Disney CEO Bob Iger among the executives abandoning Trump advisory roles over climate agreement

These debates always devolve into a bunch of loosely related arguments, and I'm always disappointed at how people fall neatly into ideological absolutes. This is especially true when it comes to capitalism.

I wish the people who complained the most about taxes and socialist tendencies would be as vocal about insane military spending as they were spending on PBS.

Jeff said:

I wish the people who complained the most about taxes and socialist tendencies would be as vocal about insane military spending as they were spending on PBS.

Clearly, the answer is that in times of war we soak Elmo and Kermit in gasoline, light them and toss them at the enemy.

Problem solved. The money goes to PBS and the military.

Generally speaking if you pay 90% of your current year tax liability or 100% of your tax liability from the prior year in withholding/estimated tax payments, you will not owe a penalty or interest for under-withholding. Still will owe the shortfall by April 15.

I lived in the Baltimore/DC area for most of my life, and a lot of family friends worked for the government. I can assure you that there's plenty of wasteful spending to be found that has nothing to do with the military OR PBS.

Besides, part of me is okay with ridiculous military spending. Nobody wants to mess with a country who has, at worst, probably six times the number of aircraft carriers as the nation with the second-highest amount. THIS is security theater I can get behind! ;) Nevermind that a lot of military technology has been exported, which yields an extra economic boost.

As far as these accords, I guess my issue is that everybody is so bent out of shape that we walked away from what was effectively a symbolic gesture. If it wasn't likely to yield any results anyway, what's the point? I'm not really a Trump fan, but I can admire someone who realizes that something is essentially pointless other than offering the countries who support it the appearance of being environmentally-friendly and walking away from it. I want the US to care more about the environment, but when I start hearing from people on both sides of the issue that none of these accords involved anything remotely enforceable, I'm not really sure what there is about which we should be upset. Does anyone really think that countries other than those in Europe were going to play by the rules?

Jeff said:

I'm always disappointed at how people fall neatly into ideological absolutes. This is especially true when it comes to capitalism.

I love how my opinion on anything is always an ideological absolute in your eyes. I'm ok with some regulation and recognize its necessity in some cases. Problem is, we over-regulate everything. Therefore, I'm always going to push toward ideological conservatism, knowing full well even a happy medium will never be reached.

I wish the people who complained the most about taxes and socialist tendencies would be as vocal about insane military spending as they were spending on PBS.

Since our constitution specifies that one of the FEW powers the fed has is to protect the nation, military spending is not a concern to me. We have the world's most powerful military which means enemies think twice about f'ing with us. It's kind of like living in rural West Virginia. I don't worry about anyone breaking into our home because EVERYONE owns guns here (cue the retorts about how no one would want to steal anything from backwoods rednecks anyway).

With all the other funding PBS gets, federal funding is entirely unnecessary and nothing in the constitution says the fed should spend our tax dollars on television programming. It's a drop in the bucket, I get it, but I will always favor eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional funding if it means reducing our debt/deficit/taxes. Again, pushing toward the right to bring us closer to center is not a bad thing.

In other shocking news, yes, I'm fully aware my deductions can be adjusted, and in recent years I come closer to breaking even each year than I ever had in the past. But as with anything on here, try to make a point and out come all the technicalities. Y'all keep loving our gracious, benevolent, MASSIVE federal government...I'll piss and moan like I always do as it inevitably grows and grows because "we have to do or save or help" whomever we have to do or save or help instead of taking care of our own damn selves. We The People and stuff...

Vater said:

Since our constitution specifies that one of the FEW powers the fed has is to protect the nation, military spending is not a concern to me.

This is what I originally typed too.

But then it struck me as more useful to put the image into everyone's heads of soldiers throwing around flaming muppets.

(plus, lighting Sesame Street characters on fire to aid the military is not-so-subtle commentary on its own)

I need to remember that flaming muppets will always be a better argument.

And recorders...

Vater said:
I love how my opinion on anything is always an ideological absolute in your eyes.

Weird, I didn't refer to you by name. Are you the only one having a conversation in this thread?

Since our constitution specifies that one of the FEW powers the fed has is to protect the nation, military spending is not a concern to me.

