Principles are pleasant to talk about, until they start costing money. As I've said elsewhere, I am more than willing to entertain the idea that taxes should be raised, especially on the upper income brackets. But as TVD demonstrates, there is a limit to the utility that would be realized from doing this. Unless we're just making symbolic gestures, a policy solution to budgetary problems will necessarily have to involve more than this.
My wife and I, DINKS, are way upside down on our home mortgage since the bottom fell out of the market (we bought at the first plateau of the crash, thinking that would be it). But my wife and I make enough money to continue to service the debt and have kept current on those payments. My wife and I both owe more than five figures on our student loans still.
If you were to add up the negative equity on our house and our student loans, it would more than swamp our retirement savings, liquid cash on hand, and the liquidation value of our cars and household possessions.
Hitch would be surprised, but amused and pleased at the same time, and quick to admit with gentlemanly modesty and panache that he'd been wrong. And he'd have lots of questions.
The sample sizes appear to be large enough to inspire reasonable confidence.
And if the method used to compute a family's net wealth is the same as used to compute the net wealth of the Forbes 400, then we're talking apples to apples. That would probably come in to play more with the "list sample" than the "area-probability sample," by way of different kinds of financial products that "list sample" families would hold unlikely to be held by "area-probability sample" families.
The real issues may well be the ones Mark identified -- causing a lot of people who would reasonably be called "comfortable" if not "affluent" to be included as "negative net worthers" in the bottom 30%.
My apologies if I gave offense by trying to put words in your mouth. (I did try to make clear that I was inferring a call for increased taxes on the ultra-wealthy.) Not my intent to offend, not my intent to castigate. Even when I disagree with someone strenously, that doesn't open the floor to castigation -- and I'm not 100% clear on whether you and I even disagree at all, since it seems I missed something. Reading the OP again hasn't helped me, unfortunately. Sincerely and with maxmium respect, would you restate the point you intended to convey, and which have I failed to understand?
How many times will we hear that the war in Iraq is finally coming to an end? I count this as at least the fourth. #1 was "Mission Accomplished," #2 was "Iraqi military ready to stand on its own with our 'logistical' support," under Bush, and #3 was "Obama announces complete withdrawal from Iraq," back in early 2009. And even after this, there will still be U.S. troops with guns in Iraq assisting with "intermittent exercises and high-level consultations" that are certain to involve actual hostilities with The Bad Guys. And, of course, the "contractors," a polite term for "mercenaries."
As for poor journalism, the sort of thing you criticize here has been going on for a long time. There were, and still are, good journalists who have a care for what they write and do not simply regurgitate press releases. But there have been lazy journalists for a long time, too, including lazy journalists being assigned to cover important subjects. OTOH, it's possible that someone made the editorial decision that readers of the Wall Street Journal might well consider the $800 billion price tag more significant and important a cost of the war than the 100,000 lost Iraqi lives.
I see two arguments supporting FFRF as to the semi-cross on the water tower.
The first is that the cross, even with an arm detached, is still readily recognizable as a symbol of Christianity.
The second is that the history and context of the display does have to be considered. I think that one is correct, personally, and I am sure that this argument is congruent with existing case law.
One could credibly argue, though, that the display should be examined in its current form, from the perspective of a reasonable, objective observer approaching the display tabula rasa.
The sarcastic comment in the OP about this dangerous law being executed in good faith might turn out to be worthy of faith, at least in the short run. Bu in the long run, it will inevitably be corrupted.
So given that Congress has done this, and given that the President has now abdicated his responsibility to stop it, our hope must now rest with the courts.
Hear, hear. We are still strong enough, rich enough, and smart enough that the choice between liberty and security is a false one. We can have both. We should have both. We should demand both. And any politician, of either party, who suggests or acts as though it is a mutually exclusive choice has demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to meaningfully deliver the benefits of government, and should be treated accordingly at the polls.
And I notice that if you can establish that you or your decedent have a sincere and abiding belief system that is at least similar to a religion, and which is not symbolized by the available options, you can request it and they'll accomodate consistent with the dictates of the dignity associated with a military cemetery.
