case involving the rights of the majority versus those of the minority. Can the majority deny the rights of the minority simply because they did so through the normal democratic process, namely by debating and then enacting a law? There is a powerful argument that they should be allowed to do so, especially when the asserted right sought by the minority is not mentioned in the Constitution. Acknowledging such rights means the Court has to invoke the doctrine of "substantive due process," a constitutionally suspect doctrine that was first used by conservative justices in the early twentieth century to upend and overturn many basic labor laws, on the grounds that they interfered with the "right to contract." Removing issues not mentioned in the Constitution from majoritarian control can also be viewed as a violation of the separation of powers that is supposed to exist between the federal government and the states.
But whether rightly or wrongly, substantive due process was effectively resurrected in the Griswold birth control case in the 1960s, then used in the abortion, and now gay rights cases. The doctrine is therefore now about fifty years old. Many opponents of SDP have also frankly created a lot of "rights" that were never envisioned by the framers:
Gun Ownership. There is no second amendment right to own a gun outside of a militia. Scalia's opinion just arbitrarily eliminates the first two clauses as superfluous. Really? Which other constitutional clauses are also superfluous? Scalia is a known hunter, which is fine, but I wonder if his opinion is influenced by his own desires, and not an objective constitutional analysis.
Punitive Damages. Although the SC has ruled otherwise, neither the takings or due process clauses provide any limitation on punitive damages. The framers were aware of punitive damages.
Eleventh Amendment. The text of the amendment bars suits against states by foreigners or out of state claimants. It does not by its text bar suits by citizens of the state being sued. But the SC essentially inserted this limitation more than a hundred years ago.
This decision is just the outgrowth of a natural line of cases that it is too late to ignore. Guys like Scalia want to act as if the last fifty years never happened. The decision may have also been at least as much about the children adopted by gay couples as gays themselves. Kennedy has written and spoken on several occasions about protecting these children, and how their lives would be so much better if the unions of their parents were recognized and legitimized.
The end result is that yes, in the abstract, this decision probably does somewhat smack of judicial activism, but many of the complainers have engaged in the same kind of reasoning to ensure that their "rights" are constitutionally protected. The NRA has done everything it can to get the courts to invoke the second amendment to invalidate democratically enacted gun control laws. We also don't live on Planet Abstract. We live on Planet Earth. Equality is a central concept of the Constitution. Add in the concerns about the children, and this case is like a two inch putt to win the Masters. The case is quintessentially important, but not hard to decide.
I will say in closing, that what we really need is at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new constitutional amendments, addressing subjects like this, electronic privacy, the rights of criminal defendants, loser pays laws, campaign finance reform, term limits, and the structure of government. The Constitution is a badly outdated document.
you cannot have a set of laws that apply to some citizens and not to all. Basic stuff.
Now, government involvement in family has been a tragedy in many ways, not so often mentioned in the media, archaic nanny state laws and practices need to be repealed, states out of the family business altogether.
BUT, until that day, it must be made equal, as it will be after as well.
I only hope the newly righted wont forget the rights of the formerly righted when it is our turn.
But...in the meantime, congrats, it is a right and rightly so.
reason for the decision is that it's pretty well accepted that being gay is not a "choice." That gay people are born gay. Who would put up with all that abuse, up to and including death, unless they had no choice?
Despite all our scientific advancements, there is still a lot we don't know about our own biology and genetics. Strange really, that how little we know about macro issues like the universe is similar to how little we know about micro issues like our own genetics.
people need to start living in the present and future and not mythical beliefs from thousands of years ago.
Prohibiting and singling out individuals for who they love is just stupid. Same sex couples are out friends, coworkers, bosses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.... so why should we stop them from doing something that we get to do.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Hopefully Republicans can move on from stuff like this and abortions and concentrate on what is important. Work on improving health care rather than the futile repeal of Obamacare. Probably asking them to divorce the NRA is too much.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
some of the things many here deem unimportant, are very important to others, But if we question the morality of issues, many here will accuse us who may not agree with the liberal viewpoint as "haters". The "progress" that we have seen is not accepted by everyone.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I believe that the 14th Amendment settled this case. But the wording of Kennedy's opinion is social and political, not legal, at least as far as these excerpts.
I didn't expect his vote on this to be any different than it was. But I will also always remind him and everyone that it took another SCOTUS
loving vs virginia in 1967
decision to make his own marriage legal across the land.
Public was strongly against gay marriage just a short time ago.
This. Can't be overstated. I'm a millennial, so don't have much a of bird's eye view of how and why changes like this happen. Maybe it's the fact that in the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance era, people are more conscious of the rights we give up when we let the government butt in to our personal business. Maybe the unfathomable spiraling cost of healthcare played a role in making marriage more of an economic and welfare issue as much as cultural one. Maybe it's just the Contact Hypothesis.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Have you factored in the cost of the DEA and it's WAR on weed, or the costs of prosecuting and incarceration of "weed felons"?
I didn't say it, by itself would eradicate the debt, I said it would help.
I've read the opinion and dissents and the gist of it is that the court in its "reasoned judgment" finds that sdp and ep intersect to provide a right under the 14A.
This is naked legislation by the court. That's unfortunate.
Colorado is doing it oh so right. It's gonna be a perfect model to improve upon for federal legalization in 5-7 years, hopefully sooner.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
I forget all the specifics but a great deal of the tax dollars are allocated for education purposes and police training purposes IIRC. Basically, there was a lot of thought put into exactly where the extra revenue should go and for good reason.
I'd be hesitant to take your students facts as gospel though, it's very early in the game still and any studies and statistics being used are extremely limited samples
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
The biggest increase occurred in 2009, when Colorado commercialized medical marijuana. Drug-related school expulsions jumped from 25 percent to 34 percent. By 2014, that number rose to almost 42 percent.
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
here is one site that reports it. Not the site that was used, but it gives some information. Marijuana use - ( New Window )
Interesting because the majority of studies I've glanced at report the opposite. Probably too soon to tell. There is likely a novelty effect in operation that could change over time.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Are you more for decriminalizing laws or for full access to marijuana? I fear the more drugs you legalized that over time it will tend to lead more to a lenience of harder drugs.
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
If drugs were decriminalized and even a portion of the dollars spent on the war on drugs and prisons were to be allocated to education and treatment, the net gains would likely be quite significant.
I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
I don't know, would it impact it positively?
But when someone uses a less than successful nation (when it comes to domestic policy) as some barometer of a singular policy success as being good for that nation, it begs to be countered with a broader question of that policy's impact (or lack of it) on that nation's success. No policy is successful in a vacuum. I mean, I can always say how North Korea is a model for literacy rate, but overall, that doesn't amount for shit when we talk about its impact on what North Korea's success as a nation is.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
agreed
RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I agree in part, but accepting pot is a lot easier than accepting harder drugs. There will always be the mindset that they are just too alluring. This in the face of evidence to the contrary. Pot's definitely the first to take down, especially as a Schedule 1 substance.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Which is basically my point in not bringing up portugal. I've watched their situation closely since I learned of their decriminalization years ago but never saw the need to include it in any legalization argument I've ever had for those exact reasons.
Any negative impact of marijuana legalization on this country as a whole will be proven out to be minimal and the benefits will far outweigh the cost of the few negatives. imho of course
RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
You either believe in the Constituton as written or not. I guess u missed the 10th Ammendment. I personally don't give a rats ass about this and have no issue with the ruling morally but that damn 10th is pretty fucking clear. It's just easier to ignore it for those who enjoy the judiciary enacting law.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
Gay people now have the right to marry anywhere in America... Â
and somehow this thread has become about pot? This is why we aren't all rushing to legalize marijuana. Because secretly America enjoys sending stoners to jail, or at least fining them here and there.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
RE: Gay people now have the right to marry anywhere in America... Â
and somehow this thread has become about pot? This is why we aren't all rushing to legalize marijuana. Because secretly America enjoys sending stoners to jail, or at least fining them here and there.
It came up, so it's being discussed. Gay marriage is now settled, marijuana legalization is as good a subject as any to follow.
As someone who considers himself to be a strict, original intent Â
interpreter of the Constitution, I'd say that the 10th amendment was the guiding principle here until the passage of the 14th, which changed things immensely.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Don't beat yourself up. As Chevy Chase said to Judge Smails, "You're a terrific slouch!"
RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
What a momentous day. Aside from it being a great day for so many people, I'm personally happy for those of my friends (majority of them veterans or current in the military), who should have always had the right to marry those they love.
What a momentous day. Aside from it being a great day for so many people, I'm personally happy for those of my friends (majority of them veterans or current in the military), who should have always had the right to marry those they love.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
I don't fall into the camp that because one side is activist the other should be too. I do see a distinction in your examples in that there were enumerated clauses that needed interpreting textually and I'd argue that Scalia's opinion in the 2nd amendment case was at least based on the written language of the document. Punitive damages were envisioned by the framers and there is sound public policy in favor of limiting damage awards, so that's an argument to fall back on in interpreting meaning. State Sovereign immunity also doesn't bar a citizen from suing a State completely. The State may consent to the suit or a citizen can sue the State in another State's court. You can also sue a State official in their official capacity - that's how most of these cases come up as I'm sure you know.
These may not be great arguments, but minimally there is some rational basis to fall back on because those topics are within the Court's purview of interpreting law and not legislating. If today's opinion was a challenge based on a discriminatory law preventing lgbt people from getting married, as opposed to the lack of the right to get married, I'd say the court has a better argument under 14A as an equal protection issue but not a substantive due process issue.
Thanks for the level headed discussion.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Activists are entitled to do what they want to do and Religious establishments are free to do what they want to do and are protected in doing so. The opinion is pretty strict on that. But small businesses, on the other hand May be Yelpd to death. Bakeries, photogs, DJs, reception halls...there's no need to accommodate religious beliefs of private citizens if LGBT people are a new suspect class with appropriate legislation behind it.
This decision is certainly the first in a long line of issues on the topic that will need to be resolved down the road. We may actually get a new Amendment out of this.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Same here. Nice not to have to deal with the usual guff.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
So there is a lot of logic in this sentiment. Fundamentally the Constitution has to mean something other than which policy is favored most by 5 or more justices. If the Constitution isnt dictating "constitutional" decisions then it isnt a governing law, it is a mirror that lets the viewer see himself in it.
However, the problem with treating the Constitution as a set of fixed governing instructions is that the document plainly isnt set up that way. Analytically, it's nice and tidy to say "If the people who passed Amendment X didnt have a problem with laws prohibiting Y, then the Constitution doesnt have a problem either". Two problems with that. First, any time you try to interpret legislative intent from beyond the statute itself, you run into problems. Do the Federalist papers tell us what the Bill of Rights means? Why? A tiny fraction of the white men of age who voted to ratify the constitution wrote them. So beyond the words of the bill, how do you know what the people passing an amendment agreed on? Does one Congressman's floor speech tell you what Congress understood a bill to mean?
Second, more fundamentally, indeed dispositive to me, is the loosey-goosey language of the relevant amendments. Im a lawyer, and I read a statute that says "the statute of limitations is 3 years for Claim X" and I know I have to bring a claim within 3 years. But I look at the Constitution and there are so many broad and undefined concepts. No person shall be "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And this doozy (every fucking beautiful word of it):
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's some real content-free gobbledegook right there. These concepts have no fixed definitions. Compare it to the very clear guarantee of say the 3rd Amendment ("No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.") -- you know what you're getting with #3. The intent of the framers was IMO very clear -- no one could agree on an exact list of rights and indeed no one even thought that such a list was a good idea (indeed, the whole point of the 9th amendment is to makes sure that no asshole reads the constitution as an exclusive list of rights, and interestingly and vaguely refers to non-constitutional rights "retained by the people" seemingly apart from those "reserved to the states" in #10). These are aspirational guarantees of rights that each generation would have to help define. And so that's how I think the Constitution works. My guarantee of due process of law, liberty, privileges and immunities, and nameless other rights "retained by the people" are a concept of freedom that is always evolving.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
But you talk about evolving concepts of freedom... Â
why do five individuals get to decide what is or isn't the reigning conception of freedom? Since when is a very insular group of people, all of very similar legal training and of largely similar experience, qualified to discern the concept of freedom, or of decency, to which we have evolved?
As I said I am pleased with the outcome. I have voted for it, advocated for it (to the extent I have time to advocate for anything), etc etc. It is an important and very positive change, IMO, for this country. But had fifty states voted for this change, or had Congress said that a marriage validly consummated in one state is valid in every other state, my happiness in this outcome would be unalloyed.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
RE: But you talk about evolving concepts of freedom... Â
why do five individuals get to decide what is or isn't the reigning conception of freedom? Since when is a very insular group of people, all of very similar legal training and of largely similar experience, qualified to discern the concept of freedom, or of decency, to which we have evolved?
It's a fair question. That's the brilliance of John Marshall's power grab in Marbury v. Madison (which I think was correctly decided). If you dont want judges decision that other laws must bow to the Constitution, you shouldnt have drafted the Supremacy Clause. On a more practical level, it's not just the Court that guarantees our rights. Congress guarantees your rights too. Look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As our system has developed, whichever branch guarantees the individual the most rights against the state wins. Not too shabby.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
No, it's not and I'm not sure you're so familiar with the law if this is your argument.
Fundamental rights are those protected by SDP and EP through the 14th Amendment. The majors are right to travel, vote, marry and use contraception. There are others like first amendment rights incorporated through the 14th amendment.
When those LIBERTY interests are infringed, you must pick a standard by which to base a judgment on, which is related to the classification of the group being discriminated against. Race is one of a few a "suspect" classes and receives the highest protection - strict scrutiny - which is a very high bar to cover.
Sexuality is not a "suspect" class (although after today that might be different) - heck even gender nor age or wealth are - and has a lower burden.
"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. " — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court." — Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Republican presidential contender.
———
"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs." — Dr. Ben Carson, Republican presidential candidate.
———
"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."— Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"If accepted by Congress and this president, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment." — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach."— Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic presidential contender.
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
Wiki - ( New Window )
The first anti-miscegenation statute in Virginia was from colonial times, but the law expressly overturned in Loving was drafted in 1924. Many states had such laws, to be sure (or reintroduced them after Reconstruction), but the second attempt to ban them nationwide via Amendment occurred in 1912-1913 and several states who didn't have such statutes passed them contemporaneously (including Mass, which passed a measure preventing non-residents from marrying there if such a marriage would be unlawful in their home states).
