We need the patriot Act.

Another source of liberal hysteria: railing on and on about all the bad things that the patriot act “allows” that have never been done.

Like checking people’s library records.

Puhleeze, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

Posted by: skip at April 20, 2004 01:02 PM

“Puhleeze, the constitution is not a suicide pact.”

no, it’s only the foundation upon which this fucking country was built. the patriot act is in direct violation of the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, and possibly the 2nd, 8th, and 11th amendments to the constitution.

the instant you show any disrespect to the constitution is the instant you show yourself for the terrorist that you are. i think i hear bin laden calling you his buddy.

Posted by: x at April 20, 2004 01:36 PM

That’s odd, I missed the section on public library usage in the Constitution. It must have been very important to the founders to appear in 8 of the 13 amendments.

Posted by: Brian at April 20, 2004 01:41 PM

” the patriot act is in direct violation of the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, and possibly the 2nd, 8th, and 11th amendments to the constitution.”

That is a lie.

Posted by: David at April 20, 2004 01:50 PM

…and public schools

…and income taxes

Maybe the constitutional scholar “x” would like to illuminate us on those. And by the way, I think we all know here x, who Osama would buddy up with, and it ain’t skip. Further, I have noticed that you remain silent on McCain Feingold, an actual egregious abrogation of your rights.

Having said that, I actually for once agree with x about something. I think the Patriot Act is bad policy. Currently the potential of abuse of the Patriot act is huge. While it is correct that I have not had any rights (that I know of) violated by the Patriot act, the point is that I could…….easily. The government can now read my mail (electronic or otherwise) without my knowledge and prosecute me for what they find inside. How difficult is it to exrapolate that to an unfair prosecution, or even a mistaken one?

Freedom when someone is looking over your shoulder is not really freedom, because we all act differently if we know someone is watching. Government was never intended to be this. A better way can be found. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 20, 2004 01:53 PM

Johnny, I can understand your concerns. It reminds me a bit of the Alien and Sedition acts that Adams signed.

There are apparent needs now, but in the long run….

Still the left’s hysteria is pure demogoguery. Bush should have done what he needed the patriot act to do but he can’t do it because the patriot act is a threat to our freedom, blah blah blah.

Somedays it seems the left is against everything but sex.

Posted by: skip at April 20, 2004 02:54 PM

skip and johnny, you’re both right.

I remember back in the late 90s - they seem so long ago - when I warned some of my conservative pals that they wanted to maybe ramp down the fury on Clinton … not because Clinton was a saint, but rather than in the zeal to punish him, they were setting precedents for similar treatment if and when a Republican got into office. In fact, all the hysterical allegations going on (I especially loved the ones about him drug-running out of a tiny Arkansas airfield) completely masked some of the real problems … for example, paying attention to be economy bubble, or, um, terrorism.

Well, lo and behold and all that. And the hysterical reaction to PATRIOT is similarly muddying the picture.

Anyway, the lesson now is the same one with Clinton - we want to be really careful that what can help us short term won’t be turned against us by future administrations (on either side). After all, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, it’s still a politician.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 20, 2004 03:10 PM

IANAL but I read blogs of lawyers I respect such as Instapundit and Volkov. They don’t seem to have problems with Patriot Act. As a non-lawyer though, it seems like common sense to me that if some portion has never been used, it should be dropped during the renewal/extension process upcoming in Congress. As I understand it, that applies to the library records part as a minimum.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at April 20, 2004 03:35 PM

A good example is the entire debacle of independant counsels that started when the Democrats wanted to get Nixon. Now its a nightmare for America.

Anything at all can cause a political opponent to demand the appointing of an idenpendant counsel and if they AG doesn’t go for it, well then more speeches about the obvious political overtones in the decision.

It really is quite tiresome.

I think many are missing the mood in America: We’re tired of the BS from Washington and the TV. We want to learn from what went wrong around 9/11, we want to deal with the thugs that dreamed this up, we want to move on.

The left and the press want to relive Viet nam because they think they won that war. Of course the souls of the dead Cambodians would argue, but hey, the press was powerful back in the day.

That’s why all this crap now. Meanwhile many of us have reached the conclusion that the big problem is the big government. Expensive and ineffective and impossible to shrink.

Oh boy, what a great time to be a conservative!

Posted by: skip at April 20, 2004 03:49 PM

I’m a middle-of-the-road liberal, and I support certain aspects of the Patriot Act while rejecting others. I’m also in the unique situation of working with the government to facilitate efficient and timely exchange of criminal justice information between agencies. (I’m a software engineer, involved heavily in information systems integration)

Government agencies are oftentimes territorial about their information - that means “it’s my information, and prove to me why I should give it to you.” Many agencies, particularly those within law enforcement, are hesitant to hand over leads to other agencies on big cases, such as tracking down terrorists, for fear of seeing them crack the big case. It is in this area that the Patriot Act can truly prove its effectiveness. The ‘walls’ between these agencies MUST be smashed in order to give our law enforcement the information necessary to do their jobs.

At the same time, the rights of all Americans must remain paramount - this is the ultimate goal of our government, to protect the rights of those who would have their rights unjustly sacrificed. What is the point of protecting liberties if the means by which we defend them also denies them?

Certainly law enforcement needs latitude, more than was available under previous administrations. But we cannot rightly support a law that would give law enforcement the ability to trample individual rights without due cause.

Posted by: ron at April 20, 2004 04:26 PM

jm: “Further, I have noticed that you remain silent on McCain Feingold, an actual egregious abrogation of your right”

When the title of this post says “Reno and Clarke praise the McCain-Feingold act” let me know.

skip: “Somedays it seems the left is against everything but sex.”

No - we’re just against everything that the religious right stands for: tyranny, oppression, death, curtailing of speech, and the general Orwellian reality that this country is quickly turning into.

skip: “Meanwhile many of us have reached the conclusion that the big problem is the big government. Expensive and ineffective and impossible to shrink.”

And yet you’re willing to re-elect the man who is growing the federal deficit by leaps and bounds over his predecessor. The mind absolutely boggles. Hell, even Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush.

Posted by: x at April 20, 2004 04:29 PM

ron:

I’m interested in your views of the Patriot Act especially since you seem to be an insider. You mentioned there are some provisions of the PA that you don’t support. Would you be so kind as to enumerate these, perhaps with a bit of rationale as to why you don’t support them? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at April 20, 2004 04:39 PM

Bush’s economic record is horrendous. He was handed an economy on the tail-end of the longest running period of growth in U.S. history, and quickly gave the surplus that was handed to him back to the people - predominantly the upper class - and is now spending $600 billion more than we’re taking in. That doesn’t sound like fiscal responsibility, nor does it sound like “small government.” And this notion that the economy is turning around is a farce if to do it we have to deficit spend our way out of it the way Bush is having us do. Keynes’ deficit spending principal only works if in times of ‘surplus’ we pay back the deficit we created. Do you see Bush having a surplus any time soon, let alone using that surplus to pay off a debt? If there was such a surplus, you can bet that taxes would be cut. I don’t like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I’ll pay my fair share for having a government that is fiscally responsible and that will be there when I need it.

That aside, the way he’s handling the war on terror is [generally] right. You can’t pacify terrorists, it will only whet their appetites for more power. When you pacify, you give up a little, then a little more, then a little more. Take a look at Nazi Germany leading up to WWII.

It’s a complicated picture. Conservatives/religious right certainly don’t stand for “tyranny, oppression, death, …”, but they are quicker to sacrifice the rights of the minority (not minorities, don’t read into it) in the name of morality and freedom. The biggest thing that bothers me about conservatives is that they are more likely to force their own perceived morality on others. This country was founded on freedoms, and what I find moral and within the limits of decency (homosexuality, same-sex marriage, violent video games, etc.) is really my own business unless it directly effects your rights to life and liberty.

