Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

sounds to me like they're giving out money to states whose costs are higher than their tax income. That about right?

....No.

Contrary to the imagery conjured up by the media, tax money doesn't just disappear or go into the pockets of elected officials. What happens to it? It gets spent. Where and how does it get spent? Well, obviously, it goes to pay for stuff. The question is, who receives the spending?

The chart shows the ratio of how much money the states get in federal spending versus how much the states give the federal government in taxes. Some states (like Alaska and North Carolina) get more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes. Others (like California and New York) give the federal government more in taxes than they get back in spending.

What is this spending? A lot of things - military bases, Medicare, highways, disaster relief, federal courts - those are the biggest outlays. "Towers full of bureaucrats" (EPA/DOJ/DOE/FBI/etc) are actually very marginal, about 5% of all spending.

The best analogy I can make is like a potluck dinner where different guests bring different amounts of food, but don't eat in proportion to what they bring.

The point is, there is a very strong overall trend that the states that cry the loudest about federalism are the ones that benefit most from it.



There is nothing in the condition of the South or anywhere else that has any bearing on civil rights issues. Persecuting blacks and gays doesn't become any more valid because of a line on a map.

This was the same argument they trotted out during the Civil War and civil rights movement. When the rednecks say "state and local govts handle it" this has never meant anything other than, "you can't take our slaves away".

Where was this local government BS during any of the innumerable disasters that have struck the South time and again?

It has NEVER meant that these states are actually going to take care of themselves.
As the chart proves.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's bigoted. I don't care how, and I don't care for useless justifications. No, I'm not being just as stubborn as those who voted to ban same sex marriage in NC, I'm doing what Azelma is doing - calling a spade a spade. There really isn't two ways to it, and if there are some people that are fine with that, well.. I like knowing I actually am better than some people.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

There are no rights to marriage benefits, hetero or homosexual. You can imagine they are in the constitution all you want, but they aren't.

And they never should be, because you don't have a right to any subsidy.

In any case, the marriage debate is a terrible debate and both sides seem to be completely incapable of creating an easily obtainable solution because they're too busy yelling "WE WANT TO MARRY!" or "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO MARRY!".

I'm pretty much disinterested in the election process because we're constantly bouncing from center-right to a half inch righter on that scale. It honestly doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with the senate requiring 60 votes to do anything (the proposal to stop student loans interest lost today with 52 for and 48 against... what).

Just because people don't vote for two candidates which are almost exactly alike besides some social issues and campaign promises that will never be fulfilled doesn't mean they have to be happy with what's happening in the country.

EDIT: I'm not saying that this is one of those times, I'm just talking about in general.

PS: Retirees actually went out to vote while people with responsibilities like school or work couldn't take the time to stand for hours in a line and vote. Who knew?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

This is the far more important issue. The only reason the law was spun as "antigay" was to get the support of those drooling morons who'll do anything to keep gays from being equal. Gays already couldn't get married in NC. The underlying purpose of this law was to fuck over unmarried couples, widows, anyone currently benefiting from non-marriage unions that just had their rights removed.

And yeah, like Weena said, it's great that the Constitution doesn't address marriage anywhere. But that's not really the point, because there are attempts to legislate it regardless. It would be just fine to make marriage a personal affair, but unfortunately there are things called marriage licenses, and so long as churches have the authority to hand them out, governments must have similar authority to hand them out.



Also being a constitutional textualist makes you a fucking moron.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Yes they are. Supremacy clause. Also the 14th Amendment (guess how that got passed?)
Do you know what that is off the top of your head? Or is this another case of Ron Paul constitutional imagery trumping what the document actually says?

It's irrelevant anyway. The argument - states' rights - remains invalid and mired in the wholly bad causes it has always been associated with.

Show me - when and where has states' rights ever been invoked to defend a good cause?



What subsidy? Married couples pay higher taxes than unmarried individuals.



This I agree with.



By whom and why?

I don't necessarily disfavor that goal - I don't think gays are what's wrong with marriage, but the institution clearly needs fixing.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Here's the problem - the government has already stepped in and given distinct financial/tax advantages to couples that are married or in a civil union. The government has done this because the family unit is a stronger economic vehicle than a single person. Married families have more disposable income on average, and spend a lot more of it as a result.

From that standpoint, it is absolutely RETARDED that the government should try to "protect the sanctity of marriage" or prevent some people from getting married and receiving the same benefits that others are receiving. A gay couple that is legally allowed to be in a union can be just as strong of an economic/social unit as a traditional family. You can argue against it until your blue in the face, but it is fact.