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
practice. It really is not that far fetched of an Idea that one day it could be legalized. Who says marriage has to be a one to one practice. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property, and happiness could also be one to many that a state cannot interrupt.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
In comment 12345199 Rich Houston-NYG-WR-1971 said:
Quote:
practice. It really is not that far fetched of an Idea that one day it could be legalized. Who says marriage has to be a one to one practice. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property, and happiness could also be one to many that a state cannot interrupt.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
You literally are the worst poster on BBI. So much stupid that it hurts the eyes whenever you post.
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Your rabbi can argue "I'll be perfectly happy to marry practitioners of my faith." The mosque that says "We won't marry two men" can't use that argument if both men say "We are both Muslims, we invoke our right to disagree with the imam on homosexuality, but as Muslims, we demand equal treatment and a marriage in this mosque."
fstubbs ..you hit the nail on the head as to what I was trying to Â
His ad hominem attacks on Kennedy undermine his dissent. His argument basically boils down to, "Hey, I'm not a bigot - I'm just trying to turn the clock back a little bit. And by the way, Kennedy sucks and he can't write."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
Agreed. See the dissent by Roberts. Sadly, in both US and Canada, this is becoming the only way to force an electorate to embrace their conscience. Very undemocratic and this shouldn't be lost on people.
RE: RE: RE: Don't pollute this thread with bullshit Â
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
So basically no logical reason at all. Gotcha.
When we realize that gay folks aren't doing anything Â
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
The same fookin moron is posting stuff like "Ban this flag, it offends me" with a picture of a rainbow flag. Again, people aren't calling for censorship or the banning of the Confederate flag. Rather, they are saying it is inappropriate for a government agency to be flying it and taking it down would be a start to trying to change the racist, hateful, separatist, and treasonous nature of the Southern culture.
Or this genius post: pictures of several Black rappers wearing the Confederate flag in some form on their clothing. Again, what individuals do is separate from what the government does. More importantly, Black people wearing this doesn't make it any less of a hateful, racist, and traitorous symbol just like them using the N word doesn't make any less of a vile word.
Granting people their just deserved civil rights doesn't infringe on yours. If you don't like homosexuality, then don't marry someone of your gender.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
In regard to Obamacare, it was the Obama administration and Congress that fundamentally changed America. Anyone hoping for SCOTUS to annul it was clinging to a very thin thread. With today's ruling, America had already fundamentally changed, that's what allowed a culturally influenced Court to hear the case and rule at this time.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
I can't imagine the orthodox Jewish community performing gay marriages. Otoh, conservative and especially reform congregations would probably be fine with it.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Actually it all depends on how aggressive the "injured" party is and which state it occurs in. Again, the most radical gay activists will try to use this ruling for further leverage. It is only a matter of time now. In their mind (and in the minds of many liberal legislators and jurists), the only thing that is enshrined is what the Supreme Court just declared.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Nice try Deej. My rabbi would absolutely refuse to marry 2 women or 2 men as it is unholy to him. If you were standing in front of him requesting that, he would wrap tefillin around you and pray with you. Then he would ask you to make Wednesday minion every week and light candles after shabbat. Finally he would ask that you show up for Yom Kippur services after fasting from sundown to sundown.
[quote]Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything. {/quote]
churches and synagogues and mosques aren't the ones that recognize marriages as being legal
The State does - that is the whole point of this ruling
I am sure a catholic church can refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony just like they can refuse to marry me because I am Jewish
my question is Why do you care?
no one is forcing you to get gay married
no church is going to have to perform a gay marriage if they don't believe in it ..
I don't expect you to understand why this debate won't end here.The hard left activists don't give one whit about religious liberty. They laugh at the deeply religious. Mock them when they quote the Bible. Sneer that it was written long ago. Dismiss passages that clearly deal with this issue.
Oh it won't stop. A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that. They will scream discrimination and the business will be ruined. The dissenting opinions in this case clearly contemplated that. So perhaps you can't see it but the justices in the minority certainly can. Read their opinions.
If it were just about having the legal ability to marry then simply issuing government certificates would suffice. The hardcore left don't want just that. They believe in a zero sum game. Your religion needs to change and adapt. Even Obama suggested that last night.
discriminate or segregate right now. And same sex marriage is legal.
Religious freedom in the United States is protected by amendment. That means Churches can marry folks if they want and the marriages will be sanctioned by the state. Right now. But religions will also have the freedom to not marry people. As they also are right now.
The state will not tell the churches what doctrine to preach.
People can still get married at another church or outside if s religious setting altogether.
BTW, how could this not be over? What's left to decide?
His ad hominem attacks on Kennedy undermine his dissent. His argument basically boils down to, "Hey, I'm not a bigot - I'm just trying to turn the clock back a little bit. And by the way, Kennedy sucks and he can't write."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
Scalia has gotten more asinine with every dissent. He can try to be witty only so many times (when he is not plagiarizing some quaint meme someone else came up with) before his obvious attempt to make it about him gets boring. Really when you boil down all his nonsensical fluff, all he is doing is masking the fact that his every dissent is basically "we should not be doing our job and ruling on this".
He is fast becoming a parody at this point
A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that.
From a Justice Scalia opinion ...
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Religious organizations don't have to perform gay marriages Â
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
I think the argument is that there is a coercive element to it, in modern parlance a misogynistic one too. And I agree that the foundations that undergird it are weakened, but the possibility of a fringe polygamy movement and some shitty reality shows should not outweigh affording equal marriage rights to millions of our fellow citizens.
Just because you don't have to be heterosexual to enter into this contract doesn't up and change the underlying principal that marriage is a contract between TWO people.
The suggestion that polygamy is on the table is not only ridiculous, but reeks of idiocy. Find another red herring.
You want a better argument to portray this as destroying humanity? Â
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
This is one of those rare occasions where I think chris is right (which troubles me). There is no getting around the fact that this weakens prohibitions on relationships between consenting adults. But so fucking what? I don't particularly like polygamy, but if that's the price of giving gay men and lesbians the ability to marry so be it.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Agreed that Chris is right on this one. The response to him is not actually responsive to what he said.
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
Read it. Sometimes you learn more about people when they win than when they lose. The folks at Gawker represent the hard left. Complete turd blossoms in all their glory. There are many others like them..some I'm sure are here on BBI.
You are a racist homophobe that tries to come of as reasonable . But as soon as anyone pokes you with a stick all that reasonable mask does is fall by the way side to expose the racist homophobe you are that hides behind principle
RE: It a took a massive change of public opinion to make this happen Â
On many social issues, the country is just flat-out moving left. Take abortion: according to Gallup, the "pro-choice" label has a six point lead over "pro-life," its biggest lead since 2004 or so. "Illegal under all circumstances" never goes above 21% or so, and now stands at 19%.
I believe that the recent messes over race also play to the left. Conservatives can deny all they want, but with young voters, non-whites and religious unaffiliated all playing a bigger role, a significant move back to the right seems unlikely at the Federal level. It's different at the state and local level, I think, where financial/tax issues related to public employee unions favor conservatives, and will continue to for decades, I suspect.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I was surprised to find that at least on line, the arguments aren't all that clear-cut. The fact remains, however, that SCOTUS is influenced by public opinion, and polygamy just isn't popular, especially since many examples of it in modern US life tied to child sex and forced marriages. Link - ( New Window )
like it was moving moderately to the right until gay rights hit critical mass. The inability or unwillingness of conservatives to separate gay rights from the panoply of "morals issues" has undermined their credibility on any of them.
and Obamacare the Republicans to their advantage can focus on the Economy and Foreign Affairs going forward
Obamacare is still a winning issue for them, and is likely to be moreso as some of the delayed portions of the bill start to come due. Now actually proposing an alternative is not a winning issue, but it's red meat. But gay rights seems likely to be a millstone at the next election, because significant swaths of the base are not ready to accept this decision as final (hint: it is) and they're going to demand candidates sate that. In so doing they'll alienate young voters and motivate a lot of donations and prominent support of whomever gets the Democratic nod, presumably Hillary.
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
Meanwhile, various other social issues are moving people to the left at the Federal level, even as they move to the right at the state and local level.
LOL..Leave it to Texas, first with a stupid take on the ruling Â
This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech, County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”
Umm hate to correct the AG of Texas but decisions prior to 1970 already addressed the fact that Public Servants can't pick and choose who they serve.
put down the first time it went to court. It has no parallel to gay marriage as I see it. Marriage is a traditional institution that goes back long before Western codes of law.
So to me the issue in gay marriage is, what is a marriage? It's a right to marry. but what does that mean? Can I marry my 12 year old daughter off to my cousin to become a queen? That was a traditional form of marriage.
The old debate was always about "redefining marriage" Culturally it has already been redefined again and again.
And as we move now into this century, marriage is about two people entering into a personal and legal union. There is no reason to deny that right, a right I always felt they had in the first place.
Now the compassion to Obamacare thing going on in this thread. One is the removal of a federal or state mandate, and one is the imposition of one. conflating the two is nonsense.
Montanagiant: You might need to read between the lines a bit. Â
Paxton is taking a political position that ultimately costs him nothing. He knows those clerks will ultimately have to issue the licenses. All he said was that their First Amendment rights are intact (duh) and that some "accommodation" may be possible. That doesn't mean they don't have to do their jobs. If they refuse to issue licenses, they will pay the price, not the AG.
Remember George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in Tuscaloosa? Great photo op that provided a generation's worth of red meat to the segregationist base. Wallace backed down - brilliantly and ironically justifying his surrender as being in the interest of law and order, casting the Feds as agents of miscegenist anarchy. You can expect similar theater this week, although on a much smaller scale.
It will take a lot longer than November 2016...
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
sucks for a lot of the working people who already had company sponsored healthcare.
My premiums have tripled for worse coverage.
What happened to if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?
it became too expensive for my employer to offer the same plans (since they fund 80% of it). So the coverage got worse, my premiums went up, and my salary of course stayed the same.
this is the majority of the professional people I work with who aren't simply blinded by politics they just want to accept it an be happy because Obama is their guy.
I pay enough in taxes not to get taxed another way by something not called a tax.
no denying that. But some people also look at healthcare getting more expensive and blame it on ACA, rather than a decade+ long trend of healthcare getting more and more expensive vs. inflation.
Also, some insurer are just giving a raw-er deal. Consumers are getting crappier/lazier, and some industries are stepping all over their customers.
my company employs 80,000 people, there is no surer way to crush employee morale than messing with employee comp and benefits.
this is not a laziness tactic on the part of my company nor is it a tactic for them to simply change the way they fund healthcare.
this is a direct result of ACA.
I'm truly glad more people get healthcare, if in fact they do. I would hate to raise a family and have to worry what we'd do if they get sick, but I was comfortable that I was paying enough in taxes already, and increasing my healthcare to fund others is just another tax for me.
In other words, they were going to skyrocket without the ACA anyway- have you not been paying attention to your plans and premiums over the last 20yrs?
To blame the ACA for something that was already happening is silly.
I dont trust you. Sorry, and not personal. Healthcare costs were exploding before ACA. Then ACA gets passed and it's suddenly ACA's fault? Horse. Shit.
Are there features of ACA that are causing premiums to go up? Yes, including the elimination of annual/lifetime benefit caps, the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and a one time hit of previously uninsured people finally getting some treatment. One could name 10 others Im sure. That is costing everyone some in the pocketbook, I'll grant you.
But it's not the be-all. Healthcare costs are exploding for a lot of reasons. Costlier treatments, being able to keep people alive longer (so much spending is end of life) -- Obamacare isnt responsible for $50k cancer drugs that extend life by months. The Great Fattening of America. Perhaps most importantly, grossly anti-competitive moves in the hospital market, especially among putative non-profits.
I said "I dont trust you" I was being cutesy because you said "trust me". I dont think this is a trust issue -- I think the facts are a lot murkier than you portray.
I'm surprised that for an 80,000 employee company, Â
they would triple the employee premium as result of ACA. I always thought that a company that large would be better at minimizing such increase.
I guess I'm lucky that my company of less than 300 people hasn't had such a negative impact as of ACA. Our premium didn't increase by more than 5%, and while our provider has changed for the second time in two years (we just went back to the provider that we had two years ago), the coverage hasn't changed much for us.
my company sells software where you elect your benefits (among many other things). So we're required to know quite a bit about the ACA and how it impacts plan choices, premiums, and options as they have changed from prior years.
I know for a fact the increase I have experienced was unusually high due to the ACA.
But whatever, I don't care enough to debate it.
People tend to believe whatever they believe before they know the facts, and I don't care enough to change anyone's mind. I'm not anti-ACA in theory, but I also make no false claims about what it is.
Mind you, one time, large scale premium increases Â
were going to be inevitable before long, ACA or no ACA.
The ACA simply sped up the process for HI companies so that they now can increase the premiums, to account for the massive changes to the risk pool even over a relatively short (10 year) life span.
The HI companies are largely going to amortize differently than they would have. Major increases this year (for some), with dramatically slower premium growth in the near future, compared to moderate premium growth pre-ACA.
RE: Yup. this absolutely is a honeymoon period on ACA... Â
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
When does the surcharge/tax on Cadillac Plans kick in? Lot of union members are going to be less than thrilled with that.
you are right about the polygamy thing vs gay marriage. years ago, it was ok to be openly against gay marriage. then times changed and it became a bad thing to be openly against it, and the politicians recognized it and laws are enacted accordingly.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
you are right about the polygamy thing vs gay marriage. years ago, it was ok to be openly against gay marriage. then times changed and it became a bad thing to be openly against it, and the politicians recognized it and laws are enacted accordingly.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
I think the only sticking point with that is going to be coercion. While there are some relationships that are polyamorous, you would assume that the bulk of these are going to be religiously motivated. Whether LDS gets back in the act (having basically repudiated the practice a century plus ago), it is certainly accepted by many adherents to Islam. And where the husband enters into a second or third union without the consent - potentially without the knowledge - of the existing spouse(s) there is an element of coercion that doesn't exist as readily between two people.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
The problem is that you're trying to apply reason/logic to an essentially emotional subject. The whole purpose of spin is to paint a topic so it stirs up a particular constituency. You do that by appealing to emotion. The more one tries to appeal to reason/logic, the likely that appeal will fail, or be overwhelmed by a similar argument that baits with red meat.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
Sure, you can make a reasonable argument in defense of polygamy. Â
There's even a feminist argument in favor of permitting it, with appropriate protections against coercion and abuse. (This line of thinking resembles the feminist defense of prostitution, and relates to the asymmetrical harm done by restricting women's choices.) That's all very interesting, but it's a different discussion.