I'm a fairly strong separation advocate myself. I agree with the comment above that words like "accomodation" are kind of slippery (and, to be fair, "endorsement" is kind of slippery too) but at the same time somethings really are acknowledgements of religion and not endorsements of it. The government does not have to pretend that religion does not exist or that individual people are not religious. Indeed, it must permit them to exercise their religion to a very significant degree, with equal force and gravity as it must avoid Establishing a religion.
To not allow the families of our honored dead the solace of their various and respective faiths in their time of grief would be, in my opinion, a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
Could someone claim, for example, that a shopping center displaying a cross was engaged in an EC violation due to the public nature of the property, even if the property were entirely privately owned and maintained?
Under the First Amendment, I doubt it -- I suspect that we'd be looking at a fairly intrusive degree of public control and regulation of that land before the issue could even arise. Something like, say, a shopping mall doesn't strike me as even a close case -- that's private property, they can have all the religious symbols they want.
Zuccotti Park in New York? Privately owned, general license to the public for nearly any lawful use, maintained (apparently) by public entities at public expense, Mayor seems to get a say in how the property gets used... so a closer case. But still private. And very unusual. My instinct is that it's still private and so the owners could display religious symbols.
I see what you did there; touché. (Meant sincerely.)
The roadside memorials in the Utah case were specially licensed by the state and bore the seal of a state agency. But yes, they were paid for by a private entity. "Paid for" is not quite the same thing as "separate from."
Let's suppose that the cross on the Whiteville water tower was bought with all private money. Does that mean it didn't violate the establishment clause? At best, it's one of many factors we might consider when asking if there was a government sponsorship of the religious message.
Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, etc. are already free to display whatever religious symbols they wish on private property (presuming no other violation of law like nuisance ordinances). Governmental entities are different.
Evolution is not a religion.
As for who pays, it might be taxpayers or it might be interest groups like Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, or Liberty Counsel.
David, of your more recent posts, this has been the one I have enjoyed the most, for its relating the legal, cultural, and personal to articulate a concept about the relationship of government and individual, of rights and powers, which while it differs from my own, ought to be part of the dialogue. Thanks for giving us a nice bit of thought to chew on.
How inconvenient for the FFA that Muslims turn out to be really normal folk who look and act not much different than their own next door neighbors. How inconvenient that the people on the show do not eat babies or habitually denounce America. role of Muslims and Islam both globally and nationally is more complex than reducing them to frothing, rabid, scimitar-wielding monsters.
Maybe there is a war on religion going on. TLC is taking their demons away. They must be stopped, even If that means boycotting a show so dull it would have gone away on its own in a few months anyway.
I should have been more clear -- 2% marginal increase over $1,000,000 doesn't seem adequate to achieve any of those goals, although a) even less than b), and b) less than c). Maybe there's a d) that did not occur to me.
If the government raised taxes by 2% for margins above $1,000,000 a year in personal income, how much money would be raised? Sure, if there's a million people out there making an average of $3,000,000 a year, and that's $40 billion, which ain't peanuts. But it also ain't even 3% of the deficit -- and I'm not convinced that there's a million people making three mil a year, particularly if they have the ability to control their own incomes and as the post suggests, they would rationally choose to take lower incomes in the first place.
So that gets back to the question -- is this modest-seeming marginal tax increase motivated by a desire to a) alleviate our deficit woes, b) encourage reinvestment, or c) give vent to a political perception (whether factually substantiated or not I offer no opinion) that the rich are undertaxed?
I see a strong influence of Allen Ginsburg in Ender's piece; its raw emotion building to a crescendo is so reminiscent of Howl it gives me the shivers.
And do I detect an homage to e.e. cummings offered by Samara?
On “Apropos of Nothing…”
If we ever have a national LoOG meetup (say, in Vegas?) we'll all have to have one of these.
On “Eating the Rich: By the Numbers”
Principles are pleasant to talk about, until they start costing money. As I've said elsewhere, I am more than willing to entertain the idea that taxes should be raised, especially on the upper income brackets. But as TVD demonstrates, there is a limit to the utility that would be realized from doing this. Unless we're just making symbolic gestures, a policy solution to budgetary problems will necessarily have to involve more than this.
On “Missing the Forest for the Walton Trees”
Got it. Again, apologies if my inference came off like trying to put words in your mouth.
