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

Woolley Arguments.

trapdoor

Governor
Only if you exclude Medicare and SS from being Governmental Programs.
I call BS. The fact that the taxes imposed to finance Medicare and Social Security have, in the past, produced excess money used for the general fund does not mean that those taxes were imposed as a primary revenue stream. Further, they do not produce the majority of revenue received by the federal government -- the primary source of that revenue remains federal income tax paid by wage earners on their earnings, not the payroll tax.
Now if you want to limit your discussions about an "overintrusive Federal Government" to NON SS and NON Medicare programs, THEN and ONLY THEN can you make this claim. But of course you don't. You conflate the programs. Which means to be logically consistent, you must also include the relevant taxes on income as well.
I've never said Social Security and Medicare are overly intrusive. I've said they're unconstitutional. There are over intrusive government programs, including ADA, EPA, OSHA and a host of others -- and many of those are only over intrusive because of what might best be termed management problems (What I'm really trying to say here is that some of those programs have no sense of scale -- complying with certain regulations is a trifle to a big corporation, but it can put a small business out of business).


THREE problems with your claims here.

FIRST and most significant, is that small businesses, particularly sole-propriatorships, are largely exempt from these regs and thus it is NOT a "large barrier to entry".
Tell that to the three restaurant owners that I know who went out of business because they couldn't comply with ADA. I know even more machine shops that have been shuttered in the name of OSHA compliance.

SECOND, the single most common cause of startup failure is access to adequate capital in startup.
And regulatory compliance, because it eats up capital, means that the startup has to raise even MORE capital to have a chance of success -- and as this is difficult, it means regulatory compliance kills startups.

Since the Chamber of Commerce (Hardly a "liberal org")puts regulatory costs at about 11% of COGS INCLUDING regulations like protection of private property, the impact of Regulations vs. Concentration of Wealth as a "barrier to Entry" is about 9:1.
Where are you deriving the figure for the barrier to entry caused by concentration of wealth? It sounds like an OODA figure to me (OODA, the now internationally recognized abbreviation for "Out Of Deg's Ass"). Your figure is only true if the wealthy have no desire to start new businesses. For the purposes of this discussion, "wealthy" has been defined as "people with more than $250K per year," or people with inheritances large enough to trigger the inheritance tax (I'm being diplomatic). I've frankly never met anyone so wealthy that they weren't still trying to create additional wealth. Gates and Allen might be that wealthy (but last I heard they were also still interested in turning a profit).

THIRDLY is the notion of "parity". Since EVERYONE is subject to regulations, there is no actual differentiated barrier to entry. That is NOT the case in access to capital when you have large concentrations of wealth.
Oh, please. I actually covered this above, albeit in an aside. There is no "parity." Compliance with regulations is no big deal to an existing company with substantial revenue. It can be a deal breaker for a startup running on a shoestring budget.

Wrong. simply wrong. Yes in Greece and Spain you see downward mobility, but in France, and even the UK you see upward mobility, and evenin places like Ireland, excepting for the current downturn, over the last 3 decades you have seen MORE mobility. You are simply wrong on the data.
England and France have such upward mobility that the lower classes in both countries have rioted in the past five years. That setting aside that both country's social programs have left them in economic trouble, provoking austerity in England (and a programmed austerity in France that cost the former president his job. The new one is busily promising the plebes bread and circuses -- the trouble being he's going to have to take France out of the Euro to finance them, although he hasn't yet stated this publicly). If those are you're models, give me the USA any day.
Sure it can. You seem to be having problems with the notion of a limited infinite set. It actually is very common in nature. Consider the set of Positive Integers. Starts at 1 and goes onto infinity. But it is inherently limited. It is limited to integers: fractions, decimals, imaginary numbers are all excluded. Thus it is a MORE LIMITED SET than the "set of all possible numbers" even though both sets are limited.
Government is not mathematics. You cannot have infinite expansion of government side-by-side with an infinite protection of individual rights. One will impinge on the other -- and if you expand the government, guess which one will have the most power to negatively impact the other. I'm really not certain what the ideal U.S. government would look like in the alternate universe where it matches your ideals. Based on your concepts of positive and negative freedoms, and which is higher priority to you, it would seem to me that its citizens would be so in possession of their negative freedoms that they'd have no individual choices to make at all. Perhaps that is too distopian a view -- I'd be happy to hear from you how you think an ideal U.S. government would work, and what freedoms its citizens (and residents, I guess), would have.

Same with The Government. A government that is precluded from even ONE domain of control, is by definition a "limited government". One that is limited from 10 "bill of Rights" domains, from the Habeas, immigration, Blood Libel, Slavery, unequal treatment, domains is EVEN MORE LIMITED.
I basically addressed this above. You assumption that government can be limited in this way, while essentially expanding infinitely, is naive, at best. It assumes no bad actors -- no George Wallace's or Huey Longs or even Warren Hardings that will come along and charismatically abuse the system to their own ends. I can't remember who said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government, but they were onto something. We've seen for at least the past 80 years the use of legalistic loopholes to expand government -- and I know you think that almost all of these expansions have benefited the greater good. Even you acknowledge, however, that some of them did not benefit the greater good, such as the USA Patriot Act. Like it or not, it slips through some of the self-same loopholes created in the name of benefiting the greater good. Unless things change, you can expect much more to come through.

Being limited does not mean that it cannot "ever expand". Because the Universe is infinite, as long as it applies to a subset of Real Life, it is by definition "limited.
Wonderful. Beautiful. Philosophical. Poetic. And of no useful application when it comes to a discussion of our Constitution and the checks and balances written into our system of government.
First you are wrong on the changes to PATRIOT act. Obama voted for the changes to the original PATRIOT ACT as a Senator, ones that restricted the "unlimited wire tap" claims that GWB put forth. And as POTUS he has opted to follow the MORE LIMITED FISA based wiretaps.
That's what administration's flack releases to the public, Degs. What's up with you? You're acting as politically naive as a nine-year-old Amish child.
Another example is Obama's MORE LIMITED use of military tribunals that PATRIOT enabled. Both are clear REDUCTIONS of authority under PATRIOT Act.
No -- they're indications that he's not, currently (or at least publicly), using all the authority the act allows. I still haven't seen him doing any political activity, such as he did to get PPACA passed, to get the Patriot Act repealed, and I don't expect to, either.
Secondly you have offered ZERO REASONS to expect Romney - who has announced he wants an EXPANSION of PATRIOT act RELATED activities over what Obama has done - would be MORE LIKELY to cut back on PATRIOT ACT.
Nor do I actually expect Romney to be an improvement in that area. I merely think that change tends to beget change, and we know the current president is not moving for any change to that law. What a new president will do, in the future, is speculation on anyone's part.
 

degsme

Council Member
Only if you exclude Medicare and SS from being Governmental Programs.
I call BS. The fact that the taxes imposed to finance Medicare and Social Security have, in the past, produced excess money used for the general fund does not mean that those taxes were imposed as a primary revenue stream[/quote]

Trap you are calling "BS" on yourself. there is no notion of "primary" or "secondary" revenue streams anywhere in The Constitution or the Federal budget laws. Congress at any point in time, can pass a law that takes all the revenue from FICA and spends it in some way other than SS and Medicare. And there is nothing CONSTITUTIONALLY that would be wrong with that.

Thus FICA is what it is:

  • A Federal Tax
  • A Tax on income
  • Paid by almost every wage earner


I've never said Social Security and Medicare are overly intrusive. I've said they're unconstitutional.
Potato Potaahto. A government that is acting beyond its Constitutional mandate is intruding into realms it has no authority over. You yourself have said that if you had the cash in hand that went to SS you could have invested it in the market for better returns and that FICA "intruded" on your ability to do so. Please don't discredit yourself by making claim as hipocritical as the one you just made.

Tell that to the three restaurant owners that I know who went out of business because they couldn't comply with ADA. I know even more machine shops that have been shuttered in the name of OSHA compliance.
No you do not. Not unless you looked at their books, which I seriously doubt. I've had to comply with the ADA. Its not that expensive for a small business. And even if this is the case, the DEMAND for the service provided by those restaurants does not diminish. And that means that someone else, with a better location will fill that niche.

And regulatory compliance, because it eats up capital, means that the startup has to raise even MORE capital to have a chance of success -- and as this is difficult, it means regulatory compliance kills startups.
This is more theory than practice. "regulatory compliance" beyond that of enforcing things like property rights etc. is AT MOST 6% of Operating costs. And if your startup isn't going to generate about 15% ROI, you don't have a viable business. and a 15% ROI can absorb a 6% regulatory cost fairly easily. In the case of small businesses, particularly non-toxic businesses like restaurants, that overhead is really much much less. Particularly when you include the capital costs of the infrastructure in general.

Where are you deriving the figure for the barrier to entry caused by concentration of wealth?
Simple. If 11% of your costs are driven by regulation, and yet most businesses fail do to a lack of access to capital, then 100% - 11% is a cost imposed by wealth concentration, since wealth concentration puts access to capital out of the reach of the startup. This is no less a "out of the ass" claim than yours about how "regulations prevent startups" - which they don't. A "startup on a shoestring budget" will fail at oer 90% rates. So its not regulations that are killing it in the slightest.

Nor is it clear that "startups on a shoestring budget" are in any way desirable since at a policy/econometric level, they are misallocations of economic resources.

I basically addressed this above. You assumption that government can be limited in this way, while essentially expanding infinitely, is naive, at best. It assumes no bad actors -- no George Wallace's or Huey Longs or even Warren Hardings that will come along and charismatically abuse the system to their own ends
Want some oats with that straw? I've addressed the "bad actor" aspect. Folks like Jefferson were initially reluctant to even support Impeachment as a power, while others felt it was reasonable to use even as just a political tool, with Madison taking a middle line allowing that it was only for criminal activity, but then to be used as a mechanism to end run a POTUS that was shielding an officer of the administration.

