Another fall out of the Helvering v Davis case what that it "forced" employers to pay the Social Security tax - i.e. make a "matching" contribution to the employee's contribution.
But as any one who has worked in a small business or start up knows, those taxes are actually passed on BACK to the employees - the employer calculates how much social security tax he has to pay for an employee if he hires him/her and then reduces his offer by that amount - the tax on that reduced salary goes towards paying the "employers matching" contribution while all along it came from the employee's would be salary if not for the SS tax.
Helvering and the IRS might have won that case - but more than Davis, it would employees of the future who would lose and continue to lose through out their working careers.
And conservatives keep telling every one that we live in a right of center country - Huh?? REALLY?Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 25.08.2009 @ 20:11
But let me add this: the main reason to have different interpretative approaches (as well as the reason to have a Judiciary at all) is because people disagree over what things mean.
People can disagree all they want over what things mean - that still does not answer the question - what the hell is the law ?
"Different interpretative approaches" turns out to be more often than not, an euphemism for the way liberals have tried to fundamentally change this country knowing fully well that they would not be able to so using Constitutional Amendments.
Here is a thought experiment - if this Union dissolved today with conservatives/libertarians on one side with liberals/socialists on the other - and two new Countries were to be formed EACH having their own Constitution, does any one think that the liberals would even allow for something that comes close to the 10th Amendment?
Does any one think that liberals would stand for an individual right to bear arms ? Or for a right to free speech (without any provisions to hate speech?)
Btw, thanks for pointing out Helerving versus Davis - i did some research and found out that in a Supreme Court that had six conservatives and three liberals, the decision was 7-2 in favor of declaring SS legal- four conservatives who vehemently criticized the New Deal
supported it !
Now how could this be ? Ahh... it was that wheelchair bound Roosevelt who threatened to pack the Court with 15 Justices ! He asked Congress to enact a bill empowering him to appoint one additional Justice for every one who turned 70 and did not retire, for a maximum of six, thus enlarging the Supreme Court from nine Justices to up to fifteen.
It is jawdropping to see how much power Roosevelt exercised after his landslide victory of 1936 - he was furious that the SC struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act on January 6, 1936, the Guffey Coal Act on May 18, and the Municipal Bankruptcy Act and a New York state law setting minimum wages for women on May 25.
After his threat, the conservative Justices basically shut up and put up. And sided with the three liberals on the Court that Social Security taxes were constitutional.
It is truly fascinating to read the history behind Social Security - today liberals routinely bleat that it is a safety net for elders - but when FDR defended it in the SC, he argued that he did it for the general welfare of old people during troubled economic times and that Social Security does NOT guarantee annuities or gratuities !
That it was nothing more than a scheme to raise tax revenue inorder to help old people !
Social Security was not sold as an "insurance" scheme for old people by the very man who envisioned it :-) Wow, FDR's machinations truly make Obama look honest as hell.
The next time any one compares Obama to FDR, i swear to God that I am going to laugh out loud - Obama does indeed have the same dishonesty as FDR but he does not have the ruthlessness of an FDR.Is it any wonder that FDR's reign marked the beginning of the end for true American conservativsm ?Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 25.08.2009 @ 20:04
Michael Reynolds is a glaring example of what is seriously wrong with this country - something which is not going to change in my opinion and ultimately reduce it to another second world nation at best.
It is hard to believe that educated people can be so ill informed - the effects of which are made worse by supporting a strident statist idealogy which is modern day liberalism
Whether we end up with a public option or not, we’re moving more of health care into the federal sphere of influence. And five years from now people will not only support it, they’ll defend it with the same kind of crazy they bring to defending medicare.
Indeed, it is crazy to support something like Medicare - especially when its the younger and middle aged folks supporting the system which is facing a 30 TRILLION plus Dollar Deficit. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag, when they retire.
Your Government cannot run Medicare efficiently that is for people,65 years or older and yet it wants to take on responsibility for the entire population ?? If you cannot do a good job with 40 million, we are now somehow supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt to take on millions more of uninsured people ?
And people who question this are now called crazy ? The arrogant intolerance of a liberal to any facts that might stand in his way and idealogy is simply stunning.
Which was also opposed by your party on grounds it was too much, too fast, too change-y, too communistic, too whatever the hell it is you people are forever terrified about.
Some one should have listened back then to the objections to the Great Fracking Society. When the Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security crash under their own weight, those warnings about the perils of big entitlement programs will sound prescient.
Margaret Tatcher said it best - the problem with Socialism is that ultimately you run out of spending other people's money.
Rick, i have to disagree with you on the conservative nature of this country. America may have started out that way - but it has significantly veered away from its conservative roots to the point of no recovery. The New Deal and the Great Society programs are the final nails on the coffin of American conservatism.
If this country is still considered right of center, it is simply a self satisfying "we are still conservative" pat on the back.
When the baby boomers start retiring in waves starting 2017 the entitlement explosion is going to be so ugly, people will long for the type of years 2008 and 2009 are.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 23.08.2009 @ 14:27
Yeah, keep saying that you pay MILLIONS in taxes - surely, you MUST NOT BE LYING ! what's next, you are faster then Usain Bolt ?
