You are not logged in.
What a strange system of government.No one can do anything to address the problems the USA is facing.With all those right wing nutcases in the House. Democrats controlling the Senate and a lame duck president the USA will have a difficult two years ahead
When are the US citizens going to accept the fact that the party is over.Their country is joining the long list of has been nations and empires.
Offline
Bad as things are, the structure, while not its operation, is still superior to most nations. That we have tried to live on caviar incomes on beer money, we will continue to flounder.
It will be interesting to see how the "Tea Party" crowd who wish to eliminate SS and privatize Medicare will be able to introduce such legislation. These are the third rail. How can the middle and older age Tea Party members, soon eligible for both these programs, push such cuts?
One huge problem: the large corporations who pay almost zilch taxes: Google managed to pay taxes on overseas earning at a measly 2.4 percent rate by employing strategies that sound like titles of movies. Most large companies at the "effective tax rate" of 25.2 percent, and about one-third of corporate taxpayers paid effective rates of less than 10 percent. Last year, the conglomerate (GE) generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. (Newsweek No. 8).
How is it that the loudest yelps for corporate tax relief come from those who aren't paying mkuch in the first place?
Offline
Bad as things are, the structure, while not its operation, is still superior to most nations. That we have tried to live on caviar incomes on beer money, we will continue to flounder.
It will be interesting to see how the "Tea Party" crowd who wish to eliminate SS and privatize Medicare will be able to introduce such legislation. These are the third rail. How can the middle and older age Tea Party members, soon eligible for both these programs, push such cuts?
One huge problem: the large corporations who pay almost zilch taxes: Google managed to pay taxes on overseas earning at a measly 2.4 percent rate by employing strategies that sound like titles of movies. Most large companies at the "effective tax rate" of 25.2 percent, and about one-third of corporate taxpayers paid effective rates of less than 10 percent. Last year, the conglomerate (GE) generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. (Newsweek No. 8).
How is it that the loudest yelps for corporate tax relief come from those who aren't paying mkuch in the first place?
Offline
It was pretty much predictable that the house would change hands given the state of teh economy, in particular unemployment.
The Senate Republicans ensured that nothing Obama tried to do would pass as is, and got rewarded for the obstruction. It's going to be a rough couple of years.
Elaine, you're right, although if you may recall, the biggest fear that the tea party types had about health care reform was that it would eat into medicare benefits ('get your government hands off my medicare').
There will need to be an end to the filibuster rules, given that they are currently used in unprecedented ways to simply prevent anything from being done.
And, yes, it's ironic that the financial services companies, who were kept alive by the Bush/Obama bailouts, are now using their money to fund ad campaigns which essentially say "vote against Obama, because he bailed us out."
As to whether this signals the fall of America, well, it's a slow slide, as it was. Older readers may remember watergate, Lynden Johnson's lameduck years, and Carter's last few years, when he was even primaried.
Offline
In a true democracy a change in the make up of the legislature especially the house representing the people most directly would herald a change in administration. But not so in the USA.
It appears to me as an outsider that the drafters of the US constitution were so afraid of power that they ensured that there would be no way anyone could govern effectively.
Which may have been fine in the 18th century but not today.
But America is long past its best before date .
Offline
Welcome to repeat Gridlock!
Offline
Actually, Old Abe, although the founders were very concerned with balancing powers and whatnot, they didn't have in mind what has been going on in the past two years.
(As an aside, if the election of this year was really going to result in a change in administration, more people would likely have voted, and it would have behaved more like a presidential election, which had nearly double the turnout. My young friends, complain as they like, can't really complain about what they've got if they didn't vote, and most of them didn't- the real scandal in American, IMHO)
The filibuster is a relatively modern invention, and the new standard, whereby it takes 60 votes in the senate to get literally anything done, is completely Obama-specific.
The senate has placed more filibusters and holds on Obama's actions and nominations than it did in the the first 200 years of its existence. It used to be a very rare thing, most memorably done by a few southerners who were trying to slow down civil rights legislation, but it became somewhat more common under Clinton and has exploded under Obama.
The real problem is that these are very general rules, which are intended to be enforced through honor and common sense, and these are in short supply these days.
Sadly, the GOP just got rewarded for this behavior, so it's unlikely to change.
In two years, we'll see if this is a sea change in America, or just a perturbation. Right now, there's an overabundance of religious zealots, Ayn Rand enthusiasts, and a variety of others who believe that the greatest tragedy in the world is that somehow, somewhere a poor person is getting something for free.
We'll see.
Offline
Here north of the 49th parallel we shake our heads at the antics of the right wing (tea party) in the US even though we have a very poor leader at the moment.Canada has had a minority government over the past number of years and it is the only thing keeping Harper from being a dictator.
