we're bashing him for acting like he just cured aids, and for the excessive praise this guy gets for basically doing his job - i'm not thrilled that the president took a stand on shitty taxes - that's part of what he's SUPPOSED to be doing. do you congratulate everyone who successfully assembles a cheeseburger for you? no, because that's what he's there to do. people deserve praise when they go above and beyond what they are normally there to do. call me when he abolishes the federal reserve and the IRS and i'll bring the beer and balloons - until then there's nothing worthy of the kind of media dick sucking this guy is enjoying.

 Reply

You are so right. Eff the govment Time for Libertarian Paradise!!!

Its my experience that Libertarians are most often techies because libertarians that I know want to be able to download anything for free and smoke weed. They don't think about things like Military, Firefighters, Cops, Infrastructure, Schools, Security Entitlement programs, and the like. Its not no government that we need, its smarter government.

 Reply

i om ok with the gov't being involved with two things - national defense, and the judicial system. the rest would do just fine, nay, much better, being private or charity driven.

 Reply

I don't have a problem with Libertarians. I just don't think the free market is the magical answer.

A small example is in cell phone plugs. It is a pain that my Sony Ericcson phone takes a proprietary connection to plug into power. The free market won't fix that, but a government regulation will by the year 2012.

If you can explain to me how instances like I just mentioned get solved in free market, you may make me a convert.

For now however I support Obama, and given a choice between Obama and McCain most Libertarians I know chose Obama.

 Reply

The one and only solution is to invest in the best one, not to let the government decide which one you are to use.

 Reply

I don't have a problem with Libertarians. I just don't think the free market is the magical answer.

neither do i. there is no magical answer. no system can produce utopia.

It is a pain that my Sony Ericcson phone takes a proprietary connection to plug into power. The free market won't fix that, but a government regulation will by the year 2012.

those companies didn't need a government in order to address this problem - and they shouldn't be forced into doing so. im sorry but companies aren't here to please us - they're here to turn a profit. when you buy a phone you're saying 'i want this phone more than i want this money' and they are saying 'we want this money more than we want this phone'. you dont like the charger policy of a specific phone, but you didn't hate it enough to make it not worth the trade. yes, it sucks, i know. but it's not the role of government to make things not suck, it's the role of government to protect our lives and our liberty, and that's all.

If you can explain to me how instances like I just mentioned get solved in free market, you may make me a convert.

um, blu-ray? we didn't need government to decide that, the market decided that blu-ray > hddvd, and suddenly we have a universal disc standard.

fuel efficient cars - it didn't take a government mandate to get japan rolling on tiny sippers in the late 70s through today - the market demanded it, and they delivered.

it's like saying "it would be better if all gadgets had interchangeable batteries, that way there'd only be one kind of battery and that would be cheaper and more convenient, so... let's make a law"

yes it would be better. when that starts happening (and it will eventually) i'll decide if i like the way it's implemented and i'll vote with my dollars.

Good thing your deep frier is CSA certified, otherwise the free market may have produced a deep frier that explodes on plug in.

Why would a free market evolve a product that is certified to not fail and cause death?

 Reply

fucking blockquote FAIL.

 Reply

I am just saying I want 2 systems of check.

1. Free Market.

2. Government Regulations.

All you are saying is you want option 2 taken away?

Doesn't it balance better if it goes 1 then 2?

I really am not trying to patronize you I really want see that the appeal is. I want to know why I should believe in Libertarianism.

 Reply

forgot this point: there was nothing stopping those companies from getting together and deciding on a charger standard. they didn't need a government to do that. but those companies are property, and it's inherently wrong for governments to exert control over private property. the decision to go to a standard connector is for those companies to make. government dictating business decisions is fascism, and they will never be as good at running businesses as those who have a vested interest in the companies success.

sure we could make the world a better place for everyone if we decided that all production shall go towards the common good first, and the creators of that production second (or not at all) you soon lose incentive to innovate as it becomes increasingly futile to attempt to turn a profit. you'd just plod along putting out sub par crap because putting out excellent stuff isn't making your wallet any fatter, so why put forth the extra effort?