The point is that at SOME POINT you have to rely on democratic politics. And democratic politics are always subject to demagougery (your adherence to Reagan despite his being bad for your overall interests is a prima facia case of this). Fundamentally it comes across as you being opposed to the mechanisms of democratic politics. That's fine, but it is not how The Constitution is structured. There is very much a democratic political component to the structure.

Note that I answered your question as to how a government - or anything for that matter - can be simultaneously "limited" as well as "ever growing/infinite". And that very much DOES apply to the "checks and balances within our system of government". For example if The Constitution were limited ONLY to Habeas and 8th Amendement protections and nothing else, IT STILL would be a "limited government". It would be less limited than now, but it still would be limited. Thus the fact that the government does keep changing, and grows with the population, GDP and complexity of modern life, DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that it has no meaningful limits or checks or balances.

First you are wrong on the changes to PATRIOT act. Obama voted for the changes to the original PATRIOT ACT as a Senator, ones that restricted the "unlimited wire tap" claims that GWB put forth. And as POTUS he has opted to follow the MORE LIMITED FISA based wiretaps. That's what administration's flack releases to the public, Degs. What's up with you? You're acting as politically naive as a nine-year-old Amish child.
Please Trap. That's not what the flacks say, its what the ACLU and others have determined. the REALITY ON THE GROUND is that the Obama administration actually HAS BACKED OFF from wielding the full extent of the powers that PATRIOT ACT enables. And that's something that we've seen THE OPPOSITE in Romney's claims.

Actions speak louder than "poltical activity". Particularly when you have such a contentious Congress and limited political capital. That you don't agree with Obama's expenditure of that capital does not lead to the conclusion that Obama is not doing things to reduce the scope of PATRIOT ACT. Similarly since we have in particular seen that Romney has asserted the need to EXPAND PATRIOT Act related activities leaves us with two observable patterns of behaviour:

  1. Obama - reducing the use of PATRIOT ACT powers.
    and
  2. Romney - advocating for the INCREASED USE of PATRIOT ACT Powers

How this leads you to believe that Romney is "more likely than Obama" to reduce the use of PATRIOT ACT authority is well frankly - oxymoronic.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I call BS. The fact that the taxes imposed to finance Medicare and Social Security have, in the past, produced excess money used for the general fund does not mean that those taxes were imposed as a primary revenue stream
Trap you are calling "BS" on yourself. there is no notion of "primary" or "secondary" revenue streams anywhere in The Constitution or the Federal budget laws. Congress at any point in time, can pass a law that takes all the revenue from FICA and spends it in some way other than SS and Medicare. And there is nothing CONSTITUTIONALLY that would be wrong with that.
True enough -- but utterly beside the point. FICA is not the source of most federal revenue. The progressive income tax is the source of most federal revenue. And 95 percent of income taxes are paid by the top five percent of income earners.

Potato Potaahto. A government that is acting beyond its Constitutional mandate is intruding into realms it has no authority over.
Yes, but it can do so in a way that is not directly intrusive -- Social Security -- or in a way that is horrifically intrusive -- the Patriot Act. Surely you won't say there's no difference.

You yourself have said that if you had the cash in hand that went to SS you could have invested it in the market for better returns and that FICA "intruded" on your ability to do so.
I believe the word I used was "stolen." But I really don't want to go down the road of yet another discussion of how Social Security is both voluntary and an entity independent to the user from the tax paid to finance it.


No you do not. Not unless you looked at their books, which I seriously doubt. I've had to comply with the ADA. Its not that expensive for a small business. And even if this is the case, the DEMAND for the service provided by those restaurants does not diminish. And that means that someone else, with a better location will fill that niche.
Creating an ADA acceptable entrance for a friend of mine's antique store cost $7,000. This may not be much to you -- it was a lot to them and nearly caused them to close their business. I know three restaurants that went out of business because there was no way to bring their dining rooms (which used pedestal dining, a popular feature in some restaurants in the late '60s and early '70s) into ADA compliance without completely stripping them and remodeling them from the floor up. This expenditure would cost a lot more than $7,000, especially as that floor system was frequently put in place to allow the installation of HVAC into pre-1900 buildings. What you're calling a small expense was certainly no small expense in these cases.

This is more theory than practice. "regulatory compliance" beyond that of enforcing things like property rights etc. is AT MOST 6% of Operating costs
.

Degs, 6 percent of operating costs is a lot, especially for a small mom and pop diner or gas station. You're completely out of touch with a big part of America that has to actually work in these marginal environments to stay a live.

Simple. If 11% of your costs are driven by regulation, and yet most businesses fail do to a lack of access to capital, then 100% - 11% is a cost imposed by wealth concentration, since wealth concentration puts access to capital out of the reach of the startup.
Aah -- so as I thought it is either OODA, or complete BS, as the fact that someone else has capital has no impact at all on whether or not your startup can acquire capital. Most inherited money sits around in banks -- banks lend money to people to do things like start businesses. If you say the capitalization is 100 percent, and 11 percent goes to regulatory compliance, and the other 90 percent goes to wealth concentration, then there'd be no startups at all because there would be no money with which to do them. I'm sorry, but you put too much emphasis on the sequestration of funds in the accounts of the rich. Even if it is some barrier (and I have doubts on that), it wouldn't be a 90 percent barrier to the typical person starting a business.


Nor is it clear that "startups on a shoestring budget" are in any way desirable since at a policy/econometric level, they are misallocations of economic resources.
Facebook started up with $19,000 from Saverin. If you don't roll the dice, you never win.

Want some oats with that straw? I've addressed the "bad actor" aspect.
No, you have not. You have not addressed the fact that without the protections provided by the Constitution and its limits of power, that a highly charismatic and popular figure could greatly exceed the power legally allotted.



The point is that at SOME POINT you have to rely on democratic politics. And democratic politics are always subject to demagougery (your adherence to Reagan despite his being bad for your overall interests is a prima facia case of this).
Reagan was not bad for me, so your prima facia case is fatally flawed. Demogoguery is among the threats the limits on both presidential and Congressional power are supposed to address.

Fundamentally it comes across as you being opposed to the mechanisms of democratic politics. That's fine, but it is not how The Constitution is structured. There is very much a democratic political component to the structure.
I'm in favor of democratic processes, but such processes have to be limited sufficiently to prevent mob rule. We have a Constitution for that, if we adhere to it. If we don't, then we face a serious and ongoing threat to our system of government.

Note that I answered your question as to how a government - or anything for that matter - can be simultaneously "limited" as well as "ever growing/infinite". And that very much DOES apply to the "checks and balances within our system of government". For example if The Constitution were limited ONLY to Habeas and 8th Amendement protections and nothing else, IT STILL would be a "limited government". It would be less limited than now, but it still would be limited. Thus the fact that the government does keep changing, and grows with the population, GDP and complexity of modern life, DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that it has no meaningful limits or checks or balances.
Scary that you believe this to be true. In any case, I have no brief against growth or change to U.S. government. I merely believe that there is a mechanism in place providing the means for that sort of change, and it is being ignored.


Please Trap. That's not what the flacks say, its what the ACLU and others have determined. the REALITY ON THE GROUND is that the Obama administration actually HAS BACKED OFF from wielding the full extent of the powers that PATRIOT ACT enables. And that's something that we've seen THE OPPOSITE in Romney's claims.
As far as you know, Degs, as far as you know. The FISA court itself is essentially a star chamber -- you have no more knowledge of what goes on in it than you have of the location of an electron orbiting a hydrogen nucleus. In fact, less, as outside of a plasma you can be certain that the electron is actually there.
 

degsme

Council Member
True enough -- but utterly beside the point. FICA is not the source of most federal revenue.
FICA funds 66% of the Federal Spend. Sorry that by definition is 2/3 of the revenue. Yes some of it is carry forward from previous years, some of it is based on growth of the investments but that's still the majority of revenue. If you want to look at Year on YEar revenue FICA is EQUAL TO the "individual income tax" - assuming you let the "FICA Holiday" expire

aupload.wikimedia.org_wikipedia_en_thumb_f_f9_U.S._Federal_Reca9b59933ff18fb8347a563526766a1df.png

So sorry, you cannot make the claim about people not paying taxes on their income. Its simply not true. As for Government intrusiveness sorry Trap, you've made the claim that SS is intrusive into your retirement investment planning and you don't get to now pretend that's not so.

Creating an ADA acceptable entrance for a friend of mine's antique store cost $7,000.
Then he's incompetant. A 30" door costs about $300. The lumber and concrete for a ramp about $300. Do your own labor as we did and thats it. If your business cannot sustain a $600 hit, you are not a particularly viable economic asset.

And if you have a restaurant in the 1990s that has not changed decor since the 60s and 70s again, its not a particularly vibrant economic activity and someone else will step up with a better solution. Remember that to be ADA compliant you don't have to remodel the whole restaurant. you just need to reserve 5% of your tables to be Wheelchair accessible http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#rest. So in a restaurant with 40 tables (and that's a large restaurant) you need 2 such tables. RIGHT that's a complete remodel ... uhuh... sure it is.

your friends were either incompetent in the advice they got, or lying to you.

Degs, 6 percent of operating costs is a lot, especially for a small mom and pop diner or gas station.
No its not. Again, any activity where 6% is "a lot" is likely not economically viable in the first place.

