I understand the difference. What if the policy was universal health care and one person contributed $25 million to support it and $5 million contributed $5 each to block it?
The Good Old Days....but for whom?
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
I understand the difference. What if the policy was universal health care and one person contributed $25 million to support it and $5 million contributed $5 each to block it?
It’s the principal of “we the people”. The dark money, Citizen’s United have taken the power from the people and given it to the large donors.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Your first sentence is totally absurd. Why is it that every blessed time someone points out simply FACTS that don't paint white Americans of a particular status or creed in a good light, that person is deemed "hating" those white people?
Nothing I stated pertained to or was based on "hate". To coin a phrase used in an old TV police show, "just the facts, man...just the facts".
The first 3 words of your second paragraph says it all ... just because you can't or won't see the fact based logic doesn't make it any less valid. Then to add insult to injury you try to couch your assertions with "I'm not defending the practice" while denying one of it's basic effects.
In short, you're doing as I previously stated, having a real hard time acknowledging how a history of systemic racism has affected all aspects of it's society. So when something like this comes along, a fantastic display of pseudo-intellectual "justifications" for maintaining the status quo comes about.
As my previous posts last paragraph infers, you can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Off topic, but how on God's green Earth is enforcing a 50% tax on the folk at the economic bottom of America's financial rung is going to solve the problem? As it stands, retired pensioners have to pay taxes, and it's been proven six ways to Sunday that the average schmoe pays comparatively more in taxes than the wealthy.
Here's the thing; in my lifetime we've NEVER had a shortage or a serious reduction in the growth of the wealthy class. Also, According to a 2021 White House study, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the US paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent. For comparison, the average American taxpayer in the same year paid 13 percent.
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explor...ing to a 2021 White,same year paid 13 percent.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
FYI: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money
Add to this voter suppression tactics and money sure as hell talks! Remember, now that money is speech and Corporations are people, a CEO, the board and members of a corporation can technically vote twice IF their corporation votes the same as them. Then add on how said corporation can poor serious bank into favored candidates coffers.
Once you deal with this, you can start to divorce yourself from the mantras that any criticism that accurately sights the abuse of our political/social system by an economically elite group is not a good thing.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
FYI: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money
Add to this voter suppression tactics and money sure as hell talks! Remember, now that money is speech and Corporations are people, a CEO, the board and members of a corporation can technically vote twice IF their corporation votes the same as them. Then add on how said corporation can poor serious bank into favored candidates coffers.
Once you deal with this, you can start to divorce yourself from the mantras that any criticism that accurately sights the abuse of our political/social system by an economically elite group is not a good thing.
You might want re-read what you posted.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
This is the stupidest thing we've ever done. The whole point of incorporation is to separate individuals from the corporate entity.
It will save nothing
You miss the entire point. The decision was based on constitutional provisions and not whether something is good or justified. If we want equal protection under the law we cannot use affirmative action to correct past injustices. I realize that is something you want, but not something the Constitution allows.
It does not say a 50% tax, it says the bottom 50% of wage earners. Currently that group pays only about 4% of all federal income taxes while the top 50% pays 96%. Actually, the bottom 50% pays -6% when you factor in government transfer payments.
I think the current tax distribution is acceptable since the wealthiest are the only ones who pay their "fair share" (the same percentage of income taxes as their percentage of income). I was responding to the poster who complained about the wealthy "financing government policies."
FYI: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money
Add to this voter suppression tactics and money sure as hell talks! Remember, now that money is speech and Corporations are people, a CEO, the board and members of a corporation can technically vote twice IF their corporation votes the same as them. Then add on how said corporation can poor serious bank into favored candidates coffers.
Once you deal with this, you can start to divorce yourself from the mantras that any criticism that accurately sights the abuse of our political/social system by an economically elite group is not a good thing.
Corporations don't "vote" and nobody votes twice. Corporations have been people since early in our history since they can make contracts, purchase property, etc. They always contributed to politics, they were just forced to do so using different methods before it became legal.
With increasing voter turnout voter suppression tactics obviously are not working.
Does money determine how you vote?
cawacko
Well-known member
I don't want to put words into Taichi's mouth or misrepresent his position, but when I hear people talk today about the Constitution being a living and breathing document I think of his arguments here. Basically the 14th amendment says equal protection under the law, unless its being used to right a wrong or give those harmed previously benefits today. And even though the case wasn't about legacy admissions (or athletic admissions, or kids of teachers admissions or any other kinds of admissions) they should have ruled on that just because (it has a disparate impact).