My point was a much narrower one: it's hard to see a strong equal-protection argument for quashing bans on polygamy. That's where the analogy to same-sex marriage falls apart, IMO.
Any two consenting adults can marry, with the stipulation that any consenting adult can marry exactly one other consenting adult at a time. Seems OK to me. I'll leave the finer points to constitutional scholars.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
I find the War on Christmas from one side and the War on Women from the other side equally stupid.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well the Dem leadership, especially Pelosi, is pretty far to the left. But Obama couldn't control his own party on TPP.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
I thought that was understood. My first sentence called them the far Right. Frankly, I should say the Religious Right since that what it boils down to.
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
You could probably include the hardcore environmentalists in there as well, but they've been around so long they kinda just blend into the background.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
Also I think the far left isn't quite as loud as the far right for whatever reason. They also seem much less angry. Could be the lack of gluten, meat, and GMO's in their diet I suppose.
there is no hook on the Far Left to gain a mass influx of zealots.
The right has one built in since the day of time - the fear of God.
They use that idea to beat their idiot followers to a pulp. Hell, probably not too unlike Radical Islamics who preach Fear of Allah with similar results in terms of entrancing a lot of narrow-minded thinkers.
We've had double-digit increases in H.C. costs every year... Â
for the last six years, and the trend goes back even longer than that.
Last year we were literally told we should "be grateful" because our increase came in at only 10%.
Here's an exact quote from our school district's superintendent letter on this year's premiums:
Quote:
Health Insurance Provider proposed a 32.9% increase based on district experience and medical inflation. The benefit’s (sic) committee sought quotes from other providers and negotiated with our current provider down to a 26.2% increase.
The benefit’s (sic) committee then looked at benefit changes to the base plan and buy-up plan to bring the premium down and still remain comparable to other districts. (shown on next slide).
The benefit changes resulted in a blended rate increase for the plans of 17.6%
So, basically after years of having our medical expenses growing at many multiples of inflation, we were now told that after the 2014-15 school year, based on our experience, our insurance premiums would rise by over 26%, and not wanting that, our benefits committee decided to slash benefits to keep our costs down to ONLY 17.6%.
Woohoo!
There are a lot of very conservative people in Idaho who are being squeezed so tightly by these rising medical costs that they are changing their opinions on single-payer system. It's a hard thing for them to accept, and many more are simply blaming ACA for these types of rate increases.
Just something to think about since this thread morphed into a discussion on ACA.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well, I think TPP is an example with respect to Congress, but I'm saying this on a wider scale. The best example would be the 2006 poll where 22.6% of Democrats thought it was "likely" that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks and 28.2% thought it was "somewhat likely". It seems that sitting presidents seem to attract this kind of thing. Linked is a Politico article.
I dont count abortion as "hard core" either way. It's just an exception. If you think abortion is murder, you're going to be against it in all its forms other than health of the mother. If you think that abortion isnt wrong, you're going to be anti-regulation.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
About 25 years ago or so ago I had to take a public speaking course for another degree I was getting. I took it as a summer short course as I already was an adjunct at the college. It was taught by a high school teacher. Long story short as we butted heads throughout the course he asked me my political views in front of the class. I said a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. He told there was no such animal. Now it seems there are a lot of people who think like me.
Gays want to marry? More power to the group. I'm all for it. Always have been. There will be an industry that develops around that. Don't force churches or private companies to participate. It's their loss of business.
Same with the abortion issue that manh brought up. I have always been anti abortion/pro choice. How is that possible one might ask? It's really simple. I, myself, don't agree with abortion. But who am I to force that belief on anyone else. That is their choice.
I think the polls are reclassifying people who have two views on an issue. What you, yourself, believes and what you think you should force others to believe.
is a boogeyman invented to justify all the anger of the wingnuts. If you are talking about the freaks on the fringe with 0 power as the Hard Left that is responsible for all your perceive ills in society, then Fox is doing a great job selling
they're confined to college campuses and advocacy groups and while every now and again an idea will sneak out of there and gain traction they're not on major news channels (save occasionally as a real-life strawman on FNC) or otherwise addressing large audiences.
The difference between the far left and far right is that the Dems Â
largely ignore their extremists while the mainstream Republican leadership has to at least pay the right wing extremists lip service or else they get primary challenges from the tea party. This is because the right wing is more organized, votes as a block and backs it up by coming out in the primaries.
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
I dont count abortion as "hard core" either way. It's just an exception. If you think abortion is murder, you're going to be against it in all its forms other than health of the mother. If you think that abortion isnt wrong, you're going to be anti-regulation.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
The folks that refuse to brook any sort of regulation and suggest abortion as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. They exist, they repulse even a lot of pro choice people. But mainstream pro choice opinions aren't terribly offensive to relative moderates on either side of things.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
It really is amazing how they allowed fringe groups to commandeer their party. The ironic aspect is that those fringe groups don't realize that what they have done is hindered themselves while helping the Dems. They have been granted so much power that for anyone to stand a chance to be nominated for President, they have to take stances that comes back to hurt them in the general election, even if they don't really believe in those hardline stances.
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Didn't Obama seek to roll taxes back to those levels and make capital gains taxed the same as earned income (even before adding the ACA tax to cap gains)? Or was it just Clinton-era levels?
RE: They're pretty angry, they just don't have the audience... Â
they're confined to college campuses and advocacy groups and while every now and again an idea will sneak out of there and gain traction they're not on major news channels (save occasionally as a real-life strawman on FNC) or otherwise addressing large audiences.
This strikes me as right. There are elements out there, like superhardcore greenies and children away from home for the first time. They have literally no pull within the party. The closest you have in the national power structure is probably the Congressional Black Caucus, which is a just feckless group.
The voices opposed to compromise on the right are a lot more powerful. The far right group in Congress is probably 3-4 times the size of the far left contingent. No compromise groups like Grover Norquist's outfit have no analog on the left in terms of influence.
in 2010 and 2014. The Republican Party was moribund before The Tea Party. Eight years of the Bush Administration and an economic catastrophe in its final act did that. The problem is they're intrinsically limited. They're not capable of winning a presidential election because they're at best a plurality of midterm voters. It's the trick of harnessing their energy without being beholden to them. The Democrats did that well with the anti-Bush venom from 2005 or so on, when the time came to get serious in 2008 they were and the bulk of the Left followed suit.
we're in right now. "Operationally" the far right, is just as small-voiced as the far left. People like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson - they're irrelevant and unelectable, but they are getting a lot of press right now.
Just like when you have a republican incumbent the extreme liberals like Kucinich crawl out of the woodwork but even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren fit squarely int he "far left" camp.
and mainstream media certainly helps purvey an agenda (admit it or not, though if you don't admit it you'd be lying).
If you look at the make-up of society and how views have been Â
progressing, it becomes rather apparent why there is much more of a fringe right than a fringe left.
You can also look at how each party organizes the voting for the candidate, and how the candidates have to pander to each group. Much more difficult for the R's than for the D's to ignore the side-circus.
Beyond that, while perhaps a good thing in the long-term, the Tea Party and its pretty widespread appeal (without much of a central tenet anymore, which is why it's base is so large) has been a knife to the side of the R's...
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
Bernie Sanders had to say until he was the only candidate against Hilary. I'm a democrat living in Dem mecca NYC. Not one person has said anything to me about Bernie 2016.
I think Bernie Sanders gets as much pub as an "alternate" because, Â
quite literally, you don't have the clown car approach to nominations with the Democrats (in terms of quantity; nothing about quality).
He's really the only viable outsider, at this moment, against Hilary, which is probably why he is considered "part and parcel" of the mainstream Dem candidate grouping.
originally, limited political clout, and has become an network that can have a quite sizable impact on the primaries and the general election.
For the most part, the smaller, fringe left groups, rarely have much in common with each other, making it much harder to coalesce into a group that can change the power dynamics of the party.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's getting anywhere from 24 to 36% in New Hampshire (and I know that's next door for him) depending on what poll you look at. I'm old enough to remember Gene McCarthy so I won't totally rule out the long shot.
you'd have seen something done about the big banks. Goldman wouldnt by over $200 now (how am I still fucking down money on GS?). BAC and C wouldnt have recovered like they did, and Jaimie Dimon would have had to resign after bitching about all the regulators while his bank was going thru scandal after scandal.
Or there would be real reductions in carbon emissions; e.g. gas would be as expensive as it is in Europe. Or we would be unwinding free trade agreements that might be better for consumers, but are decidedly worse for some union jobs.
This shit isnt even being DISCUSSED. Because there is no effective hard left.
claim the Democratic party isn't influenced by the far left.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton both qualify as far left.
Someone like Howard Dean, if he didn't meltdown on the campaign trail, would have been a better example of a moderate democrat. Joe Lieberman if he didn't struggle to find an identity was a far more moderate democrat (even a conservative democrat).
And Dean very possibly could have been one of the most unifying presidents ever.
His combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might have been enough to cross the aisle.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
There's a difference between policy positions in a primary Â
It's been noted, for several years, that the Republican primary breeds much more ideological candidates, because of a sizable, and relatively powerful, fringe group. The same is not true of the D's for the primary. Which has been the point of many here, and influences the general voting public's perception of the candidate during the regular year.
is Hillary is 64% to the farthest left a person could probably be, and the likely Republican candidate is at most 67% to the farthest right a person could be.
in a year when there is a Democrat incumbent there are more extreme right wing candidates should surprise no one.
and to my early point I'd venture when Obama was elected that primary probably had its share of left wing extremists.
The point is that the set-up to elect a candidate is different, leading to different relative positions. In general, many have found that R candidates are more "far right" than D candidates are "far left".
This reverses for a general election, of course, because no far right candidate would vote for a D, and vice versa, so you need to capture the moderates.
But, beyond that, being "beholden" to a fringe does not mean that they must vote for the beliefs of the fringe, but must work with those who are (or who are part of the fringe political process). In recent years, this has been the Tea Party, where many more moderate R's have been cannibalized by much more extreme candidates.
In essence, it changes the political calculus if more of your "allies" are further to one side.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
Yeah, I dont believe the graphic just because someone posted on this thread. It's some new model from a group at Stanford. But if you go by it, you have Perry, Pency, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul outside the mainstream of the party -- that's at least half the GOP's serious candidates. But I dont really care about what is the mainstream within the party. That's the whole debate.
The GOP has gotten a lot more conservative and the Democrats have not followed suit in their extremism -- Dems have gotten a bit more liberal, which if I had to guess is largely attributable to conversion of a lot of southern dem seats into GOP seats. Poole (UGa) and Rosenthal (NYU) have been tracking this for decades, and found that the GOP is the most conservative it has been in a decade:
Now scoring this stuff is it's own debate, but the linked NPR piece identifies Poole as political scientists' go-to expert on this grading. Link - ( New Window )
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
It'll be neck-and-neck between the Dem and REP nominees. No one is going to have any sort of money/influence peddling advantage/disadvantage. They're politicians; they're always on special at the counter.
RE: And, for scaling, 4-6.5 is rougly considered to be Â
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
this site chronicles her actions. Not sure what actions you're talking about. Voting? Speaking? Being at a rally? what better or different actions are there that tell you how a candidate feels about an issue other than their words and voting records (when they have served in public office like Hillary).
Agree there's a long way to go, and I'm only using Hillary as an example since she's the frontrunner. it's really irrelevant, replace Hillary with [INSERT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE HERE] and the point remains.
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
What is a moderate republican? I'd shed the party label. That's what I do. and then find the candidate most closely aligned to your beliefs.
more and more republicans find themselves to be more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That's not Hillary if that's what you mean by moderate Republican.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
"but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history"
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
These are things that strike people as reasonable... Â
even if there isn't a ton of evidence of voter fraud and even a drug-addled welfare recipient (especially a drug-addled welfare recipient) needs help, albeit of a different kind.
"but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history"
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
Hillary the politician has never been particularly consistent. Her healthcare proposals under Bill were pretty leftish for the times, but her track record as a senator was pretty moderate, perhaps consciously so. You're voting for the candidate, assuming that her policies would be better (from your perspective) from those of her Republican opponent, or at least tolerable.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
I thought the goal here was not to spend more money on Welfare? Â
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
Ok, suspicion based makes much more sense instead of a regular once a month schedule.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
OK, I didn't see where you were going with that. Saying something is off the charts in this case could be perceived two different ways.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
in the body for several days (a week?) after imbibing it.
constant testing on a routine basis, unless warranted, is probably cost prohibitive. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ability to test or do it on entry into the system, just to keep people on their toes.
Bill Clinton benefited immensely from gridlock. Early on, he had no problem spending. when there was a conservative backlash, he embraced it. Unfortunately, I think Hillary has learned that lesson: embrace whatever is popular. Her whole career post BC presidency has been about making tepid moves that won't rock the boat and reduce her electability. do what looks good.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
Wherever did I say he was inconsequential? Have I stated anything not supported by the record, or by political culture? Like any President, he did some things well, and other things not so well. I'm certain we disagree on legacy, however.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
you really would consider making people receiving Welfare subjected to random tests to see if they imbibed alcohol as a condition to receive their payment? Maybe we should make them clean our houses and mow our lawns? Maybe we should make them fight each other bare knuckle? Let's see how may of their rights we can take away from them and how much we can humiliate them. Let them earn the check
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
Base-broadening, which is exactly a tax raise for a very wide swath, after cutting the corporate rate so drastically. Poor businesses!
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
There's plenty of valid reasons, the least of which is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Drug testing isn't free.
What's the benefit supposed to even be? That those lazy druggies aren't going to get my tax money?
Considering new college graduates can't find jobs, it's so incredibly silly to assume that even a large minority of folks on welfare are on it because of laziness/drug use. Extremely silly.
So because of this problem we're going to spend all that money to drug test everyone, even the vast majority that are living in welfare or have it as a supplement strictly because there aren't jobs that can get at them enough to feed themselves or their children.
Such an incredible waste of money just so the less disadvantaged can feel like they aren't being taken advantage of by poor people- because of course it's a choice and they choose to be poor.
Ugh.
I used to be very much in support of drug testing for welfare Â
but last I looked the numbers didn't add up enough to make it worth it.
