patrick.net

Troy says

Do you guys even understand the separation of powers?

Judging by Obama's lecturing the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union, he either doesn't understand the separation of powers or chooses to ignore it.

twelc says

agree with Eliza, that we need *something*, but it needs to be reviewed/debated, and responded to in a manner that reflected the preference of the “people”, not “fast-tracked”.

Not according to Nancy Pelosi. We need it quick like and she'll tell us what's in the bill after they pass it. LOL

RayAmerica says

Judging by Obama’s lecturing the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union, he either doesn’t understand the separation of powers or chooses to ignore it.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections . . ."

Do you guys have a functioning brain?

RayAmerica says

Uhhhh, the question here is not what the “government requires” but, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product, in this case health insurance. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process... I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov...

Anyway, is it "Constitutional"? Before you ask a sweeping question like that I'm sure you've done a lot of reading and research as to what actually is defined by the Constitution and have a fairly balanced understanding of what areas it covers and doesn't, right? I suppose you've also contacted a constitutional lawyer for a general opinion or extensively read online blogger/lawyers such as Glenn Greenwald who regularly write about such topics?... Certainly that would be a good starting point so that you don't ask questions that make yourself sound like a dolt, right? So what do they say on the subject?

Also, the Bush/Cheney Gov were planning on pushing through forced retirement saving accounts to replace the Social Security system, where all private earnings that currently go into the SS system would be channeled into the private coffers of investment houses. I bet you were up in arms over that one, right?

RayAmerica says

twelc says

agree with Eliza, that we need *something*, but it needs to be reviewed/debated, and responded to in a manner that reflected the preference of the “people”, not “fast-tracked”.

Not according to Nancy Pelosi. We need it quick like and she’ll tell us what’s in the bill after they pass it. LOL

Huh. Huh. Good one Beavis.

You seriously think that's what she's saying? That nobody understands the bill, but we should pass it anyway?

The main points of what's in the bill are already very well understood by anybody that cares to take the time to read up on it. This had been debated for many months. The current bill that is likely to be voted on is very similar to the Senate version that was passed in December, as has been widely reported.

It's been over two months for #$@*'s sake!!! Why are you pretending that nobody knows what's in the bill?

If you don't like the bill, fine, that's your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It's your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

"uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process… I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov…"

LOL, it must have been the Republicans who allowed this to be inserted in the Democrats' bill, right? Probably right there with making the construction industry the only industry where instead of a 50 employee threshold, it is 5 (as a payment to the trade unions for their support).

kentm says

Also, the Bush/Cheney Gov were planning on pushing through forced retirement saving accounts to replace the Social Security system, where all private earnings that currently go into the SS system would be channeled into the private coffers of investment houses. I bet you were up in arms over that one, right?

If you are going to make a point, at least be honest about it. The plan Bush was pushing was a VOLUNTARY option to allow individuals to invest a portion of their SS retirement set aside in the stock market if they chose to do so. I thought it wasn't a good idea either, but if you are going to make an argument, at least state correctly what the plan was.

kentm says

RayAmerica says
Uhhhh, the question here is not what the “government requires” but, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product, in this case health insurance. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

kentm says

uhhh, this was a clause slipped in by the wonderful heathcare industry lobbyists during the planning process… I really wish you turkeys were as intent on limiting corporate powers as you seemingly are on killing the Democratic gov…

How exactly was this "slipped in?" You can't be implying that the evil, nasty lobbyists just "slipped" it past the Democrats ... you know ... the pure as the driven snow, watchdog, anti-lobbyist ones that had control of the bill Democrats? You can't be saying that ... or are you? LOL

Troy says

Do you guys have a functioning brain?

Too bad you go through life with a deeply furrowed brow and no sense of humor. With so much to laugh at, why take yourself so seriously?

MarkInSF says

If you don’t like the bill, fine, that’s your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It’s your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

Have you read the bill?

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

If you don’t like the bill, fine, that’s your prerogative, but pretending that Pelosi or anybody else is trying to pass some mystery bill sinks to Beavis and Butthead level of debate. It’s your own fault if you supposedly care about this issue but have bothered to acquaint yourself with the proposal.

Have you read the bill?

No. But I have read the summaries by people that HAVE read the bill, and even had input into the language. That's all that matters.