"
My wife and I, DINKS, are way upside down on our home mortgage since the bottom fell out of the market (we bought at the first plateau of the crash, thinking that would be it). But my wife and I make enough money to continue to service the debt and have kept current on those payments. My wife and I both owe more than five figures on our student loans still.
If you were to add up the negative equity on our house and our student loans, it would more than swamp our retirement savings, liquid cash on hand, and the liquidation value of our cars and household possessions.
We are in the bottom 30%.
On “A Very, Very Fond Farewell”
Hitch would be surprised, but amused and pleased at the same time, and quick to admit with gentlemanly modesty and panache that he'd been wrong. And he'd have lots of questions.
On “One Percent of One”
The sample sizes appear to be large enough to inspire reasonable confidence.
And if the method used to compute a family's net wealth is the same as used to compute the net wealth of the Forbes 400, then we're talking apples to apples. That would probably come in to play more with the "list sample" than the "area-probability sample," by way of different kinds of financial products that "list sample" families would hold unlikely to be held by "area-probability sample" families.
The real issues may well be the ones Mark identified -- causing a lot of people who would reasonably be called "comfortable" if not "affluent" to be included as "negative net worthers" in the bottom 30%.
"
My apologies if I gave offense by trying to put words in your mouth. (I did try to make clear that I was inferring a call for increased taxes on the ultra-wealthy.) Not my intent to offend, not my intent to castigate. Even when I disagree with someone strenously, that doesn't open the floor to castigation -- and I'm not 100% clear on whether you and I even disagree at all, since it seems I missed something. Reading the OP again hasn't helped me, unfortunately. Sincerely and with maxmium respect, would you restate the point you intended to convey, and which have I failed to understand?
On “Journalism Is More Than Just Quoting Speeches”
How many times will we hear that the war in Iraq is finally coming to an end? I count this as at least the fourth. #1 was "Mission Accomplished," #2 was "Iraqi military ready to stand on its own with our 'logistical' support," under Bush, and #3 was "Obama announces complete withdrawal from Iraq," back in early 2009. And even after this, there will still be U.S. troops with guns in Iraq assisting with "intermittent exercises and high-level consultations" that are certain to involve actual hostilities with The Bad Guys. And, of course, the "contractors," a polite term for "mercenaries."
As for poor journalism, the sort of thing you criticize here has been going on for a long time. There were, and still are, good journalists who have a care for what they write and do not simply regurgitate press releases. But there have been lazy journalists for a long time, too, including lazy journalists being assigned to cover important subjects. OTOH, it's possible that someone made the editorial decision that readers of the Wall Street Journal might well consider the $800 billion price tag more significant and important a cost of the war than the 100,000 lost Iraqi lives.
On “The Saga of the Whiteville Water Tower Continues”
I see two arguments supporting FFRF as to the semi-cross on the water tower.
The first is that the cross, even with an arm detached, is still readily recognizable as a symbol of Christianity.
The second is that the history and context of the display does have to be considered. I think that one is correct, personally, and I am sure that this argument is congruent with existing case law.
One could credibly argue, though, that the display should be examined in its current form, from the perspective of a reasonable, objective observer approaching the display tabula rasa.
On “How Civil Liberties Die”
The sarcastic comment in the OP about this dangerous law being executed in good faith might turn out to be worthy of faith, at least in the short run. Bu in the long run, it will inevitably be corrupted.
So given that Congress has done this, and given that the President has now abdicated his responsibility to stop it, our hope must now rest with the courts.
"
I reject the premise.
Hear, hear. We are still strong enough, rich enough, and smart enough that the choice between liberty and security is a false one. We can have both. We should have both. We should demand both. And any politician, of either party, who suggests or acts as though it is a mutually exclusive choice has demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to meaningfully deliver the benefits of government, and should be treated accordingly at the polls.
On “The Saga of the Whiteville Water Tower Continues”
And I notice that if you can establish that you or your decedent have a sincere and abiding belief system that is at least similar to a religion, and which is not symbolized by the available options, you can request it and they'll accomodate consistent with the dictates of the dignity associated with a military cemetery.
