at the same time the people who wrote the Constitution saw the Navy as a means of protecting U.S. world-wide interests and projecting U.S. power -- even Jefferson, who believed in a very limited government and military, didn't hesitate to send in a U.S. fleet in response to the Barbary Pirates.

Finally, there are also certain lines that I draw. If Romney returns to the Bush foreign and military policy and it is pretty clear to me that he is a disciple of Dick Cheney, I am sure that he will cross a line for me and millions of Americans.
As opposed to what? Obama has been only slightly less interventionist. And while that would indeed cross the line for millions of Americans, there is apparently a nearly equal number of Americans who would cheer. While I do not favor interventionism full time, as I said above, there comes a time when something must be done. America has been under attack by Islamo-terrorists since the 1960s. I know the man's every word is probably anathema to you, but in this one respect, I agree with George W. Bush -- it's time to stop swatting flies.

It won't be pretty. I am also a strong proponent of universal health care (and that is, I admit, a progressive position).
This may surprise you, but I'm not an opponent of universal health care. I'm an opponent of Obamacare, and all other such plans for universal health care that don't involve amending the Constitution, which makes no provision for such health care (or insurance).

I think that universal health care IS constitutional.
Show me the authority for it. Even in Helvering v. Davis SCOTUS said there has to be a difference between the general welfare and the specific -- universal health care is clearly the specific welfare of individuals, not the general welfare mentioned in the Constitution (I stipulate that you'll disagree).

If they repeal Obamacare, they will not attempt to achieve universal healthcare. That is a line that I am not willing to cross. I think that millions of Americans agree with me. I think millions of Americans will again take to the streets
.

Well, there are a lot of things we could discuss around the concept, but Obamacare doesn't provide "universal" health care insurance, either. Setting aside that quibble -- the overall law isn't that popular. Remember, even before it was passed, 80 percent of people in the United States had health insurance. The insurance for those who didn't have it doesn't kick in until 2014, and comes with the "penalty" or "tax" or "cornucopiea of infinite prosperity" or whatever it's being called this week, that is very unpopular. I don't see people taking to the streets to save it.

I don't think the government, other than making certain there's a stable currency and a limited regulatory environment, should be all that involved in the economy. It wasn't always, and while we had boom and bust cycles, they were fairly widely spread busts among long periods of prosperity. Too much regulation can be as bad as too little -- and I don't see anyone except conservatives attempting to put on the breaks. But really, that's a topic for another thread.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I got all the funding I needed, race was not a factor. I fail to see how your sources for funding were tied or limited to your race. But then, you may have come of age after Ronnie destroyed funding sources like the one I used, BEOG. Ronnie did the same thing in California btw. During the 70s, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program let students borrow up to 2 grand a year at interest rates around 2%. This was when the prime was over 15%. I think I remember Ronnie cancelling it...too bad for you then.
Well, Degs doesn't really have my history right. The events that turned me off happened not during the Reagan administration but during the George H.W. Bush administration (stipulated, the policies hadn't changed, but I'm merely saying this ad argumento). I was 26, and had just gotten out of the Army, and had exactly zero income and exactly zero financial aid from my parents. I applied for a Pell Grant and was denied on the grounds that I had too much money (I had the potential to receive money, money I had not yet received, because of the Montgomery GI Bill -- but when I applied for the grant I literally didn't have money to buy a sandwich). I took out student loans, and attended college for the semester (and the one following it), and I'm still making payments on those loans.

Meanwhile, in one of my classes there was a female, African-American student, a friend of mine, who drove a Jaguar to class each day. Her parents owned a chain of dry cleaners. She had what she described as a "free-ride" when it came to college -- there was plenty of financial aid available, apparently, if you were a single parent and a minority member.

Degs attributes my lack of college funding to the fact that Reagan cut the Pell Grant budget. I think if there had been more money, I'd still have been last in line to receive it, if I had been allowed in line at all.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
trap,

I will take your word for it that you described the situtation accurately.

However, to be more comfortable, like a reporter, I would try to talk to more people involved in the situation. For example, I would like to talk independently to your African American friend. Apparently, she was a single mother as well as a minority. If her family was really as wealthy as you say, I am wondering if she fully disclosed her financial situation. Unfortunately, falsifying grant application information is not that uncommon. This would be particularly true if she reported herself as independent while really getting a fair amount of financial help from her parents.

What bothers me is that - to my memory - you have always made it sound that your friend got all the help simply based on the color of her skin. (I am guessing that she bragged about how she gamed the system. That happens. My wife and I - who is Indonesian - know some foreign students who "game the system" in some fashion despite the fact that their families may have considerable wealth (that is difficult for universities to get information on.) I REALLY dislike folks that "woof" about gaming the system. If she was gaming the system, she was - in my opinion - not only doing you a disservice (and I think that she might have been) but doing a disservice to her fellow African-American students who needed the assistance more than she did.

In any case, I think that grants should be based primarily on either need or merit or both. However, there are some secondary elements that can be factored in as well. Based on the story you tell, you do sound more deserving than the single mother who drove a Jaguar.


Well, Degs doesn't really have my history right. The events that turned me off happened not during the Reagan administration but during the George H.W. Bush administration (stipulated, the policies hadn't changed, but I'm merely saying this ad argumento). I was 26, and had just gotten out of the Army, and had exactly zero income and exactly zero financial aid from my parents. I applied for a Pell Grant and was denied on the grounds that I had too much money (I had the potential to receive money, money I had not yet received, because of the Montgomery GI Bill -- but when I applied for the grant I literally didn't have money to buy a sandwich). I took out student loans, and attended college for the semester (and the one following it), and I'm still making payments on those loans.

Meanwhile, in one of my classes there was a female, African-American student, a friend of mine, who drove a Jaguar to class each day. Her parents owned a chain of dry cleaners. She had what she described as a "free-ride" when it came to college -- there was plenty of financial aid available, apparently, if you were a single parent and a minority member.

Degs attributes my lack of college funding to the fact that Reagan cut the Pell Grant budget. I think if there had been more money, I'd still have been last in line to receive it, if I had been allowed in line at all.
 

degsme

Council Member
trap,

I will take your word for it that you described the situtation accurately.