Just like when the US retirement system was being overhauled very few people actually read the bill, but knew the key ideas like the introduction of 401Ks, and that's all that mattered.

You are setting an absurdly high bar for being able to understand a bill. What's important is the principals. Knowing every nitty gritty detail is pointless unless you're in the insurance or health industry and have to live by the new rules.

There are many, many, many eyes on this. That's why you get people raising red flags for things like exemptions for union members in having tax-exempt status for "cadillac" plans taken away. Of course there is some sausage making going on, but that's just the reality of congress.

Have *YOU* bothered to learn about the bill? I find that the most strenuous opponents barely know a thing about it. Just these two pages go a long way:

this is a good place to start

and this article has good info on health exchanges.

MarkInSF says

There are many, many, many eyes on this.

Any idea how many 'many, many, many" would be?

So whats your point???

And if you liberal bird-brains are so against the constitution by your actions (you lie with your words and claim to support the constitution), why is it that the President, all law enforcment and military personnel all take an oath, NOT to defend the country, NOT to defend the people, NOT to defend the government and NOT to defend the land - but to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC???

My guess is that you hate the constitution because it provides freedom and liberty. I know your kind, you are rights haters and freedom destroyers. Small,bitter people who have some sinister need to control and manipulate others, and then kill babies.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

I often wonder if you guys have ever actually read the constitution. Your arguments just don't make sense.

Kevin says

I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

Actually that's not how the Constitution was supposed to work, if one subscribes to a strict Enumerated Powers reading. The SCOTUS is basically still split 5-4 on this question. Back in 1995 the conservative majority said Congress didn't have the power to ban guns within 1000' of schools.

There are further Constitutional tests of legislation -- rational basis, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

Anyhoo, in 1968, Justice Harlan wrote:

"There is no general doctrine implied in the Federal Constitution that the two governments, national and state, are each to exercise its powers so as not to interfere with the free and full exercise of the powers of the other. . . . [I]t is clear that the Federal Government, when acting within a delegated power, may override countervailing state interests . . . . As long ago as 1925., the Court put to rest the contention that state concerns might constitutionally `outweigh' the importance of an otherwise valid federal statute regulating commerce."

While handguns are rather tenuously connected to commerce, I don't think the conservative majority on the court would care to assert that health care is not a significant part of our economy and therefore outside the Federal sphere of regulation.

Also, even if the commerce clause fails, there's still the General Welfare spending clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Interestingly, in Butler the court said Congress couldn't tax farmers not to grow stuff since that failed the General Welfare spending test.

The Court's thinking at this time was conflicted so probably is not good jurisprudence, but Roberts' arguments are interesting background:

"Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate,

Page 297 U. S. 66

limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [Footnote 12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

...but to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC???

You do know where the "defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic" clause comes from, right?

It was enacted by the congress during the Civil War in 1862, and was a pledge that one was not against the constitutionally elected government of the United States Most, but not all, versions of the oath since 1862 have had a similar clause.

Kind of ironic that that the wingnuts of today are now saying the constitutional, democratically elected government is actually a domestic enemy. Just today I was reading comments on Mish's blog and came across this:

Ms. Pelosi is a traitor. The fed gov has no lawful right to involve itself in health care. She should be prosecuted for treason.

(Score: 112 by 138 votes)

Treason? And astonishingly most of Mish's readers that care to comment agree. Somehow I suspect that both Honest Abe, and RayAmerica agree also.

And I also suspect they are completely oblivious to the irony of bringing up the "all enemies foreign and domestic" clause of the service oath.

MarkInSF says

Treason? And astonishingly most of Mish’s readers that care to comment agree. Somehow I suspect that both Honest Abe, and RayAmerica agree also.

See my above, LOL. The Supreme Court ruled in 1936 that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution".

Nomograph says

Michael Savage said the exact same thing on his AM talk radio show today. Interesting.

What are you implying? That Michael Savage is in here reading my posts? Interesting.

Troy says

Kevin says

I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

Actually that’s not how the Constitution was supposed to work, if one subscribes to a strict Enumerated Powers reading. The SCOTUS is basically still split 5-4 on this question. Back in 1995 the conservative majority said Congress didn’t have the power to ban guns within 1000′ of schools.

That's a very different type of ruling though. Saying that congress can't ban something is not the same as saying that they can't force the uninsured to pay a fine.

