-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Jun 2011, 11:30 am
The Revolutionary Communist Party used to try and provoke 'debate' among the far left by coming up with reactionary positions and seeking to defend them as in line with Marxist doctrine. By the nineties they had decided that the revolution was over - and in Blair, had been successful (!) - and wound up, along with their magazine, Living Marxism. many of them, including good old Frank Furedi, moved on to Spiked magazine, which to this day (as above) seems to do the exact same thing.
I think that's a little unfair. I (obviously) wasn't tending to read magazines called Living Marxism back in the 90s so I couldn't really comment on that, but I've become familiar with a number of the writers since and while they all share certain controversialist traits there does seem to be a consistent left/libertarian philosophy that they're advocating. I enjoy reading Spiked because it offers thought-provoking perspectives on all kinds of issues that you tend not to come across elsewhere. It isn't necessary to agree with it all.
I'd have been interested to introduce Tom to that site. I suspect he'd probably have loved it, although now that you've tipped him off that they're a bunch of old Marxists that can never happen....
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
28 Jun 2011, 12:09 pm
bbauska wrote:So with all deductions, the "ultra rich" pay 17.7%? Are you saying that you think that ALL people should pay 17.7% of their pay? I could sign off on that. That is exactly what I am looking for. Pick a number, and make everyone pay that.
It's a complex question Brad that is perhaps for another forum. But my question to you is as a social conservative, how do you feel about these ultra wealthy republicans writing six figure checks to support republican legislators who voted for the measure?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
28 Jun 2011, 12:20 pm
b
So with all deductions, the "ultra rich" pay 17.7%? Are you saying that you think that ALL people should pay 17.7% of their pay? I could sign off on that. That is exactly what I am looking for. Pick a number, and make everyone pay that.
Whatever number you pick it should, in a healthy economy, produce enough tax revenue, when combined with all sources of revenue, to provide a healthy surplus. Historically thats been around 18% of GDP. Right now the US has tax revenues about 15.5% of GDP.
In a crappy economy, the surplus disappears, and in real crappy times a deficit is arrived at....
If you can actually pare expenses to a level where revenues need only be 16% of GDP you can have a lower tax rate. If you can't keep expenses in check you might need to increase revenues to 19%. And the tax rate might have to be higher...
Its simplistic to think that there is a magic number out there...
source for number
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story_2.html
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 Jun 2011, 1:25 pm
Sassenach wrote:I think that's a little unfair. I (obviously) wasn't tending to read magazines called Living Marxism back in the 90s so I couldn't really comment on that, but I've become familiar with a number of the writers since and while they all share certain controversialist traits there does seem to be a consistent left/libertarian philosophy that they're advocating. I enjoy reading Spiked because it offers thought-provoking perspectives on all kinds of issues that you tend not to come across elsewhere. It isn't necessary to agree with it all.
Sorry, but it wasn't intended to be an attack on you for finding it. I just find their treatment of things to be pretty superficial - particularly Furedi. In all that article, I didn't see much in the way of facts. Some assertions, some generalisations, and some wrapping of long words, but not much to substantiate what he was saying. Other than that celebrity culture is vacuous (who knew?), that an op-ed in the Guardian can be strident (the mind boggles), and that there are some people who disagree with other people.
I can see the same kind of points expressed from all sorts of places, and it's been better expressed on here by people I disagree with.
I'd have been interested to introduce Tom to that site. I suspect he'd probably have loved it, although now that you've tipped him off that they're a bunch of old Marxists that can never happen....
[/quote]Ah. Yes. Well, give it a couple of weeks.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 Jun 2011, 2:45 pm
Sorry, but it wasn't intended to be an attack on you for finding it. I just find their treatment of things to be pretty superficial - particularly Furedi. In all that article, I didn't see much in the way of facts. Some assertions, some generalisations, and some wrapping of long words, but not much to substantiate what he was saying. Other than that celebrity culture is vacuous (who knew?), that an op-ed in the Guardian can be strident (the mind boggles), and that there are some people who disagree with other people.
I think he had a point, which is that a lot of what we see with proponents of gay marriage isn't so much a campaign for rights as an attempt to claim the moral high ground and sneer at the rednecks who disagree. You can see that by the noticeable silence regarding the much worse abuses of gay rights in the Islamic world (or for that matter within Islamic communities in the West). This tends to be overlooked because it doesn't fit the narrative.