Most inherited money sits around in banks -- banks lend money to people to do things like start businesses
Um no. Banks lend money to EXISTING BUSINESSES with at least 3 years of profitable receipts. So money in banks DOES NOT GO to start businesses

Secondly inherited wealth actually tends to sit in Treasury Bills, and not even banks. IOW it is economically underproductive. And if you need to I will go dig up the evidence of this YET AGAIN, but we've had this discussion before and I've cited this before. So why you are making this bogus bullsh!t claim is rather beyond me.

So no, inherited wealth typically DOES NOT contribute to small business growth.

If you say the capitalization is 100 percent, and 11 percent goes to regulatory compliance, and the other 90 percent goes to wealth concentration, then there'd be no startups at all because there would be no money with which to do them
That assumes a 100% concentration of wealth. We are not there yet. But what you would then expect as wealth concentration grows, is a decrease in startup activity. And guess what? In fact that is EXACTLY what we are seeing. http://www.gpiwellingtonregion.govt.nz/outcomes/economic/entrepreneurial-and-innovative/business-growth/

FACTS MATTER.

Nor is it clear that "startups on a shoestring budget" are in any way desirable since at a policy/econometric level, they are misallocations of economic resources.
Facebook started up with $19,000 from Saverin. If you don't roll the dice, you never win.
Facebook did not start "on a shoestring budget". They had a wealthy backer (Saverin's parents) and very quickly got VC funding. Never on a shoestring. SHOESTRING budgets are ones that lack the ability to do what Facebook did - namely ignore all attempts at making profits for the first years of the project.

You have not addressed the fact that without the protections provided by the Constitution and its limits of power, that a highly charismatic and popular figure could greatly exceed the power legally allotted.
This is a circular arguement by you. You define as "exceeding the power alloted" simply exceeding the things you BELIEVE to be "allotted". But you offer no compelling evidence of such an "allotment". In fact in our history when we have had such charismatic - and more importantly WEALTHY DISTORTIVE power - we have eventually reeled it back in, through democratic means. Albeit not before many millions had suffered. But the curious part is that this happend PRECISELY IN THE PERIOD you describe so hagiographically.

Reagan was not bad for me, so your prima facia case is fatally flawed.
Reagan Cost you $1 million in lifetime earnings. HE was bad for you. The flaw is in your BELIEF that your lack of college funding was driven by the 1/7th case rather than the 6/7ths case.


Again when it comes to Constitutoinal vs. poltical balance of powers, what is so fascinating is that you want a return to when wealthy individuals had MORE POWER to distort the access to liberty of the majority. And you deny that it is so even though the data on this is clear. The scary part here is that you simply ignore the history.

As far as you know, Degs, as far as you know. The FISA court itself is essentially a star chamber -- you have no more knowledge of what goes on in it than you have of the location of an electron orbiting a hydrogen nucleus. In fact, less, as outside of a plasma you can be certain that the electron is actually there.
Well actually that's not the case. FOIA requests and mandatory sunshine publication laws DO provide us insight into the FISA rulings - albeit long after the fact. But such scrutiny very much is on the minds of the judges who very much perceive themselves as INDEPENDENT of the Executive branch.

When you compare that to the unilateral approach implemented by GWB under PATRIOT ACT claims, Obama's approach is a measuerable and demosntrable REDUCTION in the Use of PATRIOT ACT authority.

And we also know that Romney has advocated policies that INCREASE THE USE OF PATRIOT ACT Authority.


And nothing you have written even tries to address that. Essentially you keep revisiting your belief . Because what you keep doing is trying to reduce the amount Obama has reduced PATRIOT ACT usage. All the while completely ignoring that Romney advocates policies that will INCREASE its usage.

Sorry you are not presenting anything remotely resembling a syllogism as to why Romney is more likely to reduce PATRIOT Act intrusions. And you are simply discounting Obama's ACTUAL EFFORTS in this area.

Please, you can do better.
 

trapdoor

Governor
FICA funds 66% of the Federal Spend. Sorry that by definition is 2/3 of the revenue. Yes some of it is carry forward from previous years, some of it is based on growth of the investments but that's still the majority of revenue. If you want to look at Year on YEar revenue FICA is EQUAL TO the "individual income tax" - assuming you let the "FICA Holiday" expire
Degs -- one of us is reading your pie chart wrong. I'm willing to stipulate it may be me, but I don't think so. What that chart shows is that 47 percent of federal revenue comes from "individual income" taxes, and it does not, apparently include FICA in that sum, as it breaks out Social Security (also paid via FICA), and allots it either 36 or 38 (the graphic is not super clear) percent. That would mean that my original statement that the biggest amount of revenue comes from federal income tax is true.


So sorry, you cannot make the claim about people not paying taxes on their income. Its simply not true. As for Government intrusiveness sorry Trap, you've made the claim that SS is intrusive into your retirement investment planning and you don't get to now pretend that's not so.
As 47 percent of the federal budget, according to your own pie chart, comes form individual income tax, that statement stands. As for Social Security, what I said is that the experience to the individual is coercion -- the revenue stream created by the tax is divorced from funding the user's ultimate retirement, when it is received by the government. When it is paid by the taxpayer, there is no divorce, the tax payment is linked to the benefit -- the taxpayer does not have the option of both paying the tax AND investing the money used to pay the tax. This means participation in the program is not voluntary, as you define it to be.


Then he's incompetant. A 30" door costs about $300. The lumber and concrete for a ramp about $300. Do your own labor as we did and thats it. If your business cannot sustain a $600 hit, you are not a particularly viable economic asset.
Did I say anything about a door? I don't believe I did. I mentioned an ENTRANCE, and the building in question was constructed, of brick, in 1852. Changing the entryway (build of brick), and replacing four concrete steps (while complying with yet another regulation -- that of historic preservation), actually cost somewhat more than $7,000 -- I rounded down.

And if you have a restaurant in the 1990s that has not changed decor since the 60s and 70s again, its not a particularly vibrant economic activity and someone else will step up with a better solution.
You've never lived in a town smaller than 18,000 people -- you told me so yourself. I don't really mean to be rude when I go on to say you don't know what the [Unwelcome language removed] you're talking about.

Remember that to be ADA compliant you don't have to remodel the whole restaurant. you just need to reserve 5% of your tables to be Wheelchair accessible http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#rest. So in a restaurant with 40 tables (and that's a large restaurant) you need 2 such tables. RIGHT that's a complete remodel ... uhuh... sure it is.
And in a 19th century saloon that was renovated into a restaurant with 10 tables in about 1965, you have to redo the entire HVAC system so that that one table can be made to be ADA compliant. Or go out of business -- let the next guy be ADA compliant. Or, in reality, go out of business and let the old storefront sit empty. It can be depressing to visit a town like my home town and look at all the shuttered businesses, like missing teeth lining the main street of town. But who cares, right, they were just to marginal to stay alive -- and you can always drive 40 miles to the big city for a burger.



No its not. Again, any activity where 6% is "a lot" is likely not economically viable in the first place.
Again, you haven't lived in this environment and you simply don't know what is or is not economically viable. What looks economically non-viable to you may be a business that has been open for 50 years in a town of 5,000.

Um no. Banks lend money to EXISTING BUSINESSES with at least 3 years of profitable receipts. So money in banks DOES NOT GO to start businesses
Well, I guess my buddy didn't set up his advertising display (flat screen) business by borrowing money from a bank, then. Except that I drove him to the bank to get the check. Banks lend money, Degs, it's what they do.
Secondly inherited wealth actually tends to sit in Treasury Bills, and not even banks.
I think you're generalizing over broadly here.




That assumes a 100% concentration of wealth. We are not there yet.
Don't look at me -- it was your number.


FACTS MATTER.
Factually, you're link didn't address the issue.

Facebook did not start "on a shoestring budget". They had a wealthy backer (Saverin's parents) and very quickly got VC funding. Never on a shoestring. SHOESTRING budgets are ones that lack the ability to do what Facebook did - namely ignore all attempts at making profits for the first years of the project.
No, they didn't. Saverin borrowed $19,000 from their backer, and worked his ass of attempting to sell advertising while Zuckerberg expanded their net. Then, with apparent help from Sean Parker, they attracted venture capital, and diluted Saverin's stock to the point that he sued them. That's a long way from having Saverin's parents as rich backers.


This is a circular arguement by you. You define as "exceeding the power alloted" simply exceeding the things you BELIEVE to be "allotted". But you offer no compelling evidence of such an "allotment".
All one has to do is read the Constitution's lists of allotted powers -- judicial, executive and congressional. If you're a slow reader you can do it in a day or so.

In fact in our history when we have had such charismatic - and more importantly WEALTHY DISTORTIVE power - we have eventually reeled it back in, through democratic means. Albeit not before many millions had suffered. But the curious part is that this happend PRECISELY IN THE PERIOD you describe so hagiographically.
At no point have I described the Gilded Age "hagiographically." I said that during that period, the federal government was appropriately constrained to its allotted powers, and that it had powers even then that it was not using, but that could have been used constitutionally -- a good example is Theodore Roosevelt's anti-trust legislation that, although it was not used during the Gilded Age, was clearly a constitutional regulation of interstate trade when it ultimately was put in place. But here's a good test to determine if the government is exceeding its authority -- does the reasoning used to achieve the authority have a clear connection to the matter at hand? If it does not, or if the reasoning includes an obvious inversion of the words in the Constitution, the Constitution is probably being violated. Hence my objection to Wickard -- it regulated something as interstate trade that clearly was not interstate in nature.