Now I'm thinking there are probably many more productive and cost-effective ways we could curb drug use for the small percentage of welfare recipients that have serious abuse issues.
looking it up (too lazy to do it now) and when welfare recipients were drug tested, the results were that a tiny fraction of them turned out to be using drugs.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And what exactly do you do for folks that are positive? Â
If you're not going to put them in rehab, all you're doing is increasing crime, no?
And is anyone really comfortable spending money to put a welfare recipient in rehab for what's more often than not going to be weed? I'm not.
So it'll be, "Sorry ma'am, you don't get food stamps this month because you've smoked weed. I imagine you might be able to find a pimp that won't beat you too often so you can feed your kids. Or hell, since you already know where to get it, maybe you should start dealing? Ever seen that show, Weeds?"
looking it up (too lazy to do it now) and when welfare recipients were drug tested, the results were that a tiny fraction of them turned out to be using drugs.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And it assumes that someone put together enough to apply for welfare despite having an addiction couldn't figure out how to beat a drug test.
it's a hot button topic, because if you suggest testing, the standard response is 'unconstitutional'/violation of rights/ treating them like they're all a bunch of loser dopers. People get their hackles up for no real reason. And other people, like me, who are on the opposite side, also start digging in.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
RE: who said welfare class are all a bunch of loser dopers? Â
it's a hot button topic, because if you suggest testing, the standard response is 'unconstitutional'/violation of rights/ treating them like they're all a bunch of loser dopers. People get their hackles up for no real reason. And other people, like me, who are on the opposite side, also start digging in.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
I don't think its a rights issue at all.
I think I laid out my stance and it had not a thing to do with a violation of rights or privacy.
In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only one to bring that up.
So the issue for you is that "I have to do it, they should too!"?
almost every single state has proposed some type of legislation requiring welfare recipients agree to not use drugs (and many (most?) have also proposed legislation to test/enforce this). I doubt it's cost effective, but I also don't see this as unreasonable.
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
So the idea is that denying welfare will ultimately deter drug use? Â
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
almost every single state has proposed some type of legislation requiring welfare recipients agree to not use drugs (and many (most?) have also proposed legislation to test/enforce this). I doubt it's cost effective, but I also don't see this as unreasonable.
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Again- the end goal being?
Denying welfare will make the drug abusers get jobs?
What exactly will this accomplish? You'll feel better? I just don't get it. As i typed before, unless you're willing to force them into and pay for rehab, denying benefits will do nothing but increase crime.
If it was as simple as denying benefits = making them get a job, we could just do away with welfare altogether.
So again, aside from making you feel better about where your taxes go, what is the benefit?
RE: RE: So the idea is that denying welfare will ultimately deter drug use? Â
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
I would say the burden is on you to prove how it's effective in any way that is beneficial. It's expensive to test folks. And if you're not gonna test, it's an empty threat? And let's say you find that the person is using drugs and you cut them off. What's the outcome you hope to achieve from that? Saved money? Wake up call for them? How are they gonna pay for food/housing and even drugs?
This plan sounds like it's fair and might be effective but if you think it through, it's almost certainly more trouble than it's worth.
No reputable evidence has really been undertaken Â
my personal feelings have nothing to do with it, but it frees up money for other more worthy families who might actually use the tax payer funds to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their children..
It's not like there's an unlimited supply of welfare funds just there waiting for the next family in need to come along.
Have you seen the rate of increase in people receiving various forms of aid? It's out of control. And I suspect a small percentage of it is fraudulent or not going to appropriate people - such as drug users not using the funds to feed and clothe their children, but to buy drugs.
If we do nothing about it, we condone it, and prevent a legitimately needy family who would appropriately use those funds from getting them.
Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Welfare was not intended as a job, it was meant to be something temporary for the most needy, it's morphing into government sustenance and it has to change.
Or not. If everyone else is happy with it I guess I'm in the minority expecting welfare is not provided in perpetuity with ZERO conditions or strings attached.
The status quo is not sustainable, and I have ZERO issue with welfare nor am I derelict in my responsibility that as a society we have an obligation to help the poor, I feel like without conditions or goals we're not helping people long-term. We're enabling them.
In the wake of the financial crisis and great recession, the U.S. unemployment rate has tumbled precipitously from 10.0% to 6.7% in just four years.
"Only three other times in the past six decades has the unemployment rate fallen this far this fast: in the early 1950s, when growth averaged 6.7% per annum; in the late 1970s when GDP growth averaged 4.8%, and in the mid-1980s when growth averaged 5.2%," said Gluskin Sheff's David Rosenberg to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.
"Today we accomplished this feat with only 2.4% growth which is disturbing because it means that it is not taking much in the way of incremental economic activity to drain valuable resources out of the labor market."
Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to the drop in the labor force participation rate (LFPR). And the drop in the LFPR has been due to a combination of aging demographics and an expanding group of discouraged workers walking away from the job market.
"One theory that deserves examination is that we may have an abundance of separate benefits programs that provide for the disenfranchised in a very piecemeal and inefficient manner that are also perhaps abused or overly relied upon by some, which may lead to a distortion of work incentives," noted Rosenberg.
He's talking about disability, food stamps, welfare, etc.
While these programs are largely being used by those in need, we can't ignore the fact that many are taking advantage fraudulently.
Whether these programs are being used legitimately or fraudulently, it's nevertheless stunning to see how much these programs have ballooned.
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe. I have some guess as to another partial explanation for the jump -- the reduced stigmatization of mental illness probably has some disabled people applying for benefits whereas 50 years ago they'd be drunks or a family's dirty secret.
As for food stamps and welfare recipients? Well the economy went to shit. The jobs recovery has not been terribly robust. Some of the drop in unemployment is people "leaving" the workforce due to chronic unemployment. And a lot of the jobs added back have been part time or worse than the ones eliminated. Hopefully the middle chart trend continues -- that need-based aid will fall in times of economic plenty. However, the Bush-era growth in food stamps needs an explanation -- there was a steady rise even during a decent economy.
Dont really see what drug testing has to do with it though. Were there no drugs in the 70s and 80s?
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
if big box retailers weren't around, I wouldn't buy shirts, underwear and computers at some other place that doesn't nickel and dime its employees? Interesting economic theory.
No anger at all - some lack of patience when people on here Â
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
when did I say it would solve all the problems. or even be a major part of the solution. f-ing people on here live to inflame. Ted Williams was before his time when he coined the "Knights of the keyboard" some of you are just out to troll.
But the goal IMO should be make sure the fund are getting to the people who need it most (the kids, people who can't provide for themselves).
if a parent has a suspicious background (prior drug conviction) and in their welfare application has agreed not to use drugs while on welfare (as most states require) then drug testing them is appropriate IMO.
why do you think so many states are introducing legislation to do this? No reason? Because they don't think it will help? because they want to waste even more money?
Here is what Tennessee has to say about it:
Quote:
After observing that “persons who are not under the pernicious influence of illegal drugs [are] less disruptive of the social fabric, persons and neighborhoods around them are safer as well,” that ” tax dollars should go to persons who are trying to better themselves rather than to persons who violate our state and national laws and support a network of illicit purveyors of misery and disappointment,” and that “the public image of TANF recipients will be enhanced by removing the stigma that is too often attached to such recipients that they use government funds to purchase illegal drugs,” the legislature mandated “suspicion-based drug testing for each applicant” otherwise eligible for TANF.
my apologies if you thought I was addressing you. I admit I didn't read many of the posts. I also admit that I automatically expect a discussion on drug testing welfare recipients to center around the 'right' of being free from testing vs the ability to test. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing. I recognize that logistics may be a concern, that testing is just a waste of time/money. but the ability to test should be on the table.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
More likely, I would think, they weren't able to find another job (or take the low-level job s that were there) and got desperate. I really don't think everyone, or even more than a very small minority, are on the make.
The problem I have with the theory that it is the over Â
50 age group is that employment trends for the older age cohorts into and through the Great Recession were still reasonably solid...it was the 18-35 age group that was really hollowed out in terms of employment opportunities.
my apologies if you thought I was addressing you. I admit I didn't read many of the posts. I also admit that I automatically expect a discussion on drug testing welfare recipients to center around the 'right' of being free from testing vs the ability to test. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing. I recognize that logistics may be a concern, that testing is just a waste of time/money. but the ability to test should be on the table.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
You seriously expect someone from the bottom opf the economic heap who is also doing drugs to exhibit "life responsibility?"
It's this kind of thinking that killed more than a million Irish during the first famine.
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
RE: I don't doubt that some people game the system Â
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
RE: I don't doubt that some people game the system Â
But the fact is that decent society shouldn't just cast off and discard those with less well developed "life skills". For most, collecting welfare, unemployment, etc. isn't fun - it's a way to eat. Google long-term unemployment and suicide - I know sitting on the couch and eating bon-bons sounds like a good gig, but most people want to provide for their families through work, with the possibility of advancement. The sad fact is we just don't create enough jobs with that profile.
from what I've read is not about people gaming the system, which I agree is probably a small percent. I also never claimed living on government aid is glamorous.
From what I have read the proponents of drug testing those people with "suspicious cause" or whatever they call it is about changing behavior and making sure the funds available get to the people who will use it the most effectively.
If you had a choice of providing $800 a month (or however much it is) to a parent of three children who is going to use at least part of it to buy drugs, or a similar person who is not, I don't see anyone picking the drug user.
I don't see it being disenfranchising or any more stigma to require those people with drug histories to prove they are clean (at least that day) to receive their tax payer dollars.
Does this kind of thing backfire? Maybe, but I understand the intent and I find it hard to argue with, if a way to implement it fiscally responsibly works.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
I think you'd do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading about Sir Charles Trevelyan and his involvement. Get beyond the quotes attributed to him and look at his politics (laissez-faire/market cures all/personal responsibility) combined with his disdain for the Irish and you'll see that it pretty much dovetails with your above statement. The Brits started out well, providing public works-type jobs to the indigent, but got tired of seeing no "gratitude" from the Irish.
It's a sordid tale, and a sordid act, and it's right on point.
The majority of my post wasn't directed toward you, as you correctly point out some positions you didn't take. That said, collecting public assistance is often dehumanizing, and I don't see the advantage of making it more so on the margin to prevent some dollars from being wasted on those that can't stay clean.
I am not sure how the thread drifted in this direction, but if the goal is to cut government spending, there are far richer veins to tap - agricultural subsidies, military spending, streamlining the corporate tax code, etc, etc.
Probably the majority find it humiliating to be on public assistance. However, I do think a significant percentage think it's fine to put one over on the man, and a significant percentage think it's just a way of life, being neither good, nor bad. Still, it is wrong to paint with a broad brush and say they're all loafers.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
Probably the majority find it humiliating to be on public assistance. However, I do think a significant percentage think it's fine to put one over on the man, and a significant percentage think it's just a way of life, being neither good, nor bad. Still, it is wrong to paint with a broad brush and say they're all loafers.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
I think you need to define this significant amount and provide more than opinion.
From what I understand, studies have shown that the idea of a large amount of people gaming the system and welfare queens are pretty much myth. I could be wrong, though.
forget the byzantine maze of programs and requirements Â
I've come to prefer the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Send people a check, and let them make their own choices on how to spend it. Some will use it wisely and get ahead, others will squander it and suffer, but either way it would be more efficient and less wasteful than a large welfare bureaucracy.
Between 2003 and 2013, Bush gave 1.5 percent of his income to charity, according to the lists of charitable deductions in the tax returns. That's about half the national average of 3 percent, according to Charity Navigator.
to show welfare abuse.
I have only anecdotal evidence.
people I know who are willing to work under the table. who are willing to take advantage of the liberal NY child healthcare laws. people who know how to work the system.
I can't prove it. I can only offer you a very gently used bridge I have for sale if you don't think plenty of people take full advantage of an easy system to take advantage of.
I prefer bridges with Any form of solid foundations. Â
anecdotes defense. Typically a wonderfully lucid analysis.
And when did I say that everyone on it is honest? Perhaps you can re-read; a small minority is about 5-10%. And, by the way, I prefer not to rely on anecdotes since, you know, it kinda makes one sound a wee bit stupid.
But, yeah, this certainly does fall under my specialty and purview. I'd bet my life savings and retirement I have a much better grasp of this than you ever have.
But, why should I argue with you? You have anecdotes! And a blinding incomprehension that minority does not mean 0 (unless Webster's has been changed very recently).
So, yeah, I'm safe in assuming I'm very smart in this area.
you will never, ever believe me, but search again.
you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
you don't know your clients as well as you think you do.
you are enamored with charts and graphs. read by someone who doesn't have a clue. you dismiss out of hand anything that counters your pov.
you don't know your clients.
I don't care what you think of me. I'm never going to convince you. nothing I've said is a lie.
but you would serve your profession much, much better if you honestly examine the seedier side and not just accept the side you choose to see. it's not all seedy. but there is that side.
Go up to any reputable scientist and tell them that, instead of Â
looking at the evidence, you have decided that anecdotes suffice. After you've been dismissed by the uproar of laughter, maybe you will learn.
I've never stated that there is no welfare abuse. Again, I can't help it if people don't want to read. A small minority means that there is a shadier side. Good call, though; top notch analysis. You must make a super worker.
If you want to be ignorant, go for it. But I will continue to call out the vapid "thoughts" you call forth, making you no better than a Jenny McCarthy blowhard.
It's ok; at some point, you may learn. We all wish for that to happen. Until that point, I'll continue working with my "clients" (not sure what the fuck this means, but OK), doing research on this very subject, and teaching future generations that will swamp your dinosaur mentality.
At least they will look for evidence. Even if it, eventually, is contrary to mine. But, such is science (I really wish you knew that).
Oh yes, and yet again, only on BBI are statistics, charts, and Â
evidence shit on. I mean, what a wonderful scientific process; you fit in perfectly with the anti-vaxxers.
Here's a hint about economic science (and most other sciences). Anecdotes are only useful in generating research questions. They become invalid once evidence comes in.
You know, the whole correlation does not equal causation?
And, because evidence. Here are a variety of studies Â
that show results, including some evidence that suggests that there is some welfare dependency (which, of course, I've never disputed).
Mark Plant, "An Empirical Analysis of Welfare Dependence"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805132
Blank, "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the US"
Borjas, "Food Insecurity and Public Assistance"
Kearney, "Is There an Effect of Incremental Welfare Benefits on Fertility Behavior"
Meyer and Sulliva, " The Effects of Welfare and Tax Reform"
Blank and Ruggles, "When do Women Use AFDC..."
