The Renquist and Roberts Courts (corrupt, fringe activist politicians in robes) have said lots of amazing things, notwithstanding that the original Constitution that these "originalists" love so much does not even give the Supreme Court the authority to over-rule either of the other two branches of Government.

Money is not speech. Money is merely a means to fascilitate speech. speech can't be regulated, but money can be. Money is regulated in all kinds of ways in all kinds of transactions. Speech is free.

Perhaps it would be instructive to see charts for the budgeted deficits for the future. Obama's deficits were expected and necessary for economic stimulus.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

It's a good argument, but I don't buy it. It might be an unintended consequence, but Citizens United proves the fallacy. Individuals who run Corporations can have all the first amendment rights they want, whether it is with money or a soap box on the street. This has always been true and always will be. Rules of disclosure and accountability are in effect there.

And guess who we didn't hear a peep from when he was doing it.

IMO, Citizens United is not the evil case here. It is only the natural outcome when the fruit of the real evil ruling was put in the hands of a group of corrupt, fringe activist politicians in robes.

The real evil ruling was Buckley v valeo, which ruled that money equals speech. That was one of the stupidest, most nonsensical rulings in our history, and made Citizens United possible.

Here in Oregon, you can buy wine in the grocery stores.What is that, 12% Anything else, you have to go to an OLCC store. I like the system. the grocery store part is a convenience, but I like knowing what I'm going to pay at the OLCC stores, wherever I am. The prices seem very good

Chrispm84. I enjoyed your post a lot. I think you are wrong in some of your assumptions, and I don't think your solutions are quite right, but your heart is clearly in the right place. There is an ocean of dis-information out there these days. Don't be a stranger.

Funny pictures. Good argument.

Isn't this just the market deciding? The magic of the marketplace is supposed to bring us to a Utopian paradise

I don't think that comment merit a lot of discussion, but here's the bottom line of what I have gleaned from this conversation.

You prefer economies where there is a high concentration of wealth at the top. I prefer economies where the wealth is equitably distributed across the population. Highly progressive taxes and good business regulation are two elements that accomplish that.

Just a difference of opinion, I guess.

Dunno. Perhaps you can find a source that shows that people are happier in countries with low taxes and low business regulation.

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/02/the_world_map_o.html

OK. You win a point. I shouldn't have said 'businesses that are undertaxed and under regulated'. We were not really talking about corporate taxes. However, I can prove that, among the countries with all of the most successful economies in the world, corporate income taxes as a % of GDP are the highest, some, very high. America's is relatively quite low as of 2002. It certainly isn't any higher now. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf Table 1

I should have specified personal income taxes. All the scandinavian countries have high taxes and the average standard of living is very high. People in these countries are very happy with their economies. They have very low GINIs (low concentration of wealth). Good business regulation and adequate taxation.

Can you tell me about a single country with low taxation and low business regulation where everybody is happy?

That's not true. GINI doesn't care how many people there are in the population. It does not even concern itself with quality of life. It deals only with how total wealth is distributed across the population. You have strayed considerably from the originally point, which was that low taxes and weak regulation always leds to high wealth disparity.

the scale goes from 0 to 1. Economists consider anything above .4 to be bad. Hong Kong and Honduras are in the low .5s. United States is in the mid.4s. sweden is in the .2s.

poverty level is not a measure of wealth disparity. You want to be looking at comparitive GINI. It's a sophisticated mathematical model that real economists use to measure wealth disparity.

Hmmm do I favor spoiled Americans leaching off the freedoms that others have fought and sacrificed for, or do I think that patriotic citizens should share in at least some service to their country? That's a tough one.

Hardly. And you think that's a good thing. Do you hold stock in Blackwater?

No it isn't It's because unregulated and poorly taxed business always leads to the concentration of wealth in a few hands

Yes, Hong Hong, which has the highest disparity of wealth in the first world. Not my idea of a good economy.