Posted by: ron at April 20, 2004 04:54 PM

x,

Your mom would definitely take away your internet priveleges if she knew that all you were doing with your time was spewing delusional bullsh#@. Hell, she might even kick you out of her house.

The left is against “tyranny, oppression, death, curtailing of speech and [some inchorent reference to Orwell]”? Where to start — tyranny and oppression are largely synonymous, so you must really mean that since you mention it twice. Liberals favor the state (or, as you probably refer to it amongst friends “the collective”) over the individual in virtually all endeavors, whereas the right, even the religious right, favors the individual.
You’re against death. Whoopee, best of luck and don’t forget to share if you figure out a cure.

I can’t recall the last Speech Code that was imposed by a conservative organization, but there are plenty of examples of liberal interest groups tyrannically ramming politcally correct speach codes everybody’s throats so that nobody has to hear anything they don’t want to.

As for Orwell, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, as you would see that the true perversion of speech comes from the left in trying to sell a form of government that few in America would vote for if described plainly, largely because it has failed spectacularly everywhere it’s been tried.

Finally, trying to pitch Senator Windsock, who was rated more liberal than Ted Kennedy by a Liberal magazine, is just plain stupid.

Maybe you missed your naptime?

Posted by: TL at April 20, 2004 04:54 PM

x,

Your mom would definitely take away your internet priveleges if she knew that all you were doing with your time was spewing delusional bullsh#@. Hell, she might even kick you out of her house.

The left is against “tyranny, oppression, death, curtailing of speech and [some inchorent reference to Orwell]”? Where to start — tyranny and oppression are largely synonymous, so you must really mean that since you mention it twice. Liberals favor the state (or, as you probably refer to it amongst friends “the collective”) over the individual in virtually all endeavors, whereas the right, even the religious right, favors the individual.
You’re against death. Whoopee, best of luck and don’t forget to share if you figure out a cure.

I can’t recall the last Speech Code that was imposed by a conservative organization, but there are plenty of examples of liberal interest groups tyrannically ramming politcally correct speach codes everybody’s throats so that nobody has to hear anything they don’t want to.

As for Orwell, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, as you would see that the true perversion of speech comes from the left in trying to sell a form of government that few in America would vote for if described plainly, largely because it has failed spectacularly everywhere it’s been tried.

Finally, trying to pitch Senator Windsock, who was rated more liberal than Ted Kennedy by a Liberal magazine, is just plain stupid.

Maybe you missed your naptime?

Posted by: TL at April 20, 2004 04:54 PM

No - we’re just against everything that the religious right stands for: tyranny, oppression, death, curtailing of speech, and the general Orwellian reality that this country is quickly turning into.

Way to ignore the point, x. You wouldn’t know an abrogation of your rights if it walked up and punched you in the face. (which it ought to)

Its amazing, you basically blow this comment off with some stupid comment about Janet Reno, and in your next bloody sentence you bitch that you’re worried about abrogation of your rights; this time by the religious right. Again, you have an obvious abrogation of your political speech with McCain-Feingold and you don’t seem to care. The hubris required to do that is breathtaking.

Why?

Because complaining about McCain-Feingold doesn’t give you an opportunity to slam Republicans, Bush, or air your own predjudices against people of faith. (this from the guy who thinks mutually consensual human sacrifice is ok. Please, spare us your sanctimonious soliloquies about the “religious right”)

That’s why.

So maybe you could elucidate for us why you seem to think McCain-Feingold is ok and the Patriot Act is not instead of giving some lameass excuse about Clarke and Reno. Or you could just make it easy on yourself and admit that you have no idea what the hell you’re even talking about.

Dean, I know you didn’t address this to me, but
the Patriot Act authorizes intelligence agencies to give what they obtain without probable cause to prosecutors; and it authorizes prosecutors to use the information thus received in ordinary criminal prosecutions. Even worse, whoever has to surrender this information is barred from disclosing to you that the material has been obtained. This is more than just academic. If the government can get evidence against you from for example, your financial institution or library under the guise of national security without showing probable cause — but use it in a criminal case against you, then the Constitution’s guarantees against incriminating yourself, for example, have been destroyed. Even worse than that, most Americans don’t know is that on Dec. 13, President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This statute expands the term “financial institution” so as to include travel agencies and car dealers, casinos and hotels, real estate and insurance agents and lawyers, news stands and pawn brokers, and even the Post Office.
So without you knowing it, the Justice Department can learn where you traveled, what you spent, what you ate, what you paid to finance your car and your house, what you confided to your lawyer and insurance and real estate agents, and what periodicals you read without having to demonstrate any evidence or even suspicion of criminal activity on your part. And the government can now, for the first time in American history, without obtaining the approval of a court, read your mail before you do, and prosecute you on the basis of what it reads.

Most Americans don’t want the government to know of their personal behavior, not because we have anything to hide, but because without probable cause, without some demonstrable evidence of some personal criminal behavior, the Constitution declares that our personal lives are none of the federal government’s business.

The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government, not the other way around.
Government surveillance undermines freedom because it is natural to hesitate to exercise freedom when the government is watching and recording. The Patriot Act should have never been allowed to be used on ordinary citizens. X’s statement above is a perfect example of why not. Look at what he says and you can easily see a liberal/socialist administration using it to invade the privacy of “the religious right” (read:Christian) (just like you can read: Muslim.) (Or perhaps Read:anyone the left or right in this country doesn’t particularly like at the moment) All under the auspices of “national security.” There are ways to ensure security through the courts and laws without abrogating the rights of ordinary Americans.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 20, 2004 05:09 PM

Essentially, the Patriot Act lowered the threshold to obtain search warrants to a level where it’s relatively easy for the federal government to obtain such a warrant for any citizen on the basis of suspicion, all in the name of national security. In addition, the ability of the government to now monitor free gatherings (religious or otherwise), library records, financial transactions (all new currency is also installed with RFID’s, which can track the flow of money - potentially making money as traceable as credit cards) with only suspicion also makes me uneasy. I’m not about to make comparisons to Big Brother, but it’s clear that individual rights are at minimum being pushed by the act.

This act essentially ‘unties’ limitations (checks and balances) that were put in place after the FBI abused its powers of surveillance in the 60s and 70s, spying and collecting information without due process on various controversial civil rights leaders.

Any act that encourages and mandates proper communication between investigatory agencies is a step in the right direction, particularly at the national level. But if that act also enables an agency to conduct investigations on citizens at its own whims, that act is dangerous and sets the wrong precedent.

Posted by: ron at April 20, 2004 05:30 PM

johnnymozart I wish I could write like that. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 20, 2004 05:33 PM

ron, I’m just using your quote and my rhetorical questions are not directed at you ;-)

Essentially, the Patriot Act lowered the threshold to obtain search warrants to a level where it’s relatively easy for the federal government to obtain such a warrant for any citizen on the basis of suspicion, all in the name of national security.

What’s wrong with that? Why are the civil liberties so precious? What do you do with yours - collect kidporn? This is not 60’ sand 70’s anymore, I am more then willing to give up on some of the “freedoms” to be more secure.

Posted by: v at April 20, 2004 05:50 PM

Why are civil liberties so precious?!??