Kevin says

Troy says

Kevin says

I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

Actually that’s not how the Constitution was supposed to work, if one subscribes to a strict Enumerated Powers reading. The SCOTUS is basically still split 5-4 on this question. Back in 1995 the conservative majority said Congress didn’t have the power to ban guns within 1000′ of schools.

That’s a very different type of ruling though. Saying that congress can’t ban something is not the same as saying that they can’t force the uninsured to pay a fine.

That gets right to Enumerated Powers. Both the General Welfare and Commerce clauses are used to justify outlays, but this whole penalty thing for not carrying coverage is a novel extension of government power.

In 1937 the people lost their attempt to opt out of social security and federal UE, but the government had to jump through some odd hoops to get these 5-4 decisions, like arguing that FICA taxes were not earmarked pension programs.

All you're arguing is that the constitution is flawed (because it has loopholes), not that these things are unconstitutional.

Update: at least one Federal judge gets it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014

This just in, "Senators get death bonuses, taxpayers get death taxes". Thats right, the Senate voted to pay Senator Byrds family a $200,000 death bonus. Yet another blatant display of cronyism by the political class. Them vs. us, the servant has become the master.

I kind of resent the fact that the government FORCES (there's that word again) forces everyone to name the IRS as one of your heirs. Death should not be a reason that the government uses to raid peoples after tax assets. Death shouldn't be a taxable event. And the libs accuse normal people of being greedy...hahaha, what a joke.

Abe is only happy when he's angry.

Honest Abe says

This just in, “Senators get death bonuses, taxpayers get death taxes”. Thats right, the Senate voted to pay Senator Byrds family a $200,000 death bonus. Yet another blatant display of cronyism by the political class. Them vs. us, the servant has become the master.
I kind of resent the fact that the government FORCES (there’s that word again) forces everyone to name the IRS as one of your heirs. Death should not be a reason that the government uses to raid peoples after tax assets. Death shouldn’t be a taxable event. And the libs accuse normal people of being greedy…hahaha, what a joke.

Why do you resent it? You will never have over a million dollars to leave to your heirs.

Oh no, some people have slightly smaller silver spoons when they die.

My kids are only going to get two or three million when I die rather than four or five million. Their lives will be so difficult.

Sensible people see estate taxes for what they are.

Dynasty Prevention.

Do we want to see the US turn into a society with a permanent oligarchy? No. The sociopathic empire builders will leave no stone unturned trying to make it happen of course.

It baffles me when the supposed "bootstrappy" want to cripple their children, shouldn't they get a chance at being self-made too?

the real deadbeats on paying medical costs are healthy, relatively young folks who decide against insurance, but then when they get old or get cancer, they want to be able to buy insurance in order to not pay the full costs. Its like buying home insurance after its on fire, no one can make money selling insurance like that. As for constitutionality, the people can ammend it for time to time no? Im not american but it seems to me in a democracy, no debate is ever settled, the country has to be able to adapt or be crippled by its legacies and traditions

Oh no! Please, someone say this isn't happening! ObamaCare was supposed to REDUCE the cost of healthcare. When capitalism and socialism get married, their children always turn out bad. What is guaranteed to happen is this: the cost of all those "poor folk" that don't have any insurance will now be financed via the payers, in turn raising the costs. There are already reports of numerous physicians that are planning to get out of their practices due entirely to ObamaCare, which will have an effect of course on costs going up even further due to higher demand (everyone with a headache in certain segments of society will run off to ER) with fewer medical professionals, etc. Yep, the government really, really, really makes things better. No wonder Liberals want more of it.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/Health-Care-Reform-Blamed-for-Huge-Hike-in-Premiums-105041674.html

I must disagree with Vincente's point about estate taxes as being dynasty killers. A dynasty has sovereignty, that is it makes the law and does not pay high taxes. The estate tax has really stopped the Kennedys and Rockefellers from having generational wealth, huh?. The estate tax targets and kills the evil middle class. The Magna Carta put a check on dynastic power, but it was by barons who were well-to-do enough to be a check on dynastic power. I refer the reader to the concept of Jeffersonian Democracy.