Gruber and Yelowitz, "Public Health Insurance and Private Savings"
Gruber, "Cash Welfare as a Consumption Smoothing Device for Single Mothers"
Gueron, "Work and Welfare - Lessons on Employment Programs"
Hotz, Mullin, and Scholz, "Welfare, Employment, and Income..."
Hoynes and MaCurdy, "Has the Decline in Benefits Shortened Welfare Spells"
Meyer, "Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits"
Moffit, "Incentive Effects of the US Welfare System"
Nichols and Zeckauser, "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients"
Powers, "Does Means-Testing Welfare Discourage Savings..."
efficiency of public programs, such as educational training, green spaces, and health awareness programs, and on occasion have spoken to a group of individuals in the programs.
I also do work with public groups to improve health outcomes and decrease welfare dependence with job training and resume programs.
so you don't know shit, and you're teaching others about it.
Insert huge smiley here to show that I'm making a joke
or am I? (insert another smiley face)
seriously, you need to tune in a little more to the dark side. I know I'm a little too dark, but nothing you've ever posted indicates you have any darkness to you. you need a little dark. not as much as I have, but you need some. don't dismiss real anecdotes (I've never stated anything that isn't reasonably verifiable) . don't be so wed to statistics (there are real reasons to under report abuse, and when it's not caught, it's not reported, amazing that none of my anecdotes involve being caught). stats seem real, but someone wrote a whole book about how to lie with statistics. I work in science, and when physics can be manipulated, so too can the socio sciences. there is real to overall trends, no doubt. they don't tell the whole story. more learning the trenches. less quoting scholars.
By definition, an anecdote is verifiable. Because, you know, it's based on personal experience.
But, um, you do realize that, should you work in science, there is absolutely no internal nor external validity to anecdotes. At least statistics can provide it. Perhaps you have heard of necessary and sufficient conditions?
Statistical analysis is necessary for determining causation, but is not sufficient. Anecdotes are neither necessary, nor sufficient. That's the basest of scientific truths.
And, please, enlighten me. What trenches have you worked in (that you're able to see over, at the very least?). Real ones; not make-believe based on speaking to people. So easy to dismiss scholars when you likely have no outside experience in dealing with any of these programs.
The only reason you need darkness is because you have no first-hand experience that's meaningful. Let me tell you something; when you actually set foot in this area, then you can come back and tell me something. Blowhards don't pass any sort of a smell test. And you're full of it.
By the way, for someone who thinks there is no point in going back and forth, you sure seem to be doing a lot of it. Unless, again, there is some magical "fkap" definition of back-and-forth that differs from the rest of humanity (you know, like minority).
But, beyond all that, how do anecdotes pass even the giggle Â
but since you asked, I think it relevant that you know I grew up in a multi generation poverty family. I've lived in the trenches. I built a ladder and climbed out of them. that fact is why I always preach personal responsibility, because we are each responsible for ourselves and our decisions. every single one of us have options. not all of us have equal options. it the choices we make that define us.
the anecdotes I tell aren't giggles. they're reality. you can dismiss them as non-representative, but they are real. they're data points that you should pay attention to. ask yourself, do you know anyone who has ever cheated the system? don't answer me. answer yourself. is the evidence just a giggle because you didn't read it in a book? and if you don't know at least several people who've cheated, you don't know the group of people who claim to be working for.
Because we have to deal with someone with acute reading issues, I'll Â
Little evidence of any wide scale welfare
kicker : 7/1/2015 12:34 pm : link : reply
abuse. A very small minority abuse it.
Where, in here, is it even intimated that the abuse is 0? Listen, we get that the deal on BBI is to double down on the stupid, but it's such a weird stance to take when it's clearly written, and doesn't support your stupid.
I even mentioned that it's roughly 5-10% (again, non-zero; surprisingly, 5 does not, and cannot, equal zero). 1:23 PM on 7/1/2015.
You seem to be a very astute scientists that still doesn't wrap your head around proper experimental procedures, and why you're little causation argument is, at best, a boat with like 45 holes in it. But, sure, I never dismissed them as data points (in fact, I agreed that they were).
By the way, unless you were born in 1970, you must have zero personal experience with the modern day welfare system, since there were substantial reforms in the late 1980's through the 2000's. So, the answer must be "no", that you have no experience with the trenches.
Good to know.
I expect some witty rejoinder about "I climbed out, others can", "don't read a book, listen to people", or "anecdotes". Yippee. Science.
All this based on a very mistaken notion that I've claimed Â
Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
And to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when a marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.
I never knew what the actual problem was with it. I mean a valid problem with it
great day for USA
Today is not the day to dwell on the negative parts, however. Progress of any amount is to be celebrated.
But whether rightly or wrongly, substantive due process was effectively resurrected in the Griswold birth control case in the 1960s, then used in the abortion, and now gay rights cases. The doctrine is therefore now about fifty years old. Many opponents of SDP have also frankly created a lot of "rights" that were never envisioned by the framers:
Gun Ownership. There is no second amendment right to own a gun outside of a militia. Scalia's opinion just arbitrarily eliminates the first two clauses as superfluous. Really? Which other constitutional clauses are also superfluous? Scalia is a known hunter, which is fine, but I wonder if his opinion is influenced by his own desires, and not an objective constitutional analysis.
Punitive Damages. Although the SC has ruled otherwise, neither the takings or due process clauses provide any limitation on punitive damages. The framers were aware of punitive damages.
Eleventh Amendment. The text of the amendment bars suits against states by foreigners or out of state claimants. It does not by its text bar suits by citizens of the state being sued. But the SC essentially inserted this limitation more than a hundred years ago.
This decision is just the outgrowth of a natural line of cases that it is too late to ignore. Guys like Scalia want to act as if the last fifty years never happened. The decision may have also been at least as much about the children adopted by gay couples as gays themselves. Kennedy has written and spoken on several occasions about protecting these children, and how their lives would be so much better if the unions of their parents were recognized and legitimized.
The end result is that yes, in the abstract, this decision probably does somewhat smack of judicial activism, but many of the complainers have engaged in the same kind of reasoning to ensure that their "rights" are constitutionally protected. The NRA has done everything it can to get the courts to invoke the second amendment to invalidate democratically enacted gun control laws. We also don't live on Planet Abstract. We live on Planet Earth. Equality is a central concept of the Constitution. Add in the concerns about the children, and this case is like a two inch putt to win the Masters. The case is quintessentially important, but not hard to decide.
I will say in closing, that what we really need is at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new constitutional amendments, addressing subjects like this, electronic privacy, the rights of criminal defendants, loser pays laws, campaign finance reform, term limits, and the structure of government. The Constitution is a badly outdated document.
Now, government involvement in family has been a tragedy in many ways, not so often mentioned in the media, archaic nanny state laws and practices need to be repealed, states out of the family business altogether.
BUT, until that day, it must be made equal, as it will be after as well.
I only hope the newly righted wont forget the rights of the formerly righted when it is our turn.
But...in the meantime, congrats, it is a right and rightly so.
Embarrassing that it even took this long.
Despite all our scientific advancements, there is still a lot we don't know about our own biology and genetics. Strange really, that how little we know about macro issues like the universe is similar to how little we know about micro issues like our own genetics.
Prohibiting and singling out individuals for who they love is just stupid. Same sex couples are out friends, coworkers, bosses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.... so why should we stop them from doing something that we get to do.
Ganja!
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Quote:
I wonder why the 5-4 ruling.
Without reading the ruling, my guess would be that the dissenters considered it to be a State and not a Federal issue. But that's silly at this point in light of how the Federal government makes distinctions between married and not married, especially in the tax code.
Bingo.
That would be a good question to ask battered women
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."
"Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision as written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I believe that the 14th Amendment settled this case. But the wording of Kennedy's opinion is social and political, not legal, at least as far as these excerpts.
loving vs virginia in 1967
decision to make his own marriage legal across the land.
Hypocritical jerk.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
This. Can't be overstated. I'm a millennial, so don't have much a of bird's eye view of how and why changes like this happen. Maybe it's the fact that in the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance era, people are more conscious of the rights we give up when we let the government butt in to our personal business. Maybe the unfathomable spiraling cost of healthcare played a role in making marriage more of an economic and welfare issue as much as cultural one. Maybe it's just the Contact Hypothesis.
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing...
Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
choose the drug, or alcohol....it's all still illegal to a 13-16 year old
Quote:
but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
That's just a little bit of an overstatement. The US govt collects ~$17 billion annually from tobacco taxes.
The US annual deficit is ~$564B (for 2015 per Wiki) so even if weed revenue matched tobacco, it's only decreasing the deficit by ~3%. And the national debt (currently ~$18T and counting) would still be increasing... Tobacco Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
Have you factored in the cost of the DEA and it's WAR on weed, or the costs of prosecuting and incarceration of "weed felons"?
I didn't say it, by itself would eradicate the debt, I said it would help.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt.
Oh, they'll be a bump in weddings across the US (which will help all the business that are needed to make those events happen).
No, it won't cure the national debt, but it's not "nothing"...
This is naked legislation by the court. That's unfortunate.
Quote:
In comment 12344275 andrew_nyg said:
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Ive been looking for it. A student of mine did a project on it last year and printed out the website. I dont have it on me right now. Still checking.
It surprises me that no one mentions Portugal, which legalized all drugs, not just pot. So far, it appears to be quite a success story.
Quote:
In comment 12344314 dep026 said:
Quote:
In comment 12344275 andrew_nyg said:
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Ive been looking for it. A student of mine did a project on it last year and printed out the website. I dont have it on me right now. Still checking.
OK. Thanks.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
Marijuana use - ( New Window )
Quote:
Colorado is doing it oh so right. It's gonna be a perfect model to improve upon for federal legalization in 5-7 years, hopefully sooner.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
I forget all the specifics but a great deal of the tax dollars are allocated for education purposes and police training purposes IIRC. Basically, there was a lot of thought put into exactly where the extra revenue should go and for good reason.
I'd be hesitant to take your students facts as gospel though, it's very early in the game still and any studies and statistics being used are extremely limited samples
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
Correlation =/= causation?
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
Interesting because the majority of studies I've glanced at report the opposite. Probably too soon to tell. There is likely a novelty effect in operation that could change over time.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Quote:
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Are you more for decriminalizing laws or for full access to marijuana? I fear the more drugs you legalized that over time it will tend to lead more to a lenience of harder drugs.
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Good.
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
Sold!
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
Alcohol tax revenue is even less. $6.5B in 2012.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt)
Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
Quote:
try an alcohol comparison.
Alcohol tax revenue is even less. $6.5B in 2012.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
If drugs were decriminalized and even a portion of the dollars spent on the war on drugs and prisons were to be allocated to education and treatment, the net gains would likely be quite significant.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
Not sure if tongue in cheek or serious.
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I don't know, would it impact it positively?
But when someone uses a less than successful nation (when it comes to domestic policy) as some barometer of a singular policy success as being good for that nation, it begs to be countered with a broader question of that policy's impact (or lack of it) on that nation's success. No policy is successful in a vacuum. I mean, I can always say how North Korea is a model for literacy rate, but overall, that doesn't amount for shit when we talk about its impact on what North Korea's success as a nation is.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
agreed
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Quote:
In comment 12344449 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I agree in part, but accepting pot is a lot easier than accepting harder drugs. There will always be the mindset that they are just too alluring. This in the face of evidence to the contrary. Pot's definitely the first to take down, especially as a Schedule 1 substance.
Quote:
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
Quote:
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Which is basically my point in not bringing up portugal. I've watched their situation closely since I learned of their decriminalization years ago but never saw the need to include it in any legalization argument I've ever had for those exact reasons.
Any negative impact of marijuana legalization on this country as a whole will be proven out to be minimal and the benefits will far outweigh the cost of the few negatives. imho of course
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
Quote:
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
Quote:
with a beneficent outcome.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
You either believe in the Constituton as written or not. I guess u missed the 10th Ammendment. I personally don't give a rats ass about this and have no issue with the ruling morally but that damn 10th is pretty fucking clear. It's just easier to ignore it for those who enjoy the judiciary enacting law.
Quote:
with a beneficent outcome.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
Quote:
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
It came up, so it's being discussed. Gay marriage is now settled, marijuana legalization is as good a subject as any to follow.
Quote:
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Quote:
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Don't beat yourself up. As Chevy Chase said to Judge Smails, "You're a terrific slouch!"
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
Second that!
Quote:
In comment 12344417 Matt M. said:
Quote:
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
I don't fall into the camp that because one side is activist the other should be too. I do see a distinction in your examples in that there were enumerated clauses that needed interpreting textually and I'd argue that Scalia's opinion in the 2nd amendment case was at least based on the written language of the document. Punitive damages were envisioned by the framers and there is sound public policy in favor of limiting damage awards, so that's an argument to fall back on in interpreting meaning. State Sovereign immunity also doesn't bar a citizen from suing a State completely. The State may consent to the suit or a citizen can sue the State in another State's court. You can also sue a State official in their official capacity - that's how most of these cases come up as I'm sure you know.
These may not be great arguments, but minimally there is some rational basis to fall back on because those topics are within the Court's purview of interpreting law and not legislating. If today's opinion was a challenge based on a discriminatory law preventing lgbt people from getting married, as opposed to the lack of the right to get married, I'd say the court has a better argument under 14A as an equal protection issue but not a substantive due process issue.
Thanks for the level headed discussion.
Quote:
In comment 12344569 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
Quote:
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Quote:
In comment 12344431 Bake54 said:
Quote:
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Activists are entitled to do what they want to do and Religious establishments are free to do what they want to do and are protected in doing so. The opinion is pretty strict on that. But small businesses, on the other hand May be Yelpd to death. Bakeries, photogs, DJs, reception halls...there's no need to accommodate religious beliefs of private citizens if LGBT people are a new suspect class with appropriate legislation behind it.
This decision is certainly the first in a long line of issues on the topic that will need to be resolved down the road. We may actually get a new Amendment out of this.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Quote:
In comment 12344645 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344569 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Same here. Nice not to have to deal with the usual guff.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
So there is a lot of logic in this sentiment. Fundamentally the Constitution has to mean something other than which policy is favored most by 5 or more justices. If the Constitution isnt dictating "constitutional" decisions then it isnt a governing law, it is a mirror that lets the viewer see himself in it.
