Let Demjanjuk Stay!

As most of you know, there is a major issue regarding citizenship and deportation in Ohio. The country of Germany believes that Ohio resident John Demajanjuk is a former Nazi camp guard. Due to this, they are attempting to get him extradited from his comfy, warm home in Ohio (though it might not be so warm right now) and sent to a cold, grungy prison in Germany. Demajanjuk, of course, is fighting this plan.



This is not the first time that Demajanjuk got nailed for stuff like this. In the 90s, his US citizenship was revoked as Israel believed that he was the camp guard named 'Ivan the Terrible'. After being convicted by on court, he appealed the ruling. Upon appeal, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that he was not Ivan, and he was sent back home. His US citizenship was restored.

While that should have stopped Demajanjuk's troubles, more kept happening. Recently, Germany decided that he was a different guard, and are now seeking to get him back. In response, US courts again revoked his citizenship, and they have ordered him deported back to Germany to stand trail. This most recent incident is what Demajanjuk is fighting.

To me, this seems like a witch hunt, as he has already been confused with another guard. This dude is from Germany, that is about all he has that the Germans are using against him. The bloody supreme court of Israel found for this dude, so I am quite sure that he is not a prison guard. Guys, drop it and find an actual Nazi.

Anyways, I believe that enough is enough, and tha we should let Demajanjuk serve out the rest of his life in peace and rest. The guy is in his 80s, has thousands of things wrong with his body, and has reformed his life. He has found God, has a family, and worked for years on the line. Seriously, even if this guy was a holocaust guard, the time has past, let's let him get on with his life.

To me, I believe that all of these hunts for former Nazi's should end. Most of the people are dead, and those that are not have found a new life. Most of them have to live with what they did, and I am betting that most are repentant. Seriously, these people have families, are injured, and have helped to build this country after the war. Why should we seek to punish them, when they have to live with themselves every day?
Read more ...

A Bargarian View on DC Voting Rights (Taxation without Representation)

Congrats to Lisa for having her first segment on Fox TV for a monthly feature. While she needs to work on her teleprompter skills (her words, not mine), she did well. Well, except for the fact that she should be looking at the viewer, not the screen.
:)


Speaking of Lisa, her blog Liberal Common Sense has a complaint; apparently, she doesn't like how Whalertly writes/argues his points in the previous two posts on DC and voting that he did. With that in mind, I decided that I am going to go ahead and take a crack at it myself: Here goes nothing.



As a starter, I want to say that I agree with Whalertly's main argument. The Constitution is clear on this issue, and it clearly says that only states can have a say in Congress. To me, this should mean that they have a vocal voice in congress, but no non-state entirety has a vote, even if it doesn't count. Nor should they be part of any committees at all. The Founding Fathers intended this to be, as they clearly worded this in the Constitution. Our government doesn't follow the Constitution enough, maybe it is time that they started here.

There is no way that you can interpret the Constitution to say something that it clearly says it is against. There is room for interpretation in privacy, in freedom of speech, and in freedom of the practice of religion. All of these are not fully defined, and they are all set up to adapt. However, there is no logical wriggle room in the statement:
”hall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states “. Additionally, as you need to be a citizen of the state that elected you, there is no way to get around this. Arguably, if the State of Ohio were to decide who represents DC then you have an interesting loophole. keep in mind, this would probably not hold up in court.

So, we know that there is no real way to get representation CONSTITUTIONALLY to DC or any of our islands, but there is a bigger issue here: That of taxation without representation.

A common argument brought up by those arguing for sovereignty is the concept that there should be no income tax unless they have representation. In fact, this is a point that Lisa brought up a few times. This believe stems from the assumption that the Boston tea party was a main factor in the revolution. This is a faulty belief, as most of our issues stemmed from the fact that we believed that the king was our leader, no parliament. We can safely assume that tax with no rep. Was simply the straw that broke the camels back. There is no backing what-so-ever to this argument historically based.

Furthermore, this argument falls apart when it comes to practice. We tax anybody who buys anything, tourists, kids, adults, yet most don't have representation. Taxes are covered on products and services, yet the people who end up paying them (consumers) do not always have representation. Obviously, they believe that only one tax matters...

Several groups pay income taxes and have no vote. Kids with jobs, felons in certain states, and illegal immigrants all pay income tax. Hell, those with a green card that are permanent residents also pay income tax. We don't want these groups to vote, but they are being deprived of the same 'right'. Obviously when you use selective enforcement you have an issue.