However, to be more comfortable, like a reporter, I would try to talk to more people involved in the situation. For example, I would like to talk independently to your African American friend. Apparently, she was a single mother as well as a minority. If her family was really as wealthy as you say, I am wondering if she fully disclosed her financial situation. Unfortunately, falsifying grant application information is not that uncommon. This would be particularly true if she reported herself as independent while really getting a fair amount of financial help from her parents.

What bothers me is that - to my memory - you have always made it sound that your friend got all the help simply based on the color of her skin. (I am guessing that she bragged about how she gamed the system. That happens. My wife and I - who is Indonesian - know some foreign students who "game the system" in some fashion despite the fact that their families may have considerable wealth (that is difficult for universities to get information on.) I REALLY dislike folks that "woof" about gaming the system. If she was gaming the system, she was - in my opinion - not only doing you a disservice (and I think that she might have been) but doing a disservice to her fellow African-American students who needed the assistance more than she did.

In any case, I think that grants should be based primarily on either need or merit or both. However, there are some secondary elements that can be factored in as well. Based on the story you tell, you do sound more deserving than the single mother who drove a Jaguar.
Trap is simply wrong in his retelling:

I DID go to college, I was merely not given the same access to government funding for college that I would have received if I'd been the "correct" race or gender. That fact was not a result of Reagan's policies, but the result of policies put in place before Reagan came to office that remain in place today.
Reagan cut government funding for college tution ACCROSS THE BOARD by OVER 40%. And since minority set-asides were AT MOST 15%, the odds are almost 7:1 that REAGAN'S CUTS prevented him from getting the funding rather than his race.

Its as simple as that. Reagan cut more than Pell grants. Reagan cut ALL tuition aid. And Trap lost out on $1 Million+ in lifetime earnings because he voted for the man who made those cuts. Because while Reagan made the first set of cuts of about 15% back in 1981/82 school year (a friend of mine ended up on the 8 year plan as a result), iin 1986/87 REAGAN CUT AGAIN This time AN ADDITIONAL 40%

So By voting for Reagan in 1984 - which Trap admits to doing, he gave you and me massive tax breaks because of the startups we were in in the late 1980s and the tax bennies we got from them.

And Trapdoor helped pay for our tax cuts by giving up $1,000,000+ in lifetime earnings.... Me? I think that's bad policy. Had my taxes been 15% higher, I would have still made ridiculous amounts of money when the company went public.
 

degsme

Council Member
Lord -- don't strike him down. Please Degs, every statement you make is overladen with moral judgements. Rich people are bad,
Show me a post where I've said that. YOU are reading moral value into what I've written. I've never said they are "bad"

people who don't like Obama's policies are a racists,
Never said that either. But those who describe Obama with terms indistinguishable from terms historically used by racists, or who invoke traditional racist memes - are.a

nd people who don't want more taxes are greedy.
Again, find where I've said that.

Cast the mote out of thine own eye (sorry, Biblical reference).
I understand the reference. It is wrong. You cannot show where I've written the things you claim I have.
 

degsme

Council Member
Minsky moments....
Yup that's one example.

Another is that in a down economy the INDIVIDUAL best strategy is to save in case you lose your job. But peversely doing so in the aggregate increases the likelihood you will lose your job. And in the aggregate it depresses economic growth since it reduces the velocity of money.

Another is when you have various distortive effects in the market - such as Gresham's law (which in turn can drive Minsky Moments or accelerate them).

These are complex multivariate functions. I recently had dinner with one of the founders of ENSIE http://www.ensie.org/ (a hardcore academic economist). We had an intersting, though light weight discussion about the different ecnomic behaviours and monetization of Google Search results Ads vs. Facebook Ads and how to go about evaluating their impact.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
degs,

First, it is not up to me to defend trapdoor. He can do that himself if he wants to.

Second, I seem to remember that trapdoor listed support for education as a legitimate role of government somewhere above in this thread. However, I don't know what his generalized support for education would translate into in terms of policy. On student grants, though he voted for Reagan and GHWB, perhaps he was - knowingly or unknowingly - opposed to the Reagan policy in this particular instance.

Third, there is no doubt that the Reagan policies reduced the amount of aid available to needy students (and trapdoor clearly felt that he was needy.) I have no doubt that that was a major factor in his not being able to grant funds. He was competing with a lot of other students for a smaller pool of money. It was more competitive. That seems to be your main point and I agree with that.

Fourth, where you and I might differ a little bit in our perspectives, has to do with his friend/acquaintance, the black single mother from a well-off family who got a "free ride" but drove a Jaguar. Now, even you admit that there were minority set asides - that is that there was a separate pool of money set aside for minorities (over and above what they might have qualified for competing in the general pool.) I don't have a problem with that in principle. However, I also recognize that - in some circumstances - the rules may result in decisions that might seem unfair. The problem that I have with trap is that he tells the story of his black friend without really knowing her full circumstances or what went into her application. Perhaps she did "game the system" and got access to funds at the expense of more deserving African-American students. I don't know that happened. But it is a possibility.

Fifth, trapdoor's story is an anecdote that involves him making comparisons of his situation to the situation of his black friend. Trap does tend to generalize from his interpretation of his situation to a general condemnation of the entire system. I think that that is problematic and I am sure that you do as well. Nevertheless, it may be that good policy sometimes results in lousy individual outcomes for a variety of reasons. ("Gaming the system" is one way in which "good" policy can be corrupted in individual cases. If it becomes endemic, it is problematic.) In this particular case, the fact that Reagan's policy reduced the size of the pool of available money undoubtedly had an impact. Minority set asides may have had some impact as well. Gaming the system (and I assume that trap did not game the system) might have had some impact as well. He still didn't get a grant and he was far from the only person who voted for Reagan.



Trap is simply wrong in his retelling:



Reagan cut government funding for college tution ACCROSS THE BOARD by OVER 40%. And since minority set-asides were AT MOST 15%, the odds are almost 7:1 that REAGAN'S CUTS prevented him from getting the funding rather than his race.