However, the problem with treating the Constitution as a set of fixed governing instructions is that the document plainly isnt set up that way. Analytically, it's nice and tidy to say "If the people who passed Amendment X didnt have a problem with laws prohibiting Y, then the Constitution doesnt have a problem either". Two problems with that. First, any time you try to interpret legislative intent from beyond the statute itself, you run into problems. Do the Federalist papers tell us what the Bill of Rights means? Why? A tiny fraction of the white men of age who voted to ratify the constitution wrote them. So beyond the words of the bill, how do you know what the people passing an amendment agreed on? Does one Congressman's floor speech tell you what Congress understood a bill to mean?
Second, more fundamentally, indeed dispositive to me, is the loosey-goosey language of the relevant amendments. Im a lawyer, and I read a statute that says "the statute of limitations is 3 years for Claim X" and I know I have to bring a claim within 3 years. But I look at the Constitution and there are so many broad and undefined concepts. No person shall be "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And this doozy (every fucking beautiful word of it):
That's some real content-free gobbledegook right there. These concepts have no fixed definitions. Compare it to the very clear guarantee of say the 3rd Amendment ("No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.") -- you know what you're getting with #3. The intent of the framers was IMO very clear -- no one could agree on an exact list of rights and indeed no one even thought that such a list was a good idea (indeed, the whole point of the 9th amendment is to makes sure that no asshole reads the constitution as an exclusive list of rights, and interestingly and vaguely refers to non-constitutional rights "retained by the people" seemingly apart from those "reserved to the states" in #10). These are aspirational guarantees of rights that each generation would have to help define. And so that's how I think the Constitution works. My guarantee of due process of law, liberty, privileges and immunities, and nameless other rights "retained by the people" are a concept of freedom that is always evolving.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
As I said I am pleased with the outcome. I have voted for it, advocated for it (to the extent I have time to advocate for anything), etc etc. It is an important and very positive change, IMO, for this country. But had fifty states voted for this change, or had Congress said that a marriage validly consummated in one state is valid in every other state, my happiness in this outcome would be unalloyed.
Quote:
In comment 12344394 Tesla said:
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
It's a fair question. That's the brilliance of John Marshall's power grab in Marbury v. Madison (which I think was correctly decided). If you dont want judges decision that other laws must bow to the Constitution, you shouldnt have drafted the Supremacy Clause. On a more practical level, it's not just the Court that guarantees our rights. Congress guarantees your rights too. Look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As our system has developed, whichever branch guarantees the individual the most rights against the state wins. Not too shabby.
Quote:
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Wiki - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12344394 Tesla said:
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
Quote:
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
No, it's not and I'm not sure you're so familiar with the law if this is your argument.
Fundamental rights are those protected by SDP and EP through the 14th Amendment. The majors are right to travel, vote, marry and use contraception. There are others like first amendment rights incorporated through the 14th amendment.
When those LIBERTY interests are infringed, you must pick a standard by which to base a judgment on, which is related to the classification of the group being discriminated against. Race is one of a few a "suspect" classes and receives the highest protection - strict scrutiny - which is a very high bar to cover.
Sexuality is not a "suspect" class (although after today that might be different) - heck even gender nor age or wealth are - and has a lower burden.
What the court did today was out of bounds.
———
"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court." — Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Republican presidential contender.
———
"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs." — Dr. Ben Carson, Republican presidential candidate.
———
"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."— Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"If accepted by Congress and this president, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment." — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach."— Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic presidential contender.
That looks delicious.
Quote:
In comment 12344867 Tesla said:
Quote:
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
Wiki - ( New Window )
The first anti-miscegenation statute in Virginia was from colonial times, but the law expressly overturned in Loving was drafted in 1924. Many states had such laws, to be sure (or reintroduced them after Reconstruction), but the second attempt to ban them nationwide via Amendment occurred in 1912-1913 and several states who didn't have such statutes passed them contemporaneously (including Mass, which passed a measure preventing non-residents from marrying there if such a marriage would be unlawful in their home states).
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
Quote:
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
Are you an attorney?
Oh piss off.
And then, there's post-birth abortion.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
You literally are the worst poster on BBI. So much stupid that it hurts the eyes whenever you post.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
this is untrue -- many on this thread have brought up Loving V Virginia 1967 ruling -which was about States not recognizing interracial marriages
It really isn't hard to understand
Marriage at it's heart is a legal contract between two people
"a mutual agreement that the law treats as binding as a consequence of the parties"
By denying same sex couples the right to this contract you are violating the 14th amendment which gives everyone equal protection .
under the law.
In other words if a man and woman can enter into a marriage contract then why can't a same sex couple do the same?
Quote:
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Your rabbi can argue "I'll be perfectly happy to marry practitioners of my faith." The mosque that says "We won't marry two men" can't use that argument if both men say "We are both Muslims, we invoke our right to disagree with the imam on homosexuality, but as Muslims, we demand equal treatment and a marriage in this mosque."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
Agreed. See the dissent by Roberts. Sadly, in both US and Canada, this is becoming the only way to force an electorate to embrace their conscience. Very undemocratic and this shouldn't be lost on people.
Quote:
In comment 12345209 glowrider said:
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
So basically no logical reason at all. Gotcha.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
Or this genius post: pictures of several Black rappers wearing the Confederate flag in some form on their clothing. Again, what individuals do is separate from what the government does. More importantly, Black people wearing this doesn't make it any less of a hateful, racist, and traitorous symbol just like them using the N word doesn't make any less of a vile word.
Granting people their just deserved civil rights doesn't infringe on yours. If you don't like homosexuality, then don't marry someone of your gender.
Quote:
Look up Warren Court.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
In regard to Obamacare, it was the Obama administration and Congress that fundamentally changed America. Anyone hoping for SCOTUS to annul it was clinging to a very thin thread. With today's ruling, America had already fundamentally changed, that's what allowed a culturally influenced Court to hear the case and rule at this time.
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
I can't imagine the orthodox Jewish community performing gay marriages. Otoh, conservative and especially reform congregations would probably be fine with it.
Quote:
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Actually it all depends on how aggressive the "injured" party is and which state it occurs in. Again, the most radical gay activists will try to use this ruling for further leverage. It is only a matter of time now. In their mind (and in the minds of many liberal legislators and jurists), the only thing that is enshrined is what the Supreme Court just declared.
Quote:
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Nice try Deej. My rabbi would absolutely refuse to marry 2 women or 2 men as it is unholy to him. If you were standing in front of him requesting that, he would wrap tefillin around you and pray with you. Then he would ask you to make Wednesday minion every week and light candles after shabbat. Finally he would ask that you show up for Yom Kippur services after fasting from sundown to sundown.
So perhaps your perspective is not the only one.
churches and synagogues and mosques aren't the ones that recognize marriages as being legal
The State does - that is the whole point of this ruling
I am sure a catholic church can refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony just like they can refuse to marry me because I am Jewish
my question is Why do you care?
no one is forcing you to get gay married
no church is going to have to perform a gay marriage if they don't believe in it ..
why can't two people who are in love be married ?
how does this reduce your quality of life?
Exactly.
And the government would never, ever make him perform a Catholic ceremony or a Jew/gentile ceremony.
So why in the world do you think the government would want to make him perform a gay ceremony.
This decision has absolutely fuckall to do with what religious folks do or don't do in their places of worship.
It is 100% about the government legally recognizing marriage.
Your fear is completely unfounded, and frankly isn't even logical.
Oh it won't stop. A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that. They will scream discrimination and the business will be ruined. The dissenting opinions in this case clearly contemplated that. So perhaps you can't see it but the justices in the minority certainly can. Read their opinions.
If it were just about having the legal ability to marry then simply issuing government certificates would suffice. The hardcore left don't want just that. They believe in a zero sum game. Your religion needs to change and adapt. Even Obama suggested that last night.
Oh this is not over.
Religious freedom in the United States is protected by amendment. That means Churches can marry folks if they want and the marriages will be sanctioned by the state. Right now. But religions will also have the freedom to not marry people. As they also are right now.
The state will not tell the churches what doctrine to preach.
People can still get married at another church or outside if s religious setting altogether.
BTW, how could this not be over? What's left to decide?
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
He is fast becoming a parody at this point
From a Justice Scalia opinion ...
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
I think the argument is that there is a coercive element to it, in modern parlance a misogynistic one too. And I agree that the foundations that undergird it are weakened, but the possibility of a fringe polygamy movement and some shitty reality shows should not outweigh affording equal marriage rights to millions of our fellow citizens.
The suggestion that polygamy is on the table is not only ridiculous, but reeks of idiocy. Find another red herring.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Quote:
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
This is one of those rare occasions where I think chris is right (which troubles me). There is no getting around the fact that this weakens prohibitions on relationships between consenting adults. But so fucking what? I don't particularly like polygamy, but if that's the price of giving gay men and lesbians the ability to marry so be it.
Quote:
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Quote:
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
Read it. Sometimes you learn more about people when they win than when they lose. The folks at Gawker represent the hard left. Complete turd blossoms in all their glory. There are many others like them..some I'm sure are here on BBI.
Thanks, in part, I'm sure, to the Westboro Baptist Church
Quote:
Public was strongly against gay marriage just a short time ago.
Thanks, in part, I'm sure, to the Westboro Baptist Church
I'd bet 90% of the country couldn't tell you anything about the WBC
I believe that the recent messes over race also play to the left. Conservatives can deny all they want, but with young voters, non-whites and religious unaffiliated all playing a bigger role, a significant move back to the right seems unlikely at the Federal level. It's different at the state and local level, I think, where financial/tax issues related to public employee unions favor conservatives, and will continue to for decades, I suspect.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I was surprised to find that at least on line, the arguments aren't all that clear-cut. The fact remains, however, that SCOTUS is influenced by public opinion, and polygamy just isn't popular, especially since many examples of it in modern US life tied to child sex and forced marriages.
Link - ( New Window )
Obamacare is still a winning issue for them, and is likely to be moreso as some of the delayed portions of the bill start to come due. Now actually proposing an alternative is not a winning issue, but it's red meat. But gay rights seems likely to be a millstone at the next election, because significant swaths of the base are not ready to accept this decision as final (hint: it is) and they're going to demand candidates sate that. In so doing they'll alienate young voters and motivate a lot of donations and prominent support of whomever gets the Democratic nod, presumably Hillary.
Meanwhile, various other social issues are moving people to the left at the Federal level, even as they move to the right at the state and local level.
Umm hate to correct the AG of Texas but decisions prior to 1970 already addressed the fact that Public Servants can't pick and choose who they serve.
So to me the issue in gay marriage is, what is a marriage? It's a right to marry. but what does that mean? Can I marry my 12 year old daughter off to my cousin to become a queen? That was a traditional form of marriage.
The old debate was always about "redefining marriage" Culturally it has already been redefined again and again.
And as we move now into this century, marriage is about two people entering into a personal and legal union. There is no reason to deny that right, a right I always felt they had in the first place.
Now the compassion to Obamacare thing going on in this thread. One is the removal of a federal or state mandate, and one is the imposition of one. conflating the two is nonsense.
Remember George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in Tuscaloosa? Great photo op that provided a generation's worth of red meat to the segregationist base. Wallace backed down - brilliantly and ironically justifying his surrender as being in the interest of law and order, casting the Feds as agents of miscegenist anarchy. You can expect similar theater this week, although on a much smaller scale.
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
This is a honeymoon period??
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
Is good for some
Didn't change much for some.
Taxes will have to be paid towards the subsidies
Some costs may go down as people are now covered that weren't before.
I am definitely in the sucks for some category though.
My premiums have tripled for worse coverage.
What happened to if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?
it became too expensive for my employer to offer the same plans (since they fund 80% of it). So the coverage got worse, my premiums went up, and my salary of course stayed the same.
this is the majority of the professional people I work with who aren't simply blinded by politics they just want to accept it an be happy because Obama is their guy.
I pay enough in taxes not to get taxed another way by something not called a tax.
Also, some insurer are just giving a raw-er deal. Consumers are getting crappier/lazier, and some industries are stepping all over their customers.
this is not a laziness tactic on the part of my company nor is it a tactic for them to simply change the way they fund healthcare.
this is a direct result of ACA.
I'm truly glad more people get healthcare, if in fact they do. I would hate to raise a family and have to worry what we'd do if they get sick, but I was comfortable that I was paying enough in taxes already, and increasing my healthcare to fund others is just another tax for me.
In other words, they were going to skyrocket without the ACA anyway- have you not been paying attention to your plans and premiums over the last 20yrs?
To blame the ACA for something that was already happening is silly.
Are there features of ACA that are causing premiums to go up? Yes, including the elimination of annual/lifetime benefit caps, the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and a one time hit of previously uninsured people finally getting some treatment. One could name 10 others Im sure. That is costing everyone some in the pocketbook, I'll grant you.
But it's not the be-all. Healthcare costs are exploding for a lot of reasons. Costlier treatments, being able to keep people alive longer (so much spending is end of life) -- Obamacare isnt responsible for $50k cancer drugs that extend life by months. The Great Fattening of America. Perhaps most importantly, grossly anti-competitive moves in the hospital market, especially among putative non-profits.
No, the increase was nothing like what we've seen lately.
Like I said, some people believe what they want and I'm not getting into debating with people who call me a liar.
have a nice day.
I guess I'm lucky that my company of less than 300 people hasn't had such a negative impact as of ACA. Our premium didn't increase by more than 5%, and while our provider has changed for the second time in two years (we just went back to the provider that we had two years ago), the coverage hasn't changed much for us.
I know for a fact the increase I have experienced was unusually high due to the ACA.
But whatever, I don't care enough to debate it.
People tend to believe whatever they believe before they know the facts, and I don't care enough to change anyone's mind. I'm not anti-ACA in theory, but I also make no false claims about what it is.
The ACA simply sped up the process for HI companies so that they now can increase the premiums, to account for the massive changes to the risk pool even over a relatively short (10 year) life span.
The HI companies are largely going to amortize differently than they would have. Major increases this year (for some), with dramatically slower premium growth in the near future, compared to moderate premium growth pre-ACA.