As far as rich and powerful people like George Soros are concerned, the middle class is anyone not manipulating government as the elite rich or being utilized as the righteous poor. What you libs call rich, you and people like George Soros call worth draining. Why don't you economically drain the Kennedys or Soros? Because you don't want responsibility for yourselves. You want secular saviors. Slaves don't have responsibility for themselves. Free people do. At least a slave knows he is a slave, and so hates being a slave. Libs I think seek actual domestication, unable to accept nature's answer to the age old question: quality or quantity? There will always be poor. There will always be people who's turn it is to suffer and die. We are mortal. We all get a turn. The question is not if any will be poor and needy. The question is if any will enjoy affluence and freedom without inducing poverty and need by diminution of productive others. Reader, your calories will be recycled, and the laws of nature will determine what progress is. Affluence is mightier than poverty. Social guarantee is not cost effective. Economy cannot contradict ecology. If socialized medicine is working in the West, it is only an illusion that time will correct.

No, Obamacare is NOT constitutional. But neither is fiat money or gun laws. It is perhaps reflective of the constitution of the people. Libs believe in evolution and so natural selection. Obamacare should work great, making a spectacular systemic failure out of what could have been individual failures. Let's go into an Orwellian dark ages and give Sharia law another chance. I wonder what sort of socialized health insurance they have in Saudi Arabia?

The Library of Congress reports (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Saudi_Arabia.pdf):
"Health benefits for Saudi citizens have increased exponentially since the implementation of the first five-year development plan in 1970. Today, according to the Saudi government, every citizen has access to unlimited, free medical care." Apparently, Wahhabism is even better than Communism.

antifeminist says

The estate tax targets and kills the evil middle class.

Right. When it comes back next year, the estate tax won't touch the first $1,000,000. And then for amounts above that, many well informed people will buy products from insurance companies, to avoid it.

Without your political bias, you might have seen the estate tax as: A good way to pay down the deficit (a little bit), combined with a gift to the insurance companies.

Without barons, the king will have unlimited powers. Lots of millionaires is a good thing, like the American Dream. Pay down the deficit? Tax-and-spend liberals like the money to always pass through their own hands; that's all. I'm not well informed about insurance to avoid paying taxes. That doesn't sound like a good way to pay down the deficit. Yet, we ought to stimulate consumption by people who do not produce. What will be left? Did you ever meet a tax you didn't like? Wouldn't it be better to simplify so there can't be special tax loophole favors and so there is less administrative overhead? Don't mean to offend the tax specialists out there. All that tax computing produces nothing useful. Can't we pick a few taxes and use them at whatever rate is needed. I think a flat sales tax on energy, a simple land tax, and uncomplicated external revenue are worth considering. If we consolidate taxation to a few taxes, we might see how ridiculous the U.S. unFederal Government extortion is.

We can't debate the appropriate level of taxation without a clear understanding of what level we have or are setting. Nickel-ing and dime-ing to death. Wouldn't you like to make more and for less hours and easier working conditions? Shouldn't technological benefits make life easier for truly free people? Pricing levels should come down; that is, the same dollars should buy more with advancing technology. It is obvious to me that American freedom is an anomaly about to pass into fable. What a special people antebellum Americans were. I know, they killed Amerinds and enslaved blacks. How smug today's Americans are, with so much handed to them that they can be subjugated and not realize it. With enough government, we can eliminate all conflict and all suffering. That is the feminist fantasy. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Wear your pink, all you mental candy asses. We need more breast cancer research like we need more housing. The resources spent on making bubble houses could have been better spent on something else. I don't know what exactly. I am not a certified community organizer who knows better. Let me emphasize CERTIFIED. Thanks, certifiable fiends, for actively throwing away the American Dream. I hope you get to experience the fruits of your labor.

antifeminist says

I must disagree with Vincente’s point about estate taxes as being dynasty killers.

It is a tool in the toolbox like any other. You sound like a Tory. Aristocracy is an evil to be fought not embraced. That some family fortunes survive countermeasures owes to the vibrancy of the particular individuals involved. A sort of "survival of the fittest".

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

the estate tax doesn't really prevent dynasties. Inheriting a little less than half of a multi billion dollar fortune will still make you rich.

But the argument that we need barrons is also ridiculous. We don't have kings.

What we need is reasoned, rational, public debate on real issues, not emotional appeals and fundamentalism.

Interesting aspect of history, this entail and primogeniture. From http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm:
"Entail and primogeniture imposed potentially perpetual restraints on the alienation of land, and could result in useful agricultural land being tied up indefinitely."