I think there has been a selective reading of the Constitution, especially by the far right and libertarians, in recent years. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution most certainly charges Congress with regulating commerce, and the courts have generally allowed for it without drawing a precise line in the sand unless it interferes with the 4th or 14th Amendments. The Federalist Papers spend a fair amount of time justifying this Constitutional power as well. Madison argued that this was the way to keep the diverse states (at the time in the midst of debating slavery) trading and not subverting the wider influence and power of the US as a whole in a global context. In fact, that's why Hamilton won the case for a central bank, because it was far easier to grease the wheels of a new nation to participate in international trade. In the absence of this regulation and strong federal government, corporations and individuals could act in ways that could cause chaos and massive financial failure. We saw it nearly happen in 2008 after a decade of deregulation for the sake of deregulation.

The Constitution is more open ended than people are willing to admit, and that's by design. That people treat it as a sacred, inflexible document, is pretty weird when you consider it didn't originally prohibit slavery, one of the most morally clear and obvious contradictions to "we the people" of all time. But if there is one thing the founders accepted is that human beings kind of suck, and will absolutely work a system to their advantage at the expense of others. The fascinating (and short) book On Tyranny has real life examples of how democracy has gone wrong and led to some of our darkest human moments during the 20th Century. There are some brief discussions about what we have in place in our government to help prevent those kinds of things from happening here, but instills the reasonable fear that apathy could undermine those safeguards if we're not paying attention.

I find it all pretty fascinating stuff... I've been on a history binge lately.

slithernoggin said:

Still, we don't live in a wholly capitalistic society. You have the good fortune to be able to afford to own a boat, for example, but you also recieve numerous financial benefits from the government. (I'm assuming that you take all the deductions available to you on your taxes.)

I have the good fortune to have found a place to live with great guys that I can afford on my $21,000 annual income (50 year old autistic guys are a hard sell in today's job market....) Saying that people who can't afford food, clothing or shelter don't deserve food, clothing or shelter seems harsh.

What I said was I hate socialism. I never said that poor people shouldn't get some form of charity or assistance or that they don't deserve those items you mentioned. The original comment was "Capitalism is the best system for determining who drives a Lexus - it is wholly inappropriate for determining who gets food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare". It is not inappropriate, saying it is inappropriate is saying that a socialistic system should be in place, which it shouldn't. Some people buy Brooks Brothers suits and Johnston Murphy shoes, others go to Goodwill and buy used clothing. That is capitalism at work and it is 100% appropriate. Even in a capitalistic system, various charity and assistance programs are available which is also 100% appropriate. That is far different from turning our capitalistic country into a socialistic country.

The US (the country that declared its independence with the (marketing) statement about unalienable rights) was founded on discrimination and we have been fighting it ever since.

The Commerce Clause at this point has been used to effectively erase whatever limits on government's powers (subject to the Bill of Rights) and eliminate the concept of what was at one point called states rights.

There were differing views in terms of the breadth of the federal government's powers under the Constitution. Some framers thought the Bill of Rights unnecessary as a government with express limited powers couldn't really infringe on the rights of its citizens. In the end they were wrong. But it does go against the notion that everyone understood the federal government's powers would be all inclusive.

In terms of the Constitution being open ended, why did we need to amend it to end slavery or give women the right to vote? Why couldn't it have just evolved to get there if indeed it was open ended? Why put an amendment provision in at all?

The idea of looking at Framers intent sounds nice but it really doesn't mean anything. Federalist Papers were written by a limited number of people. And there is conflict. Who is right? And how do we know they would have the same views given the realities of life today? Not to mention that the Framers didn't ratify the Constitution. Group of delegates approved it. It was ratified by a group of states (not always unanimously) with almost certainly different views as to what it meant. So whose view is correct?

At this point as a practical matter, the Constitution means what 5 judges on the Supreme Court says it means. Limit on that is the Court has no enforcement powers so there has to be some buy-in of the other two branches of government. Perception over the past 10-20 years is that the Court has become very political (which can limit its authority in terms of being a neutral arbiter). Seems to me that primary goal of Roberts is to lessen that as much as possible.

sirloindude said:

I lived in the Baltimore/DC area for most of my life, and a lot of family friends worked for the government. I can assure you that there's plenty of wasteful spending to be found that has nothing to do with the military OR PBS.

My first week as a fed contractor, I stood up and said aloud, "I can't believe my tax dollars are paying for this. I want a refund!"

I was then told by another contractor to embrace their [fed employees] apathy, its why we had jobs.