 Reply

"I would double-heart you if I could. I'm not a Libertarian, but I think I have a man-crush on one. "

i'm flattered, but let's keep the bromance to a minimum eh?

; )

 Reply

Also, no one is going to die from a proprietary port in a phone, no matter how troublesome.

 Reply

Its moving to mini usb.

What standard would the free market have chosen?

The reason companies use proprietary options is to make a money on their patented plug or whatever the proprietary device is.

And proprietary is always more expensive, because when logitech or whatever 3rd party tries to sell a device under their brand they pay royalties to use the tech.

Proprietary kills tech advancement. Open source is more libertarian then you guys.

 Reply

The phone thing is just an example. The bigger picture is with no regulation, and no choices the free market fails. Trusts and Monopolies are a prime example.

Free Markets as an ideology works, but in the real world it ALWAYS leads to control by one entity.

Government Regulation as an ideology works, but in the real world it ALWAYS leads to control by one entity.

Both are bad, but together they make the best times in the US of A.

 Reply

You don't need the government involved to get a quality product.

"Standards are established by a number of nationally and internationally recognized organizations. Many of these organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and American Welding Society (AWS), for example, are associated with a specific industry or area of expertise. Some organizations, such as the Canadian Standards Association, develop regional and national standards in a wide range of subject areas.

Standards organizations work with interested parties-including industry representatives, consumers, and regulatory bodies-to define the requirements that become the published standard. " - CSA

And most of these organizations, such as the ones listed here (NFPA, SAE, and AWS) are not government organizations.

"Who writes the standards at CSA?

CSA standards are developed by volunteer technical committees consisting of representatives from groups such as government, industry, consumer groups and users impacted by the standard. Our process ensures that no one group dominates the process. The committees use a consensus-based approach to determine the contents of a standard. CSA employees facilitate the standards development process."

 Reply

Regulations MEAN well, but they do more harm than good.

Regulations limit the freedom of consenting individuals in situations where no harm is being applied to any party. Until someone violates someone else's rights to life and liberty, the government has no place putting all kinds of requirements and restrictions on the actions of consenting adults who are not violating anyone's rights.

 Reply

I originally meant UL not CSA but its the same thing.

I just want government to be there to check the free market.

I wasn't saying everything passes through the government and the market has to adjust.

I think that we have an ok mix as of currently. I do not see restrictions on business slowing down Apple so I am good. :)

 Reply

and as rabid points out, the vast majority of functional standards that anyone cares about are privately devised standards.

lets say i want to sell home made burritos. in a free market, I can go to a standards company and become certified for cleanliness and sanitation. I can purchase insurance in case anything goes wrong. And i can advertise those two facts as a way of assuring people that my food is safe to eat, and that if it somehow isn't, i'm insured.

Or i can choose to not do either of those things, and put up a sign that says 'eat at your own risk'. customers would have no recourse whatsoever if they got sick.

Which way do you think i'd get more customers?

now go back to government regulation - there's no competition on the cost of becoming certified as food safe. there's no choice in the amount or type of insurance i must have. and their standards are likely not as strict as some companies might be - after all, a private company sells a product, and rides on its reputation. the end result? cheaper certification with higher standards, and cheaper insurance of the type i prefer.

when you look at altering a socioeconomic model, you can't just change one thing and say "See? it all goes to shit if you change this one thing!" - indeed it does, but you're ignoring how the market always fills a vaccum. Getting the government out of the regulation and standards business does not mean there will be no more standards. in fact, it means there will be more standards - COMPETING standards - instead of just one.

 Reply

;c) It is through mostly private organizations that useful standards are produced. Another is the metric system.

The government is generally more of a hindrance in such things. I'm not trying to promote no government though, I just think it should play a much smaller role in our daily lives than it does. I'm very pissed that they waste their time banning things like light bulbs and regulating toilet flushes.

 Reply

"Trusts and Monopolies are a prime example."