Its as simple as that. Reagan cut more than Pell grants. Reagan cut ALL tuition aid. And Trap lost out on $1 Million+ in lifetime earnings because he voted for the man who made those cuts. Because while Reagan made the first set of cuts of about 15% back in 1981/82 school year (a friend of mine ended up on the 8 year plan as a result), iin 1986/87 REAGAN CUT AGAIN This time AN ADDITIONAL 40%

So By voting for Reagan in 1984 - which Trap admits to doing, he gave you and me massive tax breaks because of the startups we were in in the late 1980s and the tax bennies we got from them.

And Trapdoor helped pay for our tax cuts by giving up $1,000,000+ in lifetime earnings.... Me? I think that's bad policy. Had my taxes been 15% higher, I would have still made ridiculous amounts of money when the company went public.
 

trapdoor

Governor
trap,

I will take your word for it that you described the situtation accurately.

However, to be more comfortable, like a reporter, I would try to talk to more people involved in the situation. For example, I would like to talk independently to your African American friend. Apparently, she was a single mother as well as a minority. If her family was really as wealthy as you say, I am wondering if she fully disclosed her financial situation.
She came from a wealthy family, but was over 21-- there was no legal reason that she had to disclose her parent's financial status. She merely had to say she was over 21 and receiving no parental support. Which may have been true in terms of direct payment for education, but she was still engaged with her family and her Dad gave her allowance money on a semi-regular basis.

Unfortunately, falsifying grant application information is not that uncommon. This would be particularly true if she reported herself as independent while really getting a fair amount of financial help from her parents.
I'd say that was a fairly accurate description of her circumstances, at least as she described them to me.

What bothers me is that - to my memory - you have always made it sound that your friend got all the help simply based on the color of her skin. (I am guessing that she bragged about how she gamed the system. That happens. My wife and I - who is Indonesian - know some foreign students who "game the system" in some fashion despite the fact that their families may have considerable wealth (that is difficult for universities to get information on.) I REALLY dislike folks that "woof" about gaming the system. If she was gaming the system, she was - in my opinion - not only doing you a disservice (and I think that she might have been) but doing a disservice to her fellow African-American students who needed the assistance more than she did.
Yes, I think her minority and single-parent status gave her an advantage in receiving financial aid -- in part because financial aid counselors at the school told me this was true. I agree that "gaming" the system is a problem, but I apparently lacked the tools to even get in the game.

In any case, I think that grants should be based primarily on either need or merit or both. However, there are some secondary elements that can be factored in as well. Based on the story you tell, you do sound more deserving than the single mother who drove a Jaguar.
I think the grants and all financial aid should be based on need and merit. I can see as I type this that Degsme has chimed in, and he will say (I believe) that even if the lady in question had the advantages I've described, she still had more "merit" because she overcame more than her peers, because she is a minority. Which puts us back to square one -- racial discrimination is so long as it happens to the "correct" race.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trap is simply wrong in his retelling:

Reagan cut government funding for college tution ACCROSS THE BOARD by OVER 40%. And since minority set-asides were AT MOST 15%, the odds are almost 7:1 that REAGAN'S CUTS prevented him from getting the funding rather than his race.
If 40 percent more funding had been in the budget, it wouldn't have mattered to me -- I was last in line when I was completely destitute. More funding going to other people wouldn't have changed that.

And Trapdoor helped pay for our tax cuts by giving up $1,000,000+ in lifetime earnings.... Me? I think that's bad policy. Had my taxes been 15% higher, I would have still made ridiculous amounts of money when the company went public.
Your reasoning is fallacious because I did not give up a million in lifetime earnings. I was going to school to be a journalist. I worked in my chosen career field, as a journalist alongside people who had college degrees, for a decade after I dropped out of college due to lack of resources, and then moved into media relations as a more lucrative career field. One of my colleagues from that period (who has a degree) now teaches journalism in public schools. His income is far less than mine. Another is a flack (as I am) for state children's services in the state of Texas, and has individual income similar to mine (but she lives more lavishly because she's gorgeous and married money). There is absolutely no evidence, of any kind, that my career would have been enhanced by as much as $500,000 over the last two decades if I'd stayed in school another year. (I had two years before I joined the Army).
 

trapdoor

Governor
S
how me a post where I've said that. YOU are reading moral value into what I've written. I've never said they are "bad"
No, you merely imply it so heavily that no other conclusion is conceivable.


Never said that either. But those who describe Obama with terms indistinguishable from terms historically used by racists, or who invoke traditional racist memes - are.a
And as there seems to be literally no criticism of the man that you cannot connect to such a racist meme, and criticism of him or his policies is "racist." (C'mon, Degs -- you said referring to his inexperience was racist.)

Again, find where I've said that.
Degs, I don't dispute that you are a deft interlocutor who can say things without saying them directly. Nonetheless, the criticism I offered is valid. Anyone who doesn't want to pay more taxes, or who wants their heirs to retain their estate, is greedy. It's what you said, without coming out directly and using the words. So no, I can't quote your words, but I can describe your position.


I understand the reference. It is wrong. You cannot show where I've written the things you claim I have.
See above.
 

degsme

Council Member
how me a post where I've said that. YOU are reading moral value into what I've written. I've never said they are "bad" No, you merely imply it so heavily that no other conclusion is conceivable.
No, you merely imply it so heavily that no other conclusion is conceivable.
Not even close. Again, you cannot point to anything I've written that leads to these conclusions. I've been very very careful to talk PURELY in econometric terms for precisely these reasons. That you are unable to read econometric data unfavourable to your beliefs without feeling a moral judgement speaks to how close to BELIEFS this is for you rather than a willingness to consider the available data.

Never said that either. But those who describe Obama with terms indistinguishable from terms historically used by racists, or who invoke traditional racist memes - are.
a And as there seems to be literally no criticism of the man that you cannot connect to such a racist meme
Absolutely there is. And every time previously that you have brought up this strawman I've given you examples. Again, that you and many on the right are unwilling or unable to engage in a political debate that DOES NOT invoke historic racist memes is telling.

Degs, I don't dispute that you are a deft interlocutor who can say things without saying them directly. Nonetheless, the criticism I offered is valid. Anyone who doesn't want to pay more taxes, or who wants their heirs to retain their estate, is greedy.
Well I'll take that as a compliment. Precisely because I've been particularly careful to speak only in terms of econometric measures PRECISELY because of this. Your throwing in of emotional bombs like "greedy" is considered a "logical fallacy" precisely because it is intended to distract from the factual and reasoned discussion.