V, not to be snotty, but reread my post. This is not freedom to collect “kiddieporn.” This is invasion into fundamental freedoms we are guaranteed in the Constitution. I am glad you are willing to give up your freedoms to be more secure, but I am not, because that is the first step toward tyranny. We must not do to ourselves what the Islamofascists wish to do to us. Even we, as Americans, are not immune from devolution of our democracy to demagoguery and dictatorship. Look at the demagogues we constantly see in the media. Do you think some of them, if they obtained power, would hesitate to force their agenda on everyone at the expense of liberty? I look at the Ralph Naders, Al Sharptons, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedys of the world and have no doubts, personally. We should always be fearful and suspicious of the power of our government. I can’t remember who it was that described government as a herd of cattle: capable of providing lots of goodness and otherwise somewhat innocuous, but when they stampede, are literally unstoppable, and crush everything in its path.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 20, 2004 06:23 PM

Civil liberties are the only things that are precious. Civil liberties are what separate us from totalitarianism, such as those found in many parts of Africa and the Middle East. It’s what those who fought in every war this country has ever been in have fought for. The freedom that I have to go out and do what I want, when I want, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the others in their own pursuit of happiness. The freedom to disagree passionately about what’s going on in my government, the government that is their to serve and protect me, without fear that I will be investigated or harassed without cause.

As johnnymozart said, to allow your civil liberties to be chipped away in the name of national security is one step away from a free state and one step closer to demogoguery. You have the right to sacrifice your civil liberties for [alleged] security, but you don’t have the right to sacrifice mine.

Posted by: ron at April 20, 2004 06:42 PM

Hey Skip,

Can you believe it? Liberals are really AGAINST SEX and also against breathing? They will be gone soon then! Ha!

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 20, 2004 08:35 PM

Whoooa X calling someone a terrorist? Thats like Saddam calling Little Kim in N.Korea a murderous bastard who needs to be overthrown.

I mean really X your one of the worst liberal, terrorst sympathizers on this site.

You never have anything usefull to say but made up lies, and BS.

Posted by: MikeC at April 20, 2004 09:45 PM

Those people in the tower jumping 80 floors were exercising their civil rights. But which rights WERE they exercising? Life, liberty, or the pursuit or happiness? Free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom to petition or of assembly? Right to bear arms? This is so difficult.

I suppose they died happy, knowing that their deaths helped to underscore our devotion to civil liberties. I can just hear them yelling all the way down: Down with disruptive baggage searches and ethnic profiling! Geronimo!!

Posted by: joel at April 20, 2004 10:33 PM

Sheesh people. Probable cause? Intelligence agencies still need a damn warrant and that requires, um probable cause. It’s just gotten from a special court. So, now, if there’s a terror investigation intelligence agencies can share with law enforcement and catch a bad guy for a traffic violation.

The library thing is ALREADY law..in fact most of the Patriot Act is existing law..just expanded to apply in terrorism investigations. If you were a drug trafficker most of what’s in the Patriot Act, including snooping into library records, can ALREADY be used against you.

Hysteria.

Posted by: Syl at April 21, 2004 05:51 AM

That ‘special court’ is the one that has lowered the threshold for obtaining such a warrant to a level where you don’t even need probably cause - just suspicion that something a person may be doing might threaten national security. This is the same justification that the FBI used to investigate Martin Luther King and company. Basically, anyone who doesn’t agree with the current government/administration is suspect - what does that sound like to you?

As I said, anything that encourages communication among authorities, securely, is right. (an entire local police force doesn’t need to know that an investigation is underway for one of its citizens, unless there is information to suggest that the person is an immediate threat to the people - though any dealings the local authorities have with this individual should be made available to the investigating federal agency)

Posted by: ron at April 21, 2004 08:24 AM

And see, this is the problem.

People like Joel and Syl don’t even realize what they’ve lost. And no Syl, they do NOT have to get a warrant, talk to a judge, or go before a court. They can sometimes be required to justify it before a special court, but they do not, do NOT have a requirement to see or talk to the courts before the action is implemented. Nor do they need to inform you of the fact that you are under investigation; you are misinformed. All the things in my above post are accurate; not all of them have been applied, but they could be. This is not hysteria.

And Joel, as it happens, I am quite conservative. I voted for George Bush, will do so again, and supported and still support the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. All you have to do is read my comments here to realize that. And no one realizes more than I do how desperately we need to fight the Enemy among us and abroad, because one of those people falling out of windows you so callously use to illustrate your point happened to be a close friend I grew up with so you may take your smug little post and shove it up your ass.

Look guys, lets just take off our partisan hats here for a moment. What Syl has said is incorrect, but let me qualify what I have said by saying I am not against the war on Terror, nor am I against the idea of the Patriot Act in principle. There are lots of things in it that I support, like the abovementioned cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement. But there are too many things that I do not, which I enumerated in my posts above. As I said before, these are not merely academic. However, I think the spirit of what the Patriot Act is trying to do can be accomplished without abrogating the rights of individual Americans. No matter how you guys spin it, these are still rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If it makes you feel better to pigeonhole me as a hysteric, go right ahead, but I’m not the only conservative who feels this way. Included with me would be Judge Robert Bork and Judge Andrew Napolitano (of Foxnews). Other less prominent judges on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar concerns. Further, although I would disagree with Syl that “most of what’s in the Patriot Act is already law” (false) the point is what is legal is not necessarily right. Because it might “already” be law, doesn’t concern me any less. Our founding fathers feared the power and government and sought to restrain and limit it in every way they could. We should too. It can be done without impeding the war on terror.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 21, 2004 09:07 AM

Ron, I would only disagree with you on one point, one I exemplified above. This is a common misconception. There is no requirement, as such, to go to a court or talk to a judge. They will sometimes, to avoid political firestorms. They can be required to justify things to a court, but after the fact. Currently, however, the only thing making people go to courts is fear of retribution and political fallout, and their own ethics. It doesn’t take too much to extrapolate that into a harmful tool in the wrong hands.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 21, 2004 09:13 AM

But,

We can’t have our cake and eat it too. Just look at ACLU, the utmost hysterical extreme “protecting” your freedoms - at expense of others of course…

I absolutely agree with you gents (or ladies, nics are so asexual) about not wanting to lose the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution, but we have to protect ourselves nevertheless. We have to amend our definition of “freedoms” to allow the apparatus to do their job to make us more secure. And if government goes too far, we still have our voting power and the right to bear arms to make sure they do not get too much out of hand - right?

Posted by: v at April 21, 2004 11:03 AM

Well this is a very lively and I must say informative discussion.

thanks to all for the insights and the ilustrations.

What I like best about this is that we CAN talk about how best to limit the government. While the patriot act is an important topic, as a fiscal conservative I am concerned about how the goverment is slowly eroding our freedoms elsewhere in our lives.

it’s one thing to have a concern about probable cause thresholds it’s another to concern ourselves with the fact that the federal register gets bigger every year.

Posted by: skip at April 21, 2004 11:55 AM

x is a violation to what defines a human being.

He’s an idiot, who doesn’t know that freedom has limits, and if we don’t protect our freedom, we won’t have any.
If x wants to see road blocks, military check points, and all the things that are needed to have security when under attack by a rather large insane, religious movement, of which we have a potential 2-3 million enemies of within the country, then ya, to hell with the patriot act.
Only criminals need to be afraid of the patriot act. Are you afraid x?
Too bad. I don’t care if they detain anti-Americans like you, suspend your rights, which are a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 21, 2004 06:06 PM

And if government goes too far, we still have our voting power and the right to bear arms to make sure they do not get too much out of hand - right?
Posted by: v at April 21, 2004 11:03 AM

Sure, but not if the liberals get their way. they want to restrict your right to bear arms, and to protect yourself. after all, only terrorists and criminals should have guns, not honest, law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 21, 2004 06:10 PM

Take Sweden for example, every citizen MUST have a fully automatic, military type gun in their home.
You don’t see anyone going berserk and shooting up the neighborhood.
WHY? because everyone else has one too.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 21, 2004 06:13 PM

Bush’s economic record is horrendous. He was handed an economy on the tail-end of the longest running period of growth in U.S. history, and quickly gave the surplus that was handed to him back to the people - predominantly the upper class - and is now spending $600 billion more than we’re taking in.

that is pure BS and you know it.
Bush never gave the rich a bloody dime
He simply took less, and gave more to the poor. Just who isn’t paying ANY taxes under 30,000 of income? How much do “rich people pay over that amount, which become progressively more, as you earn more.
Screw you and your Liberal math. Rich pay, poor don’t.
How many poor people donate a wing to a hospital, or give a million to a cause?
idiots.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 21, 2004 06:19 PM

Of course, this never stops the Dumb Liberals, who are rich as hell themselves, to whip up the dumb Dems who are so stupid, they will do anything to attack the rich, well, except the rich they support.
Deocrats, click here and tell me if you support rich democrats.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 21, 2004 06:23 PM

johnnymozart, I stand corrected. I unfortunately haven’t had the time to really dig into the Patriot Act deeply. My understanding was that at minimum a warrant from the FISC was necessary, but if what you tell me is true my concern regarding the act is even greater.