The situation in the USA could work if there was some good will and common sense but that seems in short supply with your right wing politicians.
Offline
I have to admit, one of my own disillusionments with the SDA church, at least here in the US, is the degree to which it's gone from "conservative as in fundamentalist/literalist" to "conservative as in political" without even considering the actually worthy history of being on the side of religious liberty.
Someone somewhere decided that we needed to make common cause with all the busybodies here who want to dictate how other churches worship, who they marry or don't marry, and various arcane debates about things that the government has no business meddling in. Why on earth Adventists should be on the side of people who want to dictate how and when and what words children use to pray in public schools is completely beyond me.
Offline
The government that is best that governs least. Especially in so many private decisions that people make it should be None of the consenting adults), IOW non-discrimination based on sex, orientation, race, and based only on meritocracy. Religions have always sought to dictate human behavior--with absolutely no success. The old H.L. Mencken quotes:
"Religion is fundaamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the person, the surer they are thay they know precisely what is right and what is wrong."
"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Offline
Elaine
I beg to differ.Without government regulation the poor and helpless would be even more exploited than they already are.
No man is an island and activity between consenting adults can and does harm society as a whole.Not only is homosexuality a sin but widespread acceptance of it causes decadency to flourish.
Prostitution and the evils of the trade in alcohol are also part and parcel of the same thing.EGW fought the evils of slavery and alcohol were she alive to day one may be sure she would stand foursquare against homosexuality.
Offline
EGW fought much harder against alcohol than against slavery. I think that alcohol abuse is a big problem in society, but I am not convinced that prohibition was the answer. I suspect that it if alcohol were not illegal, the organized crime syndicates would not have found it such a profitable enterprise.
There are far more drug gang murders in the US than in Holland.
But these are reasonable disagreements.
What bothers me is the SDA church getting firmly on one side or the other of political debates when there's no clear biblical injunction one way or the other (or in ways that infringe on others freedoms).
Offline
Old Abe,
You say that "homosexuality is a sin and allows decadency to flourish."
That is only a private interpretation unless you can furnish documented stats for that evaluation.
The U.S. government should not criminalize or punish what some religions may call "sin." It is a religious position and favors SOME religions, while many are neutral on this. "Sin" is not a legal but a religious term, and as such, has no place in U.S. laws. The Roman Catholic church calls any non-calendric contraceptive as "sin." Would you favor that being made into law?
Offline
Elaine and Old Abe, I do not see the homosexual issues these Adventists do :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ANZiOK0o0
This is not a religious liberty issue as these faculty point out, so when SDAs become the minority on the Sabbath then we will have Homosexuals vote against the Majority on our right to worship on Saturday. What perverted thinking.
The Society is secular. We should consider this as a secular item. When our tax dollars are part of giving Gays and Lesbians something that costs the taxpayer or employers money, I believe that a vote of the public should decide it.
If you don't feel this is going to affect our Religious Right or our Right to Free Speech, read the followying:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual … us_Liberty
How faculty at La Sierra and LLU can be kept on after violating their own rules of non involvement in politics after the youtube piece is beyond me. If Homosexuals are give rights to marry it should include protections for Churches that have religious convictions that Homosexuality is a sin. I have only heard that Canada is having this problem.
Last edited by bob_2 (11-06-10 7:44 pm)
Offline
Bob,
I agree that regardless of what one's religious beliefs on this or other subjects, those should have no part in government regulations. As I mentioned, "sin" is a religious sermon and should never be legislated on that basis alone.
Criminal and civil laws are not based on sin, but on damages to an injured party. Two consenting adults behavior incurs no damage, which is why many against same-sex marriage have tried to state. No damages have ever been proven. Whether my neighbors are same-sex couple (as my granddaughters neighbors) or unmarried, is none of my business. Only if they rob or damage my property do I have a right to sue or seek restitution from the courts. How could anyone prove damages because a neighbor is unmarried, has an abortion, lives with another of the same sex, or many other acts of which I might disapprove. They don't need my permission, nor should it be asked. Just as I don't ask their permission for what I eat, drink, wear, or do in my own home.
The old Puritan worry is that "someone, somewhere is happy, and it worries me."
Offline
Here is the CBO's take on what Gay Marriage would do to our taxes if approved:
Offline
Bob, if you're going to be quoting conservapedia as a legitimate source of unbiased information, well, that's not convincing to anyone except people who are already on your side on this. Furthermore, although there are a couple of problematic incidents in the very long list there, the majority of them are simply cases of people making nuisances of themselves. You would doubtlessly feel differently if they were sunday law advocates "preaching" loudly outside adventist churches every Sabbath morning.
Simply stating it's not a religious liberty issue doesn't prove that it is so. Unless you want to claim that the only religious liberty issues that matter are the sabbath.
