Disagree away, thats perfectly fine. Im sure the magic man in the sky dissaproves of me as well. :)

I did not say "religion cannot have a connection to morality". I said "religion is independent of morality". So is the morality of the Bible "an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"? Is the morality of the Quran "peace and love" or "death to the infidel"? I would cite examples from other relgions, but I'm thinking you wouldn't know a Jain from a Sikh. Religion is the institutionalized extension of spirituality. If you wish your spirituality to influence your morals (There is a God, so I better listen to Him), that's all well and good, but as soon as you being to say that your morals and your God are the one and only correct ones for the nation, it becomes a problem.

Europe is your example of an unreligious society? or for a multifaceted and stable society? How do religous-based moral laws provide "a multifaceted scoiety"? England has a state religion of Anglician Church. Germany is 67% Christian and 4% Muslim. 90% of the French are Roman Catholic and Italy the seat of of the Pope. Switzerland has banned minarets, an architectural feature. The current Pope is German and the last one was Ukrainian. Do you understand my confusion when you assume American superiority based on relgious adherence? You should really learn more about the world.

The conservative Christian movement is as dangerous to the world's liberty and well being as the extremist Islamic movement is. Both think religion can replace critical thinking and understanding.

As for your smug American superiority complex, try looking up the 2003 heatwave or the fall of the Berlin Wall. That the fall of communism or the great personal struggles and risks taken would be so soon over looked hurts my heart. As for more recent history, http://www.dw-world.de/...rticle/0,,5913347,00.html

This is just rhetoric. It doesn't work like that in real life. Just because you are unaware of the quality of existing regulations does not mean they are not at appropriate levels or are automatically too high. First show us exactly what regulations are redundant and what supplimental actions can be taken. This process is ongoing, as you ignored in my statement, and can be spurred by a letter campaign to your local politicians. However, other politicians obstruct these processes for their own ends, and hence the origin of this thread.


You seems you not understand. In order for the super-rich to get the tax-cut you want, all lower and middle class Americans (those earning $350k or less a year) would need to pay a higher percentage. You wouldn't be able to reduce taxes to 10% for everyone, you would raise the median tax rate (paid by most people) to around 30%. From 1932 to 1980, those earning a quarter million or more paid between 58 to 92% tax. The tax burden of paying $3m while you have $7m left is not the same as paying $15k and having $35k left. The difference between $10m and $7m is not noticable to quality of life. The difference from $50k to $35k is significant.

Mapleson, maybe it is you who should learn more about the world if you think John Paul II was Ukrainian. Also, you should learn more about Christianity in that 'Eye for an Eye' and 'Turn the other Cheek' are both part of the same passage from the Sermon on the Mount.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

You are unduly arrogant.

I think we've reached an understanding. The part about on religion's superiority is where the honoring of other people's freedom of religion comes in. In respecting one another, people find similarities and compromise.

Ultimately it comes mostly to Christian religion. A significant part of America is not Christian and a common idea of what morality is and what moral issues should be legislated is where the multifaceted part comes in. Banning minarets? Not exactly what I would call respectful of Islam.

I think you confuse conservative Christians with extremist Christians. The Westboro Baptists vs Christian groups which go out to repair elderly people's homes.

Government, government, and more government actions. Do you really think that the government determines the character of a people? The people can't be bothered to take time out of their day to help others? The link that you showed me was about government's taking action, not the people.

Why not take the time to actually review the existing regulations. You are putting this all onto me and to the Republican Party. Do not the Democrats also have part of congress and do not they also have a responsibility to review the regulations. Isn't the purpose of congress to review regulations? Secondly, if regulations are redundant, why would we supplement them? The point is to make the regulations only as much as we need and to adjust them to exactly what we need.

10% was simply a figure for making one particular point, it's not necessarily the level required. Furthermore, I would be closing significant loopholes and thereby causing the wealthy to actually pay what they are "taxed" at. Warren Buffet has publically said that he pays a lower percent of taxes than his employees. That kind of vindicates the same rate idea when coupled with eliminating most loopholes.

I am an attorney who specializes in energy trading regulation. I have prepared many arguments with my industry counterparts and lobbyist consulting firms argued in front of the CFTC. I have insight into both the political drivers, the stated benefits, and the actual costs.

I am also a Republican. I am also a Tea Party supporter.

Regulation can put a choke hold on capital innovation. Dodd-Frank as it is written will limit liquidity in many commodity markets. Financial oversight will make speculation risky - and in a bad way. Speculation is inherently risky, however the risks are market risks, which spur innovation and advancement. The risks will now be regulatory risks, which limit innovation and enhancement.

Regulation may be socially beneficial, but it is financially bad. Partial regulation is horrendous. The financial crisis of 2008 is squarely on the shoulders of short-sighted and vote-seeking Democrats looking to ensure unwarranted loans were provided to their constituents who could not afford them.

Please quit mis-characterizing Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Control spending, then we will talk about tax policy.

ViLSE, so then only an atheist can lead? By same token I would say i do not want anyone guiding anything to do with my life that doesn't believe " in a magic man in the sky", Fed need to stick with federal problems and quick dictating to states what should be states rights, then the things you want to live with and with in in the states that allow what you want and the states that wish to keep things that I want out I can live in. The basic problem is there are to many busy bodies in Government now melding in our life, my opinion is if you don't like what I say don't listen and i will afford you the same courtesy, just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean there should be a law or regulation for it.