GoBucks89 said:

The Commerce Clause at this point has been used to effectively erase whatever limits on government's powers (subject to the Bill of Rights) and eliminate the concept of what was at one point called states rights... At this point as a practical matter, the Constitution means what 5 judges on the Supreme Court says it means.

I don't entirely agree. The states frankly don't have a very good record of challenging federal law, and the feds have been reluctant in recent years to enforce their will on certain issues. Consider the state-level decriminalization of weed in the top-down case, and in issues of minimum wage or college education in the bottom-up case. Where the court has sided with federal law, it's often in the name of judicial deference, with the idea that it is the people's representatives that are governing. That's why Social Security even became a thing. A lot of constitutional purists get hung up on the enumerated powers of Congress, but it's too narrow of a view.

I also disagree with your assertion that the court has become political. That same-sex marriage could become a thing with a court that has leaned conservative (Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote, a Reagan appointee that is generally considered "conservative") kind of gives me some faith in the system.

The idea of looking at Framers intent sounds nice but it really doesn't mean anything. Federalist Papers were written by a limited number of people. And there is conflict. Who is right? And how do we know they would have the same views given the realities of life today? Not to mention that the Framers didn't ratify the Constitution. Group of delegates approved it. It was ratified by a group of states (not always unanimously) with almost certainly different views as to what it meant. So whose view is correct?

Yes... this is all true. It's all incredibly imperfect and it moves probably too slow for anyone's taste, but that might be the thing that has to date allowed our nation to endure. The Federalist Papers were essays in defense of the form of government, and indeed they highlight the contradictions the Constitution codifies. Hamilton himself, who wrote most of the essays, often contradicted himself despite being one of the most well read people of his time. (At one point he argued for a chief executive more like a king, despite being Washington's chief secretary and strategist during the Revolutionary War. He was later shocked when Washington bailed after two terms as president.) But the thing you describe is the point, and I think it's kind of what you're getting at... there will always be questions, and our three-branch government is designed to get those questions answered.

States don't challenge federal laws on 10th amendment grounds or lack of federal authority because they know the result. The feds will win. Wasn't always that way. Prior to FDR, the states often challenged federal laws. And were often successful on federal powers/states rights grounds. FDR was frustrated enough after Supreme Court roadblocks in his first term to talk about adding 6 justices. From that point going forward, the Court removed the roadblocks and green lighted much of FDR's legislative agenda (including the Social Security Act you reference). Doubtful SSA gets green lighted prior to 1930. States continued to challenge until it became clear federal powers or states rights was pretty much a losing argument. At that point, why bother challenging? Combo of general welfare and commence clause have been interpreted so broadly as to effectively remove virtually all limits (outside Bill of Rights and those typically fall when the Supreme likes the underlying law). Doesn't mean states can't be successful here and there (oh wow, look the feds are not squashing us on pot -- see states' rights, states' rights -- and even that isn't really true because the feds are selectively pushing back on state pot rules though the tide is against them on that issue -- doesn't hurt that prior 3 presidents smoked it). But those victories will be few and far between.

Not sure I understand that point with respect to minimum wage. Are you saying states still have rights because the feds allow states to have a minimum wage in excess of the federal minimum? There isn't a conflict there. They are minimums. You can always pay more. And not sure what you are talking about in terms of college education.

Same sex marriage issue is interesting. When it came to DOMA, the Supreme Court essentially deferred to states rights when states were doing that the majority liked in terms of marriage. Then they turned it around a year or two later and used the federal Constitution to strike down those states that were exercising their states' rights in terms of defining marriage in a way the majority of the Court did not like. I am fine with the decision (was a generational issue that was moving where it is now eventually) but to say its rooted in strong jurisprudence is naïve.

A lot of constitutional purists get hung up on the enumerated powers of Congress, but it's too narrow of a view.

So the purists just get caught up in what the words say rather than what you want them to say? LOL Why enumerate powers if the feds can do whatever they deem necessary? Why include an amendment provision if its a living document which changes on its own with the times? At this point its academic as we are where we are and the living document/virtually unlimited power folks have carried the day. But that doesn't mean the Constitution or Framers intent is clear as to that intent. Looking at the words, the narrower reading makes more sense (though that isn't 100% clear).