As far as the “Bush never gave the rich a bloody dime,” are you kidding me? Even besides that, the top 10% of Americans in terms of income pay about 80% of taxes - I understand that. So even if we cut taxes for everyone a certain percentage, the rich stand to gain more. Besides that, the point I was making is that Bush couldn’t care less about spending $600 billion more than we’re taking in as long as he can say “I lowered taxes - and look, the Democrats want to raise them.” Democrats aren’t for raising taxes - though I’ll admit many of them are far more supportive of ‘big government’ than I’d like. Moderate democrats and republicans are for a balanced, fiscally responsible (ever hear of that word, you deficit spending extremist conservatives?) government, one that will hand future generations a prosperous country based on fiscally responsible policies. One where not every person born into the world will be facing a $23,000+ debt before taking their first breath.

Posted by: ron at April 21, 2004 07:48 PM

JohnnyBeethoven said:

“People like Joel and Syl don’t even realize what they’ve lost. And no Syl, they do NOT have to get a warrant, talk to a judge, or go before a court. They can sometimes be required to justify it before a special court, but they do not, do NOT have a requirement to see or talk to the courts before the action is implemented. Nor do they need to inform you of the fact that you are under investigation; you are misinformed. All the things in my above post are accurate; not all of them have been applied, but they could be. This is not hysteria.”

You are talking in generalities. Don’t tell me I’m misinformed when you are painting everything in the Patriot Act with the same brush and misconstruing it to boot. Not informing you that you are under investigation is ALREADY LAW if you’re a suspected mafioso or into drug trafficking. Don’t try to fool people into thinking this is all new bad stuff and people are losing rights they otherwise had. The Patriot Act simply codifies all the previous laws together, adds terrorism to the list of investigations they apply to, and adds some stuff like the special court to be sure evidence pertinent to our national security doesn’t leak.

I’ll say it again…hysteria.

Posted by: Syl at April 22, 2004 03:20 AM

Syl, I am not talking in generalities. I have not misconstrued anything. In fact I gave several very specific examples. The one example that you give only proves my point. Neither you or I (that I know of) are criminal mafioso. Yet, under the Patriot Act, you and I can not be under suspicion of any crime, no wrongdoing, and have confidential mail, real estate records, insurance information, etc all reviewed by government officials, all without our knowledge and then can be prosecuted for what they find, all without having to talk to one judge or see the inside of a court. I will concede that they often will, but they are no longer required to do so. What is currently “already law,” as you keep insisting, is law that applies to people who are suspected of a specific crime. (like drug trafficking) Now, the government can read your mail for whatever reason, say it was “national security” and never have to justify it. You keep telling me I’m hysterical, but you have yet to provide any substantive info to prove me wrong. If you’ve got some, then throw down. These are not things that are “already law” because they now apply to ordinary citizens not under suspicion for or accused of any crime.

I’m not trying to fool anyone, Syl, nor for any sinister purpose. All I’ve posted numerous times is what the Patriot Act is capable of doing. I’m glad you’re comfortable with this, but I am not. All of it is true. People can make up their own damn minds about it.

So if you are telling me that all the things in the Patriot Act were already law, I am telling you that you are wrong. If you’ll read above, you’ll see me say that I am in favor of a number of things in the Patriot Act, but I am concerned that this could easily be abused. This ain’t fearmongering, but rather legitimate concern.

I’ll say it again….you are misinformed.

Ron, originally they did have to get a warrant. This has gotten less and less common as the Patriot Act and similar legislation has become more and more expansive, like the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. But the point is, even when they do, they do not have to demonstrate any evidence or suspicion of criminal activity on your part.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 08:13 AM

Even besides that, the top 10% of Americans in terms of income pay about 80% of taxes - I understand that. So even if we cut taxes for everyone a certain percentage, the rich stand to gain more.

There you go again.
the “rich” don’t get ANYTHING!!!! they get less TAKEN from them, which means, they get to KEEP more of what they EARNED.

I don’t think my money that I EARN belongs to YOU it belongs to ME.
What do you give to ME? Nothing at all.

And since I am taxed to death, I should at least be able to direct WHERE I wish to donate my tax deduction, be it a hospital, a clinic, a food bank, whatever I see as most beneficial to my immediate community. It is NOT for Democrats to piss away on fatter government, useless budget gobbling, over managed government socialist programs.

Now, on your issue of deficit spending. That is NORMAL for just about any government from time to time. What you have to be carefully of is not going too deep in over spending, which Bush is a far cry from doing. Also, the spending he has done are one time things, war costs, etc.
This year, with the increased economic activity, the books will balance out nicely, just wait for the figures, you can’t base this years spending on last years GDP figures, that untruthful democrat mathematics.
The fact is, with lower taxation, you get increased economic activity, which simply means more spending on goods, which generates MORE government revenue through sales taxes. It’s been proven over and over that governments actually bring in MORE money with lower tax rates than they do with higher tax rates.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 22, 2004 08:45 AM

Al-Lat,

The government provides certain services to all people, no matter if rich or poor. Those services have a certain price tag. Right now the rich are paying less for those services than before the tax break. Therefore, the rich got a better deal since now they get the same or more service for less money. The services that the government provides have increased, with the war on terror and security concerns, yet the price tag has decreased for the rich.

Bush hasn’t done anything to cut government programs or improve governmental efficencies. All he has done was cut the price charged for the services while creating new more expensive programs such as Iraq liberation.

If you believe that the deficit will dissappear this year because of increased economic activity this year, why has that not happened under Reagan, Bush Sr., and so far under Bush Jr.? Those three republican administations are responsible for raising U.S. debt from about 32% of GDP to about 70% of GDP today.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 10:26 AM

Those three republican administations are responsible for raising U.S. debt from about 32% of GDP to about 70% of GDP today.

Dream, you have yet to provide the source for this information, as I have asked you. Just curious. Because Fortune magazine disagrees with you on the summary of Reagan’s GDP.

The government provides certain services to all people, no matter if rich or poor.

Right, but only the “rich” as you put it, pay for those sevices.

Right now the rich are paying less for those services than before the tax break

And the “poor” again, are still paying what they paid before, nothing.

Dream, do you consider someone who makes $24,000 a year “rich”? Because I know at least one person who got a much needed tax refund last year. If someone who earned more money got more of a refund than I did, so what? This idea that only the “rich” got a tax cut is stupid on its face.

And Ron, change the term “gain” to “earn” in your statement: “the rich stand to gain more” and it gives it a whole different meaning, doesn’t it? This is money that the “rich” earned, it wasn’t provided, it wasn’t given (usually) they went out and worked their asses off for it. The majority of the “rich” don’t inherit their money, they earn it. Ask Steve Forbes or Donald Trump how many hours a week they work. A lot more than Joe Punchclock does, I’ll tell you that. Ask a doctor (who is more than somewhat reviled for they’re paid) how much he invests in his education and how much personal liability he assumes doing what he does. And how many hours a week they work.

