Plan B Forum

I think this is an interesting slant on religion in America. Obviously, a measure adopted more by fear rather than reason. North Carolina, >>>thisclose<<< to entering the 20th century. If this catches on I'm betting race will be next. Let the cleansing begin.

http://www.wral.com/proposal-would-allo ... /12296876/

Hoo boy....just when you think that Republicans couldn't get any stupider....

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the resolution states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the resolution states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws

If I remember my history correctly, that particular issue was settled at Appomattox....

The North Carolina House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the North Carolina General Assembly. The House is a 120-member body led by a Speaker of the House, who holds powers similar to those of the President pro-tem in the state senate.

In the 2013–2014 session (based on the results of the 2012 elections), the Republican Party holds a 77–43 majority over the Democratic Party, up from a 68-52 Republican majority in the 2011-2012 session.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Caro ... sentatives

Well, my first inclination would be to say, "so what if 11 members of a caucus of 77 say something really stupid?"

Were not The Majority Leader Of The House one of the 11...

And then on the other side of the aisle, we have the party that believes that any earnings from "capital gains" can rightly be called, "unearned income"....

As though if you make any money from risk and investment, it is somehow "unearned"...it just fell into your lap out of the sky...

Not a whole lot of Norman Einsteins on either side...

Lord Jim wrote:

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the resolution states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws

If I remember my history correctly, that particular issue was settled at Appomattox....

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional

If I remember my history correctly, that particular issue was settled 62 years before Appomattox (in Marbury vs. Madison).

Lord Jim wrote:And then on the other side of the aisle, we have the party that believes that any earnings from "capital gains" can rightly be called, "unearned income"....

As though if you make any money from risk and investment, it is somehow "unearned"...it just fell into your lap out of the sky...

Not a whole lot of Norman Einsteins on either side...

If you think that the definitions of and distinction between "earned income" and "unearned income" came from dopey liberal ideologues pulling these terms out of their asses, you must not know much about economics, accounting, or tax law.

And FWIW this liberal Democrat believes that "unearned income" (or whatever you'd rather call it) should, for income tax and social security tax purposes, generally be treated the same as "earned income" (or whatever you'd rather call it)--and *NOT* treated preferentially and taxed at a lower rate (or not taxed at all!). Okay, sure, just call it all "earned income" if you want to--if that'll get you to agree to tax it all the same.

you must not know much about economics, accounting, or tax law.

I proudly know next to nothing about accounting or tax law...

But I do know a bit about economics...and even more about philosophy...

And I know that "unearned income" is derived historically from John Stuart Mill's concept of "unearned increment"...(I'm afraid I don't have a link for you; I just knew that off the top of my head; but if you're not familiar with this, feel free to look it up)

And I also know enough about contemporary politics to know that in the lexicon of many "dopey liberal ideologues", "unearned income" has become a code phrase for "undeserved income"...

You must know more dopey liberal ideologues than I do, Jim; I'm mostly familiar with the terms "earned income" and "unearned income" from the technical definitions given by the IRS and the SSA, like this and this. I guess I can see how someone might infer a value judgement to be inherent in the terms, but anyone who actually understands what the terms mean knows that it's just a way of defining different sorts of income according to the source of the income. (And yes, I am aware that the concept derives from classical economics and is related to “rents”--i.e., incomes attributable to monopolization or land ownership. I think J.S.Mill coined and defined the term because he thought it was something that ought to be taxed.)