We know that wealth concentrations above certain levels SLOW economic growth
We know that wealth concentrations above certain levels HARM and even kill democracies
We know that intergenerational wealth transfer is the primary mechanism for increasing wealth concentrations
We know the investing patterns of the wealth are INEFFICIENT ECONOMICALLY compared to the middle class
We know that the amount of intergenerational wealth transfer HAS INCREASED and become MORE SHELTERED
We know that the econometric definition of "income" is any net increase in assets flowing into the coffers of the person or organization
We know that inheritance meets this definition.

We ALSO know that when wealth distribution becomes too flat economies stagnate
We ALSO know that when marginal income tax rates get abpve 70%, more money is spent in tax avoidance than in productive investment
We ALSO know that the middle class assets in aggregate that are invested are a much more efficient than those of the wealthy.

Now what ECONOMIC policy we set based on this has nothing to do with the question of "greed" even though "greed" may be the underlying behavioural motivator for some of these DEMONSTRABLE ECONOMETRIC FACTS.

The policy we should set is one that alignes econometric outcomes with those desired by society.

And if you desire a society with more democracy, then the policies you advocate WRT inheritance are counterproductive. That has nothing to do with "greed".







And as there seems to be literally no criticism of the man that you cannot connect to such a racist meme, and criticism of him or his policies is "racist." (C'mon, Degs -- you said referring to his inexperience was racist.)



Degs, I don't dispute that you are a deft interlocutor who can say things without saying them directly. Nonetheless, the criticism I offered is valid. Anyone who doesn't want to pay more taxes, or who wants their heirs to retain their estate, is greedy. It's what you said, without coming out directly and using the words. So no, I can't quote your words, but I can describe your position.




See above.[/QUOTE]
 

trapdoor

Governor
not even close. Again, you cannot point to anything i've written that leads to these conclusions. I've been very very careful to talk purely in econometric terms for precisely these reasons.
in this thread, you have, but we've been talking about politics and economics for 8 years. The implication that anyone who has amassed wealth has done so via illegitimate means has come through pretty strongly over that period.



absolutely there is. And every time previously that you have brought up this strawman i've given you examples
.

No, degs, you have not. The "examples" you've provided didn't amount to legitimate criticisms of the candidate or the president that could be effective as public messages. Whereas a legitimate criticism of the candidate, such as the one leveled at jfk that he was too inexperienced for the job of president, was converted to a racist statement when someone with less experience than jfk was criticized for the same thing.

well i'll take that as a compliment. Precisely because i've been particularly careful to speak only in terms of econometric measures precisely because of this.
No, degs. In most cases you've carefully cloaked your positions in statements designed to give this appearance -- and in many cases when peer-reviewed data countering your views has been offered you've rejected it out of hand, or quoted it selectively so as to ignore the overall conclusions of the research. I'm sorry, i consider you a friend, but your hands are not clean in this regard when it comes to the discussion of several topics.

we know that wealth concentrations above certain levels slow economic growth
That is more theoretically true than scientifically accepted as universal fact, but i don't dispute it greatly. It's irrelevant, however, to the construction of laws regarding inheritance. Those laws aren't about stimulating the economy.


we know that wealth concentrations above certain levels harm and even kill democracies
did j.p. Morgan's concentration of wealth kill our democracy? Or did he actually use it it save our system of government? The idea that wealth concentrations above a "certain" amount is harmful to democracy rests on the basis that those who have concentrated such wealth are opposed to democracy -- which of course means they are "bad" people, at least if you favor democracy (but you haven't come out and said that they are bad -- so that makes it ok, i guess).

we know that intergenerational wealth transfer is the primary mechanism for increasing wealth concentrations
yes, it does help families grow out of poverty over time. Yes, it does preserve small businesses and family farms.

we know the investing patterns of the wealth are inefficient economically compared to the middle class
what class is "middle?" currently, inheritance taxes of 35 percent are imposed on farms and businesses with assets in excess of $5.1 million. The owners of businesses that small are more than likely merely "middle class" -- they could be upper middle class with individual incomes in the $200,00 range, but that is far from accumulating a level of wealth harmful to democracy, even if they wanted to harm democracy.
we know that the amount of intergenerational wealth transfer has increased and become more sheltered
yes, thankfully, we do know that people have been allowed to pass their wealth down to their prosperity.

we know that the econometric definition of "income" is any net increase in assets flowing into the coffers of the person or organization
all well and good, but the legal and taxable definition of income is something else, and it has been for at least 250 years.

we know that inheritance meets this definition.
but it doesn't meet the legal definition -- you want to keep ignoring two centuries of law (and add two centuries if you want to include english common law).

we also know that when wealth distribution becomes too flat economies stagnate
we know that our economy stagnated in the 1970s, when inheritance taxes were higher than they are today, and income inequality lower. While you're treating the scrapes and bruises, the patient is dying of the sword wounds.

we also know that when marginal income tax rates get abpve 70%, more money is spent in tax avoidance than in productive investment
so we should strive to keep taxes lower? I agree.

we also know that the middle class assets in aggregate that are invested are a much more efficient than those of the wealthy.
that's great, in aggregate, but those middle class assets are unlikely to found the next facebook. When zuckerberg needed real money, he had to go to venture capitalists who had it on hand, not solicit from 1,000 mutual fund managers.

now what economic policy we set based on this has nothing to do with the question of "greed" even though "greed" may be the underlying behavioural motivator for some of these demonstrable econometric facts
.

I addressed this in your first comment above. Bottom line, you think society should have first pick of income above a given level, and of inherited wealth -- that the rules surrounding private property and personal income should be suspended for those who have large amounts of either. This may not be an attempt to penalize the "greedy" -- but it sure comes off that way.

the policy we should set is one that alignes econometric outcomes with those desired by society.
and so the tyrany of the majority obtains over those who are wealthy. Funny, i thought our system was designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

and if you desire a society with more democracy, then the policies you advocate wrt inheritance are counterproductive. That has nothing to do with "greed".
and if you desire a society in which individuals are allowed to do as they will, the policies you advocate limit their ability to do so -- but that's ok so long as it acts to limit those bad, democracy destroying greedy people who have money.
 