Reagan Cost you $1 million in lifetime earnings. HE was bad for you. The flaw is in your BELIEF that your lack of college funding was driven by the 1/7th case rather than the 6/7ths case.
No, he did not. For the simple, already explained and obvious reason that I was going to school to practice a given profession. I went on from school to practice that profession for 14 years alongside people who had degrees and whose careers were not any better nor salaries higher than mine. My lack of a college degree has not cost me a dime -- save for the money I spent attempting to acquire said degree. Reagan was, in short, great for me.
Again when it comes to Constitutoinal vs. poltical balance of powers, what is so fascinating is that you want a return to when wealthy individuals had MORE POWER to distort the access to liberty of the majority. And you deny that it is so even though the data on this is clear. The scary part here is that you simply ignore the history.
And you, while you will not describe your ideal system of government, seem to want us to go "forward" to a point where the government is all powerful and can regulate nearly any activity in the name of general welfare, indirect health costs, or interstate trade. And the scary part is that you don't even see the danger.


Well actually that's not the case. FOIA requests and mandatory sunshine publication laws DO provide us insight into the FISA rulings - albeit long after the fact. But such scrutiny very much is on the minds of the judges who very much perceive themselves as INDEPENDENT of the Executive branch.
I didn't realize you had so much insight on the mentalities of the judges. I'm truly impressed -- or at least I would be if I thought you had such insight. Nonetheless, you don't know, and you can't know, what Obama is doing without consulting those judges. In reality, FISA is a rubberstamp for the administration whose own annual report indicates that it approved every single request for a warrant that came from the administration in the past year.
 

degsme

Council Member
CURRENT FICA revenue is 38% - but you forget that there is a 20% FICA Tax holiday in place. At the normal rate that would them make it 45%. Which is right up there with Federal Individual Income Tax returns. And remember that the spend out of the FICA account is coming from retained collections. So in terms of where the SPENDING is being funded from it comes from FICA taxes. So you cannot make the claims you make about income taxes, UNLESS you exclude 2/3 of the Federal Spend from your discussions.


Now your point about the redoing of your friends' bar only demonstrates that the case you are looking at is a specific one. Much of that work could have been done by your frind himself. And there is no inherent need to redo the steps, our approach was to simply build the ramp OVER the steps and that adddresses the issue. The point is that singleton examples do not tell us the broader policy implicatoins. They give us points to ask BUT NOTHING MORE. Your example tells us nothing about the AVERAGE cost of complying with the ADA vs. the increased business that complying with ADA generates.

And again, that a business that's been open for 50 years closes in a town of 5,000 does not mean IT WAS GOOD ALLOCATION OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES. What is amazing is that you seem to want massive market protectionism for the small segments you BELIEVE IN, but want to subject the rest of us to the vagaries of a fair and competitive marketplace. EITHER an efficient market that reflects actual COGS is good for society or it isn't. You cannot pretend to have it both ways.

Um no. Banks lend money to EXISTING BUSINESSES with at least 3 years of profitable receipts. So money in banks DOES NOT GO to start businesses
Well, I guess my buddy didn't set up his advertising display (flat screen) business by borrowing money from a bank, then. Except that I drove him to the bank to get the check. Banks lend money, Degs, it's what they do.
Well if your buddy borrowed the money from the bank, then EITHER

  • He borrowed it on his personal credit - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS LENDING
  • He has been in business longer than 3 years - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS CREATION lending
  • OR he lied on the applications.
But there is no way that with a business with less than a 3 year track record of profits can get a loan from the bank ON THE BUSINESS ACCOUNT

I've been there, I've looked at what it takes to get those sorts of loans from banks
Secondly inherited wealth actually tends to sit in Treasury Bills, and not even banks.

I think you're generalizing over broadly here.
I'm not. Go look a the research on this. I can give you links but you will convince yourself more if you search out the data yourself. The fact is that precisely because a slight increase in income for the wealthy has marginal meaning, they have little incentive to optimize their investments on economic resource allocation and growth principles. Instead they have an incentive to optimize on asset RETENTION, which means SAFE investments that have almost no risk. And that's not "new businesses".

No, they didn't. Saverin borrowed $19,000 from their backer, and worked his ass of attempting to sell advertising while Zuckerberg expanded their net
Nope. Saverin borrowed from his parents who were wealthy and had "jumped ahead of the immigration line" from Brazil by buying their way into the USA so that their son would not be a kidnapping target in Brazil.
He did so by maxing out the credit cards his parents had given him "for expenses" at Harvard.

This is a circular arguement by you. You define as "exceeding the power alloted" simply exceeding the things you BELIEVE to be "allotted".
But you offer no compelling evidence of such an "allotment". All one has to do is read the Constitution's lists of allotted powers -- judicial, executive and congressional.
And that's why your claim is a circular one. You define the meanings of the terms used within the Constitution in logically inconsistent ways. You use "implied" meanings when convenient, yet when necessary you insist on singular meanings that eschew implication, you change grammar rules in ways no truly professional editor would (inclusive sub-clauses are not limiting clauses in any of the 4 languages I speak and read), you insert hierarchical ordering where there is none, you insist on "original" meanings when convenient yet include modern meanings when convenient.

So that's why this is a circular arguement. You essentially define the "allotted powers" as those powers YOU ALLOT in YOUR APPROVAL - not the ones that actually ARE alloted.

In fact in our history when we have had such charismatic - and more importantly WEALTHY DISTORTIVE power - we have eventually reeled it back in, through democratic means. Albeit not before many millions had suffered. But the curious part is that this happend PRECISELY IN THE PERIOD you describe so hagiographically.
At no point have I described the Gilded Age "hagiographically." I said that during that period, the federal government was appropriately constrained to its allotted powers,
That just there is a hagiographic description. Because nowhere in the Federal Government's authority within the Constitution is there any authorization to use machine guns against families peacably assembled to petition their government - and yet the Feds did exactly that. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to grant differential privileges - particularly "before the law" to white males, or wealthy males in preference to anyone else. And yet that is exactly what took place. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to enforce involuntary servitude, it is in fact explicitly prohibited - and yet that is EXACTLY what took place. Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to deny personhood rights to THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION -and yet that is exactly what took place.

So to suggest that in the Gilded age the Federal Government, was "appropriately constrained" is very much a hagiographic description.

But here's a good test to determine if the government is exceeding its authority -- does the reasoning used to achieve the authority have a clear connection to the matter at hand?
No trap that is not a "good test" because you can use that "reasoning" to expansively wield the very authority your favourite Constitutional Ratifier warned against - that of military power (which BTW is something you do in an increadibly lax and unconstrained manner). What matters is whether or not you can construct a CONSISTENT AND INTEGRATED line of reasoning that stands the test of ALL of the sections of The Constitution in their structural balance.

Reagan Cost you $1 million in lifetime earnings. HE was bad for you. The flaw is in your BELIEF that your lack of college funding was driven by the 1/7th case rather than the 6/7ths case.

No, he did not. For the simple, already explained and obvious reason that I was going to school to practice a given profession.
Sorry trap. The lack of a BA/BS reduced the rate at which you were promoted, reduced your starting salary, reduced your opportunity to compete for better paying jobs, reduced your opportunity to expand your professional opportunities with graduate level education. And all in all, that adds up to about $1 million in lost salary over your lifetime. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Arts_(BA),_Journalism/Salary http://www.ehow.com/about_5202554_starting-salary-journalist.html The starting salary differentiation alone is about $10k. By itself over 45 years that's $450,000. That doesn't count the invested growth rate on that which addes up to $2.5 million, and it does not take into account that a 3% COLA raise (yes I know many don't get that but with a BA/BS you are MORE likely to receive it) adds $32k to your annual income after 40 years. Which averages out to about $15k additional income over 40 years. Or $600,000 lifetime. There's your $1 Million.

And you lost that by voting for Reagan. Reagan has cost your between $1 million and $4 million dollars in total earnings. And yes its clear that with such a large cost associated with your vote, you will be in denial of it and will double down on your belief that its not so. But deep down you know you are rationalizing.

Well actually that's not the case. FOIA requests and mandatory sunshine publication laws DO provide us insight into the FISA rulings - albeit long after the fact. But such scrutiny very much is on the minds of the judges who very much perceive themselves as INDEPENDENT of the Executive branch.
I didn't realize you had so much insight on the mentalities of the judges. I'm truly impressed
I know some... do you? I know atty's that go and practice before them. I know the policy aides of folks like the REPUBLICAN State AG Rob McKenna. yeah that's the mentality of these judges. It is precisely why HRC recently made the comment about Africa needing "strong institutions, not strong men". The INSTITUTION of the US Judiciary has a long tradition of independence. And it wants to maintain that and maintain its crediblity.

Remember, I called John Roberts' vote correctly. For precisely that reason.

Now I agree with you, that FISA is weak protection. But it is better than what GWB did, and it is better than WHAT ROMNEY ADVOCATES.

So again, we go back to the syllogism that you have failed to construct:


  • Obama has REDUCED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
    Obama's core constituency OPPOSES the PATRIOT ACT

    Yet you claim he is MORE likely to expand that (ie reverse himself)
  • Romney has advocated an EXPANDED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
    Romney's core constituency advocates EXPANDED PATRIOT ACT usage

    yet you claim he is MORE likely to reduce that (ie reverse himself)

For your "reasoning" about who is 'more likely' to get rid of the "intrusion" you and I both consider to be egregious, we need to believe that BOTH politicians will
reverse their existing positions and advocacy
Go against their core constituencies to do so


BOTH TOGETHER

That's a curious view of how politics is played that you have there.
 

trapdoor

Governor
CURRENT FICA revenue is 38% - but you forget that there is a 20% FICA Tax holiday in place. At the normal rate that would them make it 45%. Which is right up there with Federal Individual Income Tax returns.
I'm surprised you're being so sloppy -- given your math, it would still be less (albeit by 2 percent) and my statement would still stand (not that his matters to you, given that you don't believe in assessing congressional intent, but was there maybe a specific congressional intent behind FICA that is different from the income tax on wages?).