"Government Regulation as an ideology works, but in the real world it ALWAYS leads to control by one entity."

you know what another problem with gov't regulation is? lobbyists. the large companies LOVE regulations, as they keep new businesses from rising. that's why they spend billions every year lobbying to have more regulations passed - regulations that they design, that they can easily meet, that wont cost them much - but that keep the competition down.

...and you claim that regulation is what keeps monopolies from happening? seems to me that having a central power that is apparently easily bribed making all the rules perpetuates monopolistic practices.

 Reply

Well I guess I did learn something about standardization.

You guys sound a hell of a lot smarter then Beck and Hannity, I'm routing for Libertarians to grow as a third party.

I believe in competitive evolution and think its sad we have 2 party system.

Like I said I voted for Ron Paul because I was a registered Republican.

In fact, I believe I am more fiscally conservative, but still want social programs, they just need to be paid for. You know its the social conservatives that made the republican party fail. That and the last guy that was a gut-feeler-decider not a thinker.

 Reply

Oh really? This guy:

[mediamatters.org]

 Reply

Also, his book Liberty and Tyranny is very good.

 Reply

oh shit you just reminded me, I'M a registered republican right now - i switched from libertarian just to vote in the primary - i'll have to remember to switch that back!

social programs are much better facilitated by private charity.

i have to cut out because im not getting enough work done, but i encourage you to go to libertariansolution.com and download a podcast about charity vs social programs.

 Reply

"Proprietary kills tech advancement. Open source is more libertarian then you guys. "

WRONG. Libertarians are concerned centrally with property rights. The entire philosophy revolves around property rights. Wiki something.

 Reply

oh they already WANT to, they just haven't figured out how the series of tubes works yet.

 Reply

You are referring to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. It was McCain who said he didn't know how to use a computer.

Its Obama who used Social Media and the Internet to win POTUS.

So as a techie who would you have be President?

I am wondering where we would be if McCain won. Please enlighten me.

 Reply

obama doesn't have a hand in crafting methods for taxing the internet - it's the same old farts who've been in the senate for the last decade. so it's rather inconsequential whether it's mccain or obama in the white house as far as that issue goes. actually, it's rather inconsequential whether it's mccain or obama in the white house as far as ANY issue goes. taxes and inflation will go up, war will continue, the gap between classes will continue to widen, and more civil liberties will be restricted.

but forget the republicrats and the demopublicans - who would i have in office? Ron Paul, plain and simple.

 Reply

wow that's some heavy misanthropy you have going there.

i guess you can't be bothered to care about the government screwing rich people, because they're, well, rich.

being apathetic to inequities against other people just because they aren't you is likely one of the most disgusting forms of schadenfreude. yeah fuck those rich guys, and i dont care about this cuz it doesn't affect me personally LOL - breaking godwin's here but what the hell - like a blue eyed blond german during the holocaust, 'hey it's not like they're coming for ME, so what's the big deal?'

 Reply

vote by mail, that's what i do. easy as pie. hell do me a favor and just go register as a libertarian - even if you dont vote, one more party member is always a step in the right direction.

 Reply

and for the record, even though im a libertarian i voted for Ron Paul, as i likely will in 2012.

 Reply

Taxes for people making over $1,000,000 are around 36% under Reagan they were at 50%...so tell me what the big problem is with raising it to 39%?

How is Obama socialist when his tax rate would be 11% less then the level under Reagan?

 Reply

Taxes for people making over $1,000,000 are around 36% under Reagan they were at 50%...so tell me what the big problem is with raising it to 39%?

thats like saying 'people used to be drawn and quartered so what's the problem with waterboarding'?

something being less shitty than it used to doesn't make it GOOD, and it certainly doesn't make it right.

the problem is that the government isn't supposed to be taxing wages AT ALL in the first place.

 Reply

"Rich people are the new Jews!!! "3% increase in taxes is the new Holocaust! Nevermind that it's just an expiration of the Bush tax cuts! After all the economy was real shitty during the Clinton years when the tax rate was 39%! Nevermind logic - it's 1939 all over again!"