I have yet to see one truly rich person who has not done something untoward to someone along the way to get the lion's share of the returns. That is the only way to amass great fortunes. For instance, when cisco was valued at 800 billion, thousands of cisco employees sold stock at the high. Who did they sell it to? Investors who believed the bullshit analysts told about cisco, John Chambers forecasts and all the rest of the industry who rode that puppy all the way up and then fleeced the same folks on the way down. Was it legal? Yes. Did folks transfer about 700 billion in wealth from the high price to the ones holding the stock when it went below 100 billion? Of course that is what happened.

Or the Waltons. Think about them as a family for a second. They build a company up over decades and made more and more money by paying low wages with no benefits, driving local businesses out of town, sending jobs overseas, harassing vendors and all the other sorts of things one has to do to build up a company like Walmart. Was it legal? Yes. Was it moral? In a Dickensian sense it might be moral to be a Scrooge instead of a Cratchet but only if you miss the point entirely....
 

degsme

Council Member
Trap, I've ALWAYS been careful about the economic discussion PRECISELY because of the emotive distractions. I've called you on your use of them, I've called AoD on his use of them, and Lukey and others. Saying the Wealth concentration is harmful to our democracy, and that the wealthy are inefficient users of economic resources does not make them good or bad. But it does inform us of what policy decisions we want to make

And I've rarely actually advocated policy statements precisely because we cannot even come to an agreement of what the full set of econometric data tells us. You calling this "cloaking" is another case of injecting EMOTIONAL content into the discussion of fact based policy.

No, degs, you have not. The "examples" you've provided didn't amount to legitimate criticisms of the candidate or the president that could be effective as public messages.
That something isn't "an effective public message" does not make it an illegitimate criticism

And that the only "effective" criticisms that you can find are ones that resonate with racial bigotry and not with facts does not mean they are not racist. In a society with as much racism as ours still has, of course racist critiques WILL BE EFFECTIVE.


we know that wealth concentrations above certain levels slow economic growth
That is more theoretically true than scientifically accepted as universal fact
No trap, that's both historic as well as predictively modeled fact. There is nothing "theoretic" about it. You cannot point to a nation with high wealth disparity that has had organicly sustained growth rates.

we know that wealth concentrations above certain levels harm and even kill democracies
did j.p. Morgan's concentration of wealth kill our democracy?
JP Morgans, and Rockefellers and Carnegie's wealth HARMED our democracy. The very reason we have th 17th Amendment is precisely to curb the anti-democratic results of that wealth concentration. It was hardly 'democracy' to shoot to kill Pullman Strikers, to machine gun the families of striking coal miners, to hand out favors the way Tammany Hall did etc. etc.

In fact arguably the USA during that time period had little resemblence to a democratic republic.

we know that intergenerational wealth transfer is the primary mechanism for increasing wealth concentrations
yes, it does help families grow out of poverty over time. Yes, it does preserve small businesses and family farms.
No actually inheritance HARMS the ability of families to grow out of poverty, because its a set of laws that increases the concentration of wealth and thus reduces the spread of wealth to families in general.

And while it may preserve some family farms and poorly planned out small businesses, that's something that is not at all clear as being meaningful as a goal. Particularly as far as economic policy goes. Take one look at France's agricultural structure for that.

we know the investing patterns of the wealth are inefficient economically compared to the middle class
what class is "middle?" currently, inheritance taxes of 35 percent are imposed on farms and businesses with assets in excess of $5.1 million.
Middle class are those with annual incomes in the middle 3 quintiles. Basically $30k-$150k/yr. But that's not about inheritance. Nor is it true that inheritance taxes of 35% apply to the FULL assets of a business larger than $5.1 Mil. They only apply to the excess ABOVE that threshold. Below that the tax rate is still zero

That means those households get genetic lotto winnings of $5 million untaxed. Its income.

we know that the econometric definition of "income" is any net increase in assets flowing into the coffers of the person or organization
all well and good, but the legal and taxable definition of income is something else
And since we are talking about Tax Policy, which is how to structure the law to achieve our desired ECONOMIC ENDS, your point about differentiated treatment should apply here as well.

Economic Income is Economic Income. Exempting a type of such income leads to distortions, like Wealth Concentration.

we also know that when wealth distribution becomes too flat economies stagnate
we know that our economy stagnated in the 1970s, when inheritance taxes were higher than they are today,
Again simple coincidence is not causality. Since the inheritance rates were the same as in the previous decade when growth rates were robust you have to look at what changed, not at what remained the same. And what changed were the oil shocks of the early 1970s.

we also know that when marginal income tax rates get abpve 70%, more money is spent in tax avoidance than in productive investment
so we should strive to keep taxes lower? I agree.
Not quite, we also know that at tax rates BELOW a marginal rate of 70% the top income earners UNDERINVEST in the economy. So we should seek to balance taxation against Marginal Utility of Income.
we also know that the middle class assets in aggregate that are invested are a much more efficient than those of the wealthy.
that's great, in aggregate, but those middle class assets are unlikely to found the next facebook.
Actually that is EXACTLY where Apple, Netscape, part of Microsoft, Novell, Lotus, Genentech, Zymogenetics, Twitter ALL found their funding Every single one of them.

I addressed this in your first comment above. Bottom line, you think society should have first pick of income above a given level,
Back to your unproven strawman. Sorry simply wrong.

the policy we should set is one that alignes econometric outcomes with those desired by society.
and so the tyrany of the majority obtains over those who are wealthy.
Hint, the wealthy are the ones who control the levers of government, not the otherway around. So it actually is the tyranny of the Minority. Furthermore The Constitution very much ENVISIONS the "tyrranny of the majority" in most areas EXCEPT THOSE explicity protected.

and if you desire a society with more democracy, then the policies you advocate wrt inheritance are counterproductive. That has nothing to do with "greed".
and if you desire a society in which individuals are allowed to do as they will, the policies you advocate limit their ability to do so
Not in the slightest. Again you are ignoring the difference between the THEORETICAL ability of individuals to "do as they will" and the actual ability to do so.

In your society, a person can get fired for expressing her political affiliations on her bumper sticker. Not so in mine.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I have yet to see one truly rich person who has not done something untoward to someone along the way to get the lion's share of the returns.
You must live in a remarkably unfriendly environment. I've known very few truly rich people, and I've only met one who I thought was regularly unethical.