And remember that the spend out of the FICA account is coming from retained collections.
Not true -- as you yourself have noted numerous times, the FICA benefits are a pass-through expenditure from current taxation (taxation that is currently insufficient to meet current expenditures). There are no "retained collections" nor any methodology that would allow such retention. Excess fund, those beyond what is needed for the FICA expenditures, are put in the general fund.

Now your point about the redoing of your friends' bar only demonstrates that the case you are looking at is a specific one. Much of that work could have been done by your frind himself.
I'm sorry to get watered down in detail here, but the person who folded because of the pedestal seating at the restauraunt was not a friend, per se, but a business owner that I knew from covering the business beat at the local newspaper. And no, I don't think that business owner could have done the work himself. Even if he could, you're ignoring the obvious -- the regulatory compliance was beyond the means of the business, which was the point I was making.

The entryway at my friend's business was also a 19th century building, but the business was an antique shop. No, a ramp could not have been built over the steps that complied with ADA (the store front was too narrow for a zig-zag ramp, and a direct ramp to the street would have closed off the sidewalk to passersby), a ramp directly up the steps, merely filling them in, would have been not only too steep for ADA, but also too steep for OSHA compliance.

The point is that singleton examples do not tell us the broader policy implicatoins. They give us points to ask BUT NOTHING MORE. Your example tells us nothing about the AVERAGE cost of complying with the ADA vs. the increased business that complying with ADA generates.
Frankly, Degs, I don't think the averages matter. I think a small business owner ought to have the right to operate, first, and that federal regulations should be imposed second. I think there needs to be a sense of proportion -- go ahead and force Wal-mart or McDonald's to be ADA compliant, but leave Joe's Corner Bar and Grill and Shipman's Antiques (notional names) alone.

And again, that a business that's been open for 50 years closes in a town of 5,000 does not mean IT WAS GOOD ALLOCATION OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES. What is amazing is that you seem to want massive market protectionism for the small segments you BELIEVE IN, but want to subject the rest of us to the vagaries of a fair and competitive marketplace.
If a business ran and generated profits suitable to its owners, who are you to say that it is too inefficient to operate? This isn't "protectionism," it's an attempt to lower the barriers to entry to the marketplace. You think those barriers are caused by a concentration of wealth, while you ignore the barriers put in place via government regulation.



Well if your buddy borrowed the money from the bank, then EITHER

[*]He borrowed it on his personal credit - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS LENDING
[*]He has been in business longer than 3 years - in which case it is NOT BUSINESS CREATION lending
[*]OR he lied on the applications.
Or, he went to a lender who was familiar with his OTHER business, and borrowed the money to create the new business.


.


Nope. Saverin borrowed from his parents who were wealthy and had "jumped ahead of the immigration line" from Brazil by buying their way into the USA so that their son would not be a kidnapping target in Brazil.
He did so by maxing out the credit cards his parents had given him "for expenses" at Harvard.
And that amount was a shoestring -- and after about a year, Zuckerberg/Parker attracted VC, and diluted Saverin's shares of the stock.


And that's why your claim is a circular one. You define the meanings of the terms used within the Constitution in logically inconsistent ways.
No, I do not.

You use "implied" meanings when convenient, yet when necessary you insist on singular meanings that eschew implication, you change grammar rules in ways no truly professional editor would (inclusive sub-clauses are not limiting clauses in any of the 4 languages I speak and read),
Degs -- for humanity's sake by a copy of the "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White, and learn to read and write clear English before you drag in any other languages. Other than that, give an example where I've used an "implied" meaning. I intentionally avoid such meanings in the Constitution unless the words are intentionally vague standards ("cruel" and "unusual" spring to mind), or unless there's no contemporary commentary to illuminate them.

you insert hierarchical ordering where there is none, you insist on "original" meanings when convenient yet include modern meanings when convenient.
There's no hierarchy in the Constitution? Kindly offer documentation. And I never insist on a modern meaning -- except for the obvious factual insistence that the Constitution was written in Modern English. It carries essentially no hold-over content from Middle or Old English, and shows the clear influence of the 700 years of Norman French that created Modern English from the amalgam of Middle English (where we get most of the "tion" words in our language, just for example).

So that's why this is a circular arguement. You essentially define the "allotted powers" as those powers YOU ALLOT in YOUR APPROVAL - not the ones that actually ARE alloted.
No -- the allotted powers given to Congress are in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, in clear Modern English. Additional powers have been added (apparently non-hierarchically) via the amendment process, which is the sole legitimate source for additional federal power.


That just there is a hagiographic description. Because nowhere in the Federal Government's authority within the Constitution is there any authorization to use machine guns against families peacably assembled to petition their government - and yet the Feds did exactly that.
You're saying that the government didn't hue to its best ideals? Big surprise. I'm not certain what you're using for an example here, but all you're saying is that the federal exceeded its authority in that instance, and I agree. No one said the era was perfect, and I certainly have not done (to do so would be truly hagiographic). What I said, and what you have not refuted, is that the government did not acquire permanent authorities that exceeded its constitutional limits during that era, as it has done on a regular basis since the 1930s.


Nowhere in the Federal Government's authority is there the power to deny personhood rights to THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION -and yet that is exactly what took place.
Show me a quote from a legal authority from the period, from the Gilded Age, that indicated that to be the case -- that a woman or a black man was not a person. Just one quote -- I offer the entirety of the record of the United States, public, private, legal and civil, as a source for that quote by someone in authority. (No, the "Billy the Kid had killed 21 men by age 21, not counting Indians and Mexicans" is not a viable example).

No trap that is not a "good test" because you can use that "reasoning" to expansively wield the very authority your favourite Constitutional Ratifier warned against - that of military power (which BTW is something you do in an increadibly lax and unconstrained manner). What matters is whether or not you can construct a CONSISTENT AND INTEGRATED line of reasoning that stands the test of ALL of the sections of The Constitution in their structural balance.
It it consistent to say that business that does not cross a state line in any way is "interstate?" Obviously not, but that's the law. It doesn't even pass your own test, much less mine.


Sorry trap. The lack of a BA/BS reduced the rate at which you were promoted, reduced your starting salary, reduced your opportunity to compete for better paying jobs, reduced your opportunity to expand your professional opportunities with graduate level education.
I can categorically state that essentially none of this statement is true. From the time I dropped out of college in 1984, to 1989, I actually made more than the typical entry level reporter (who made less than an Army Pfc.). When I dropped out of college in 1990, I did a couple of low end jobs, but from the time I entered journalism in 1992 to the time I voluntarily left the field in 2001, I made the same industry scale as the people who worked alongside me, and was promoted faster than most of them in part because I was mobile and would go anywhere to get the next job. Throughout that period I turned down two jobs, one of them my shot at "the big time" with Gannett (because it was only a $3 per hour raise), and one a lateral move within the paper I where I was employed. As I never attempted to pursue a graduate level education (it was never one of my life's goals to have a string of letters after my name), my goals were not much impeded by my lack of a college degree.

You're "$1 million" figure is nonsense because I worked in the same industry, in the same jobs, without a college degree that I would have worked in if I'd had the degree. I worked alongside people who had college degrees, and didn't do any better than me in the industry or in the rest of their lives.




I know some... do you?
You know FISA court judges? I confess that I do not. I know several prosecutors, a couple of superior court judges, and one former prosecutor who is a sitting U.S. senator. And I know scads of practicing attorneys.

I know atty's that go and practice before them. I know the policy aides of folks like the REPUBLICAN State AG Rob McKenna. yeah that's the mentality of these judges. It is precisely why HRC recently made the comment about Africa needing "strong institutions, not strong men". The INSTITUTION of the US Judiciary has a long tradition of independence. And it wants to maintain that and maintain its crediblity.
Whatever the judge's "mentalities," they've approved every single administration request for a warrant in the past year. That's some check on the presidential authority.

It's also immaterial. You keep saying Obama has "reduced" presidential authority. The fact that he's not using that authority doesn't mean it's not there any more than the fact that he's not enforcing the law turns all the illegal's he's not deporting into legal residents.


[*]Obama has REDUCED use of PATRIOT ACT powers
No -- he merely hasn't used them. That's a different thing from reducing them.

Obama's core constituency OPPOSES the PATRIOT ACT
What core constituency? Obama's core constituency opposes a lot of things that Obama has done -- are they going to vote for Romney because of this? I'd think not.

You're over emphasizing what I said -- I said I don't think either president is going to change the Patriot Act. In reality, the provisions of the act are outside their control, as any change must originate in Congress. But if you're going to see any change in that law at all, you have four years of Obama's actions to review and he has not pushed for such a change at the Congressional level.

Romney, for all your circumlocutions, is an unknown factor. He nearly didn't get the nomination because he has a long track record of being a RINO, and there's no evidence at all that he wouldn't continue the same trend as president. He is, currently, doing what most Republicans do to get elected. He's running to the right so as to solidify the base. He would no more govern to the right than it was "governing to the right" when GWB rammed through Medicare Part B.
 

degsme

Council Member
Trap, the FICA holiday is 2% out of 7%, which is roughly a 29% reduction in revenues. But its a bit less than that since it actually is 2% out of 13% which is about 15%... So the full equation is 0.38/.85 == 44%. IOW FICA would be 44% of Revenue assuming no holiday. As for FICA being purely "pass through" no. Earlier this year SS Expenditures exceeded FICA revenues for the first time in history http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/ And that means they are drawign down on the "trust fund" - which is accumulated FICA taxation.