Listen, I pay my taxes - you pay "your fair share", remember ? And if you do really claim to have paid MILLIONS in taxes, why are you bitching about it ? I thought you had no problem doing so.
You paid it because you would have faced jail time otherwise - you never did it out of your own free will - and if you want to help people, because your heart bleeds do it on your own time - with your own money - you dont need a federal bureaucracy to do that for you.
Dont force your morality on others - we all help people the way we see it fit - we dont advertise to the whole wide world like you do. And we are more effective than any effing Government program would ever come close to - and no we dont do it for getting votes, nor do we use the threat of co-ercion.
If you are dumb enough to allow yourself to be raped, that's your problem - dont ask people to pity you or expect them to stay silent just like you.
Liberals consistently betray their fundamental intolerance to any idea that exposes the hollowness of their bleeding hearts.
Nicolas Kristof said it best - Bleeding Heart TightwadsComment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 24.08.2009 @ 20:52
Michael Reyonlds,Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 23.08.2009 @ 14:38
Moron - you just admitted that you are a liberal THIEF. Pay with your own money to save some one else's grandma - -if you cannot then admit it that you are nothing more than a useless liberal who steals other peoples money and makes a virtue out of it.
Yesterday you had a blog pointing out that people being unruly/angry at meetings was not a good representation of either their personal selves or their genuine concerns about ObamaCare. Look at how these leftists treat them.
Josh Marshall represents the essential dishonesty and the insecurity of the Left. Remember, he is one of their "mainstream" bloggers. We are not talking DemocraticUnderground or firedoglake or anywhere close to the fringe. This is what he calls "muckracking".
It startles and stuns the liberal left that people do not support their version of health care "reform". The liberals cannot help wonder, that after all the soaring insurance costs, how could people not take the public option with open arms and instead protest against it? They MUST BE SENT by "astroturfers" and lobbyists !
Some one, that no body outside of his family in Connecticut knows about is now the great instigator:-) He must be seriously wondering, how it got to this.
Notice, how Marshall and his fellow leftists automatically judge that these people cannot think for themselves and could only be "fed lies by the lobbyists" ! And even then, you have to ask what is the point of going to townhalls and protesting ? What do they get from all this ?
It is only those union idiots who go on strike that get paid by the hour for holding protest signs. These are people doing it on their own dime and own time. If these morons knew what astroturfing truly was ( just ask David Axelrod !), they would not be making fools of themselves.
It is stunning to these statists that people could do all this on their own, without realizing "what is good" for them. Cue Andrea Mitchell.
Josh Marshall reminds us again what the so called "mainstream" leftists can do. Imagine the leftwing loons on the fringes.
God save this country.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 5.08.2009 @ 19:27
As a Yankee fan, I am loathe to admit it but we have been PWNed in this series by you guys - worse, this has come at the same time the Sox that we really hate (TM) has had a winning streak of its own - its all even now in the AL East for practical reasons (Boston has played one less game at this point)
While we are still on baseball, I dont know if you had a chance to read Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe lamenting about how Manny Ramirez and Big Papi were found to be on the list of players using performance enhancing drugs.
He goes so far as to say that Ortiz's entire career may be a lie !
We have our own parade of shame from Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite and Jason Giambi - makes you wonder how many more are out there !
I know that you had a post during the All Star game about how the game has lost it's national status especially after the steroids scandal broke out - but how much more terrible would it be if a former World Series MVP ( Manny Ramirez) was found to be on performance enhancers the entire 2004 season ?
Btw, that Carlos Quentin is one heck of a ball player and probably the best thing to happen to the SouthSiders in quite a long time.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 2.08.2009 @ 12:18
I am not a US citizen - but i do love this country very much. My reasons for going back to India are personal and the decision was made a long time back.
As far as abortion argument goes, I think conservatives would do well to stick with just the medical facts - when the foetus gets a heart beat within the first 12 weeks of conception, what exactly is it now ? My understanding of Roe v Wade is that within the first 26 weeks, abortion is legally allowed.
As you pointed out, it has to be kept legal in those scenarios where a woman's life is at risk or it is simply unavoidable ( i read a real painful case where the woman wanted to carry the baby to term but couldnt due to terrible complications).
But that would bring us to the question of abortions performed on perfectly healthy women, who just dont want to have a baby. In fact, this is what the progressives/liberals are most concerned about - they see this as the pinnacle of a woman's freedom. Short of it, women will always remain "oppressed".
There is a case to be made that women in an earlier and more conservative America were expected to have more children and could not do much about it. This was seen by the progressive movement as a way to keep women in control and unfortunately in their view,abortion became the focal point of a woman's freedom.
I guess this is all old news to you and many people who have watched this debate for much longer time than me - but i think that the key to any meaningful compromise on abortion is the recognition on both sides that
A) Women in this country have strong and equal rights- the culture warriors have blatantly used the abortion = women's rights meme to the hilt. Women should not have to feel insecure about their status in this country.
B) It seems to dispropotionately affect minorities. What can conservatives do to help foster family values in minority communities ? Education, jobs etc...