Overall, I believe that DC should not have the vote Constitutionally. This also applies to all of our territories and islands. Furthermore, I do not believe that the argument about taxation holds any water, as it is selective and not really historically based, regardless of how people argue it. If we amend the Constitution then I will support them having the vote, but, until then, they should not have it.

for the smart readers out there, you might have noticed that I never actually posted my own opinion on this issue... :)
Read more ...

Why having higher taxes is actually good

Taxes are both a helpful thing for a country and a bane to its people. None of us want to pay a large amount in taxes, but we all want to use the benefits that come from it. We all want to drive on roads. All of us want our children to be educated in good schools. And all of us want to be able to count on the fire department of the police to show up at our doors when we need them. We Americans love our social services, but we hate paying for them. Why is this? Furthermore, why is there this believe that it is actually a good thing to cut the taxes?

Let's start by simply looking at what taxes do. Simply put, they keep our government running. From the water, to the roads, to the salt trucks, taxes keep everything running smoothly and great. Sure, there might be some corruption every now and then, but generally, at least in America, we are getting exactly what we paid for. Taxes are the only reason that we have a functioning government, and they are one of the things that keeps our country strong. Without taxes, we would be a land dominated by monopolies, which, while they can be good, are usually bad to the average person.

No person can argue that taxes are a bad thing; the thing that we argue about is how much is too much. Sure, it is one thing to create a Communist nation, with each giving as they can. That is bullshit, and will not work in real life. On the other end, however, is the perfect capitalism, with dog-eat-dog. Again, that is bullshit, and will quickly result in a Hobbsian anarchy. The middle ground is the taxes, and that is where the argument is. Should we pay for a lot (health care, education, libraries, etc.) or just the needed (government, military, function)? This is where everything falls apart.

Well, I want to make this a very simple argument. If we can show that it is better for the economy (which, we can assume means that it is better for the country) to tax higher or lower, then we can show that that means that it is better to tax or not. We can ignore all other arguments, as they, simply, are of opinion and are not falsifiable.

So, is it better to tax or not to tax?

Now, basic logic would seem to dictate that the less money that you take out of a system (tax) then the more money is in the system to be spent and moved around. Basically, the lower the taxes, the higher the GDP. However, looking at this graph, you notice that the stereotypical lower taxes times (Reagan, Bush, Bush) are actually on average far lower in GDP change then during the high tax times (Carer, Clinton, JFK). Are these graphs wrong, or is common sense wrong?

Here, it seems, common sense is wrong.

Instead, think of it like this. Where does the tax money go, and what is it being taken from?

What is it from - Tax money is taken from profits, either a persons or a companies. When my company makes 100,000$ in profit, they tax it. If I go even, or lose money, it is not taxed. Same with people. Basically, the needs are already in the economy, so we can ignore them.

Where does it go - Tax money goes right back into the economy, guaranteeing an input of the profit made, even if the person wasn't going to spend it already. This guarantees that the economy will get more income then just straight up no taxing.

When you think about it like that, one quickly notices that the economy is actually better off with taxes, provided they are reasonable. As long as taxes allow the needed items, and leaves some for extra (growth), then the economy is much, much better under taxes.

Unless the two Bushes are major outliers, we will see in the next 4-8 years, that a higher taxing, larger spending, and big budgeted country has a higher GDP.

But does this work for Ohio?

Can one really assume that this same pattern will work for Ohio? Well, I suppose that if it works nationally, it should work within each and every location. Sure, various variables have been changed, but the overall concept is the same. However, the problem with Ohio is that it is a much smaller scale, which means that we would not have the same income level as the national scene. This, though, shouldn't make a problem in this equation.

The problem here, however, is the fact that the economies in one state are not tied only to that state. Not only does the national government effect it, but the actions out of state (say by Ford in MI) greatly effect it as well. Unless Ohio were to become isolated, I do not believe that we can use this model to show that taxes help or harm this state.

If you have graphs of Ohio's Tax rates and GDP, please send them to me (get my info in the contacts section). I would love to be able to talk about this sometime.

Read more ...

A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting

Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:

" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."

Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:

"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."

"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."

Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.

"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "

While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.

"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "

The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.

"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "

The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.

"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "

I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.

That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.

"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "

To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.

...

"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "

The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.

Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.

Read more ...