That said, I do take your point. My own criticism of the piece would be more along the lines of 'so what ?'. Even if we accept his basic argument, it doesn't really change anything about how we feel on the subject of gay marriage, or it ought not to anyhow.
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
28 Jun 2011, 8:54 pm
RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:However, the fact that NY, Vermont, and New Hampshire may grant these rights to their residents, carries no obligation for other states to recognize the unions. To suggest that it does is to destroys the 10th ammendment.,.
And this is completely wrong. Art. IV Sec. 1 says specifically says
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof
This means that if a state passes a law in one state, the other states have to recognize it as valid. In otherwords, absent DOMA, if a couple has a valid marriage under New York law moves to Virginia, Virginia must treat the marriage as such and allow the partners in the marriage all the rights and privileges of a married couple. Therefore, since the Constitution is specific on this type of action, the 10th Amendment is not in effect.
However, the existence of DOMA that would allow Virginia to not recognize the marriage.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
29 Jun 2011, 11:58 am
Archduke Russell John wrote:And this is completely wrong. Art. IV Sec. 1 says specifically says Full Faith and Credit
That's not the only thing wrong with what he said. Maybe I'll try and start another tax forum when I have the time and energy.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
12 Jul 2011, 11:17 am
Remember kids, there's no such thing as
a slippery slope:Making polygamous unions illegal, they argue, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free exercise, establishment, free speech and freedom of association clauses of the First Amendment.
“We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs,” Mr. Brown said in a statement provided by his lead attorney, Jonathan Turley, who is a law professor at George Washington University.
The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage. In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
Bold added for those who might think this the actions of a crank.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
12 Jul 2011, 11:26 am
That his lawyer is prestigious does not mean that the claimant is not a crank.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
12 Jul 2011, 11:32 am
danivon wrote:That his lawyer is prestigious does not mean that the claimant is not a crank.
True, but it is dubious thinking if you believe Turley is taking this without thinking he can win.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
12 Jul 2011, 11:45 am
You are good at making belief-based assumptions. Maybe he just thinks he'll get paid either way? Maybe he's testing the boundaries? Maybe he's doing a favour for an old pal? Maybe he's the fiftieth law professor to have been asked to take it on after the other 49 refused it?
Of course he will think he 'can' win in the strictest sense (ie: that the probability is > 0). He will act (if he's a decent lawyer) in a way to maximise the chances of winning. But that doesn't mean he thinks it is likely that he will win. He may even have advised his client that there isn't a cat in Hell's chance, but if the client wants to proceed, that is their choice, not that of the lawyer.
But you know all that really, don't you?
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
12 Jul 2011, 12:02 pm
Dan:
You are good at making belief-based assumptions. Maybe he just thinks he'll get paid either way? Maybe he's testing the boundaries? Maybe he's doing a favour for an old pal? Maybe he's the fiftieth law professor to have been asked to take it on after the other 49 refused it?
Maybe he wants a 2nd wife?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
12 Jul 2011, 12:05 pm
danivon wrote:You are good at making belief-based assumptions. Maybe he just thinks he'll get paid either way? Maybe he's testing the boundaries? Maybe he's doing a favour for an old pal? Maybe he's the fiftieth law professor to have been asked to take it on after the other 49 refused it?
Of course he will think he 'can' win in the strictest sense (ie: that the probability is > 0). He will act (if he's a decent lawyer) in a way to maximise the chances of winning. But that doesn't mean he thinks it is likely that he will win. He may even have advised his client that there isn't a cat in Hell's chance, but if the client wants to proceed, that is their choice, not that of the lawyer.
But you know all that really, don't you?
Big fan of Turley, are you?I frequently disagree with him, but I don't think he's a crank or one to simply spin his wheels.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
12 Jul 2011, 12:05 pm
Ray Jay wrote:Dan:
You are good at making belief-based assumptions. Maybe he just thinks he'll get paid either way? Maybe he's testing the boundaries? Maybe he's doing a favour for an old pal? Maybe he's the fiftieth law professor to have been asked to take it on after the other 49 refused it?
Maybe he wants a 2nd wife?
Left that religion a long, long time ago.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
12 Jul 2011, 12:06 pm
There are some people who think that way. I think we call them 'masochists'. :-)