Now as to regulatory compliance, there is nothing in ADA that precludes the owner from doing the work themselves. And furthermore if you were just a reporter, the likelihood you got an accurate assesment of the financial causes of the closing of the business without looking at the books themselves is very very low. Now as to the other case, again, As usual you are dribbling out the full facts of the circumstance. I'm quite sure that I could find an ADA approach that would have been compliant and not cost that much. I've done it enough times. It just requires some creativity - which sadly, way too many people lack.

Now as to the Constitution - there are various hierarchies in The Constitution. But in the particular case under discussion, there is no hierarchy in the Am 10 LIST of who retains power after the Feds - yet your GRAMATICS claim was to the contrary.

Degs -- for humanity's sake by a copy of the "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White,
The irony here is that it was I who cited Strunk and White to demonstrate that your claim of a "inclusive clause" was not a "limiting clause". But more significantly, Strunk and White is USAGE and not Grammar. I showed you GRAMMAR PARSING tools that demonstrated it was an INCLUSIVE CLAUSE (the hint being the leading word "including") and not a "limiting clause" (which typically starts with "limited to").

You are simply making up new grammar that is contrary to how English Grammar parses.

If I write the sentence

The United States is participating in the London Olympiad, including in the 49er sailing class, and has medal aspirations.​
This in no way means that

  • The US Participation is limited to the 49er Sailing class
  • That US medal aspirations are limited to the 49er sailing class
because "including the 49er sailing class" is a Dependent INCLUSIVE clause and not a Limiting clause. Even Strunk and White says this http://www.irit.fr/rjcihm04/Papers/Strunk&White.Elements.Style.pdf
Place a comma before and or but introducing an independent clause.Sentences of this type, isolated from their context, may seem to be in need of rewriting. As they make complete sense when the comma is reached, the second clause has the appearance of an after-thought. Further, and, is the least specific of connectives. Used between independent clauses, it indicates only that a relationexists between them without defining that relation.
But notice that in the 14th Amendments text
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The term "includign" - according to Strunk and White - DEFINES THE RELATIONSHIP between the dependent clause and the primary clause. And the word "including" is an INCLUSIVE but NOT LIMITING relationship.

And the very fact that you won't even admit this is telling on your parsing of the whole document
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trap, the FICA holiday is 2% out of 7%, which is roughly a 29% reduction in revenues. But its a bit less than that since it actually is 2% out of 13% which is about 15%... So the full equation is 0.38/.85 == 44%. IOW FICA would be 44% of Revenue assuming no holiday. As for FICA being purely "pass through" no. Earlier this year SS Expenditures exceeded FICA revenues for the first time in history http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/ And that means they are drawign down on the "trust fund" - which is accumulated FICA taxation.
I'm surprised that you believe the "trust fund" fiction. The trust fund is neither a trust, in the conventional sense, nor a fund. It is a debt that must be paid out of tax revenues. The money to pay that debt has never been "retained" anywhere -- the trust fund is made up of treasury bills, which essentially say "the federal government has borrowed from the treasury X amount of dollars and will repay it, with interest, at a later date." The "excess" funds from FICA have not been retained in this "trust fund" they've been put into the general fund to pay for day-to-day operations. Revenue paying the trust fund must come from current FICA receipts and other sources, be they other tax revenues or other sources of credit. There is no "retention" of funds, nor any means to retain them.


Now as to regulatory compliance, there is nothing in ADA that precludes the owner from doing the work themselves.
I never said that there was, so I'm not certain why you're inserting this into the conversation.

And furthermore if you were just a reporter, the likelihood you got an accurate assesment of the financial causes of the closing of the business without looking at the books themselves is very very low.
You over-disparage reportage. It's a pity you never worked in the industry. Doing so is enlightening. Nonetheless, the facts are as I've recounted here.
Now as to the other case, again, As usual you are dribbling out the full facts of the circumstance. I'm quite sure that I could find an ADA approach that would have been compliant and not cost that much. I've done it enough times. It just requires some creativity - which sadly, way too many people lack.
What you could have done is immaterial. What they had to do to achieve ADA compliance is a matter of fact. When you're having to cut out century old bricks and build an internal ramp that was not in place before (and that ramp, to be a street level, has to cut through century-old foundation), you're into money that was only available because my friend's wife had a successful career selling used airplanes.

Now as to the Constitution - there are various hierarchies in The Constitution. But in the particular case under discussion, there is no hierarchy in the Am 10 LIST of who retains power after the Feds - yet your GRAMATICS claim was to the contrary.
The argument isn't grammatical, nor hierarchical in this matter. It's simply a matter of a clear statement that individuals retain rights not stated in the Constitution (9th amendment), and that all powers not granted to the federal government via the Constitution belong to the states or the people (10th amendment). No need for a grammatical argument.


The irony here is that it was I who cited Strunk and White to demonstrate that your claim of a "inclusive clause" was not a "limiting clause". But more significantly, Strunk and White is USAGE and not Grammar. I showed you GRAMMAR PARSING tools that demonstrated it was an INCLUSIVE CLAUSE (the hint being the leading word "including") and not a "limiting clause" (which typically starts with "limited to").
Oh nonsense. You're interpreting a clause as "inclusive" solely based on it containing the gerund "including." One can have an inclusive clause that doesn't contain the word inclusive, and a non-inclusive clause that contains the words. And as usual, you read the Constitution in a vacuum, ignoring contemporary sources that indicated the intent of the amendment. Bottom line, grammar, no grammar, grandmother -- it DID NOT nor was it INTENDED to give the Congress the ability to spend taxpayer dollars on programs not detailed to federal authority.



The term "includign" - according to Strunk and White - DEFINES THE RELATIONSHIP between the dependent clause and the primary clause. And the word "including" is an INCLUSIVE but NOT LIMITING relationship.
But Degs, this isn't such a case -- in this case the word "including" highlights not a modifying clause, but an additive clause. The addition, modified by the rest of the sentence, defines a limiting relationship. Do I wish they'd phrased it differently? Of course I do, but the grammar works as I describe. I will stipulate, for the sake of progressing the discussion, that it CAN BE read as you define, and that the rule you cite from Strunk could arguably be applied as you apply it. I simply think that where there is such an ambiguity in the Constitution it should be read so as to limit, not expand, Congressional authority, for philosophical reasons we've already discussed.
 

degsme

Council Member
Trap, one of my best friends from HS is a senior reporter for ESPN. I'm quite familiar with the sort of work that reporters do and do not do when it comes to investigating stories. And absent looking at the books on something, you really don't know the finances.

As for ADA compliance, having done it on a house that was built in 1904, having rebuilt a 2nd house to be smilarly accessible to deal with family members, I have a damn good idea of what's involved. And again, that does not change the point that if there really is a demand for that "product" that your friend's business closed does not mean that there was a net loss of businesses due to that regulation. The demand was simply satisified by someone else.

The argument isn't grammatical, nor hierarchical in this matter. It's simply a matter of a clear statement that individuals retain rights not stated in the Constitution (9th amendment), and that all powers not granted to the federal government via the Constitution belong to the states or the people (10th amendment). No need for a grammatical argument.
YOUR CLAIM was that somehow INDIVIDUALS did not receive the undelegated rights EQUALLY WITH STATES, but that somehow, the ordering in the 10th amendment's list, meant that individuals ONLY retained the rights states explicitly allowed them to have. And that's just nonsense gramattically (there is no actual hierarchy in a simply enumerated list unless explicitly stated), and historically.

Oh nonsense. You're interpreting a clause as "inclusive" solely based on it containing the gerund "including."
Yes. Becuase that's what the word "including" means".

One can have an inclusive clause that doesn't contain the word inclusive
True. But that's not relevant here since we are not discussing such a clause.

and a non-inclusive clause that contains the words
Um that would be rather magical. Please provide such an example.

And as usual, you read the Constitution in a vacuum, ignoring contemporary sources that indicated the intent of the amendment.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS SAID THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN MODERN ENGLISH. And thus what is written is what it means. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHANGE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.

but even with that - there was a clear desire to incorporate into the Constitution, the clarification that Congress has a right to define what is and is not a debt of the USA, since that was one of the issues that was a trigger of the Civil War. Namely the claim by South Carolina and other southern states that if a State did not agree with a law of Congress - such as spending on a National Bank - that it could "nullify" it by simply ignoring it.


And again you are asserting the ability to extract unambiguous intent when you cannot show transitive closure on all the ideas and conceptions of intent AT THAT TIME.

The term "includign" - according to Strunk and White - DEFINES THE RELATIONSHIP between the dependent clause and the primary clause. And the word "including" is an INCLUSIVE but NOT LIMITING relationship.
But Degs, this isn't such a case -- in this case the word "including" highlights not a modifying clause, but an additive clause
PRECISELY TRAP. which makes your next statement:
The addition, modified by the rest of the sentence

oxymoronic. ADDITION EXPANDS a sentence. IT DOES NOT LIMIT IT. and as you yourself said, it is not a MODIFIER to the sentence but an ADDITION>

The notion that an ADDITION is a limit is simply a preposterous statement as your own internally contradictory two sentences demonstrate.

Seriously trap. You are so hell bent on showing me to be wrong you are seriously discreditting your own language skills. DON'T TRUST ME... TAKE THIS TO A PEER.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trap, one of my best friends from HS is a senior reporter for ESPN. I'm quite familiar with the sort of work that reporters do and do not do when it comes to investigating stories. And absent looking at the books on something, you really don't know the finances.
Being a senior reporter for ESPN is like being a calendar photographer. Let me know when he's reporting hard news and not whether or not the Angel's relieve hyper-extended an elbow.