The laws of primogeniture and entail were laws that fostered perpetual inheritance according to the will of the state, which would be for the benefit of those actually in power. That is quite different than an inheritance determined by the deceased with no transfer of conditions upon further inheritance of the same property. Letting the individual decide for a single instance of estate disposal does not appear to be what Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson were against. Would Jefferson agree with FDR? I am not sure I would trust an editorial in the Economist that equates opposition to entail as support for an estate tax. The Economist seems to be controlled by the Rothschild banking family of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group). They only copied from a blog by Stephen Budiansky. According to wikipedia, Budiansky went to Harvard and Yale, like the political elites often do, and was editor of U.S. News & World Report. Yah.

Jefferson did support the rich being taxed more than the poor (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm). A flat tax does that. I know you want a progressive tax. Jefferson seems to have at least pondered the possibility.

From (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm): "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

As for family inheritance itself, Jefferson was not against it. Thomas Jefferson wrote (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj010010%29%29):

"As the law of Descents, & the criminal law fell of course within my portion, I wished the commee to settle the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them. And with respect to the first, I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenary to the next of kin, as personal property is by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed that if the eldest son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par in his powers & wants, with his brothers and sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony, and such was the decision of the other members."

Although inconclusive as to his feelings on the estate tax, Jefferson seems to have no problem with a law of family inheritance in parcenary, meaning received undivided and in common by family coheirs. Moving on....

Here is a list of the biggest U.S. land owners: http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/ It says Ted Turner is number one with a little over 2 million acres.

Biggest in the world? Do I think Queen Elizabeth II can use 6.6 billion acres? Not really. That's one sixth of the world's land. Do you think the estate tax is getting her? More about the world's biggest land owners (http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/):

"She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres."

ACTUALLY, THE BIGGEST OWNER OF U.S. LAND IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! From http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html we have: "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States." I know parks and government facilities are needed, but 30% of the whole friggin' country? Is government big enough for you yet? The estate tax will stop the aristocracy? Would you please stop hating the so-called rich and aspire to be one yourself? If you earn it, you help us all. Politically speaking, $10 million is not rich. I said 'politically speaking'.

Perhaps we need a gift tax to stop landlordism too? When does the paranoid taxation stop? There is no landlordism without government coercion. The estate tax does not stop government coercion; it is government coercion that mainly benefits elitists, some of whom, like the Kennedys, are part of the dynasties supposedly to be dismantled. Why don't we destroy Harley-Davidson? Why don't we destroy Campbell's soup? I liked it better when the Bancroft family owned the Wall Street Journal. Is it better that WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch? I don't think people with several million dollars are aristocrats. They are not able to compete with George Soros or Bill Gates unless they stand united in the distribution of power. If they are numerous, they provide some safety to the rest of us. The freedom we once had in America can trace its heritage to the Magna Carta, when barons limited the king's power. That is the greatness of British heritage: limited government.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote this (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre S. Dupont de Nemours, April 15, 1811; see loc.gov Jefferson digital collection):

"Another great field of political experiment is opening in our neighborhood, in Spanish America. I fear the degrading ignorance into which their priests and kings have sunk them, has disqualified them from the maintenance or even knowledge of their rights, and that much blood may be shed for little improvement in their condition. Should their new rulers honestly lay their shoulders to remove the great obstacles of ignorance, and press the remedies of education and information, they will still be in jeopardy until another generation comes into place, and what may happen in the interval cannot be predicted, nor shall you or I live to see it. In these cases I console myself with the reflection that those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been. I hope you continue to preserve your health, and that you may long continue to do so in happiness, is the prayer of yours affectionately."

Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?

Kevin says

What we need is reasoned, rational, public debate on real issues, not emotional appeals and fundamentalism.

b-b-but, then some people wouldn't have anything to say...

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

Daniel Webster

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts-- our duty is not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

Is ObamaCare constitutional?

antifeminist says

Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?

In that last quote, substitute right wing politicians and corporations for priests and kings, and you have a recipe for a continued deterioration of conditions here, much like what Jefferson was referring to ( I assume) in Mexico and Central America.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to attribute the current gap between the rich and the poor, and the ever shrinking middle class to liberal policies.

As I have suggested before. All we need to do is attack the deficit with very progressive taxation, and watch how quickly congress figures out how to get spending under control. And then taxes can come back down.

But no. That just makes too much sense.