That is the only way to amass great fortunes. For instance, when cisco was valued at 800 billion, thousands of cisco employees sold stock at the high. Who did they sell it to? Investors who believed the bullshit analysts told about cisco, John Chambers forecasts and all the rest of the industry who rode that puppy all the way up and then fleeced the same folks on the way down. Was it legal? Yes. Did folks transfer about 700 billion in wealth from the high price to the ones holding the stock when it went below 100 billion? Of course that is what happened.
Before becoming a driver for Yellow Freight back in the 1960s, my father worked on a loading dock there. Times were good, and bankers were coming to the loading dock to offer loans for the express purpose of buying Yellow Freight stock. Dad didn't invest -- he had two kids to support and a developing drinking problem. Two of his friends, brothers, did. In 1966 or 1967 they each borrowed $8,000 to invest in Yellow at, if memory serves, was at about $30 a share. It went to $67 a share, and split two ways. Then it went to $120 a share, and split four ways, and then returned to $100 a share and grew steadily for the next several years (numbers are approximations). The upshot was that these two men retired at about age 30 and opened restaurants (one of which is still in business today). You provided an anecdote where investors fleeced other people. I've provided one where investment enriched two working class men. Both are still merely anecdotes.

Or the Waltons. Think about them as a family for a second. They build a company up over decades and made more and more money by paying low wages with no benefits, driving local businesses out of town, sending jobs overseas, harassing vendors and all the other sorts of things one has to do to build up a company like Walmart. Was it legal? Yes. Was it moral? In a Dickensian sense it might be moral to be a Scrooge instead of a Cratchet but only if you miss the point entirely....
Actually, one reason Wal-Mart was successful over small businesses in the 1970s and 1980s was that it offered benefits that no small local business could provide (I have a lot of friends whose first jobs were at a Wal-Mart, some for that very reason). This policy declined after Sam Walton died and his a-hole son-in-law took over. It was immoral for Sam Walton to use an economy of scale to out-compete other businesses? I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong shop to deny market decisions.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
trap,

All of your positions are pretty consistent with what I thought that they were. I think that you identified our differences.

1. I favor a "living" constitution and you favor a "dead" constitution.

2. I don't pay much attention to GWB on foreign policy. But I do find pretty much everything that Dick Cheney says anathema. I do not agree that Islamo-terrorists have been attacking the United States since the 1960s and I think that invading Iraq (or perhaps Iran) and doing regime change is a hell of a lot more than policing the Barbary Pirates. I am not a shrinking violet so I do not have big problems with Obama's interventionism. Obama is not a unilateralist. Bush and Cheney were. Romney is also a unilateralist. That is a line I would never cross on foreign policy. I would never trust Romney to be in charge of foreign policy and would expect that he would be prone to attack without the consent of millions and millions of American taxpayers.

On universal health care, I just disagree that setting up a national health care system requires a constitutional amendment. When I see Republicans proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the institution of a universal health care system, I will believe that they are serious. I haven't seen anything like that yet and I don't expect to. I don't think that Social Security requires a constitutional amendment either and I don't think that Ryan's plans for Medicare and Social Security will "save social security and medicare" or "promote economic growth."

So, there is no doubt that there are areas where our "principles" are in conflict. First and foremost, we disagree about the Constitution and the role of the SCOTUS. But there are substantive policy differences as well. Millions of Americans agree with you. Millions of Americans agree with me. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins, that is unlikely to change. Either one of them is going to face lots of opposition. Both will probably be accused of being authoritarian and/or divisive.

imreallyperplexed;455810 No said:
Helvering v. Davis SCOTUS[/I] said there has to be a difference between the general welfare and the specific -- universal health care is clearly the specific welfare of individuals, not the general welfare mentioned in the Constitution (I stipulate that you'll disagree).

.

Well, there are a lot of things we could discuss around the concept, but Obamacare doesn't provide "universal" health care insurance, either. Setting aside that quibble -- the overall law isn't that popular. Remember, even before it was passed, 80 percent of people in the United States had health insurance. The insurance for those who didn't have it doesn't kick in until 2014, and comes with the "penalty" or "tax" or "cornucopiea of infinite prosperity" or whatever it's being called this week, that is very unpopular. I don't see people taking to the streets to save it.

I don't think the government, other than making certain there's a stable currency and a limited regulatory environment, should be all that involved in the economy. It wasn't always, and while we had boom and bust cycles, they were fairly widely spread busts among long periods of prosperity. Too much regulation can be as bad as too little -- and I don't see anyone except conservatives attempting to put on the breaks. But really, that's a topic for another thread.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trap, I
've ALWAYS been careful about the economic discussion PRECISELY because of the emotive distractions.
Not everything that opposes your viewpoint is an emotive distraction -- sometimes it's hard data. You dismiss it either way.

I've called you on your use of them, I've called AoD on his use of them, and Lukey and others. Saying the Wealth concentration is harmful to our democracy, and that the wealthy are inefficient users of economic resources does not make them good or bad. But it does inform us of what policy decisions we want to make
First, saying something is "harmful" does involve a value judgement. Second, the analogy of "efficiency" also requires such a judgement -- "efficient" at what? A rail with a 454 engine is highly inefficient at conserving fuel, but is very efficient at accelerating from a standing start. So you have to determine what you're trying to conserve, or harm, and what your goal is before you can determine if you're efficient at achieving that goal. In a free society, one of my goals is the preservation of private property rights -- and if the erosion of these rights can be applied to the very rich, then they can be eroded at my level, too. I want a society that is more "efficient" at protecting individuals and less efficient at removing individual wealth for purposes other than the desires of the individuals who have that wealth. But regardless of the goals, determining which policy goals you wish to achieve requires a value judgement, that will then have an impact on how you determine either efficiency, harm, or benefit.