Give me a fucking break.

As someone who is related to, grew up with, associates with, and generally hangs around rich ($250K+) folks and their offspring I can tell you two things:

1) A 3% increase in their taxes won't hurt them one goddamned bit. Why? They're going to find a fancy new way to cheat on their taxes and/or modify their income (we like to call it "creative accounting") in such a way as to avoid said tax increase as much as possible.

After all, when we are talking about a $250k income, you're talking about an increase of $7.5k per year. If you can't hide $7.5K, you probably don't deserve the money.

2) The fact that you had to break Godwin's law to make a point says everything about your argument - it's absolutely baseless.

Rich people aren't discriminated against, they aren't the victims, and they never will be. "Oh no! Populist Anger!!! The poors are rioting in the streets. Guess I will have to gas up the jet and head to Aspen until this cools off."

The people who own the politicians and write the rules will never be the victims.

 Reply

"A 3% increase in their taxes won't hurt them one goddamned bit."

It DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT HURTS THEM OR NOT! Does stealing a candy bar from a walmart hurt anyone? No. Does that mean it's an ok thing to do? I don't think i need to elaborate.

as for your opening remark, ""Rich people are the new Jews!!! "3% increase in taxes is the new Holocaust! " - you clearly missed the point entirely. the point was that it's wrong to be apathetic to wrongdoing just because it doesn't personally effect you - the comparison of the rich to jews is one that is entirely yours, and is a complete perversion of the analogy i made.

you're of the mind that the ends justify the means - we had good economic times under a 39% tax rate before, so that makes what amounts to theft ok? hey we had good times when we had slaves around, too, real economic booms. that doesn't justify slavery any more than the boom of the '90s justifies theft. just because something works, or at least seems to, doesn't mean it's an ok thing to do.

 Reply

Im with you. Nice with the Godwin's law reference.

P.S. Glen Beck is an as$whole.

 Reply

Actually I liked Robin Hood.

And my economics say if you are running a deficit, you find a way to make more revenue to pay for such a deficit as well as cut costs. If you cant cut costs, ie; mortgage payment, car payment, hospital bills, the next logical step is to get a 2nd job.

The way the government raises revenue is to tax more.

 Reply

i referenced godwins when i said it in the first place, indicating that i realize the stigma of mentioning the H word, but feel that the analogy is an apt enough one and worth making - an analogy that went right over his head, apparently.

 Reply

"if you are running a deficit, you find a way to make more revenue to pay for such a deficit as well as cut costs. If you cant cut costs, ie; mortgage payment, car payment, hospital bills, the next logical step is to get a 2nd job."

and then the clincher:

"The way the government raises revenue is to tax more. "

you're promoting theft as a viable solution for ones poverty and the consequences of the bad economic decisions one has made? can't make the bills so just take it from someone else (at gunpoint if need be) without giving them anything in exchange, from someone who had no hand in your drunken sailor economic policies?

again, that does WORK but that doesn't make it right. i can go rob cars to pay my credit card off - that's a plan that will likely work. still not right.

 Reply

"If you cant cut costs, ie; mortgage payment, car payment, hospital bills, the next logical step is to get a 2nd job."

I was referring to personal finance as it relates to our government, not an individual can't pay so the government takes money from one person to give to the other.

My point is we are in deep on payments as a government already. It will be damn near impossible for the government to take things away after they have offered them for decades.

Look at California. They are sinking, but a vote by the people rejected any attempt to cut entitlements and programs.

So the next step is to tax. I was just saying its logical. The only other way to raise revenue is to:

1. Borrow it.

2. Print it.

I know we can both agree that that will not be good. So tax the people who just bought 2 new mansions and 3 new private planes. Where are they going to move? Ireland?

Do a little research on taxes world wide. I would bet compared to GDP we have one of the lowest but yet offer some of the most entitlements.

 Reply

"I was referring to personal finance as it relates to our government, not an individual can't pay so the government takes money from one person to give to the other."