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
When does the surcharge/tax on Cadillac Plans kick in? Lot of union members are going to be less than thrilled with that.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
I think the only sticking point with that is going to be coercion. While there are some relationships that are polyamorous, you would assume that the bulk of these are going to be religiously motivated. Whether LDS gets back in the act (having basically repudiated the practice a century plus ago), it is certainly accepted by many adherents to Islam. And where the husband enters into a second or third union without the consent - potentially without the knowledge - of the existing spouse(s) there is an element of coercion that doesn't exist as readily between two people.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
The problem is that you're trying to apply reason/logic to an essentially emotional subject. The whole purpose of spin is to paint a topic so it stirs up a particular constituency. You do that by appealing to emotion. The more one tries to appeal to reason/logic, the likely that appeal will fail, or be overwhelmed by a similar argument that baits with red meat.
Everything is based on an agenda.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
My point was a much narrower one: it's hard to see a strong equal-protection argument for quashing bans on polygamy. That's where the analogy to same-sex marriage falls apart, IMO.
Any two consenting adults can marry, with the stipulation that any consenting adult can marry exactly one other consenting adult at a time. Seems OK to me. I'll leave the finer points to constitutional scholars.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Quote:
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well the Dem leadership, especially Pelosi, is pretty far to the left. But Obama couldn't control his own party on TPP.
I find the War on Christmas from one side and the War on Women from the other side equally stupid.
Agreed, but the media seems to play up the war on women much more, while (IMO) just mocks the war on christmas nonsense.
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
I thought that was understood. My first sentence called them the far Right. Frankly, I should say the Religious Right since that what it boils down to.
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
You could probably include the hardcore environmentalists in there as well, but they've been around so long they kinda just blend into the background.
Quote:
In comment 12348172 njm said:
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
Also I think the far left isn't quite as loud as the far right for whatever reason. They also seem much less angry. Could be the lack of gluten, meat, and GMO's in their diet I suppose.
The right has one built in since the day of time - the fear of God.
They use that idea to beat their idiot followers to a pulp. Hell, probably not too unlike Radical Islamics who preach Fear of Allah with similar results in terms of entrancing a lot of narrow-minded thinkers.
Last year we were literally told we should "be grateful" because our increase came in at only 10%.
Here's an exact quote from our school district's superintendent letter on this year's premiums:
The benefit’s (sic) committee then looked at benefit changes to the base plan and buy-up plan to bring the premium down and still remain comparable to other districts. (shown on next slide).
The benefit changes resulted in a blended rate increase for the plans of 17.6%
So, basically after years of having our medical expenses growing at many multiples of inflation, we were now told that after the 2014-15 school year, based on our experience, our insurance premiums would rise by over 26%, and not wanting that, our benefits committee decided to slash benefits to keep our costs down to ONLY 17.6%.
Woohoo!
There are a lot of very conservative people in Idaho who are being squeezed so tightly by these rising medical costs that they are changing their opinions on single-payer system. It's a hard thing for them to accept, and many more are simply blaming ACA for these types of rate increases.
Just something to think about since this thread morphed into a discussion on ACA.
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well, I think TPP is an example with respect to Congress, but I'm saying this on a wider scale. The best example would be the 2006 poll where 22.6% of Democrats thought it was "likely" that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks and 28.2% thought it was "somewhat likely". It seems that sitting presidents seem to attract this kind of thing. Linked is a Politico article.
Link - ( New Window )
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
About 25 years ago or so ago I had to take a public speaking course for another degree I was getting. I took it as a summer short course as I already was an adjunct at the college. It was taught by a high school teacher. Long story short as we butted heads throughout the course he asked me my political views in front of the class. I said a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. He told there was no such animal. Now it seems there are a lot of people who think like me.
Gays want to marry? More power to the group. I'm all for it. Always have been. There will be an industry that develops around that. Don't force churches or private companies to participate. It's their loss of business.
Same with the abortion issue that manh brought up. I have always been anti abortion/pro choice. How is that possible one might ask? It's really simple. I, myself, don't agree with abortion. But who am I to force that belief on anyone else. That is their choice.
I think the polls are reclassifying people who have two views on an issue. What you, yourself, believes and what you think you should force others to believe.
Tough thing to do.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
The folks that refuse to brook any sort of regulation and suggest abortion as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. They exist, they repulse even a lot of pro choice people. But mainstream pro choice opinions aren't terribly offensive to relative moderates on either side of things.
Quote:
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
It really is amazing how they allowed fringe groups to commandeer their party. The ironic aspect is that those fringe groups don't realize that what they have done is hindered themselves while helping the Dems. They have been granted so much power that for anyone to stand a chance to be nominated for President, they have to take stances that comes back to hurt them in the general election, even if they don't really believe in those hardline stances.
Quote:
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Didn't Obama seek to roll taxes back to those levels and make capital gains taxed the same as earned income (even before adding the ACA tax to cap gains)? Or was it just Clinton-era levels?
This strikes me as right. There are elements out there, like superhardcore greenies and children away from home for the first time. They have literally no pull within the party. The closest you have in the national power structure is probably the Congressional Black Caucus, which is a just feckless group.
The voices opposed to compromise on the right are a lot more powerful. The far right group in Congress is probably 3-4 times the size of the far left contingent. No compromise groups like Grover Norquist's outfit have no analog on the left in terms of influence.
Just like when you have a republican incumbent the extreme liberals like Kucinich crawl out of the woodwork but even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren fit squarely int he "far left" camp.
and mainstream media certainly helps purvey an agenda (admit it or not, though if you don't admit it you'd be lying).
You can also look at how each party organizes the voting for the candidate, and how the candidates have to pander to each group. Much more difficult for the R's than for the D's to ignore the side-circus.
Beyond that, while perhaps a good thing in the long-term, the Tea Party and its pretty widespread appeal (without much of a central tenet anymore, which is why it's base is so large) has been a knife to the side of the R's...
Quote:
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's really the only viable outsider, at this moment, against Hilary, which is probably why he is considered "part and parcel" of the mainstream Dem candidate grouping.
For the most part, the smaller, fringe left groups, rarely have much in common with each other, making it much harder to coalesce into a group that can change the power dynamics of the party.
Quote:
In comment 12348216 Deej said:
Quote:
Bernie Sanders is a nobody -- he has no organization and no backing. He's polling 10% in the same way that Donald Duck would poll 10% as the anti-Hilary vote.
And he is not a Democrat.
He's getting anywhere from 24 to 36% in New Hampshire (and I know that's next door for him) depending on what poll you look at. I'm old enough to remember Gene McCarthy so I won't totally rule out the long shot.
Or there would be real reductions in carbon emissions; e.g. gas would be as expensive as it is in Europe. Or we would be unwinding free trade agreements that might be better for consumers, but are decidedly worse for some union jobs.
This shit isnt even being DISCUSSED. Because there is no effective hard left.
Nope. You're capable of doing that all by yourself.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton both qualify as far left.
Someone like Howard Dean, if he didn't meltdown on the campaign trail, would have been a better example of a moderate democrat. Joe Lieberman if he didn't struggle to find an identity was a far more moderate democrat (even a conservative democrat).
And Dean very possibly could have been one of the most unifying presidents ever.
His combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might have been enough to cross the aisle.
Politics in general. Watch what they do not what they say.
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
I'm irrelevant and I wasn't using myself as a gauge, I'm talking "of center" and relative to her party.
Her voting record doesn't support it, that's all over the place, but her campaign so far has been far left.
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
Ridiculous inane comment. Name one republican candidate that Hillary is close to as conservative as?
Anything outside that and you start approaching the fringes, though they aren't really defined until you hit about 8 on the scale.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
It's been noted, for several years, that the Republican primary breeds much more ideological candidates, because of a sizable, and relatively powerful, fringe group. The same is not true of the D's for the primary. Which has been the point of many here, and influences the general voting public's perception of the candidate during the regular year.
And "far" is defined by statistics...
in a year when there is a Democrat incumbent there are more extreme right wing candidates should surprise no one.
and to my early point I'd venture when Obama was elected that primary probably had its share of left wing extremists.
in either case this is a silly point to debate.
This reverses for a general election, of course, because no far right candidate would vote for a D, and vice versa, so you need to capture the moderates.
But, beyond that, being "beholden" to a fringe does not mean that they must vote for the beliefs of the fringe, but must work with those who are (or who are part of the fringe political process). In recent years, this has been the Tea Party, where many more moderate R's have been cannibalized by much more extreme candidates.
In essence, it changes the political calculus if more of your "allies" are further to one side.
So if you believe this graphic, it also proves the Republican party isn't beholden to the far right. Unless you believe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are going win the primary.
Pretty sure the republican candidate is going to be selected from Marco Rubio to the left.
Yeah, I dont believe the graphic just because someone posted on this thread. It's some new model from a group at Stanford. But if you go by it, you have Perry, Pency, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul outside the mainstream of the party -- that's at least half the GOP's serious candidates. But I dont really care about what is the mainstream within the party. That's the whole debate.
The GOP has gotten a lot more conservative and the Democrats have not followed suit in their extremism -- Dems have gotten a bit more liberal, which if I had to guess is largely attributable to conversion of a lot of southern dem seats into GOP seats. Poole (UGa) and Rosenthal (NYU) have been tracking this for decades, and found that the GOP is the most conservative it has been in a decade:
Now scoring this stuff is it's own debate, but the linked NPR piece identifies Poole as political scientists' go-to expert on this grading.
Link - ( New Window )
For instance, this is (partly) the same group who attempted to explain why richer individuals tend to vote R, but why richer cities tend to vote D.
yet people still get their panties stuck in their vaginas because her name was mentioned.
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
It'll be neck-and-neck between the Dem and REP nominees. No one is going to have any sort of money/influence peddling advantage/disadvantage. They're politicians; they're always on special at the counter.
Anything outside that and you start approaching the fringes, though they aren't really defined until you hit about 8 on the scale.
How could anyone view Santorum or Jindal as mainstream?
Quote:
In comment 12348297 Deej said:
Quote:
How is Hilary far left? Other than being left of you?
Hilary is more right than a lot of the republican candidates.
She will surely be the most brought and paid for of any candidate.
Ridiculous inane comment. Name one republican candidate that Hillary is close to as conservative as?
Who is going to be the most paid for in FIRE as her?
Abortion and Gay rights not an issue.
Bush has a better record then her on immigration issues and is married to a Mexican national?
Worst thing for this country is for another Clinton/Bush run.
I'm a moderate republican and really don't see a loss in the coming election.
It's still a year away from who we know the candidates will be.
Name who the left is going to put up beside Clinton?
She is ordained. We need the first women president.
Worked last time around. Except this one has a history.
Looong time to go.
How could anyone view Santorum or Jindal as mainstream? [/quote]
Yet look at all the people less mainstream than these two.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than.
Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
Agree, I didn't say she hasn't but that was my point.
Quote:
look up Hillary at on the issues.org it is a truly non-partisan site.
it's good because it aggregates her (and every candidate) position on most issues.
she's listed as far left.
to another posters point, Santorum is listed further right than Hillary is left, but I guarantee you there will be no Republican candidate who Hillary is considered more conservative than. Hillary - on the issues - ( New Window )
You can look at whatever site you want.
Actions matter.
Like I opined. A looong way to go.
this site chronicles her actions. Not sure what actions you're talking about. Voting? Speaking? Being at a rally? what better or different actions are there that tell you how a candidate feels about an issue other than their words and voting records (when they have served in public office like Hillary).
Agree there's a long way to go, and I'm only using Hillary as an example since she's the frontrunner. it's really irrelevant, replace Hillary with [INSERT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE HERE] and the point remains.
Where is the difference?
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
Where is the difference?
Saying everything I believe in as a moderate republican except some 360 on views as the campaign season has started. She moved a little left just as the republicans have tilted to the right.
Seems like politics as usual.
I'll go with that site. Proves my point.
Run to get the nomination then go center.
What is a moderate republican? I'd shed the party label. That's what I do. and then find the candidate most closely aligned to your beliefs.
more and more republicans find themselves to be more socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. That's not Hillary if that's what you mean by moderate Republican.
If not, what do you mean?
Bush II spent like a drunken sailor. Obama is is him x3.
There hasn't been a "fiscal conservative" since Bush I who got nailed because he raised taxes. Remember read my lips?
Your thinking more hard right vs hard left.
It's all relative.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
Hillary the politician has never been particularly consistent. Her healthcare proposals under Bill were pretty leftish for the times, but her track record as a senator was pretty moderate, perhaps consciously so. You're voting for the candidate, assuming that her policies would be better (from your perspective) from those of her Republican opponent, or at least tolerable.
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
I don't know. Probably can't.
Quote:
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
Ok, suspicion based makes much more sense instead of a regular once a month schedule.
Quote:
In comment 12348562 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
OK, I didn't see where you were going with that. Saying something is off the charts in this case could be perceived two different ways.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Quote:
I see your point.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
constant testing on a routine basis, unless warranted, is probably cost prohibitive. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ability to test or do it on entry into the system, just to keep people on their toes.
Bill Clinton benefited immensely from gridlock. Early on, he had no problem spending. when there was a conservative backlash, he embraced it. Unfortunately, I think Hillary has learned that lesson: embrace whatever is popular. Her whole career post BC presidency has been about making tepid moves that won't rock the boat and reduce her electability. do what looks good.
Quote:
In comment 12348661 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I see your point.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
Wherever did I say he was inconsequential? Have I stated anything not supported by the record, or by political culture? Like any President, he did some things well, and other things not so well. I'm certain we disagree on legacy, however.
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
the second part was supposed to refer to drug testing, but I did only say testing, so it does look like I was referring to alcohol.
I don't have a problem at all testing for illegal drugs at any time. I don't have a problem testing for alcohol IF a problem is documented.
logistics are the bugaboo, but I don't believe that freedom from testing is a right if you want to receive benefits.
I don't disagree. After Carter, anyone with a pulse would look good.
Quote:
In comment 12348562 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
Base-broadening, which is exactly a tax raise for a very wide swath, after cutting the corporate rate so drastically. Poor businesses!
Quote:
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
There's plenty of valid reasons, the least of which is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Drug testing isn't free.
What's the benefit supposed to even be? That those lazy druggies aren't going to get my tax money?
Considering new college graduates can't find jobs, it's so incredibly silly to assume that even a large minority of folks on welfare are on it because of laziness/drug use. Extremely silly.
So because of this problem we're going to spend all that money to drug test everyone, even the vast majority that are living in welfare or have it as a supplement strictly because there aren't jobs that can get at them enough to feed themselves or their children.
Such an incredible waste of money just so the less disadvantaged can feel like they aren't being taken advantage of by poor people- because of course it's a choice and they choose to be poor.
Ugh.
