Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lysabild]

My stance on privatization can be seen in ein's signature, ripped right out of a chat we had in Skype.

Also, this: Finland.

[palsch]

Really, I think this is the perfect example where you'd kindof need some kind of libel laws or something to either shut Rush up or make him apologise.  ...

I thought suing because of defamation was entirely possible, though? In theory at least, I mean.

Yeah, the US has workable defamation laws. They tend to skew towards freedom of speech, but in cases like this it's fairly clear cut.

The laws vary on the state level, but in most states this case should fall within one of the most obvious categories. Certain types of false statements are always taken as defamation. These include "allegations or imputations of unchastity". What Rush said is, by definition, defamation, and in the vast majority of states he can be sued for it.

While American libel laws can look weak sometimes I greatly prefer them to British libel laws in any direct comparison. The current Libel Reform Campaign here in the UK is doing good work trying to create a new and more workable structure, so hopefully that will change in the near future.


EDIT: Vaguely related; I went over to the Volokh Conspiracy to see if they had any legal analysis on this and found an entirely tactful and sensible dismissal by Volokh himself. The comments below then made me feel sick. The blog is a collective of mostly libertarian leaning law professors and practitioners commonly seen as one of the best law blogs on the right. I tend to disagree a lot (if not always; certain names on the by-line make me want to skip the post while others tend to be reasonable and interesting), but it's where you go to get the best understanding of libertarian and right wing legal arguments. The comments sections tend towards disgusting though, and this is one of the worst I've seen.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, this: Finland.

People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa. 

[Glowcat]

Also, this: Finland.

People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa.

That doesn't help anybody though. WHY would it not work here? Is the reason substantiated by data or it asserted due to personal judgment calls about the state of the USA and what its people are capable of?

[Lysabild]

Also, this: Finland.

People keep posting this article everywhere, but it ignores something very important: The US is not Finland. What works there does not necessarily work here, and vice versa.

I honestly find this a bad excuse, of course this could work in the US, the truth is it won't work because people doesn't want it to, the people in US wants an unfair system with well defined classes. So that is what they end up with.

In Denmark we sadly want to be more like the US, so we're slowly going that direction, painful as it is for me to watch.

In Finland they want fair and unbiased education giving everyone the exact same good opportunities, so that is what they get.

If the US decide they want the same, they'll get it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In these cases I'm of course using they/we as the majority.

[MonkeyHead]

I have commented on this many times around here before as it covers one of my areas of academic work and research - the US education system will never follow a model followed in Finland. There are numerous social, cultural and political factors at play that prevent such an option. People always forget one of the biggest aspects: no-one working within educational research is exactly sure (as in, can point at a collection of factors, able to say "this is why" beyond any reasonable doubt) why the Finnish system works so well, as it appears to run contrary to what people once held as a solid system. Its probably a right place, right time thing. Other nations that have adopted similar strategies (small or large scale) have noticed little or no potitive impacts. The countries that turn out the "best educated" pupils (if you judge that soleley on academic grades/results - PISA and so on...) are the soon to be world giants of India and China - they follow an educational model most similar to the UK or USA 30 to 40 years ago, heavy on wrote learning, but education there has a massive value in terms of its impact on quality of life, unlike in our rich and lazy nations. They (as in India/China) are now looking to move to a system similar to current models in the western world where there is a greater emphasis on teaching the skills that undeprin subject knowledge. Meanwhile the debate goes on in the richer countries what the balance between knowledge and skills should be...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The US switching to the Finnish model of education would not be a radical shift, it would be a complete and total paradigm shift of how the education system here works. It simply cannot be done.

[Truean]

.

[GlyphGryph]

Doing some math on break-even points for a federal flat percentage income tax with a dollar value offset. Most numbers pulled from Census data for 2010/

First, average household income times the number of households gives us:
60,528×114,235,996 ~= 6,914,476,366,000 or about 6.9 trillion dollars. That... seems too low.
Lets compare it to per capita income times total number of peoples:
27,334x308,745,538 = 8,439,250,536,000, about 8.4 trillion, which seems a bit better.
I think this is income from all sources, though, as with the rest of this, exact details are hard to find.

Lets give a flat monthly distribution offset of 800 per person, half that for dependents, which is more than livable. Not enjoyable, maybe, and it might mean you can't live where you want with the lifestyle you want, but at the very least it gives a solid base and vastly improved bargaining power on the part of individuals looking for employment or engaged in community work that might not otherwise pay well, and allows them the flexibility to make their own life choices about what they value. This value might actually be a bit high or low, it's just a starting point.
(Note: Dependent information proved impossible to find recent data for, so ignoring for now)
Total pop x offset
308,745,538x800 ~= 246,996,430,400 or about 247 billion dollars, which really seems like a drop in the bucket of government expenditures.

Total government expenditures (from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total)
are ... 5.9 trillion, total? Woah. That's nearly total income - that seems impossible. Though I suppose a good chunk of that expenditure IS income... Anyway, we're only concerned with federal income, which is pegged at ~3.5 trillion

(3.5 Trillion + .3 trillion for our offset) / 8,439,250,536,000 ~= .45, or an effective 45% federal tax rate to cover all government expenditures. Not counting the money saved from getting rid of those welfare programs that are no longer needed.

I think I could live with that.

What do people think of the flat tax + offset system? (A variant of the NIT I suppose) Is it workable?

[Nadaka]

GlyphGryphon, I did a similar breakdown in vectors thread. My figures came out to a 50% tax on income would pay 100% of the budget and still have enough money left over to give a minimum handout per household that would put them at the poverty line, not counting any actual income they received.

[lemon10]

No, your ignoring corporate and business profits and such that don't rely on the households.
Well, it looks like you are, not quite sure if you really are.

[Criptfeind]

No, your ignoring corporate and business profits and such that don't rely on the households.
Well, it looks like you are not quite sure if you really are.

Yeah. That is what it sorta looks like to me as well.

[Scelly9]

powstin tew watch.

[Nadaka]

In my case I assume 0 corporate taxes as well, I am trying to find the post but its no luck so far.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-sandra-fluke-172415192.html

So somebody finally tried to get him to recognize where the line was for hating someone and massive loss of advertisers huh? Interesting how he sort of goes back on it at the end though...[sigh]