"
I'm a fairly strong separation advocate myself. I agree with the comment above that words like "accomodation" are kind of slippery (and, to be fair, "endorsement" is kind of slippery too) but at the same time somethings really are acknowledgements of religion and not endorsements of it. The government does not have to pretend that religion does not exist or that individual people are not religious. Indeed, it must permit them to exercise their religion to a very significant degree, with equal force and gravity as it must avoid Establishing a religion.
To not allow the families of our honored dead the solace of their various and respective faiths in their time of grief would be, in my opinion, a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
"
I have sent you an e-mail, Ms. Levin.
"
Under the First Amendment, I doubt it -- I suspect that we'd be looking at a fairly intrusive degree of public control and regulation of that land before the issue could even arise. Something like, say, a shopping mall doesn't strike me as even a close case -- that's private property, they can have all the religious symbols they want.
Zuccotti Park in New York? Privately owned, general license to the public for nearly any lawful use, maintained (apparently) by public entities at public expense, Mayor seems to get a say in how the property gets used... so a closer case. But still private. And very unusual. My instinct is that it's still private and so the owners could display religious symbols.
There is some state-level case law that suggests a contrary result, at least here in California. It is widely criticized and I am not particularly fond of it myself.
"
Readers may be interested in this comment from the sub-blog.
"
I see what you did there; touché. (Meant sincerely.)
The roadside memorials in the Utah case were specially licensed by the state and bore the seal of a state agency. But yes, they were paid for by a private entity. "Paid for" is not quite the same thing as "separate from."
Let's suppose that the cross on the Whiteville water tower was bought with all private money. Does that mean it didn't violate the establishment clause? At best, it's one of many factors we might consider when asking if there was a government sponsorship of the religious message.
"
You're exactly right. Government sponsorship is what matters.
"
Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, etc. are already free to display whatever religious symbols they wish on private property (presuming no other violation of law like nuisance ordinances). Governmental entities are different.
Evolution is not a religion.
As for who pays, it might be taxpayers or it might be interest groups like Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, or Liberty Counsel.
On “Boycotting the All-American Muslim”
Impeccable logic, Kolohe. Now that you've made explicit what had been hidden, we can all protect ourselves. You are a true public servant.
On “Crystal Cox vs. Jenkins vs. Georgia”
David, of your more recent posts, this has been the one I have enjoyed the most, for its relating the legal, cultural, and personal to articulate a concept about the relationship of government and individual, of rights and powers, which while it differs from my own, ought to be part of the dialogue. Thanks for giving us a nice bit of thought to chew on.
On “Boycotting the All-American Muslim”
How inconvenient for the FFA that Muslims turn out to be really normal folk who look and act not much different than their own next door neighbors. How inconvenient that the people on the show do not eat babies or habitually denounce America. role of Muslims and Islam both globally and nationally is more complex than reducing them to frothing, rabid, scimitar-wielding monsters.
Maybe there is a war on religion going on. TLC is taking their demons away. They must be stopped, even If that means boycotting a show so dull it would have gone away on its own in a few months anyway.
On “Why the GOP is Wrong About Millionaire Small Business Owners”
I should have been more clear -- 2% marginal increase over $1,000,000 doesn't seem adequate to achieve any of those goals, although a) even less than b), and b) less than c). Maybe there's a d) that did not occur to me.
"
If the government raised taxes by 2% for margins above $1,000,000 a year in personal income, how much money would be raised? Sure, if there's a million people out there making an average of $3,000,000 a year, and that's $40 billion, which ain't peanuts. But it also ain't even 3% of the deficit -- and I'm not convinced that there's a million people making three mil a year, particularly if they have the ability to control their own incomes and as the post suggests, they would rationally choose to take lower incomes in the first place.
So that gets back to the question -- is this modest-seeming marginal tax increase motivated by a desire to a) alleviate our deficit woes, b) encourage reinvestment, or c) give vent to a political perception (whether factually substantiated or not I offer no opinion) that the rich are undertaxed?
On “The Music of the Trolls”
I see a strong influence of Allen Ginsburg in Ender's piece; its raw emotion building to a crescendo is so reminiscent of Howl it gives me the shivers.
And do I detect an homage to e.e. cummings offered by Samara?
There's some talented, well-read folks out there.