You also fail to explain how allowing gays to marry or be in a civil union would destabilize society. If gays were allowed to marry, would traditional marriages all of a sudden become a thing of the past? Would straight people be like "well, now we don't want to get married because the gays are ruining it"?

It's something that doesn't need to be protected because literally NOTHING harmful would come of it...in fact, I see only benefits from an economic standpoint.

The fact is - straight couples are given an advantage that gay couples are not allowed to have by virtue of their orientation. That is bigoted.

Fixed.

What if we just strip all deductions, breaks and credits from the tax code and charge every income earner, regardless of marital status, race, income, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, of a single federal flat-rate. 5%? 10%? 20%? I don't care what its set at as long as everyone is treated equal under the tax code.

Straight? Flat rate.
Married? Flat rate.
Gay? Flat rate.
Rich? Flat rate.
Poor? Flat rate.

This is about equality, right?

Edit: Clarified my original statement.

You're probably referring to the Equal Protection Clause.

Which talks about government discrimination, in a nutshell. The problem with applying the 14th amendment to homosexuals is that homosexuality is a behavior. Being black is not a behavior, one cannot refuse to engage in being black. Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture (I think it's mostly the former with a little of the latter), it's still a behavior.

Plus, nobody is saying gays can't be together, live together, grow old together, walk down the street together, etc.

If you can apply the 14th amendment to homosexuality, then what's to stop smokers from claiming they've been unconstitutionally discriminated against? What's to stop me as a single person from claiming I've been discriminated against. I don't get any tax breaks or special benefits. Why? Because I'm single. I can't change into someone who wants a relationship, therefore I should get equal treatment.



The ratification of the 14th amendment would probably serve as a good example of states supporting a good cause.

It really depends on your definition of a good cause. You probably think going greener is a good cause, and California jumped on board with that. One might think drilling to prosperity is a good cause, and if they do, they can move to ND (even though it isn't so much as ND promoting drilling as it is much of ND being privately owned.)



Married couples get tax breaks at a federal level, and I don't know of any state without tax breaks. That's why it asks if you're married or single on your taxes. Semantically, you're implication is correct. There is no subsidy, they do still pay taxes.

Sorry for trying to go Orwellian Feminist on you.

Huh? What advantages? Married couples pay higher taxes for the very reasons you stated.


Strawman. The argument is not that gay marriages are weaker than heterosexual marriages, it's that they're fundamentally incomparable.

You're probably right that gay marriages are "at least as strong" as traditional marriages, in fact I'd argue they are stronger, which is why they shouldn't share the same format.

Traditional marriage is mired in traditional gender roles, which limit the economic productivity of the family. Free market forces, not gays, have been the primary antagonist of family values: the family with one breadwinner, one homemaker, and 2-3 children, are at a disadvantage against families with two breadwinners and no children, or two breadwinners and adopted children.

Women have left the house not because it's what they truly want to do, women have left the house because economic competition against other two breadwinner households generally forces them to do so or accept a much lower standard of living.

One man looking out for himself is inherently in a stronger position than a man responsible for a wife and children. That responsibility is necessary for society to function, to ensure the integrity of the next generation. Marriage is not based on the strength of the family, it is based on its weakness, its vulnerability, the dangers posed by life's uncertainties to home and children.

The distinctions of gender roles and child rearing have no meaning in the context of gays. The shoe doesn't fit and there's no reason to pass a law to horn the foot in. If these people want to live and love together, they don't need a law to do that.

Gay adoption is not a valid argument. If gays want to adopt, they can't adopt as individuals. To argue otherwise - that they need the right to adopt as gays outlined, when it makes absolutely no difference in practice one way or the other - runs back into my initial point: that what is really at stake is not practical "rights" but the desire to use the legal system as a vehicle of self-validation.



The argument I made was not that gay marriage as an institution would destabilize society, it was that making the legal and legislative system a soapbox for matters of private lifestyle undermines the credibility of rule of law.

The state giveth and the state taketh away. You cannot legislate that gays have a right to marriage without the implication that subsequent legislation would have just as legitimate a basis to legislate that gays are forbidden from marrying.

And so long as people have different points of view, the tug-of-war will go back and forth.

A law is only as good as its enforcement. How would laws about gay marriage be enforced? Endless lawsuits and intrusion of the law into private life. It's not even a question of what's good for straight people, no one has more to lose from endless litigation than ordinary gays (as opposed to the flamers who have to remind you they're gay every five seconds) who just want to live their lives.

And where do we go from here? Legalizing hairstyle? Clothing? Diet? Hobbies? Any other sort of personal choice? How do you ride this train without descending into the world of Judge Judy?

Your own experiences with divorce court should be instructive here.



To argue that economic benefit is the proper gauge of social values is the definition of immorality.