As for ADA compliance, having done it on a house that was built in 1904, having rebuilt a 2nd house to be smilarly accessible to deal with family members, I have a damn good idea of what's involved. And again, that does not change the point that if there really is a demand for that "product" that your friend's business closed does not mean that there was a net loss of businesses due to that regulation. The demand was simply satisified by someone else.
My friend's antique store didn't close. His wife wrote a check for a little over $7,000 and the ADA compliance was achieved -- but it came at a level of expenditure and with a commitment of time that would have closed a lot of small businesses. Now, the restaurant I was discussing that did close as a result of ADA compliance issues is another thing.



YOUR CLAIM was that somehow INDIVIDUALS did not receive the undelegated rights EQUALLY WITH STATES, but that somehow, the ordering in the 10th amendment's list, meant that individuals ONLY retained the rights states explicitly allowed them to have. And that's just nonsense gramattically (there is no actual hierarchy in a simply enumerated list unless explicitly stated), and historically.
No, my claim always has been that rights predated the Constitution. It merely describes them, it doesn't grant them.


Yes. Becuase that's what the word "including" means".
Not every sentence with the word including in it contains an inclusive phrase. That's what you're attempting.


Um that would be rather magical. Please provide such an example.
"Members of the military unit, and non-military members attached to the unit, traveled via government-issued travel cards." "And non-military members..." is an inclusive clause.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS SAID THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN MODERN ENGLISH. And thus what is written is what it means. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHANGE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
It is not changing it to read what it means as I have done, and also read the debates surrounding its passing, or notes and comments by its authors, to illuminate that meaning even further. The amendment was passed to eliminate any legal obstacles to paying off the expense of the Civil War. It has never been interpreted to provide an unlimited spending authority at any level of government -- you're the only person I've ever heard even attempt to make the argument.

but even with that - there was a clear desire to incorporate into the Constitution, the clarification that Congress has a right to define what is and is not a debt of the USA, since that was one of the issues that was a trigger of the Civil War. Namely the claim by South Carolina and other southern states that if a State did not agree with a law of Congress - such as spending on a National Bank - that it could "nullify" it by simply ignoring it.
The 14th Amendment makes no mention of nullification, and that isn't one of the issues it was written to address. Above you criticize me for reading commentary about what IS in the amendment, while you render this new issue into it from whole cloth.


And again you are asserting the ability to extract unambiguous intent when you cannot show transitive closure on all the ideas and conceptions of intent AT THAT TIME.
Because I reject the notion that we can't understand the language written in that time. Degs, I don't care whatever psych study you're going to cite, it is simply wrong. We can read our own language and know its meaning, then, now, and in the future. No one reading this missive, should it be available 100 years from now, will draw the conclusion that we agree. Even if I accepted part of this notion, we do not have to have a totality of understanding of what was meant "at the time" we merely need a sufficiency. That sufficiency is available.

PRECISELY TRAP. which makes your next statement:
The addition, modified by the rest of the sentence

oxymoronic. ADDITION EXPANDS a sentence. IT DOES NOT LIMIT IT. and as you yourself said, it is not a MODIFIER to the sentence but an ADDITION>
Oh, please. The Amendment is intended to pay off the Civil War, and that's what it's plain language says. All you're attempting to do is add a plenary spending authority to it that it has never contained.
 

degsme

Council Member
Being a senior reporter for ESPN is like being a calendar photographer. Let me know when he's reporting hard news and not whether or not the Angel's relieve hyper-extended an elbow.
RIGHHTT.. digging into the economics and books of teams as an economics reporter for ESPN is such lightweight duty.

Dude you'd kill for his job and you know it.

My friend's antique store didn't close. His wife wrote a check for a little over $7,000 and the ADA compliance was achieved -- but it came at a level of expenditure and with a commitment of time that would have closed a lot of small businesses.
IOW it was an investment in the business. OK so it was an effective business. then what was your point?

No, my claim always has been that rights predated the Constitution. It merely describes them, it doesn't grant them.
That's a meaningless statement. Rights exist ONLY IN CONTEXT of the society and its governance. This notion of "pre-existing rights" was popular but its simply logically flawed
Not every sentence with the word including in it contains an inclusive phrase.
Not even wrong. And we aren't talking about a 'sentence' but rather a dependent clause. Come on - give us an example where the gerund "including" is LIMITING in and of itself and not as part of a broader limiting phrase. Guaranteed you cannot do it.

"Members of the military unit, and non-military members attached to the unit, traveled via government-issued travel cards." "And non-military members..." is an inclusive clause.
Yes it is. But that's not what the question was. The question was for a clause that STARTS WITH INCLUDING but is instead a limiting clause.

It is not changing it to read what it means as I have done,
Yes trap it is. And the debates surrounding its passage do nothing to negate that.

The 14th Amendment makes no mention of nullification,
It does not need to. "nullification" asserted that States can "question any law" they disagree with. and that was commonly referred to as "State Nullification". Am 14 addresses that.

Because I reject the notion that we can't understand the language written in that time.
Yes you reject it - but you have not shown any comprehensive basis. In fact you have at time underscored that language IS CONTEXTUAL.

Oh, please. The Amendment is intended to pay off the Civil War, and that's what it's plain language says.
No the Amendment is intended to address the NULLIFICATION that was part of the claims on which the secession that started the Civil War was based (namely the claim that any spending law a state disagreed with, they could simply nullify by ignoring. Section 4 states unequivocally that this is not possible)- and in the process to ALSO compell the states that had seceeded during the war, to incur the costs that the north took on to prosecute the war.

As Wooley points out, if it was simply question of paying for the debts, Congress could simply have passed a law disbanding and reincorporating the southern states and assigning to them war reparations.
 

trapdoor

Governor
RIGHHTT.. digging into the economics and books of teams as an economics reporter for ESPN is such lightweight duty.

Dude you'd kill for his job and you know it.
No -- I never wanted to work in TV at all. The format of the medium precludes the sort of depth that I desired as a reporter. That is not the sarcastic disparagement I provided above -- at most a TV report is 2 minutes, on a typical show. You can't do any real depth in that amount of time -- it's a headline service. Stipulated that some of it pays fairly well, but you're describing your friends as a researcher, meaning I doubt he makes much if any more than I make today.


IOW it was an investment in the business. OK so it was an effective business. then what was your point?
The point was, as I made it before, that my friends were lucky to have an alternate source of income. Had they not had such an alternate source of income, they wouldn't have been able to comply with ADA based on the profits from their store,and the store would have gone under. It is your contention that such regulations are not a barrier to entry to the would-be small business owner, and no barrier to operations of actual small businesses. That contention is factually false.

That's a meaningless statement. Rights exist ONLY IN CONTEXT of the society and its governance. This notion of "pre-existing rights" was popular but its simply logically flawed
Utter gibberish. The Constitution rests on the idea that rights, any rights, belong to the people first and the government second -- and that "we the people" are ceding some rights to the government in our own self interest. Clearly, we would not be able to do this if we had not already been in possession of the powers we willingly released.

Not even wrong. And we aren't talking about a 'sentence' but rather a dependent clause. Come on - give us an example where the gerund "including" is LIMITING in and of itself and not as part of a broader limiting phrase. Guaranteed you cannot do it.
I provided an example above. I see no need to delve into repetition. But I also provided a means of breaking through this dialectical barrier and into a real discussion that you seem to have ignored. I stipulated that the amendment could possible be read either way -- and where there is doubt, I think (based on the rest of the Constitution) that it should be read in the way that limits, rather than expanding, federal authority. Obviously you disagree, and that is a better topic for conversation than mincing varying grammarian rules.


Yes it is. But that's not what the question was. The question was for a clause that STARTS WITH INCLUDING but is instead a limiting clause.
No, that wasn't the request. The request was that I provide an inclusive clause that didn't use the word "including" and I did so. As the sentence including your "inclusive clause" doesn't begin with the word "including" I'm not certain why you want an example of a sentence that does.

Yes trap it is. And the debates surrounding its passage do nothing to negate that.
Those debates show no intent for a permanent unlimited spending authority, so it seems to me that no such authority was intended and that you have overlayed that view onto the language put in place.


No the Amendment is intended to address the NULLIFICATION that was part of the claims on which the secession that started the Civil War was based (namely the claim that any spending law a state disagreed with, they could simply nullify by ignoring.
Sorry, that is not the intent of the 14th Amendment. The question at hand was whether or not the war debts could be paid. It's immaterial to a modern debate about spending and the budget, as our current government has been unable to even pass a spending budget for three years.

Section 4 states unequivocally that this is not possible)- and in the process to ALSO compell the states that had seceeded during the war, to incur the costs that the north took on to prosecute the war.
No, Section 4 is immaterial to nullification -- it was passed at the beginning of Reconstruction when there was no means for Southern states to have nullified anything and means wouldn't exist for another almost 20 years. Section 4 allows to pay the debts from the war, including salaries and pensions, and denies payment for damages based on action of the Union army, or caused by the loss of value to the former slaveowners for the loss of their slaves ("But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.")

As Wooley points out, if it was simply question of paying for the debts, Congress could simply have passed a law disbanding and reincorporating the southern states and assigning to them war reparations.
And if it was for anything else, certain obviously temporary situations, such as recompense for war damages and the loss of slaves, would not have been mentioned.
 

degsme

Council Member
Bullsh!t trap. You'd jump at the chance to work as economics correspondant for Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine. And the work is more than just 2 minute TV coverage. You know it. And yes, he makes more than you do. By quite a bit.