Black conservatives are needed and people like Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly etc have tried to shape public opinion on this issue - BUT, as always they are painted as race traitors and Uncle Toms.
What do conservatives really stand for? What are our unifying principles of government, economy, and rights?
I dont know if there is a "unified" theory but we all believe in limited Govt, personal responsibility, freer markets, strong national defense and lesser intervention in people's personal lives.
I don’t like where our government has been going lately. But it’s one thing to be against the status quo, and another thing to be for an articulated alternative.
It is kind of difficult to give an alternative when you are in deep do-do. What alternatives do we have when businesses make home loans to people who they know wont pay it back? When people buy homes they know that they have no chance of paying for and are instead buying it to sell it off at the highest price (all the while forgetting that there is risk involved in any gamble ?)
How many alternatives did liberals propose when the Iraq war looked hopelessly lost ? What alternatives did they propose when they vehemently opposed Bush on social security reform and the surge?
Nothing more than cutting and running and increasing more taxes on the "greedy".
And they control all three branches in Govt with a filibuster proof majority today.
Life's unfair - conservatives have to realize that they have to be at their best every time, they get an opportunity to govern -otherwise, people will vote the Democrats in. Its as simple as that.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 4.08.2009 @ 20:50
Thanks for the king words. I am not a citizen(I'm here on a work visa). I do agree that Indian Americans dont get directly involved in politics a whole lot.Those who do however tend to be Democrats more often than not.The Democrats have always been perceived as more welcoming and tolerant (unless of course you get on their "wrong" side !)
There are a lot of reasons for this passivity - IMHO,the primary reason is that most Indians are not interested in politics - as long as we have good job/career opportunities,we dont seem to care about anything else. When tax time does come, we gripe about it... and then move on.
Our experience with Indian politics has left us cynical and quite a few of us have the exact same feeling now about US politics as well.
Grin and bear -we are just thankful sometimes for just having the opportunity to be here, all other things being how ever bad they may be.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 2.08.2009 @ 21:15
The /sarc tag was meant to be short for sarcasm:-)
But if this is of any comfort to you, I used to be one of those enlightened moderates who saw abortion as a political issue that is nothing more than a woman's "right to choose". Luckily for me, my position has changed a lot ( especially after I saw the movie "Marley and Me") and it turned what ever queasiness that I had abortion before(while still keeping it legal) into outright disgust.
Very few people seem to know the fundamental facts about when human life begins, or that by as early as the tenth week, the baby gets a heart beat going and most of its organs already growing - by this time, even its gender is decided (XY chromosomes create a male and XX chromosomes for female).
If you asked me ,social conservatives have done a very poor job at describing what an abortion entails - people who dont agree with you have successfully painted an image that you "believe" that an unborn infant is actually a human being. And that your opposition to abortion is based on the Christian faith.
This is more than "belief" - these are the medical facts whether you would like to face them or not.
You could be an atheist but still see the humanitarian value of the pro-life position, but your opponents think that all you want to do is over turn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. Some of your opponents have painted you as being rigid extremists because of your opposition to Roe V Wade alone.
No, I dont want abortions to be made illegal - I'd rather that the "right to choose" become redundant. If people realized what was at stake (especially MEN), they would do their level best to not put their women in a position where a terrible choice has to be made.
If you are truly interested in compromise, you should come out openly in support for contraception - I realize that this also may be against your religious views - but this would be much better than anything else.
As a person who loves individual liberty I am stunned that people have to take political stands on errr.. contraception! Responsible adults already know what to do and STILL social conservatives are expected to come out in support of contraception - but,that's how pathetic it is.
Doug, as far as fiscal conservatism goes - I think this country is in for a very very painful lesson in basic economics - there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Look at your current health care debate (full disclosure, i am from India and will be moving back home next year)-
There are people who actually believe that the "public option" will reduce insurance costs for EVERYONE because there will be more people covered by insurance - all the while forgetting that this is nothing more than static analysis and health care costs are only going to grow as more insured people are going to expect more services - at the taxpayer expense !
Not to mention the inevitable Government intervention into what constitutes treatment for a patient. If you thought insurance companies where bad in restricting your choice of doctors, wait till your Govt restricts your choice of treatment.
I dont even want to talk about the avalanche of entitlement spending that this country has "obliged" itself to pay for its senior citizens - abt 52 trillon dollars - I might actually reach Mark Levin levels of despondency. And Rick may call me out for my bitching and whining :-(
This country always seems to have had a guiding hand that helped it reach its true potential and destiny - at awful times, when this country would have never even come into existence ( like the terrible losses that the Revolutionary Army kept taking after 1776) or when it would have dissolved into two (Civil War) or when it somehow lead the free world against the evils of Nazism(WW2) and later on Communism, it some how pulled through.
Even after the bitterness of the boomers with Vietnam, Civil Rights etc, this country has some how pulled through.
Will it do this miracle act again ? This country is awash in debt and is very very polarized that it is amazing that it still is one country. I think we will watch in the next few decades.
Personally, I would love for fiscal sanity to return to the citizens of this country - but i am not betting that it will.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 1.08.2009 @ 13:12