This is sickening. We encourage people to do well in this country and be successful, and then we punish them for it. Don’t be fooled, guys, this is the model of the old Soviet Union and Das Kapital. It doesn’t work. Its never worked. “To each his means and to each their needs” doesn’t work! Its awful. Russia now has Steve Forbes tax plan, and is doing better, and we have Karl Marx’s. Progressive tax plans don’t work, guys. They never have. Not once. How many times does this have to fail for you guys to accept that it doesn’t work?

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 10:54 AM

johnnymozart,

I provided the source to you and others several times already. The info is available at www.whitehouse.gov. I can’t remember exactly where it is at, but I’m sure you can find it there. Or look through the previous posts that I wrote regarding the deficit and Bush. You can also do a google search for historical U.S. debt info.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 11:10 AM

Even besides that, the top 10% of Americans in terms of income pay about 80% of taxes - I understand that. So even if we cut taxes for everyone a certain percentage, the rich stand to gain more.

Response by Al-Lat
There you go again.
the “rich” don’t get ANYTHING!!!! they get less TAKEN from them, which means, they get to KEEP more of what they EARNED.

Al-Lat, my point in this was that it’s easy to spin numbers - liberals do it all the time and I’m not naive about it. The reason I stated that was to state that I understand that should taxes be cut evenly, across all levels of income, that the rich will always save more - because they are taxed more. I wasn’t saying that it shouldn’t be that way, all I was saying is that any president can make fair tax cuts across the board and be accused of siding with the ‘rich.’ Again, my point was to show that I’m not some rich-hating liberal.

It’s been proven over and over that governments actually bring in MORE money with lower tax rates than they do with higher tax rates.

To a point that’s true, but in practice it’s an awful myth. Regardless of what you may believe about the forthcoming numbers, Bush spent $600 billion more than we took in in taxes - all taxes, including sales (and last I checked there wasn’t a national sales tax …) . Is this fiscally responsible? No. The Keynesian idea of deficit spending only works if a government is also willing to settle the debt in prosperous times. Do you honestly think that if Bush was looking at a $600 billion surplus he would put this money towards the debt? Really?

Posted by: ron at April 22, 2004 11:17 AM

johnnymozart,

Most people in the U.S. do pay taxes, even the poor. Although most of the extremely poor also receive services which keep them from being homeless and starving.

Federal taxes are taxed on a progressive basis which is based on income. It has been decided in this country that a progressive tax is fairer to the citizens than a flat or regressive tax. Since the rich have more disposable income than the poorer classes they can afford to pay a greater share of the support cost of the U.S. government which all citizens benefit from and without which most of the rich or richer would not have had the opportunity to become rich.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 11:20 AM

mozart, are you saying that during the 8 years Clinton was in office, where taxes were raised, that the economy tanked and the ‘progressive’ tax plan didn’t work? Cutting taxes, to a level, will encourage moving money (basic economic principle says that in a healthy economy, money is being moved a lot - people are making money, spending money, etc. - in a bad economy people tend to hold on to their money more, worsening the situation). But at the same time, the government needs money to do its job. This country has one of the lowest tax rates in the world - look at many European countries. It’s not like people are being taxed to death. I don’t like taxes, I dont’ necessarily want to see them raised, but I understand that there’s a cost of having this government that’s there to protect my rights and freedoms. (albeit I don’t always agree with how it does it)

Posted by: ron at April 22, 2004 11:31 AM

Dream, if I missed your citation, I apologize and will take a look at it, although I’m not sure where you had the opportunity to show me “several times”

But to both of you,

We need to separate for a moment the two concepts of taxes and debt/deficit. I agree wholeheartedly that too much has been spent. I believe, like many conservatives, that Bush and Congress have been unable to cut spending and in the long run will hurt the economy. I am not going to debate whether this is because of overspending on Iraq, or peach research in Raintree, Georgia. I agree with that.

What I do not agree with is the idea that progressive taxes, or taxes on the “rich” are likely to solve that problem. It has never been shown to be true. What Al-Lat has said is correct.

And as for this statement:

Since the rich have more disposable income than the poorer classes they can afford to pay a greater share of the support cost of the U.S. government which all citizens benefit from and without which most of the rich or richer would not have had the opportunity to become rich.

This is absurd. First of all, most of the “rich” enjoy a proportionately lower share of the “benefits” as a poor person. And why shouldn’t they? Lee Iacocca, by his own words, needs Social Security like he needs a hole in the head. And the second part of your statement is straight out of the Democratic class warfare handbook for the last 50 years. Some people get rich because they inherit it etc. All people get rich because of some opportunity, but most people get rich because of hard work, initiative, risk, and perseverance. Any “opportunity” is second to that. Take away the money of the “rich”, and most, if not all, will be rich again. Why? Because most of them earned it, through hard work, education, risk, or just plain good money management skills. That’s why Vanilla Ice could make 40 million dollars one year and be broke the next. That’s why Michael Jackson is going broke.

Federal taxes are taxed on a progressive basis which is based on income. It has been decided in this country that a progressive tax is fairer to the citizens than a flat or regressive tax

Yes, I know it has. Erroneously. Your and my definition of “fair” differs quite a bit.

And yes, dream, the poor do pay taxes, lots of taxes, from morning till night; all of us do. But what we are talking about here is income taxes. Beyond a certain point, they don’t pay those, and you didn’t answer my question. Do you consider someone who make between 24,000-30,000 rich? Because those people got a tax cut. Which brings up my next point:

mozart, are you saying that during the 8 years Clinton was in office, where taxes were raised, that the economy tanked and the ‘progressive’ tax plan didn’t work?

Well yes, Ron, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The economy didn’t improve because taxes were raised, it improved because the economy grew in spite of the fact that taxes were raised. In an economy the size of ours, the failure of progressive taxes aren’t as noticeable. But what we have currently is a progressively smaller and smaller group of people asked to provide inordinately and progressively higher taxes for a progressively larger and larger group of people. That cannot continue, deficit or no deficit, debt or no debt. No amount of taxation on the “rich” is going to save Social Secuity of Medicare. People in their twenties and thities now can pretty much forget it. And so maybe how I should have phrased it would be progressive taxes eventually fail.

As an example, the upper limit of the British marginal tax rate on the “rich” when Margaret Thatcher took office in 1980 was 92% 92% Businesses, industry, the economy were all tanking, just as they were in this country, where the upper marginal rates were also quite high. How did this change? Cutting taxes. On whom? The “rich.”

And your point about looking at European countries is exactly my point. That is what we are doing. That is the direction we’re heading. The reason those countries are where they are is because they have done what you and Dream are suggesting. That’s why Germany has ?18% unemployment. They tried to pay for program etc that they could not afford and they tried to do it on the backs of the most productive in their societies by taxing them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be taxed, but lower taxes with judicious spending habits will always result in the spurring economic growth and a healthier economy, particularly when those lower taxes on those with extra “disposable income” which they would invest in the economy, thus providing jobs.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 12:21 PM

Sorry for the length, fellas, admin.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 12:37 PM

johnnymozart,

Even with this bad progressive tax system currently in effect, the rich are getting richer and poor are staying poor. How can that be if the current tax system is so unfair to the rich? Take a look at this report for more info.

The reason the progressive system has worked well over the years is that different classes can afford to pay different rates. If you had a flat tax, the tax would either be too low for the rich or too high for the poor. It is much more efficent and fair to setup different rates for different income groups.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 12:49 PM

I’m not saying that we should raise taxes, and I certainly understand that the rich will stay rich not by luck, but because they tend to be harder working and smarter. They earned it. I work hard, and at 24 years old I have almost 20k towards my IRA already. (because there’s going to be nothing for me in SS) I’m not being a braggart, I’m just saying that I know that the rich for the most part deserve what they’ve earned - because I feel I deserve what I’ve earned.