And I've rarely actually advocated policy statements precisely because we cannot even come to an agreement of what the full set of econometric data tells us. You calling this "cloaking" is another case of injecting EMOTIONAL content into the discussion of fact based policy.
Degs -- you favor a policy of higher taxation on the rich and more social programs and entitlements for the poor, continued affirmative action into the indefinite future; stronger gun controls; stronger regulation of financial markets, and stronger environmental regulation. Although I may be leaving out a few of your issues, it is ludicrous to say that you don't favor the policies I list here. I assume you'll provide a long objection seeking nuance for each of them, but let's not pretend it's not a fairly accurate general statement of the policies you favor. And what you do in conversations such is this one is to fail to give such an accurate general, or even a more specific statement, so that you can avoid being pinned down if a point doesn't go your way. That is a cloaking of your viewpoints.
That something isn't "an effective public message" does not make it an illegitimate criticism
Certainly it does -- a criticism that doesn't criticize is of no use whatsoever. Any criticism of Barrack Obama what actually DOES criticize, however, such as that he came to the office with very little national experience? That's racism.


No trap, that's both historic as well as predictively modeled fact. There is nothing "theoretic" about it. You cannot point to a nation with high wealth disparity that has had organicly sustained growth rates.
The U.S. had sustained organic growth from 1865 to 1900 with high levels of wealth disparity. Now, when you drag in the subject of race to this discussion as you usually do, I'm going to ignore it -- the economy GREW during the period, even with the periodic busts it had, spread roughly evenly across the 1870s, '80s and 90s.


JP Morgans, and Rockefellers and Carnegie's wealth HARMED our democracy. The very reason we have th 17th Amendment is precisely to curb the anti-democratic results of that wealth concentration. It was hardly 'democracy' to shoot to kill Pullman Strikers, to machine gun the families of striking coal miners, to hand out favors the way Tammany Hall did etc. etc.
While your citation of the abuse of labor is spot on, your history of the 17th Amendment is not. It didn't have anything to do with Morgan or Rockefeller pr Carnegie (or the Trilateral Commission or the Rothchilds, which have the same level of relevance). It had been pushed since 1828, long before the robber-baron era. In addition, a key reason it was put in place was not over extending the popular vote for the sake of increased democracy, but to eliminate deadlocks in state houses when they were electing senators for national service. (William Jennings Bryan, a backer of the amendment, mentioned "corruption" and statehouse deadlocks in his stump speech favoring its passage).

No actually inheritance HARMS the ability of families to grow out of poverty, because its a set of laws that increases the concentration of wealth and thus reduces the spread of wealth to families in general.
No, because it taxes family wealth out of existence at a certain level -- above that level, the farm or business gets sold and the source of the wealth goes away.

Middle class are those with annual incomes in the middle 3 quintiles. Basically $30k-$150k/yr. But that's not about inheritance. Nor is it true that inheritance taxes of 35% apply to the FULL assets of a business larger than $5.1 Mil. They only apply to the excess ABOVE that threshold. Below that the tax rate is still zero
That's very much about inheritance, as it is possible to own a farm or welding shop that produces income in the middle three quintiles, but contains assets sufficient for the death tax to kick in. At that point, good-bye not only "concentration of wealth" but also simply its accumulation. You're simply wrong on the taxation issue -- I looked it up before commenting.

That means those households get genetic lotto winnings of $5 million untaxed. Its income.
Even if it weren't being taxed, which it is, it would not be income.

And since we are talking about Tax Policy, which is how to structure the law to achieve our desired ECONOMIC ENDS, your point about differentiated treatment should apply here as well.
We are not merely talking about economic ends when we talk about policy -- I addressed this above.

Economic Income is Economic Income. Exempting a type of such income leads to distortions, like Wealth Concentration.
Wealth concentration is a damn fine thing for an individual. It means you can build something and pass it on to your family. Taxing it leads to distortions, like the loss of businesses and farms.


Again simple coincidence is not causality. Since the inheritance rates were the same as in the previous decade when growth rates were robust you have to look at what changed, not at what remained the same. And what changed were the oil shocks of the early 1970s.
Well, a lot of things changed, including the loss of specie backing the dollar (and the concomitant inflation), the increased regulatory environment, the oil shocks, extremely high interest rates, etc. Bottom line, having the sort of death tax you desire did not lead to the economic prosperity you predict therefrom.

Not quite, we also know that at tax rates BELOW a marginal rate of 70% the top income earners UNDERINVEST in the economy. So we should seek to balance taxation against Marginal Utility of Income.
So 3/4 of a person's income should got to the government (OK, 70 percent) -- if they've been successful? But no less than 70 percent, and also no more than that amount? "Marginal utility of income" according to whom? I think the only person who can determine the utility of my income is ME.

Actually that is EXACTLY where Apple, Netscape, part of Microsoft, Novell, Lotus, Genentech, Zymogenetics, Twitter ALL found their funding Every single one of them.
Oh, bosh -- that simply isn't true, and you know it. All of them ultimately achieved growth by going out to small investors, but the vast majority of them had already had success in the market before that happened. And most of them sought venture capital to achieve that initial success. No, I'm not going to break down the history of each of them -- like Facebook, the started out with a product, achieved enough success that their product looked like a money maker, and then went and got venture capital to achieve the next level.

Back to your unproven strawman. Sorry simply wrong.
In what way. The government gets its first pick on 70 percent of your income when you're alive, and (if we returned to the tax level you favor) half of your income when you're dead. That's what happens in that universe, Degs, nothing "strawman" about it. You are worried about the impact of society to the detriment of worrying about the impact on the individual -- I think worry about individual rights should come first, not second, in a discussion of our economic policies.

Hint, the wealthy are the ones who control the levers of government, not the otherway around. So it actually is the tyranny of the Minority. Furthermore The Constitution very much ENVISIONS the "tyrranny of the majority" in most areas EXCEPT THOSE explicity protected.
Hint-this is bullshit. There are too many wealthy who don't agree on the government and how it should be run. Regardless of their viewpoints, you want to penalize ALL of them. And the Constitution, in its structure of legislature, specifically opposes the tyranny of the majority -- which is why we have not only the Senate in the legislative structure but the electoral college in the selection of president.

Not in the slightest. Again you are ignoring the difference between the THEORETICAL ability of individuals to "do as they will" and the actual ability to do so.

In your society, a person can get fired for expressing her political affiliations on her bumper sticker. Not so in mine.
In your society, a small business can't fire an unproductive employee. Not so in mine.
 

trapdoor

Governor
trap,

All of your positions are pretty consistent with what I thought that they were. I think that you identified our differences.