And im arguing that there's no moral difference between an individual stealing from another to pay his bills and a government stealing from everybody to pay theirs. most people dont have the stones to rob their neighbor, but put a government in there to do the dirty work and they'll go right along with it.

but transforming theft into something impersonal and dissociative doesn't make it any less wrong.

all taxes should be voluntary.

 Reply

Yes, you're absolutely right.

You made an analogy that I didn't get.

You had to stoop to a Nazi-reference in order to make your incredibly shallow point (i.e. taxation is theft) appear to be meaningful and insightful.

You're absolutely right.

Epic fail on my part.

Tell me, do my tax dollars pay for your schooling? 'Cause I want a refund.

 Reply

you're still missing the analogy, and i even spelled it out for you.

"You had to stoop to a Nazi-reference in order to make your incredibly shallow point (i.e. taxation is theft) appear to be meaningful and insightful."

Listen you insufferable dildo, i'll say it again - the godwin violation had nothing to do with tax as theft. it had to do with apathy towards the plight of those who are not you. i could just have easily gone with white guy in colonial america not giving a shit about slavery. it had nothing to do with portraying anyone as a jew, or comparing the holocaust to taxation - i think you could use some remedial courses in semantics, as i'm sure you STILL don't comprehend the analogy. If you did you wouldn't use use godwins as a catch-all straw man to avoid an intelligent discussion - why have a rational exchange when you can attempt to ridicule me, right? anyways, enjoy being complacent and bathed in ignorance, that's a bliss that people whose eyes are open don't get to enjoy. so don't squander it.

 Reply

waht about the computer i'm on now? it's written off, and here i am, using it for personal reasons.

Of course it should be repealed due to its unenforceable nature - but the concept isn't broken.

i think the better idea is to reduce taxes and eliminate write offs for 'business expenses' all together - it's not the government's job to make sure that business tools are used only for business - that's the job of the company. Reduce taxes on businesses so they can afford what they need and let the boss police the use of the equipment as he sees fit. after all, he paid for it.

 Reply

good point!

 Reply

/does not actually have an 8' pike, but Seattle does have a law prohibiting the concealment of any weapon over 6' in length.

 Reply

watch out, it's a flagged number - I always have troubles with it because i didn't have a SSN until i was 16.

 Reply

yeah, back in the day indeed. it's only supposed to be for employment purposes, but they issue em to kids as soon as they pop out. the only way i avoided getting one was i wasn't born in a hospital, and indeed my birth certificate wasn't submitted until i was 16 as well. they slapped one on my brother before my parents could object - after all, you don't HAVE to have one, you just have to have one to, you know, participate in society.

actually, im hoping a bunch of immigrants are using my SSN and racking up an awesome early retirement for me : )

 Reply

Why shouldn't we question him again?

 Reply

What planet do you live on? It sounds a lot nicer than this one...

 Reply

[www.scientificamerican.com]

It is nearly 2 years old, so I'm sure the disparity is even worse.

 Reply

...drinking for a hangover?

 Reply

Yes!

 Reply

It's fine to be for a generally lower tax rate, but at the same time crying havoc when the government removes specific poorly conceived exemptions is poor form. I bet libertarians would actually prefer it if the government removed this exemption and used the increased revenue to lower the general rate of taxation across the board. I happen to be a liberal so I'm fine with Obama using this revenue to pay for additional services and pay down the debt but I think it shows a lack of thoughtfulness to attack this policy change in particular as problematic without understanding the actual issues and incentive topography at play.

 Reply

When you're talking about "compensation" you include healthcare costs into that finance. Equal compensation does not mean = pay. One person may get more vacation/sick time etc. So you have to look at total compensation. If the two people break even in total compensation, and one has healthcare but the other does not, there is no inequity.

 Reply

As an actual, registered, capital-L Libertarian, no way in hell do we want anything short than the repealing of all compulsory taxes.

I bet libertarians would actually prefer it if the government removed this exemption and used the increased revenue to lower the general rate of taxation across the board.