The problem is that you can greatly increase the revenue for a government by having a ‘progressive’ income tax policy - that is, those that have higher income presumably have more disposable income, and as such will have to pay mroe of their percentage in taxes. Because slightly raising taxes on the ‘rich’ can be absorbed more easily by the people, and will greatly add to the treasury coffers. Conversely, raising or lowering taxes on the poor results in very little gain or loss for the treasury. I’m not saying it’s fair that the rich are taxed more, but it makes the most amount of sense for the country as a whole.

It’s evident from the Clinton years (and I’m not a Clinton lover in any sense) that conservatives greatly overestimate the impact raising and lowering taxes slightly has on the economy. Consumerism is ‘greased’ much more by how people feel about the economy, their job security, etc. Basically, consumer confidence is the real factor that drives the economy. The reason the economy expanded so much under Clinton was that people generally felt good about the economy, and I think having a fiscally responsible government goes a long way towards generating consumer confidence. I find it difficult to have confidence in the way the economy is being managed by the government when we’re spending $600 billion more than we’re taking in - I believe that’s the largest one-year deficit in history.

Do you want to hand your newborn children over $23k in debt? We’re doing that right now.

Posted by: ron at April 22, 2004 01:08 PM

Click to see a graph of the U.S. Debt vs GDP.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 01:41 PM

A separate IRS report released Thursday showed that in 2000 there were nearly 2.8 million “high-income” returns, those with adjusted gross income of at least $200,000. That’s a 14.1 percent increase from 1999 (the total number of filed returns increased just 1.8 percent in that time).

This is from your article, Dream. This means that more people are becoming rich, not that the rich are getting richer. Of course, your definition of “rich” is apparently anyone making over $24,000, so there you are. Now as for the 400 people the article refers to, at that level of wealth there are so many loopholes to avoid or escape taxes, its mind-boggling. I think those loopholes need to be closed, I agree. However, the rich are getting richer, once again, because they are earning it, not because they are insufficiently taxed.

So I am tired of hearing about “tax cuts for the wealthy” when it is the “wealthy” (again, apparently everyone making above $24,000) who are the ones paying the taxes. If only Indians paid taxes, and they then got a tax cut, would you complain if you didn’t get one? So, let me ask you guys a question. Right now the upper marginal rate is 38%, I think. What would be fair? The top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of all income taxes. What, in your mind, would be the “rich” paying their “fair share”?

Ron, what you say in your last paragraph is absolutely correct, consumer confidence and other variables have much more to do with economic growth than taxes. But only in the short term. For long term growth to be sustained, taxes must be low, because study after study after study shows that low taxes encourage new business sector ventures, and further, those new business ventures are more likely to be successful with a low tax burden. Who starts new businesses? The poor? No. And truly, you won’t find me disagreeing with you on overspending. Its just that my solution is kitchen-table economics. I don’t spend more than I can afford. The government should not be able to either. I do not think we need to increase taxes to balance the budget. All you have to do is see the long trail of pork from DC to West Virginia to see that.

One last thing. I don’t know what those figures are, Dream, or where they come from. I won’t deny that they represent what you say they do. All I can say is that Fortune and BusinessWeek disagree. If I get a chance, I’ll scan in the article, and you can decide for yourself. All I know was that life sure was better under Ronald Reagan for me than it was under Jimmy Carter. Thanks for posting it, though. I’m really going to have to give it a look and compare.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 02:10 PM

There’s definitely no shortage of fat to trim when it comes to the federal government. I don’t think we need to raise taxes - but if we did raising it slightly can dramatically increase the revenue. Regardless, rather than looking at ways to raise revenue, the government should be looking at ways to lower the cost of running the government. The inefficiency of the government is its most costly attribute. Unfortunately, you have to accept some level of inefficiency in a democratic government, even a representative democracy, as decisions are rarely made quickly and decisively.

Posted by: ron at April 22, 2004 02:24 PM

Amen, brother.

BTW, keep posting, we disagree on some things, but this is one of the most enriching threads I’ve debated on in some time. Dream, you and I disagree on about 90% of stuff, but you keep posting, too.

Thanks, guys. Be back later.

jm

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 22, 2004 02:36 PM

johnnymozart,

I agree Bush did give even the lower middle class a tax cut. But there was no need to reduce taxes for the upper tax brackets since he had no way to pay for the cut. If he had cut spending and reduced taxes I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, but instead he cut taxes and increased spending.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 05:02 PM

Another fun statistic for you all: the ratio of the wealth of the top 20 percent compared to the bottom 20 percent has gone from 9.6 in 1979 to about 18.1 currently. So as you can see the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly.

Posted by: Dream at April 22, 2004 10:26 PM

Mozart..again I say you are speaking in too general terms. You are conflating one part of the act with other things. And you are not differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. When you talk of having to justify something only after the fact you are speaking of all those detentions done right after 9/11 of NON-citizens. And, yes, the FBI made a mistake in holding these people too long.

You get hysterical that someone can be investigated without probable cause of having committed a ‘crime’. Well duh. Terrorists haven’t committed a crime…yet. That’s the whole damn point of the Patriot Act. FISA handles that end of it, and the regular common ordinary investigative tools handle the criminal end of it.

You have to be more specific or I will continue to accuse you of scare-mongering. Okay?

Section 213 is the delay notice provision. This has ALWAYS been law. Different judges used different standards to grant the request and determine the period of delay. The Patriot Act simply clarified a single standard for all criminal investigation warrants. It also extended this provision to foreign intelligence investigations which require more confidentiality than presenting your ‘case’ to a grand jury can allow hence going to a judge in a FISA court.

Because of the potential civil liberty problems that confidentiality (intelligence secrets) can cause, the Patriot Act in section 215 (the library and business records one) added a series of checks if the warrants are used in the foreign intelligence (rather than criminal) context. It must be approved by a judge and you must report to Congress every six months for accountability. Plus these warrants can NOT be used to target First Amendment activities.

Under separation of powers Congress makes the laws that govern criminal investigations which are overseen by the courts, but the Executive Branch has the powers to investigate national security matters without this oversight. FISA was set up by Congress, however, to assure probable cause in any national security investigation…something which may even be unconstitutional. But it’s there. And it stipulated that the investigation be of an agent of a foreign power and that this was for national security.

Over the years the results of FISA were misconstrued to not being able to be used in criminal investigation cases (this has been shown by the courts to not be required) and Gorelick further heightened the ‘wall’ by stipulating the criminal and foreign intelligence investigations be conducted on totally separate tracks…no inter-communication whatsoever was allowed. That’s why a judge wouldn’t grant a warrant to look in Moussaoui’s (god, I still can’t spell his name) computer. One of many tragic examples of not being able to connect the dots before 9/11.

Section 218 basically allows information gathered under FISA to be shared with criminal investigators and vice-versa. This is the breaking down of the wall. Also today it is not necessary to prove that the target of a FISA investigation is an agent of a foreign power because that may not be the case. Atta was not an agent of the Taliban for example.

I think where people might get a little fussed is over the requirements of who constitutes a potential terrorist. It’s a difficult definition to pin down and probably subject to refinement. I’m all for keeping the entire Patriot Act intact and have no fear for any of MY civil liberties.

Posted by: Syl at April 23, 2004 05:21 AM

Dream…your class warfare tactics really don’t work.
(1)most people don’t care that somebody else makes more than they do…they figure maybe they’ll be rich someday too. and

(2)taxcuts for the rich simply isn’t true. Check out econopundit for April 1. He has a chart that shows taxes for the rich actually went UP the first year of Bush’s taxcuts.