1. I favor a "living" constitution and you favor a "dead" constitution.
How can you favor something that can be redefined tomorrow? I asked a question earlier -- if we can use a living constitution definition of general welfare to do anything, what's the purpose of the rest of the Constitution? We woudn't need Article 1, Section 8, to define the powers of Congress -- Congress can do anything that benefits the general welfare, as determined by Congress.

2. I don't pay much attention to GWB on foreign policy. But I do find pretty much everything that Dick Cheney says anathema. I do not agree that Islamo-terrorists have been attacking the United States since the 1960s
Then you disagree with historical fact. I can document more than 1,000 attacks on Americans overseas and on American interests by Islamic terrorists since 1965.

and I think that invading Iraq (or perhaps Iran) and doing regime change is a hell of a lot more than policing the Barbary Pirates.
We didn't "police" the Barbary Pirates, we attacked them at sea and on land (hence the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn).

I am not a shrinking violet so I do not have big problems with Obama's interventionism. Obama is not a unilateralist.
If you mean he wants to ask permission before doing the right thing? I agree, he's not a unilateralist.



On universal health care, I just disagree that setting up a national health care system requires a constitutional amendment.
And I keep asking -- where is it authorized in the Constitution?
When I see Republicans proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the institution of a universal health care system, I will believe that they are serious.
Why would they propose an amendment to change the Constitution so that it authorizes something they oppose? You're being unrealistic. When I see DEMOCRATS proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the institution of universal health care, I'll believe they're being serious. Until then, I'll continue to think they want to ignore the Constitution.

I don't think that Social Security requires a constitutional amendment either and I don't think that Ryan's plans for Medicare and Social Security will "save social security and medicare" or "promote economic growth."
Again -- show me the authority. As for Ryan, Ryan's plan is too extreme as a result it will never be adopted in ull. I'm reasonably certain he knows this and that the Ryan Budget is cat's paw -- Ask for everything, and if you get more than half of it, you come out ahead.

So, there is no doubt that there are areas where our "principles" are in conflict. First and foremost, we disagree about the Constitution and the role of the SCOTUS.
What do you see as the role of SCOTUS? I see it as simple -- it is the Supreme Court of the land. It tries cases in law, including disputes between the various states, and it has the final review over laws to determine if the laws conform to the Constitution. It is not the job of SCOTUS to create laws, nor to re-write the Constitution, as those are legislative tasks, not judicial ones.

Your final statement involves either candidate being accused of being authoritarian if they're elected/re-elected. Is it or is it not authoritarian to force a person to buy an insurance product if that person believes they do not want it or that they can't afford it, or they would rather spend their own money on something else?
 
I prefer a living constitution over the alternative. Life goes on Trap, we are not stuck in one spot with one absolute. Embrace progress. I simply cannot understand why you fear humanity so much. The founders, the prophets, the oracles...all of them served a purpose for their time and place. Life is for the living not for worshiping the dead. I see challenges ahead of us that demand solutions, new ideas, new ways of thinking. I would not follow the advice of Adam Smith today, he is out of date. Why heedlessly revere the norms of men living 200 years ago over what is needed today? The very idea of a republic was to have those with knowledge and wisdom rule over the mob. If you substitute the founders or the ancients for the mob, you are ending up in the same place the founders avoided by making a republic. Make our system flexible, adaptable and pragmatic, it is the key to our future.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
She came from a wealthy family, but was over 21-- there was no legal reason that she had to disclose her parent's financial status. She merely had to say she was over 21 and receiving no parental support. Which may have been true in terms of direct payment for education, but she was still engaged with her family and her Dad gave her allowance money on a semi-regular basis.
The fact that she was over 21 and had a child is VERY important. Trying to police all sources of income is difficult. In fact, it sounds like you were over 21 as well so you did not have to report your parents income either. So it sounds like you not only had no money/source of income but also didn't have parents or family members who could help you out with "non-school" expenses. She may well have driven a Jaguar because her parents could afford to subsidize it. But that is not a school expense. It is immaterial.

I'd say that was a fairly accurate description of her circumstances, at least as she described them to me.
I have no reason to doubt that you were restating what she told you as she understood it.

Yes, I think her minority and single-parent status gave her an advantage in receiving financial aid -- in part because financial aid counselors at the school told me this was true. I agree that "gaming" the system is a problem, but I apparently lacked the tools to even get in the game.
Here is where we may disagree a bit. I would say "single-parent" and "minority" rather than "minority" and "single-parent" and I think that the reversal is important. The fact that this woman was a "single parent" and "over 21" put her in a SIGNIFICANTLY different category than you were. You did not have dependents. Having raised two children in a two-parent household, I can assure you that taking care of a small child is a "full-time" job and is quite expensive. Going to school is a full time job (if you are serious about it.) Working is - by definition - a full time job. You simply did not face those challenges. If you really wanted to be "race neutral," you would look for a white, over 21, single-parent and see whether they got financial aid. The financial aid counsellors would have to take that into account as well. I think that you may put too much emphasis on her minority status. To compare yourself fairly, you should compare yourself to a 26 year old male black veteran with no kids, no income, and no family money to fall back on. It might well be that that 26 year old black veteran - in your circumstances - would not have received grants either. (BTW, I fully support the renewed GI Bill. I think that it is too bad that it was not in place when you were going to school.)

I think the grants and all financial aid should be based on need and merit. I can see as I type this that Degsme has chimed in, and he will say (I believe) that even if the lady in question had the advantages I've described, she still had more "merit" because she overcame more than her peers, because she is a minority. Which puts us back to square one -- racial discrimination is so long as it happens to the "correct" race.
Well, I have no idea what degsme might say. I do happen to think that there may be circumstances when "non-needy" black students have more resources made available to them because of their race. I also believe that it is often the case that African Americans have to overcome more obstacles than white students (which speaks to "merit" in my book). In any case, given the situation that you described, it suggests that the system might need to be tweaked. I am not sure that it needs to be thrown out whole cloth which seems to be what you are suggesting.

In short, now that I know more about your single story, I think that there were considerable differences between your circumstances and the circumstances of this woman that go well beyond the color of her skin. If she had been white and had the same circumstances, would you still feel as put out?
 
Top