No libertarian wants unenforceable, arbitrary taxes on the books, and we specifically reject taxes on some but not on others, i.e. 'rich people tax'.

I dont see why libertarianism are so misunderstood. It's a very simple and internally consistent philosophy. We believe that you should be able to live your life and pursue your interests as you see fit, so long as you do no harm to another. We believe in smaller government and voluntary taxes. We are against the initiation of force, and for the use of defense. True freedom and true personal responsibility.

Nowhere in that philosophy is there room for our government to be paying all our doctor bills by stealing money from us and our neighbors.

 Reply

That screws the poor, who often don't make enough money to end up owing tax anyways (or who would never pay five grand in a year viz income tax etc) Deductions do NOT increase your refund!

 Reply

I would much prefer a system that enables the working poor or the self employed to choose a health care provider to one in which the health care system is dictated to you.

Yes, the system that I spoke of above has the chance that the government could dictate your health care terms, but give the idea time to gestate and be hashed out. Christ, let's not refuse an idea right from the beginning because you have some potential problem with it.

 Reply

"Let's start by taxing those who already have healthcare to get the money to start our universal plan."

And tell me... Please. What are the plans to re-employ the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their jobs who work for insurance companies? What are the plans to reimburse the people who have investments in insurance companies that provide healthcare coverage when their business model evaporates due to government interference?

 Reply

"I'm more worried about the working poor, who make too much for government assistance and too little to afford health care."

that was MY point - those making, say, 25k dont end up owing much is any tax come april 15th. could you clarify please - would your plan work like a deduction, which only helps if you owe additional tax, or would it negate things like income tax to even things up?

if it's the latter, that's better, but why not go further? why force someone to spend that money on healthcare? maybe they would want to spend it on a business, or on themselves, in lieu of healthcare.

seems to me that the best thing to do is eliminate a shitload of taxes so people can afford what they want and need - whether that's health care or not should be up to the individual.

as always, my solution: eliminate income tax.

 Reply

exactly, this is why government shouldn't even think about getting into the personal aspects of our lives - invariably they fuck it all up and have to put a thousand band-aid laws and regulations out in order to fit everything back into the mold. and in the end, what's the point in helping people at the expense of screwing others? if a net increase in comfort is what a government cares about, it's not long before they start shaking down the rich to give handouts, and soon enough, there's no more incentive to be rich, and everyone goes on the dole.

 Reply

The point is that "there is NO employer FREE health insurance" to begin with. The employer is just a collective bargaining mediator to get better premiums for you based on the quantity of employees they have. YOU ultimately end up paying for your own insurance with your payroll deductions. The employer does not add money on top of what you pay!

► There is NO free ride !.

If you simply check on the web for personal health insurance, you will see that comparable benefits to what you currently have, are just slightly over what you already pay!!!!

The worst part is, under current tax law, you cannot deduct your health insurance costs until you exceed over $8000 in expenses, and THEN, you can only deduct just the portion over the $8K.

Making "ALL" health insurance related costs FULLY DEDUCTIBLE, would go as a gigantic step to lower health care costs and help insure everyone. (everyone that is willing to work and pay for it, that is...)

Throwing health insurace in the "redistribution of wealth" crap this government is pushing (as if it was a God given right to have insurance) is simply wrong.

You can teach a man to fish, so he won't go hungry, but when he doesn't want to fish in the first place, you should not feel responsible for his demise.

 Reply

"The employer does not add money on top of what you pay!"

actually... i pay i around $70/ month, and looking at this here HR site, my employer is paying over $500 a month. So in my case, they're footing the vast majority of the bill.

"Making "ALL" health insurance related costs FULLY DEDUCTIBLE, would go as a gigantic step to lower health care costs and help insure everyone."

I still say that simply eliminating around $5k in taxes for every citizen would accomplish this, without adding another layer to the bureaucracy. That way people would be free to buy health insurance or not buy it, but either way, they couldn't complain.

When are people going to get behind the idea of actually getting to keep and spend the money we earn???

 Reply