Now I'm thinking there are probably many more productive and cost-effective ways we could curb drug use for the small percentage of welfare recipients that have serious abuse issues.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And is anyone really comfortable spending money to put a welfare recipient in rehab for what's more often than not going to be weed? I'm not.
So it'll be, "Sorry ma'am, you don't get food stamps this month because you've smoked weed. I imagine you might be able to find a pimp that won't beat you too often so you can feed your kids. Or hell, since you already know where to get it, maybe you should start dealing? Ever seen that show, Weeds?"
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And it assumes that someone put together enough to apply for welfare despite having an addiction couldn't figure out how to beat a drug test.
I bow to your superior knowledge in this area.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
I don't think its a rights issue at all.
I think I laid out my stance and it had not a thing to do with a violation of rights or privacy.
In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only one to bring that up.
So the issue for you is that "I have to do it, they should too!"?
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Again- the end goal being?
Denying welfare will make the drug abusers get jobs?
What exactly will this accomplish? You'll feel better? I just don't get it. As i typed before, unless you're willing to force them into and pay for rehab, denying benefits will do nothing but increase crime.
If it was as simple as denying benefits = making them get a job, we could just do away with welfare altogether.
So again, aside from making you feel better about where your taxes go, what is the benefit?
Quote:
because, lol.
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
I would say the burden is on you to prove how it's effective in any way that is beneficial. It's expensive to test folks. And if you're not gonna test, it's an empty threat? And let's say you find that the person is using drugs and you cut them off. What's the outcome you hope to achieve from that? Saved money? Wake up call for them? How are they gonna pay for food/housing and even drugs?
This plan sounds like it's fair and might be effective but if you think it through, it's almost certainly more trouble than it's worth.
Other than the standard sites with pre-determined biases.
It's not like there's an unlimited supply of welfare funds just there waiting for the next family in need to come along.
Have you seen the rate of increase in people receiving various forms of aid? It's out of control. And I suspect a small percentage of it is fraudulent or not going to appropriate people - such as drug users not using the funds to feed and clothe their children, but to buy drugs.
If we do nothing about it, we condone it, and prevent a legitimately needy family who would appropriately use those funds from getting them.
Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Welfare was not intended as a job, it was meant to be something temporary for the most needy, it's morphing into government sustenance and it has to change.
Or not. If everyone else is happy with it I guess I'm in the minority expecting welfare is not provided in perpetuity with ZERO conditions or strings attached.
The status quo is not sustainable, and I have ZERO issue with welfare nor am I derelict in my responsibility that as a society we have an obligation to help the poor, I feel like without conditions or goals we're not helping people long-term. We're enabling them.
"Only three other times in the past six decades has the unemployment rate fallen this far this fast: in the early 1950s, when growth averaged 6.7% per annum; in the late 1970s when GDP growth averaged 4.8%, and in the mid-1980s when growth averaged 5.2%," said Gluskin Sheff's David Rosenberg to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.
"Today we accomplished this feat with only 2.4% growth which is disturbing because it means that it is not taking much in the way of incremental economic activity to drain valuable resources out of the labor market."
Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to the drop in the labor force participation rate (LFPR). And the drop in the LFPR has been due to a combination of aging demographics and an expanding group of discouraged workers walking away from the job market.
"One theory that deserves examination is that we may have an abundance of separate benefits programs that provide for the disenfranchised in a very piecemeal and inefficient manner that are also perhaps abused or overly relied upon by some, which may lead to a distortion of work incentives," noted Rosenberg.
He's talking about disability, food stamps, welfare, etc.
While these programs are largely being used by those in need, we can't ignore the fact that many are taking advantage fraudulently.
Whether these programs are being used legitimately or fraudulently, it's nevertheless stunning to see how much these programs have ballooned.
Disability Food stamps and welfare are ballooning - ( New Window )
As for food stamps and welfare recipients? Well the economy went to shit. The jobs recovery has not been terribly robust. Some of the drop in unemployment is people "leaving" the workforce due to chronic unemployment. And a lot of the jobs added back have been part time or worse than the ones eliminated. Hopefully the middle chart trend continues -- that need-based aid will fall in times of economic plenty. However, the Bush-era growth in food stamps needs an explanation -- there was a steady rise even during a decent economy.
Dont really see what drug testing has to do with it though. Were there no drugs in the 70s and 80s?
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Quote:
60% of people on food stamps have jobs
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
So the solution is to drug test the Poors?
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
Not to mention most Mom & Pop shops don't have "greeters". Seems like an easy position to replace with a robot.
But the goal IMO should be make sure the fund are getting to the people who need it most (the kids, people who can't provide for themselves).
if a parent has a suspicious background (prior drug conviction) and in their welfare application has agreed not to use drugs while on welfare (as most states require) then drug testing them is appropriate IMO.
why do you think so many states are introducing legislation to do this? No reason? Because they don't think it will help? because they want to waste even more money?
Here is what Tennessee has to say about it:
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
Quote:
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe.
Actually, I think that varies significantly between jurisdictions and administrative judges. I recall that certain judges have a near 100% acceptance rate for SSI disability applications. So much so that the Social Security Administration is looking into it. While not dispositive, some analysts attribute the jump to people in their 50's becoming unemployed in the last recession and taking a shot at SSI with questionable disability claims rather than trying to find a new job.
More likely, I would think, they weren't able to find another job (or take the low-level job s that were there) and got desperate. I really don't think everyone, or even more than a very small minority, are on the make.
and for Beer Fridge, who asked what to do if someone tests positive. would we cut off benefits?
absolutely. It's a hard ass concept, but it's one I espouse. if you don't take life responsibility, why should anyone else?
You seriously expect someone from the bottom opf the economic heap who is also doing drugs to exhibit "life responsibility?"
It's this kind of thinking that killed more than a million Irish during the first famine.
On the money!
yes, I believe in it.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
Very well said.
From what I have read the proponents of drug testing those people with "suspicious cause" or whatever they call it is about changing behavior and making sure the funds available get to the people who will use it the most effectively.
If you had a choice of providing $800 a month (or however much it is) to a parent of three children who is going to use at least part of it to buy drugs, or a similar person who is not, I don't see anyone picking the drug user.
I don't see it being disenfranchising or any more stigma to require those people with drug histories to prove they are clean (at least that day) to receive their tax payer dollars.
Does this kind of thing backfire? Maybe, but I understand the intent and I find it hard to argue with, if a way to implement it fiscally responsibly works.
yes, I believe in it.
the Irish died because they had very limited choices in the midst of a famine. they didn't have welfare type help, and died horrible deaths. that's just a wee bit different than spending money on drugs and then expecting to be kept alive. if the Irish grew reefer and opium instead of food crops, I wouldn't have much sympathy if they died of starvation.
I think you'd do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading about Sir Charles Trevelyan and his involvement. Get beyond the quotes attributed to him and look at his politics (laissez-faire/market cures all/personal responsibility) combined with his disdain for the Irish and you'll see that it pretty much dovetails with your above statement. The Brits started out well, providing public works-type jobs to the indigent, but got tired of seeing no "gratitude" from the Irish.
It's a sordid tale, and a sordid act, and it's right on point.
I am not sure how the thread drifted in this direction, but if the goal is to cut government spending, there are far richer veins to tap - agricultural subsidies, military spending, streamlining the corporate tax code, etc, etc.
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
His charity donations and such were pretty impressive. This may give him a bit of a push.
His charity donations and such were pretty impressive. This may give him a bit of a push.
Did they find the emails he took with him yet?
and absolutely, there are areas of gov't spending that are ripe for cutting. I'm sort of mixed about military spending, because global military domination is a political priority. if you want to control foreign oil, there's a price to pay. agricultural subsidies are mostly just a giveaway.
I think you need to define this significant amount and provide more than opinion.
From what I understand, studies have shown that the idea of a large amount of people gaming the system and welfare queens are pretty much myth. I could be wrong, though.
I have only anecdotal evidence.
people I know who are willing to work under the table. who are willing to take advantage of the liberal NY child healthcare laws. people who know how to work the system.
I can't prove it. I can only offer you a very gently used bridge I have for sale if you don't think plenty of people take full advantage of an easy system to take advantage of.
if you truly don't know anyone who has cheated the system, you don't know those around you.
And when did I say that everyone on it is honest? Perhaps you can re-read; a small minority is about 5-10%. And, by the way, I prefer not to rely on anecdotes since, you know, it kinda makes one sound a wee bit stupid.
you also think you're a smart fellow.
keep on thinking. you don't know as much as you think you do.
But, why should I argue with you? You have anecdotes! And a blinding incomprehension that minority does not mean 0 (unless Webster's has been changed very recently).
So, yeah, I'm safe in assuming I'm very smart in this area.
Plenty out there. I can provide a 5 page syllabus, if you would like. As easy or hard as you would like.
you will never, ever believe me, but search again.
you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.
you don't know your clients as well as you think you do.
you are enamored with charts and graphs. read by someone who doesn't have a clue. you dismiss out of hand anything that counters your pov.
you don't know your clients.
I don't care what you think of me. I'm never going to convince you. nothing I've said is a lie.
but you would serve your profession much, much better if you honestly examine the seedier side and not just accept the side you choose to see. it's not all seedy. but there is that side.
I've never stated that there is no welfare abuse. Again, I can't help it if people don't want to read. A small minority means that there is a shadier side. Good call, though; top notch analysis. You must make a super worker.
If you want to be ignorant, go for it. But I will continue to call out the vapid "thoughts" you call forth, making you no better than a Jenny McCarthy blowhard.
It's ok; at some point, you may learn. We all wish for that to happen. Until that point, I'll continue working with my "clients" (not sure what the fuck this means, but OK), doing research on this very subject, and teaching future generations that will swamp your dinosaur mentality.
At least they will look for evidence. Even if it, eventually, is contrary to mine. But, such is science (I really wish you knew that).
Here's a hint about economic science (and most other sciences). Anecdotes are only useful in generating research questions. They become invalid once evidence comes in.
You know, the whole correlation does not equal causation?
Mark Plant, "An Empirical Analysis of Welfare Dependence"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805132
Blank, "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the US"
Borjas, "Food Insecurity and Public Assistance"
Kearney, "Is There an Effect of Incremental Welfare Benefits on Fertility Behavior"
Meyer and Sulliva, " The Effects of Welfare and Tax Reform"
Blank and Ruggles, "When do Women Use AFDC..."
Gruber and Yelowitz, "Public Health Insurance and Private Savings"
Gruber, "Cash Welfare as a Consumption Smoothing Device for Single Mothers"
Gueron, "Work and Welfare - Lessons on Employment Programs"
Hotz, Mullin, and Scholz, "Welfare, Employment, and Income..."
Hoynes and MaCurdy, "Has the Decline in Benefits Shortened Welfare Spells"
Meyer, "Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits"
Moffit, "Incentive Effects of the US Welfare System"
Nichols and Zeckauser, "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients"
Powers, "Does Means-Testing Welfare Discourage Savings..."
my apologies if I didn't have that right.
Hoynes, "Local Labor Markets and Welfare Spells: Do Demand Conditions Matter?"
Gottschalk and Moffit, "Welfare Dependence: Concepts, Measures, and Trends "
I also do work with public groups to improve health outcomes and decrease welfare dependence with job training and resume programs.
Insert huge smiley here to show that I'm making a joke
or am I? (insert another smiley face)
seriously, you need to tune in a little more to the dark side. I know I'm a little too dark, but nothing you've ever posted indicates you have any darkness to you. you need a little dark. not as much as I have, but you need some. don't dismiss real anecdotes (I've never stated anything that isn't reasonably verifiable) . don't be so wed to statistics (there are real reasons to under report abuse, and when it's not caught, it's not reported, amazing that none of my anecdotes involve being caught). stats seem real, but someone wrote a whole book about how to lie with statistics. I work in science, and when physics can be manipulated, so too can the socio sciences. there is real to overall trends, no doubt. they don't tell the whole story. more learning the trenches. less quoting scholars.
But, um, you do realize that, should you work in science, there is absolutely no internal nor external validity to anecdotes. At least statistics can provide it. Perhaps you have heard of necessary and sufficient conditions?
Statistical analysis is necessary for determining causation, but is not sufficient. Anecdotes are neither necessary, nor sufficient. That's the basest of scientific truths.
And, please, enlighten me. What trenches have you worked in (that you're able to see over, at the very least?). Real ones; not make-believe based on speaking to people. So easy to dismiss scholars when you likely have no outside experience in dealing with any of these programs.
The only reason you need darkness is because you have no first-hand experience that's meaningful. Let me tell you something; when you actually set foot in this area, then you can come back and tell me something. Blowhards don't pass any sort of a smell test. And you're full of it.
By the way, for someone who thinks there is no point in going back and forth, you sure seem to be doing a lot of it. Unless, again, there is some magical "fkap" definition of back-and-forth that differs from the rest of humanity (you know, like minority).
Aren't they, by definition, non-representative samples?
Seems to me like any scientist would have an answer as to why that's bad. No?
the anecdotes I tell aren't giggles. they're reality. you can dismiss them as non-representative, but they are real. they're data points that you should pay attention to. ask yourself, do you know anyone who has ever cheated the system? don't answer me. answer yourself. is the evidence just a giggle because you didn't read it in a book? and if you don't know at least several people who've cheated, you don't know the group of people who claim to be working for.
kicker : 7/1/2015 12:34 pm : link : reply
abuse. A very small minority abuse it.
Where, in here, is it even intimated that the abuse is 0? Listen, we get that the deal on BBI is to double down on the stupid, but it's such a weird stance to take when it's clearly written, and doesn't support your stupid.
I even mentioned that it's roughly 5-10% (again, non-zero; surprisingly, 5 does not, and cannot, equal zero). 1:23 PM on 7/1/2015.
You seem to be a very astute scientists that still doesn't wrap your head around proper experimental procedures, and why you're little causation argument is, at best, a boat with like 45 holes in it. But, sure, I never dismissed them as data points (in fact, I agreed that they were).
By the way, unless you were born in 1970, you must have zero personal experience with the modern day welfare system, since there were substantial reforms in the late 1980's through the 2000's. So, the answer must be "no", that you have no experience with the trenches.
Good to know.
I expect some witty rejoinder about "I climbed out, others can", "don't read a book, listen to people", or "anecdotes". Yippee. Science.
Intriguing.
In your field, is this an acceptable method of debate? To pick something someone hasn't said and lampoon them?