There are a lot of people who believe the Court has become more political over the last 10-20 years. Including from what I have seen and read, CJ Roberts. Pointing to individual decisions which may be contrary to that doesn't change it.

it moves probably too slow for anyone's taste

That was the intent.

The idea of Framer's intent or applying the words to modern life is a lost cause in my opinion (other than it lends legitimacy to the process). We are making it up as we go along.

My point is that states can and continue to fill in the gaps as necessary. You're right that Social Security at first had little chance of passing, but it was the court's feeling that judicial deference was the right thing. Because...

GoBucks89 said:

So the purists just get caught up in what the words say rather than what you want them to say? LOL Why enumerate powers if the feds can do whatever they deem necessary?

Because the enumerated powers are not the only powers described. No realistic person could expect a document intended to define government for hundreds of years to anticipate the future, which is why it provides for more "squishy" powers like the Commerce Clause. As I mentioned earlier, this was always the intent and Madison defended this in the Federalist Papers.

We are making it up as we go along.

I'm pretty sure that was the intent, but I don't believe that it's simply unrestricted or without bounds. That belief seems only to be held when people don't agree with the outcome.

Vater said:

In other shocking news, yes, I'm fully aware my deductions can be adjusted, and in recent years I come closer to breaking even each year than I ever had in the past. But as with anything on here, try to make a point and out come all the technicalities.

It was such a hot take that I completely missed it.

Jeff said:

"squishy"

Even if I didn't agree with your argument - you'd still get a +1 for using that word... (Inigo Montoya commands it).

Which came first, the Court's feeling that judicial deference was the right thing or FDR threatening to add 6 justices to the Court because for his first term there was little such judicial deference? For 140+ years judicial deference was not the norm.

Again, why enumerate powers if others can be made up as deemed necessary? As you note, they couldn't anticipate what life would bring decades down the road so why bother trying with a specific list? And in the law when a list is illustrative rather than limiting "including" or "including, without limitation" language is used. If the intent was as clear as you state, why not make it clear?

And they didn't expect the document that defined government for hundreds of years to anticipate the future. Its why they included an amendment provision. The living document interpretation makes the amendment provision superfluous.

Some delegates thought the Bill of Rights unnecessary as a limited government couldn't infringe on the rights protected by the BoR. They definitely did not read the document as creating broad authority for the federal government.

I'm pretty sure that was the intent, but I don't believe that it's simply unrestricted or without bounds.

If not limited by enumerated powers, what are the limits on Congress' power?

That belief seems only to be held when people don't agree with the outcome.

No doubt a lot of people only criticize the process when they don't agree with the outcome. I sometimes criticize it when I agree with the outcome (same sex marriage and Roe are two examples of that). But what you are doing is selectively looking at history and picking that which agrees with your view of how the Constitution should work and ignoring that which doesn't.

GoBucks89 said:

Which came first, the Court's feeling that judicial deference was the right thing or FDR threatening to add 6 justices to the Court because for his first term there was little such judicial deference? For 140+ years judicial deference was not the norm.

Whether or not it was the norm doesn't mean that the power wasn't already granted, and as I said, argued for by way of Madison's defense of it.

Again, why enumerate powers if others can be made up as deemed necessary?

Because some were intended to be the exclusive domain of the federal government and not the states. (Sorry, Idaho, you can't have a navy. :)) That doesn't mean that the federal government by way of omission can't govern. There are a billion things not spelled out that logically the federal government can and should regulate, and again I refer to Madison's writing on the topic as a means to keep the "united" in United States.

And they didn't expect the document that defined government for hundreds of years to anticipate the future. Its why they included an amendment provision.

While amendments have been used to codify specific, broad laws (like the ridiculous prohibition), most of the time it's to counter or clarify established provisions. The Commerce Clause isn't the only vague power, as the General Welfare Clause is pretty broad too. Interestingly, this is where Madison and Hamilton differed, because Madison felt "general welfare" was just an extension of the enumerated powers, while Hamilton felt it was far more broad and should reflect the will of the electorate.

What's particularly fascinating about this, now that you mention it, is that Hamilton's view could be considered very strongly nationalist, which does fit with some of the current (if too extreme) political sentiment in the US, but Hamilton's view was most certainly not isolationist, which is the toxic thing being paired with nationalist motives today. I think this is another example of how a little historical context that isn't selective could move us forward if people stopped treating politics like a sports rivalry.