Yea... I know- generally I tend not to comment on politics or I try to refrain. I do my best to respect others rights to live their way the way they choose. I just can't swallow some things and just have to get it out of my system.
Note - I'm not saying you have no right to be upset about this, but I just felt the need to address something. Obama's "fundamental flaws" comment was made in a radio interview where he was talking specifically about civil rights and how they were a "blind side" in the original document. The only references I could find to him stating that the constitution should have addressed the redistribution of wealth were from a thesis paper that was improperly attributed to him and debunked.
agreed, especially since the wealthy pay the *lowest* percentage of taxes (something like 22%, I think, as opposed to 34% for those making under $100K a year).
I follow politics and what's going on rather closely, and I have to admit that I'm not following either...
Disagreed. It's punishing success. That would be like telling a straight A student they should share their grade success w/ the majority of the D students.
Ah, yes. An honest[1] flat tax is most fair. the current situation favours the wealthy, the redistribution would favour the poor. Either change (redistribution or flat) will involve more taxes for the wealthy - the ones most likely to make campaign contributions. [1] in order for it to be honest, there can't be credits that only work for one group or another.
In the interview on WBEZ in Chicago, he's speaking about race--blacks in America at the time of the constitution, that the constitution reflected a blind spot of the time and in the way the founding fathers thought at the time. In other words, it is flawed as it applied to how race was viewed and the rights of non-whites (the constitution reflects that fundamental flaw which continues today on how this country treats non-whites
( ... )
when did it become the government's job to tell private industry when they're making too much money in a capitalist society?
When the insurance companies terminate the coverage of people who have suddenly begun needing the insurance company to begin paying out some of the money that the individual has paid in over the course of years, because they've gotten diagnosed with something.
Insurance companies actively look for excuses to shed those people. They've even come up with a nice, bland, accounting-style term for the practice: recission
"Rescission: is a controversial insurance industry practice that has come under fire as an unfair tactic used to deny coverage to policy holders. If you've been a victim of rescission, your insurance company has received a claim from you, and then - after reviewing your application and medical history for undisclosed conditions or inconsistencies - has cancelled your policy at a point when you needed it most. Read recent news articles about rescission." (from Reply
hat you're talking about is different than the question I was asking, though. Related to insurance companies insofar as them making such claim denials in order to keep premium monies, yes, but the president is talking about redistribution on a much larger scale.
I regard rescission as a scumbag technique of denying coverage for unfair reasons, for the record, just as the definition says.
It may be an "easy line to draw" if you operate under the assumption that you understand exactly what he's trying to do, but he never said that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it did not address the redistribution of wealth.
I'm not saying he doesn't believe that to be true, and I'm not going to even TRY to convince anyone otherwise that he believes it is, but I think we have a hard enough time having an honest debate about issues without clouding them by taking assumptions and turning them into quotes.
Comments 15
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(as a Canadian, I only follow the most high level American news)
Increased taxes on the wealthy rather than the middle class seems to make sense to most of the population.
Reply
I follow politics and what's going on rather closely, and I have to admit that I'm not following either...
Reply
I prefer flat tax across the board.
Reply
[1] in order for it to be honest, there can't be credits that only work for one group or another.
Reply
Reply
When the insurance companies terminate the coverage of people who have suddenly begun needing the insurance company to begin paying out some of the money that the individual has paid in over the course of years, because they've gotten diagnosed with something.
Insurance companies actively look for excuses to shed those people. They've even come up with a nice, bland, accounting-style term for the practice: recission
"Rescission: is a controversial insurance industry practice that has come under fire as an unfair tactic used to deny coverage to policy holders. If you've been a victim of rescission, your insurance company has received a claim from you, and then - after reviewing your application and medical history for undisclosed conditions or inconsistencies - has cancelled your policy at a point when you needed it most. Read recent news articles about rescission." (from Reply
I regard rescission as a scumbag technique of denying coverage for unfair reasons, for the record, just as the definition says.
Reply
I'm not saying he doesn't believe that to be true, and I'm not going to even TRY to convince anyone otherwise that he believes it is, but I think we have a hard enough time having an honest debate about issues without clouding them by taking assumptions and turning them into quotes.
Reply
Leave a comment