The goal is to build a happier, more stable and more just society, not increase the GDP.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

So are you also in favor of equalizing income and education?

Question, do you think a flat tax would result in you personally paying more or less tax?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Because that requires a redefinition of "income" and a massive overhaul of the entire tax code, as well as accounting for the new model in federal/state spending budgets. You already know this. Rich people (I mean truly rich people, not upper class like Fant's or my parents) don't make the most money off "income" they make it from capital gains.

Also flat rate taxes are an inherently stupid idea, because taking 20% from a minimum-wage earner is a negligible tax gain (but a huge disadvantage to the earner) whereas 20% from a top-bracket earner is a large tax loss (and of negligible advantage to the earner).

Taxes have never been about equality. Taxes are about keeping a country/state/municipality running. Rights are about equality. Taxes are not a right, they're there so that the world can function.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

The marriage rates wouldnt be dropping and the divorce rates wouldn't be increasing if whichever applicable taxes were LOWER if you got/stayed married.

EDIT: at least it would help

You're doing what I described which is perceiving the Constitution in terms of imagery and not what it literally says.

The 14th Amendment says nothing about "discrimination" or "behavior". What it does say is both broader and more elegant:



Regarding your rhetorical question about gays vs smokers, the answer in both cases is the same: the state cannot infringe on the "privileges and immunities" of those citizens or "deny equal protection of the laws". To refuse legal protection or access to govt services etc to smokers and gays is equally illegal.

The Amendment was ratified in 1868. Jim Crow (equal treatment before unequal laws) remained valid until the Civil Rights Act (a federal law) overturned those state laws in 1965. That's the history of "states' rights" for you.

By the same token, many states have harsh anti-smoking laws. Equal treatment before unequal laws is perfectly legal because there's no federal law to the contrary. If there were federal laws protecting the "Right To Be Stupid" then the superiority of federal law would apply.

You not receiving "benefits" as a single person falls under the same category. You are treated equally before unequal laws. Except again you are confusing imagery for facts, single individuals are far better off than families for the many reasons I have already described.

Curiously enough this continues the general constant of those most preferred by the status quo having this attitude that they're getting a raw deal for reasons they can't define.



duuuuurrrp



I asked "do you know how this was ratified" for good reason. You assumed that the history fits your ideological preconception but in reality you are simply ignorant. It was "ratified" because it was rammed down the throats of the "states' rights" people literally at gunpoint, because they wouldn't agree any other way.



The matter of contention regarding "states' rights" is whether federal laws override state governments. The Feds passed laws regarding air quality. CA passed stronger laws. "States' rights" isn't in play because the federal laws are still in observance. If we were to examine CA's air quality laws as a states' rights issue, the CA laws would have to be less restrictive than the Feds.

Oil exploration is an example contrary to your position. On more than a few occasions, states have made the choice to drill for oil and things have gone awry. When that happens, do you think those states stoically clean up their own mess - do you think they're even capable of doing so? - or do they cry to the Feds to solve their problems for them?

Go look at the BP disaster and Superfund. States made terrible decisions because of "hurr durr states rights" and the Feds cleaned up the mess. The alternative would have been to let those states turn into third-world countries.

The state migration argument has also been proven invalid. The Dust Bowl was caused by some states making terrible resource management decisions. Their citizens exhausted the land then tried to move to other states, which were none too happy about having a bunch of reprobates show up on their turf. (I'm guessing you still haven't read The Grapes of Wrath, which describes this in great detail)

The "well the market will fix it" argument doesn't work either. The Dust Bowl and BP disasters came on the heels of tremendous prosperity by taking inordinate risks and exploiting resources in an unsustainable way. The market will only "fix it" when every river is polluted, when every forest has been cut down, when every mine has been exhausted, and when every family has been reduced to penury. Until then, "the market" will always favor those willing to take the biggest externalities.

"Drilling to prosperity" is bullshit. It doesn't work that way in Saudi Arabia or Russia and it doesn't work that way here either. The West Virginians have turned half their state into a moonscape and gotten no long-term benefits. Mississippi managed to wipe out their crayfish economy with an oil spill but were they ever any closer to breaking out of third-world status?

Whether it's Saudi sheiks, Russian moguls or American fat cats, the constant remains, "prosperity" based on exploitation is only for the fat cats, supported by useful idiots.

So I'll ask you again. Can you give me a good example of a "good cause" associated with "states' rights"?

And I'll also ask you a question - again - that I have asked you at least three times and you have never answered in any form.

Where do you get your ideas? A book, TV, what? And why is it that no one who isn't American and basically uneducated thinks this free market/libertarian/states' rights crap isn't malarkey?




What tax breaks?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.