The point was, as I made it before, that my friends were lucky to have an alternate source of income.
No they had ACCESS TO CAPITAL. and in a long running, well run business, there should be available capital. Otherwise its not a very economically efficient or well run business


Utter gibberish. The Constitution rests on the idea that rights, any rights, belong to the people first and the government second --
Amazing! Because You SAID that Am 10 put those rights in the hands of States FIRST.

Not even wrong. And we aren't talking about a 'sentence' but rather a dependent clause. Come on - give us an example where the gerund "including" is LIMITING in and of itself and not as part of a broader limiting phrase. Guaranteed you cannot do it.
I provided an example above. I see no need to delve into repetition.
No you did not. You gave us an example of where "AND" was used as an inclusive modifier. You DID NOT giveus an example where a dependent clause was intiiated by the gerund "including" but was a LIMITING clause. Which WAS the request. No other request would make sense since the issue is YOUR CLAIM that "including" is a LIMITING gerund.

No, Section 4 is immaterial to nullification -- it was passed at the beginning of Reconstruction when there was no means for Southern states to have nullified anything
If that was the case, then no amendment was necessary to make them pay for the war debt.

Clearly other issues were at play. And one of the big controversies that was ongoing from 1798 onwards in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. And Nullification was at issue in Texas v White which was being argued at SCOTUS AT THE SAME TIME as the 14th Amendment was being discussed. In TX v White http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=texas v white&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
SPECIFICALLY the issue of War Debts was being raised. But it was raised via the theory of Nullification and the Civil War

To thus pretend that somehow, a case before SCOTUS dealing with war debt and nullification, that was GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME was not part of the reasoning - well that kinda requires us to think that all the legislators and American political class at the time were ignorant idiots....

As Wooley points out, if it was simply question of paying for the debts, Congress could simply have passed a law disbanding and reincorporating the southern states and assigning to them war reparations.
And if it was for anything else, certain obviously temporary situations, such as recompense for war damages and the loss of slaves, would not have been mentioned.
that's bad logic Trap. You can do better than that.

If there is an ongoing controversy (Texas v White) you are goign to clarify if that controversy is included or not. And that's all the dependent clause does. It clarifies that GENERAL war debts ARE covered, but ones associated with the CSA are not.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Bullsh!t trap. You'd jump at the chance to work as economics correspondant for Sports Illustrated and ESPN Magazine. And the work is more than just 2 minute TV coverage. You know it. And yes, he makes more than you do. By quite a bit.
No, Degs -- spending a lot of time studying pro-football's salary cap and its implications to other sports would not be a career move I'd favor. I'd come closer to taking a pay cut to be an NRA magazine editor (a job I interviewed for, but didn't get, about 10 years ago). The work may be more than 2 minute coverage, the actual on-air is not -- and again, unless he's on air he's not in the big money. I used to hang out with some CNN correspondents back when I was still in the newsroom. They didn't make a lot more money than I did. You had to be on-air, from Atlanta, to make anything like big money.

No they had ACCESS TO CAPITAL. and in a long running, well run business, there should be available capital. Otherwise its not a very economically efficient or well run business
No -- his wife worked as a salesperson (not the owner), in airplane sales. She could write a check for the "improvements." "Capital" wouldn't have been available without that source -- no bank would have loaned them the money, so they'd have been out of business. And while their business was well run, it was a start-up, not a long-running business (they'd been in business about 18 months when they received an ADA notice). It is the regulatory barrier to small business start-ups that we were discussing.



Amazing! Because You SAID that Am 10 put those rights in the hands of States FIRST.
No, I did not. What I said is that the Constitution (and Amendment 10) reserves the non-delegated powers to the states, and then to the people. Otherwise you would be allowing the people in individual states a right to "individual nullification" to coin a term. (Really, Degs, you're now attempting to re-write my views as well as the Constitution).



If that was the case, then no amendment was necessary to make them pay for the war debt.
And it wasn't any nullification by Southern states that led to the Amendment. Again, read the debates. They were concerned that the non-Southern states would refuse to pay the legitimate expenses of the war on the grounds that such payments would amount to damages to the South. So they expressly said that no such damages would be paid, but that the legitimate expenses of the war would be paid. Degs -- how would any Southern state have acted to nullify any federal law in era when Hiram Rhodes (look him up) was soon to be on the Congressional delegation from Mississippi?

Clearly other issues were at play. And one of the big controversies that was ongoing from 1798 onwards in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. And Nullification was at issue in Texas v White which was being argued at SCOTUS AT THE SAME TIME as the 14th Amendment was being discussed. In TX v White http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=texas v white&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html


And in Texas v. White the court ruled that the secession of Texas was illegal, and the bonds in question and other financial actions by the secessionist government of Texas were invalid. Texas was, at the time of the ruling, under military law (the commander being George Armstrong Custer) and couldn't have nullified any federal action.


I did not employ bad logic. Both the debts of the Civil War and its damages were necessarily temporary (unless you think the cannonball in the courthouse column in Lexington, Mo., is somehow a matter where the Union should reimburse the county), and yet both were mentioned in the 14th Amendment -- and the unlimited spending authority you find there is not mentioned at all. All spending mentioned in the amendment ties back to the damages/war expenditures.

But as I said -- you're the only person making the "unlimited expenditures/plenary spending authority" argument. I've never heard anyone else make it.
 

degsme

Council Member
Trap - you are just being Jealous - this guy has a better job than you, has a better education (he interned with Richard Reeves), and gets paid better. And he writes better. If youwere offered that job you would jump at it.

No -- his wife worked as a salesperson (not the owner), in airplane sales. She could write a check for the "improvements." "
What do you think a check for the money is if not "access to capital"?

Seriously... no wonder you don't want to try and write economic news.

And in Texas v. White the court ruled that the secession of Texas was illegal, and the bonds in question and other financial actions by the secessionist government of Texas were invalid. Texas was, at the time of the ruling, under military law (the commander being George Armstrong Custer) and couldn't have nullified any federal action.
But the issue of nullification by states WAS THERE IN THE OPEN. And that's what the 14th Sec 4 addressed. the two DIFFERENT types of civil war debt had to be differentiated because otherwise Equal Protection would require BOTH to be discharged by the Feds...
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trap - you are just being Jealous - this guy has a better job than you, has a better education (he interned with Richard Reeves), and gets paid better. And he writes better. If youwere offered that job you would jump at it.
No, I would not jump at a job at ESPN. CNN? Maybe, but doing so would be a pay cut (I talked to a couple of executives there about doing that about 13 years ago). As for your friend writing better than I do, well, it's possible -- the world is full of talented people, and I'm no raging egotist. I will say, however, that in 1998 a series of stories on a murder that I covered placed 2nd in the Missouri Better Newspaper contest (effectively, the state-level version of the Pulitzer). The first-place hard-news series was written by a five-reporter team from the Kansas City Star. The third place series was written by a two-reporter team from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I was the highest-placing individual reporter doing coverage without team support. I'll take my newsgathering and news writing skills for what they are, and they're better than average.


What do you think a check for the money is if not "access to capital"?
They didn't borrow money. If they'd had to borrow money, they'd have been out of business. You think that is a good thing. I think it is disastrous to businesses, especially small-town businesses -- the very businesses I've heard you mourn as being destroyed by Walmart. Walmart has the money for ADA compliance, as did my friends. Other start-ups? I guess they don't matter.





But the issue of nullification by states WAS THERE IN THE OPEN. And that's what the 14th Sec 4 addressed. the two DIFFERENT types of civil war debt had to be differentiated because otherwise Equal Protection would require BOTH to be discharged by the Feds...
Texas v. White didn't have anything to do with nullification. That is a view you're imposing on the case. The word "nullification" doesn't even appear in the ruling. Yes, A14 distinguishes between damages and other ward debts, and it doesn't allow for the payment of damages. I didn't really think that was in question. What is in question is whether A14 creates an authority for Congress to spend on anything it desires, other than those war debts. You feel it does.
 

RatsLiveOnnOeviLstarS

Council Member
A fellow satellite guy and I had a very interesting conversation about Steve Keen during a recent launch campaign(the satellite guy and I are currently locked in a competition for the most conservative guy west of the Rockies). He is a rather strong proponent of Keen's theories and since I am a systems engineer (Keen's method) he had me look at debtwatch. Suffice it to say that I can't fully grasp in two weeks what took this guy several years to build but it would make a good hobby to continually hammer away at (I love MIMO systems and can really get into controls).

Both the fellow satellite guy and myself agree vehemently that economists are little more than sophomoric charlatans selling what they don't know (i.e. they have no model, they KNOW the economy is too complex to model. . .but they profess to be able to predict the future according to their school of thought. This is the essence of a snake oil salesman.) Both of us have known that the economy presents itself as "modelable"--that is you lower interest rates, something predictable happens. You raise them, something predictable happens. You raise taxes, something even repeatable happens. Same goes for a multitude of inputs. This has computer modeling written all over it in ways much more compelling than global warming.

Apparently, according to my launch friend, Keen has been saying, "You guys (economists/politicians) have been pushing the economy to the poles." This kind of language makes complete sense to me. The "poles" of a system are the mathematical points at which the system "blows up." Poles in the right half plane indicate an inherently unstable system. If they're in the left hand plane the system is stable. Changing parameters (interest, taxes, trade deficit, inflation, etc.) can move the poles around. In fact, a "root locus" plot is a graph of exactly how those poles move when one parameter is varied over a range. I've done many many root locus plots. This is my kind of stuff.

But Keen is a mix. He is no Keynesian and certainly no neo-classical guy. But he can most closely be associated with an offshoot of Austrian economics (not to be confused with Friedman or other monetarists). So we'll see. The Emperors Clothes is on my short list.
Hmmm. . .ah well.
 
Top