I think you added words to the 14th which are not there and were not intended.
the 14th amendment says equal protection under the law, unless its being used to right a wrong or give those harmed previously benefits today.
Being a living, breathing document is to allow its provisions to be applied to current situations, not making up new policy allowing race to be used to discriminate against others.
cawacko
Well-known member
To be clear I wasn't intending to quote the 14th amendment directly, I was attempting to paraphrase how it could be use in current times under a living and breathing document scenario/ruling
I understand. But I don't think we can use that justification for imposing any policy we desire (both sides can play that game). I don't see any constitutional principles allowing affirmative action; but, many colleges use admission practices that avoid race to achieve the same objectives. Affirmative action seemed to change from a remedy for past injustices to one of diversity which was a more acceptable legal justification to the Supreme Court. I haven't read the court's justification for exempting military academies, yet.
"Living, breathing" would allow clear constitutional principles, like search and seizure, to be applied to things like electronic surveillance which was clearly not intended when the 4th was written.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're just repeating the same thing 6 ways to Sunday. I've already demonstrated how the latest suit against the SCOTUS ruling is justified as discrimination against black applicants is happening so long as the "legacy" practice continues. Using this practice is a CONSTANT injustice to black, brown, red, tan, white, and yellow student applicants, as it is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment that I showed in a previous post.
I realize that you want to try and justify this practice by using the time honored "if it doesn't say it specifically, then it doesn't exist" when it comes to the Constitution. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is a labyrinth of statements that MUST be interpreted to fit an evolving nation of the centuries (Bill of Rights, Amendments, SCOTUS rulings). It's these interpretations that are constantly being debated and disseminated. That is why my point has validity, whether you like it or not.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry, but your financial acrobats DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE WEALTHIER YOU GET, THE LESS TAXES YOU COMPARATIVELY PAY. Let's cut through your smoke screen with simple application:
Joe Schmoe (married, 1 kid) makes $30K per year on a 9 to 5 job. His tax rate is 13%, which gives him $27,000.00 take home pay.
Jim Yuppie (married, 1 kid) makes $1 million per year on investments and salary combination. He's not a billionaire, so let's give him the same 13% tax rate as Joe Schmoe, which gives him about $870,000.00 take home pay. Somehow, I don't think Joe Yuppie is going to sweat out any dental bills for the kid and such.
And remember, as your income goes up, your tax rate goes down. One should also note that for about 20 prior to the early 1960's or the the top percent of the wealthy paid about 90% in taxes. Since then, no shortage of the wealthy less than 5% of the country...hell, the numbers have increased since then.
So your proposal is an a-typical example of the wealthy conservative factions foisting the brunt of the federal coffers on the working class. THAT is one of the reasons why this country is constantly in near financial turmoil.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
FYI: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues...ence-big-money
Add to this voter suppression tactics and money sure as hell talks! Remember, now that money is speech and Corporations are people, a CEO, the board and members of a corporation can technically vote twice IF their corporation votes the same as them. Then add on how said corporation can poor serious bank into favored candidates coffers.
Once you deal with this, you can start to divorce yourself from the mantras that any criticism that accurately sights the abuse of our political/social system by an economically elite group is not a good thing.
Corporations don't "vote" and nobody votes twice. Corporations have been people since early in our history since they can make contracts, purchase property, etc. They always contributed to politics, they were just forced to do so using different methods before it became legal.
With increasing voter turnout voter suppression tactics obviously are not working.
Does money determine how you vote?
FYI:
A Delaware city is set to give corporations the right to vote in elections
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seaford-delaware-corporate-voting-llc-trust-elections/
Citizens United Explained
The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You're effectively correct. Wealthier people can hire great tax attorneys. If the public schools were better at educating kids about money this wouldn't be happening.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
While Taich and I both identify with the left side of the political spectrum,
his maniacal avoidance of logic is no asset to our side.
Private universities, including the one which I attended, are indeed private and their admissions policies are none of our business.
If we wish to make quality education available to all who did the preparatory work to deserve it,
we need to do that in the public sector with tax revenue supported public colleges.
If the quality of the public schools is adequate,
than the private academic institutions can exist in the same manner as private country clubs,
causing no particular hardship to those not invited to participate.
This kind of populism is for working class right wing idiots like trumpanzees,
not for progressive thinkers.
'