If there is ever going to be a sunday law, it's going to come from your friends at conservapedia.
Offline
Had equality been denied because of costs, we would never have had non-segregated schools, equality of opportunity for employment (formerly denied on race and gender grounds), denial of voting rights for blacks; the list would be endless.
Why not calculate the extra costs incurred by the useless wars in which this nation has been engaged, beginning with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan that are costing billions, many going to the corrupt private contractors and drug lords in the last country mentioned. If that doesn't invite anger, why then is it directed to the consideration of equal rights to fellow citizens--who pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, and are you fellow-workers, neighbors, and maybe even relatives?
Offline
Elaine
Just because damage of an individual to others by behaviour between consenting adults may not be proven in a court of law that does not mean that damage to society as a whole has not occured.
Take for example the use of alcohol in a home.Under the influence of alcohol many friends who started drinking together end up harming each other or innocent third parties.
Allowing Homosexuals to indulge their perversions does have a negative effect on society as a whole.True it is not the only sin but any sin tolerated by society does affect that society.
No man is an island.Any perversion I may practice will inevitably affect those around me. To pretend otherwise is dangerous and stupid.
Offline
Drinking alcohol is not illegal. Any criminal or violent acts commited while under the influence, or NOT under the influence, may consitute reason for charging the individual or individuals.
As long as smoking and drinking alcohol is legal for those over 21, it cannot be prosecuted. Don't confuse the illegal or criminal acts with the use of drugs. They are not necessarily combined.
Are you suggesting that people drinking in their homes should be charged or incarcerated?
To call sexual acts between consenting adults as perversions is not considered against the law in any state, at least not in the U.S. Are you suggesting that the civil authorities should seek to make this determination by searching people's private homes? Are you not aware that sodomy is often practiced by heterosexuals? Should it be called a perversion? Who is to decide what is criminal? Churches, or the legislature? Where is perversion considered a crime?
Why such an interest in other people's very private and personal behavior? You have failed to show how it harms you in any way.
Offline
Old Abe,
You have failed to show why other's behavior harms you, or society. With the sentiments expressed, you would have no standing in court. To appeal, one must show the courts that he has been harmed by another's actions. Unless, and until that can be shown to the satisfaction of the court, you do not have a case.
If you want to protest only on religious grounds, that again would have not standing in civil courts.
Offline
As much as I am uncomfortable with some gay rights issues, I have to admit that there are a host of things that I am unformtable with that shouldn't be made illegal. I don't eat pork or shellfish. Should those be illegal? what about coveting?
And, just in terms of protecting the traditional institution of marriage, why is divorce legal, and where is the movement to ban it?
I would not want any government "advice"* about what should go on in my marital bed, and I honestly have trouble coming up with an understanding of how my marriage is harmed by what others do in theirs.
*Especially if the advice is actually coming from the pastors who focus on gay people as the pre-eminent problem of our time.
Offline
Elaine
Surely anyone can see that the personal use of alcohol by anyone harms society as a whole whether it is currently illegal or not.If my view on life is so selfish that right or wrong is only assessed by what happens to me personally then I have missed the whole essence of Christian thought.
The current debate over gay marriage etc only arises because society had already deteriorated its concept of what marriage should be.
To argue that because we have allowed one evil to flourish we should let other evils flourish eventually leads to the complete breakdown of the moral structure of a society.
One rotten apple in the barrel eventually destroys the whole.
Offline
"Evil" is also a religious term. Civil laws do not incorporate that term in their vocabulary.
Do you not believe that civil laws and religious laws should be completely separate? Would you recommend that adultery, the use of liquor, and same sex marriage become civil prohibitions? Exactly what sort of penalty should be given?
I'm a teetotaller, straight female. But I do not believe in laws that affect private behaviors that I might believe have a detrimental affect on society. You have failed to list the harmful affects on society of these acts. You write of "allowing a evil to flourish" as if we could control such behaviors, or that we aid in "flourishing" them. Please explain.
1. Should the police inspect private homes to determine whether there is wine or beer served at meals?
2. Should the police invade private bedrooms to see "who is sleeping with who"?
3. Should civil laws prohibit adultery, would there be enough judges or prisons to handle the huge numbers of offenders?
How about a practical scenario for such enactments?
Offline
"Evil" is a moral term not a religious one.Religion is what some denomination determines is religious.Moral has to do with what is right or wrong.
And we help evil to flourish when we consent either audibly or silently to something that is morally wrong.
George Bush has just released his memoirs where he reporedtly defends torture.Anyone buying that book is helping evil to flourish .
Anyone buying shares in liquor companies is also helping evil to flourish.Paul in holding the coats of those who stoned Steven was as guilty as if he had thrown the stones hinself.
Offline