(3)Who cares if the rich are getting richer. They’re not stealing it from you. As long as the economy is growing everyone benefits. Stop being such a jealous nincompoopy.

Oh and you’re mixing things up. You speak of the ‘debt’ which isn’t the same thing as the ‘deficit’. The debt is money we owe ourselves and no big deal. The deficit will be reduced easily enough by restricting spending and growth in the economy. Cutting taxes helps to grow the economy so the government gets even more back in taxes. Strange but true. Anyway your kids should be richer than you (that’s the way it usually works) and can more afford to pay off the deficit if necessary.

Posted by: Syl at April 23, 2004 05:33 AM

Syl,

The fact that the rich are getting richer does infact imply that they are taking wealth alway from the bottom 60% of the population. The fact is that wealth in this country has become more concentrated in the hand of a few (20%). I’m sure you don’t care, but if you want the U.S. of A. to become the next Mexico, where the poor live in cardboard boxes and there is a ruling elite class, thats your choice not mine.

Every moron knows the difference between the debt and the deficit. The debt is not “only money we owe ourselves” and it is a bid deal. My kids are going to be paying off the debt not the deficit. If they have a defict that means that they are not paying off the debt by definition.

Most people will never be rich especially in today’s America where a small minority control most of the wealth. The American dream has become more and more difficult to achieve, as corporate CEOs steal wealth from their workers and shareholders. Only top managment gets increases in wages and benefits, the bottom are told that the company cannot afford increases for its workers in “these times”.

The the top 20% have become leaches on the U.S. economy and on U.S. workers. They have allowed other countries, with the help of crooked politicians, to take over most of the manufacturing and high-tech jobs. Now they can force American workers into paycuts or low raises, while still charging the same for goods, allowing them to raise their own pay and benefits. The rich are dangerous and they need to be in check as does the government. If unchecked both can go out of control at the expense of the majority. If you read history you’ll see that it has happened before many times.

Posted by: Dream at April 23, 2004 11:12 AM

Who cares if the rich are getting richer. They’re not stealing it from you. As long as the economy is growing everyone benefits. Stop being such a jealous nincompoopy.

No, they’re not stealing it from me, but extending the gap between the middle class and the ‘rich’ leaves less money for the middle class. Outsourcing jobs, for example, which essentially cuts out ‘low-skill’ jobs that are employed largely by the lower-middle class, creates savings that ultimately end up in the bank accounts of ownership. You can make an argument that outsourcing creates jobs by freeing up resources and capital to take advantage of other opportunities, but the bottom line is really that Average Joe Lineworker who is hard working but maybe doesn’t have ‘skills’ that management deems profitable is out of luck.

Oh and you’re mixing things up. You speak of the ‘debt’ which isn’t the same thing as the ‘deficit’. The debt is money we owe ourselves and no big deal. The deficit will be reduced easily enough by restricting spending and growth in the economy. Cutting taxes helps to grow the economy so the government gets even more back in taxes. Strange but true.

Cutting taxes is completely overrated in regards to its impact on economic growth. As I stated previously, consumer confidence is by far the biggest factor that determines the health and strength of an economy. Taxes during the Clinton years were supposed to be fairly high, yet because consumer confidence was also at a high the economy was strong, propserpous, and growing. Money we owe ourselves is a big deal, and I don’t see Bush restricting spending or truly growing the economy.

Anyway your kids should be richer than you (that’s the way it usually works) and can more afford to pay off the deficit if necessary.

This is just a ridiculous statement. Why don’t we just push off the deficit and debt to our kids, rather than dealing with the mess we made? In fact, I have a credit card debt - maybe I can just push that off to the kids I don’t have. That’s fiscally responsible.

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 11:28 AM

My statement ‘push off the deficit and debt to our kids’ was, was regards to the deficit, meant to imply setting the precedent for future generations that running up a deficit is the norm in the government - which would just continually add to the debt (amazingly, that’s exactly what we’re doing now).

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 11:35 AM

BTW, the class war has already started in the U.S. It started 24 years ago, and so far the rich have doubled the amount of territory they control.

Posted by: Dream at April 23, 2004 12:41 PM

(this turned out to be a long post)—sorry

Syl,

I’m not exactly sure how I can be more specific than, “Never in the history of the United States has the government been able to invade your privacy (like the example I gave of reading your mail) without your knowledge and prosecute you for what they find, ever, ever, ever..”

You see Syl, you keep labeling me a ‘hysteric” or a “scaremongerer,” but then admit that everything I’ve said is right, just that what I’m saying doesn’t matter. Well, I disagree.

And further, for the millionth time, Section 213 has not always been the law. That’s why section 213 amends the law to allow for a delay.

From Section 213 of the Patriot Act:

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ’ before `In addition’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

I omitted the long “delay” clause here.

I trust the point is clear here. Before, so as to avoid unreasonable search and seizure under Amendment 4 (the defense of which I describe below), there was no delay, or probable cause had to be determined beforehand for a limited delay.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is no longer the case. None of this was supposed to have happened. The tools Congress gave to intelligence agencies are only constitutional when used just for intelligence purposes — like watching or deporting foreign spies — and only against genuine foreign threats. When criminal prosecution is implicated, the Constitution’s protections are triggered. You make the point yourself, Syl:

“I think where people might get a little fussed is over the requirements of who constitutes a potential terrorist. It’s a difficult definition to pin down and probably subject to refinement”

Exactly. And that is the fundamental problem. There is no definition right now except whatever the government defines “terrorism” as. That’s how you see the Patriot Act being applied to organized crime, illegal gambling and pornography/prostitution. Remember the outrage about that when it was mentioned? I’m not saying, Syl, that the Patriot Act is being abused. I’m saying that it is written such that it can be. The government does not need to establish probable cause that we are terrorists, it can just assume we are, and have to explain it later to a secret court after the fact. Currently the limit is 90 days before we even have to be informed that we are under suspicion, and even then that “suspicious” does not need to be substantiated to anyone. And indeed, this limit could easily be renewed for an additional 90 days or other length of time.

You get hysterical that someone can be investigated without probable cause of having committed a ‘crime’. Well duh. Terrorists haven’t committed a crime…yet

I’m not hysterical, and you only undermine your own argument by continuing to accuse me of it. You confuse crimes with probable cause. They don’t have to have committed a terrorist act, but if there is no probable cause, why are they being detained? Refined existing laws can be augmented to do what the Patriot Act does without abrogating our Constitutional rights.

The word “privacy” does not actually appear in the Constitution, but it is construed to be a broad and inalienable right just the same. The origin of this right is grounded in tort law and a famous, oft quoted, but not so often read 1890 Harvard Law Review article by future supreme court justice Louie Brandeis called “The Right to Privacy”. In it, Brandeis asserts that a person ought to be able to sue someone who violates one’s right to “privacy.” In a most famous passage Brandeis said:

“That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle
as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define
anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic
changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth,
grows to meet the demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy
only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the
“right to life” served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty
meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual
his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man’s spiritual nature, of his
feelings and his intellect. Gradually, the scope of these legal rights broadened, and now
the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life — the right to be let alone; the
right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term “property”
has grown to compromise every form of possession — intangible as well as tangible.”

The courts ultimately agreed and a decade or so later a new common law cause of action was born. The term came to be used in a constitutional sense—that is, as limitation on the state’s ability to interfere with the enjoyment of life or personal autonomy—some years later.

It was in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (5-4) that then Justice Brandeis would apply this notion of privacy to the government in his now famous dissent in this 4th Amendment decision.

Here are some more “specific examples” if you want to go look them up. I don’t have the time to rehash each one. Most of them exemplify the governments struggle with trying to balance the ability to investigate and prosecute crimes with personal liberty and privacy. The majority take my position, I’ll warn you in advance.

