on the filibuster

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you are aware, aren't you, that both senators from Arkansas voted for obamas health care bill? you're ranting about percentages without paying attention to how those senators voted.

No, I said that the Dems Senators from Arkansas, Nebraska, Louisiana forced the bill to become more n' more like their Conservative Voters back home wanted. They voted for a bill that was deadened to satisfy their voters back home in Arkansas etc.(while Americans in California, and New York were 12x less represented than you.) That's why the bill got more in favor of Insurance Companies, and it's why the House won't pass it (It doesn't represent what they want..It represents more what people in Louisiana, Arkansas, n' Nebraska want.) Hence..Gridlock. See, their lil design doesn't work now, because it favors Conservatives States in the Senate. Maybe it wasn't back when they designed it, but it is now. That Conservatism is not the way the country is. The House n' President aren't Conservative. So, you've got one body (Senate) causing trouble because of a horrible design problem (messed up because of a built in advantage to Conservative States, and the filibuster.) It's broken. Would be more tolerable if the Republicans weren't using the filibuster on almost everything, but they know Americans are clueless about how often the filibuster is normally used. They've already used it twice as much as ever in history. They are abusing something that's supposed to be used sparingly. If, like you say, people were up on their civics, then they'd know this is not what the filibuster is supposed to be used for (everything.) There are only a few things in the Constitution requiring a super majority to pass. Not every damn thing is suppose to need a super majority to pass. You haven't answered my question about why Americans in New York n' California pay the same tax rates as you, but get less representation for the Federal Tax money paid in. 11.95% of the tax payers in this country had only a 2% say in the Senate health care bill. Your people are 0.93% of the U.S. Population, but you had a 2% say. I think Cali., Texas, Florida, n' New York tax payers should realize they aren't getting their fair representation at all. Pay tax n' others getting to decide.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).

I stand corrected. I do remember reading that the delegates thought it was important to get unanimous support if possible, as this was to be the highest law of the land. But you're right, and I'll try to remember that 9 out of 13 was the number.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

Exactly. I was going to post something very similar, but I see now I don't have to. SCUDS apparently thinks that both houses of Congress need to be population based, in which case we would need both, would we?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

IMMORAL= not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

The arbitrary redistribution of wealth is immoral. It's immoral to take money from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who didn't work.

The redistribution of wealth through the conduct of business between private parties is just fine, and is in fact called commerce.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's immoral to take money from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who didn't work.

So let's say the owner of a major manufacturer dies and leaves the business to his or her child. The person who inherits the business keeps all of the same management and labor that the parent employed, and simply enjoys the profits from the company.
Isn't this person guilty of taking the wealth generated by the management and labor of the company without personally doing any work? Would you consider this an immoral act?

The odd thing about the statement I quoted from you is that I am pretty sure Marx would agree with the statement 100%.....although you two would mean something a bit different.

[SOREHOOF]

The Estate Tax is immoral.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So let's say the owner of a major manufacturer dies and leaves the business to his or her child. The person who inherits the business keeps all of the same management and labor that the parent employed, and simply enjoys the profits from the company.
Isn't this person guilty of taking the wealth generated by the management and labor of the company without personally doing any work? Would you consider this an immoral act?

The odd thing about the statement I quoted from you is that I am pretty sure Marx would agree with the statement 100%.....although you two would mean something a bit different.

said owner worked to provide for his child I presume? Otherwise the owner probably would have sold out to his 'management and labor' and laid up on a beach for the rest of his life, long before death. Pretty sure labor and management are happy with their jobs or they would have left long before owner died. If not whose fault is that?