Quinnewolf: No I was overstating things a bit for my own amusements sake. I always like poking fun and religious people as I think religion is dumb in all shapes and forms. But that is my own opinion only and I totally respect everyone to believe and think as they want (as long as I can poke fun of the stupidity of those beliefs). In fact I am really for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom to be of any religion you chose. I just dont think Religion and Government has got ANYTHING to do with eachother. If Government is totally neutral regarding any type of religion then all the better, then let its citizens pray to whichever magic man/woman in the sky as they please.

Personally I would always prefer to vote for the guy that is an atheist mainly due to the fact that I reckon his education must be much better than the others that failed the most basic of biology etc. But thats just my vote, and I suspect it will be many many years yet before people are more openly Atheist in America. Its currently political suicide not to believe in magic men in the sky over there... :-)

Also: - Mapleson, NICE POST!! :-)

Agree for the most part. I can't blanket say regulation is all bad. Some regulation is necessary (although you can argue a fair chunk of this regulation 'was' necessary rather than 'is' necessary).

I envy you going to the CFTC because you get Bistro du Coin and other good restaurants for lunch. The best I get is Georgia Brown's or Bobby Van's if I want a longer walk.

As for solving the economic woes (you didn't get into this), I would suggest approving the FTAs sans TAA (or with TAA if it's the only way they will move) immediately. The idiocy of Obama waiting to send the KORUSFTA over to Congress is that it has become a serious political issue in RSK and those pushing for the agreement are those in power. Waiting imperils potential passage, but Obama wants to whine about the TAA. Ok, done with that rant.

Most regulations are probably necessary, if not necessarily done well, because we wouldn't be regulating them unless we saw a need to.

Are you being sarcastic or serious? I can't tell. Hopefully the former.

Get a sense of humor trumper, its clearly a joke.

To respond to OrkinMan's original post, qzjul's mindset is what differentiates conservatives and liberals. Liberals advocate throwing as many regulations as possible at businesses without thinking them out. Liberals favor knee-jerk reactions to correct something bad that happened, without regard for the impact the new regulations will have on the 99% of businesses that were doing things the right way. They favor attempting social engineering through regulation at the expense of the economy as a whole.

On the other hand, I know of no conservatives that inherently oppose regulation. I favor smart regulations that correct market failures, but do not limit economic liberty in pursuit of some social outcome.

Klown, sorry, I'll restrain myself to due agrogance. You are correct, I confused Ukraine and Poland. I was merely trying to point out some of the dicotomies of relgious morals, so I stuck to the cliches. If you prefer 2 Chronicles 25:12 "The army of Judah also captured ten thousand men alive, took them to the top of a cliff and threw them down so that all were dashed to pieces" can be substituted for "an eye for an eye". I was a practicing Christian until 2008, so I do know a fair amount about the religion. People can use religion to justify bad actions as well as good actions. Therefore, religion directly should not be the basis for our moral governance, but the underlying concepts of brotherly equality and acceptance (or whatever else you want to take as the core precept).

Angel - the US is 76% Christian, pretty well the same composition as Europe. I gave you the link to a very recent natural disaster so you could find personal accounts linked to it. People taking their own boats out in Nashville didn't make the international news either, but it doesn't reduce the impact of their efforts. Europe and America are cut from the same cloth. Neither has superior moral fortitude or corruption. Both generally have populations that care for the wellfare of those around them. I believe the people determine the character of the government. A caring population will support a government that quickly and effectively intervenes after a natural or military dissaster. An uncaring population will vote out such a government in favour of a more cost-limiting group.

I wasn't putting the effort to be familiar with regulations before criticizing solely on you or the Republic Party. The need to supplement the replacement of redundant regulations is from the fact two regulations never exactly cover the same area. If you repeal one or the other, you may have a gap that requires supplement efforts to cover up. My main point is that "regulations are bad" is just talk, find the bad regulations and do something about that specific regulation, instead of complaining on a general level that won't affect any change.

Closing tax loopholes is accepted by most everyone except Tea Party Republicans as a good idea. Boehner admitted as much when the main deficit deal fell apart, he couldn't control the party's vote. My 30% for all was after you've eliminated all tax subsidies and tax exemptions. My own ideal tax form would be three bands: 0-50k @ 1%, 50k-200k @ 20%, 200k+ @ 45%. This would lower the tax burden for the majority of Americans, while increasing tax revenues by 5-10%. I would similarly adjust corporate taxes, where an operational loss would offset some taxes while profit margins are taxed at 33%. However, the corporate side would need a world-wide format acceptance or else they will just relocate to the less taxed nation in the world.

Alter_Ego - the fact Tea Party Republicans will only discuss half of the debate to balance the budget means the US will be stuck in a deficit position for at least the next decade and a half, doubling the national debt. Unless you are willing to meet the otherside halfway, no compromise to solve the mess will occur.

Klown, 99% of businesses are absolutely NOT doing things the right way. If that was the case, then the gilded age would never have happened. If there is an objective truth in the "debate" in this thread, the truth is that corporations, at their core, are evil. Without regulation they will ALWAYS abuse the citizen.

WaPo had an article today that nailed this square on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8wYiQJ_story.html?hpid=z3