Marbury v. Madison, (1 Cranch) 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (5-0)
Slaughterhouse Cases, (16 Wall.) 83 U.S. 36 (1868) (5-4)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1917) (5-4)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (7-2)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (9-0)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (8-1)
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (5-4)
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) (8-1)
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (9-0)
Poe v. Ullman, 376 U.S. 497 (1961) (5-4)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (5-4)

…have no fear for any of MY civil liberties.

Yeah, but you should, because you in your post basically state exactly what I’ve posted, but seem to think it doesn’t matter, and for the moment, you’re right, it doesn’t. Not to me, or you, probably. But look around at the rights eroding all around us. For heaven’s sake, look at the “eminent domain” cases in courts right now and look at what’s happening. Look how long Americans put up with the “Fairness in Broadcasting” Act that Reagan did away with. And yet you want me to be comfortable with the idea that legislation of this magnitude couldn’t be abused? I agree with you that we need something to help us fight terrorism, but not at this cost. I am a stalwart conservative and am very unhappy about this, and I’m not the only one. If you are, though, then hey, knock yerself out.

Thanks for the relatively reasoned debate, though. I won’t be available here this weekend, but will respond Monday.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 23, 2004 05:06 PM

By the way, THIS:

The fact that the rich are getting richer does infact imply that they are taking wealth alway from the bottom 60% of the population. The fact is that wealth in this country has become more concentrated in the hand of a few (20%).

is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. This could only possibly be true if there is a fixed amount of revenue, which there is not. In addition, more people own their homes now than ever in the history of the United States. The average home has two cars and three television sets. Compare that with, oh, 24 years ago. While the average amount of debt (not including homes)has increased per family, but that is not the fault of the “rich.” Further, many of the insecurity that people feel about they’re overall financial situation is because because they are afraid of job security. Not because they’ll get downsized, but because the businesses may fail. Again, not the fault of the “rich”. Business and workforce is far more competetive than it was 24 years ago, and people are much less flexible than they used to be about going to where the work is.

Using Enron or Worldcom as an example to support this silly notion is equally silly, because what those companies did was ILLEGAL. Jeffrey Skilling and people like him will be going to prison. The system needs to be reformed, is being reformed. It doesn’t mean the system has failed.

A rising tide raises all boats, guys. The American Dream is alive and well, if you’re willing to work to get it. Stop with the class warfare crap.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 23, 2004 05:31 PM

johnny,

Take a look at the ratio of what CEOs make compared to the average worker. Has that changed over the past 25 years? If so by how much? All I’ve said is true, if you think its dumb thats your opinion.

Posted by: Dream at April 23, 2004 05:54 PM

johnnymozart,

I do agree with you concerning the “PATRIOT” act 100%. I hope me agreeing with you does not cause you to change your mind. You’ve made some great posts regarding that issue.

Posted by: Dream at April 23, 2004 05:58 PM

johnnymozart,

You say: The average home has two cars and three television sets. Compare that with, oh, 24 years ago.

So people can now afford three TVs and they can afford to finance two cars. The thing is they can no longer afford health care. And they can’t afford a decent education. Only the rich can get decent health care the rest are at worst mortgaging their homes or at best stuck in HMO hell. Public education is as bad as ever, and the cost of private schools has gone through the roof. Higher education is no longer affordable for much of the middle class.

How are people supposed to move up the economic ladder if they can’t afford to be educated or have their kids educated? The only options for the middle class are trade schools or the military. And since the rich are not willing to send their sons and daughters to fight, the military is about the only option the poor and middle class have.

Posted by: Dream at April 23, 2004 11:03 PM

///I hope me agreeing with you (on the Patriot Act) does not cause you to change your mind//

:) Ok, now that’s funny. :) Not to worry. Healthy disagreement (and agreement, as the case may be :), is what this site is all about.

As for your other comment, Dream, you need to separate the ideas of people making more than they did before with other people NOT making less. 95% of the rest of the world would beat your ass to be “poor” in the United States. You can eat better out of a garbage can here than in most third world nations. Now, before you get your knickers in a knot about that last comment, it was only intended to provide some perspective. I’m not happy or satisfied that people, even in this country, might eat out of a garbage can. But let’s get some idea of what “poor” means in this country.

But yes, corporate CEOs make more. But look at their overall growth! How much larger is/are the companies? How many more people do they employ? That’s an important variable in that broad picture you’re painting. Further, the people you describe aren’t making less, they’re making more in comparison to the last 24 years. Maybe not in the same proportion as the CEOs, etc, but that needs to be addressed as part of the reform I was talking about earlier.

Secondly, Dream, you can walk into any hospital in the country without insurance and get the same treatment as any “rich” person, I assure you. So stop the nonsense about people not being able to afford healthcare. Further, why are there two car and three tvs if the health insurance isn’t paid for? There is something to to be said for personal responsibility and prioritizing. But anyway, Its the law. Hospitals are required, by law, to treat you no matter what your insurance status. Your insurance status, in some cases, isn’t even allowed to be asked about.

Secondly, the example you gave of healthcare is somewhat unique: one, because we don’t view healthcare like we view other insurances. Go into your auto insurer and ask if they’ll cover paint, CD’s for your CD player, gas, and maintenance. Once they are post-ictal from laughing, I’ll explain that although that sounds silly, that is what we expect from healthcare coverage. We don’t expect to have to pay anything, preventive or otherwise, which is ridiculous. That is an unfortunate result of #2, the fact that free market forces have never been allowed to apply to healthcare. That’s why i can go in and get a $15 chest Xray and be billed for $200. Every time the person receiving the service is not the one paying, costs increase. That has always been the case. And now, we’ve gotten to the point where the average Joe doesn’t even think he SHOULD pay for his OWN health. But unfortunately, there are insufficient funds both with insurance companies and with doctors, for everyone to get every service they want, all the time, whenever they want it and not pay. Doctors are the only people I know who get a pay cut every year. That’s right. Medicare has cut reimbursements every year for about the last 20. But costs keep going up, Dream. And I’m not talking about health care costs. I’m just talking about overhead. Malpractice, rent, wages, etc. And as technologic innovation increase, people want those, too. But again, we don’t allow true free market forces to apply, so those innovations, like MRI or PET scanners for example, remain as expensive now as they were twenty years ago. Yet demand continues to increase to a point where neither doctors or insurance companies can sustain it. THAT’S why you see Medicare/Medicaid patients being turned away (but only to other clinics with govt funding) The alternative is to go out of business. Again this is not the fault of the “rich”, its the fault of the idea of socialized medicine. It doesn’t work. It can’t. We’re trying it now, and its failing. That’s why people can’t pay for health care, Dream. Not because of some class warfare idea.

Later, fellas,

JM has left the building. :)

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 24, 2004 09:35 AM

One last thing,

You gave the examples of public schools. You’re right. They suck. However, we are pouring money into the public school system, and they continue to resist any kind of evaluation. And worse, they suck worse than they used to. They are receiving as much money as they EVER have. The ones we do evaluate show that they suck. And people continue to scream that they are underfunded, when in fact that is not the problem at all.

Tell you what, Dream, for the next two weeks, do an absolutely crappy job at your work, and when the person who signs your paycheck comes to you and asks why your work has been so poor, tell him you’re “underfunded” and watch what happens.

Again, this is a result of a lack of accountability, not a lack of funding. Again, not the fault of the “rich”.

And all I can say, Dream is that if you can’t find government or financial aid/scholarship money to help with your kids going to college, you’re not trying hard enough. I work at a university, and I dispute entirely that even the most expensive schools are out of reach of the poorest students. Higher education is not out of reach of the middle class. Where are you getting this stuff?

Military being the only option for the poor, indeed.

Thhhphbbppbbppt!!!!!!!

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 24, 2004 09:48 AM