Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[josephdavid]

Yes, I can. Here is my case brief on BABBIT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREATER OREGON

Case Brief

BABBIT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREATER OREGON, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)

Plaintiff and Defendant

The plaintiff is Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon. The defendant is Babbit.

Facts

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to designate species that he considers threatened or endangered. The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, interpreted the word “harm” to include “indirectly injuring endangered animals through habitat modification and degradation.” The plaintiff alleged that the Secretary harmed them economically by improperly defining the word “harm” in the Endangered Species Act.

Lower Courts

The Court of Appeals ruled the Babbit’s regulation was invalid. The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Issue Appealed

Did the Secretary exceed his authority under the Act by promulgating the regulation that defines the statue’s prohibition on takings to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife?”

Who Wins

The Secretary of the Interior, Babbit, wins.

Reasoning

1. An ordinary understanding of the word “harm” supports Babbit’s interpretation as reasonable.
2. The Act contained sweeping changes against the taking of endangered species that supported the Secretary’s decision to extend protection against activities that cause harm.
3. Congress authorized the Secretary to prohibit indirect as well as indirect takings.

Case Questions

1. How did the Secretary’s regulation economically affect the landowners, companies, and families of employees? The Secretary’s regulation prohibited the habitat modification and degradation of the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl. The landowners, companies, and families of employees in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast rely on the forest for their livelihood. These people could not harvest the forest to earn a living. The Secretary’s regulation prevented the cutting of a tree, or the draining of a pond.
2. What is the issue that the Supreme Court is deciding in this case? The Supreme Court is deciding if the Secretary exceeded his authority under the Act by defining the word “harm” to include habitat modification and degradation.
3. What argument do the respondents make that the Secretary exceeded his authority? The definition of harm is the direct application of force. The respondents argue that activities that cause minimal or unforeseen harm do not violate the Act’s definition of the word “harm.”
4. What arguments does the Supreme Court use in deciding that the Secretary’s regulation is valid? First, the Court of Appeals erred in asserting that only direct action can lead to “harm.” The dictionary does not support this definition of “harm.” Unless the statutory term “harm” includes indirect as well as direct injuries, the word “harm” has no meaning. The Secretary’s definition of the word “harm” is reasonable. Second, a “knowing” action is enough to violate the act. Third, Congress used the word “harm” to serve a particular function in ESA. Congress had in mind foreseeable rather than just accidental effects on endangered species.

Is it your view that the Secretary’s power and responsibility to protect endgangered species and resources was wrong because it prevented profits?

 

[CPA2]

Is it your view that the Secretary’s power and responsibility to protect endgangered species and resources was wrong because it prevented profits?

That is enough questions for one day. I have to spend my time on audit evidence and internal control for the rest of the day.

Thanks!

P.S. See if you agree with the Supreme Court’s definition of “harm.”

By the way, internal control is the cornerstone of accounting and private business. There is internal control because there is someone trying to make a profit. There is no internal control in government because there is no profit motive.

There are NO accounting courses in government accounting at the federal level in any university in the United States. The best that we can do at the local and state level is to come with a system of budgets, encumbrances, etc. All of this because the government lacks the profit motive and thus, a basis for internal control.

 

[tjm190]

The government IS the people or at least it should be as the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and the Government to be, For the People by the People.

Appologies for the ambiguity- I meant that companies, rather than people, recieved bail outs. Sure, that enabled wealthy people to recieve their salaries. It also enabled lower income people who worked their to keep their jobs.

 

[CPA2]

The case that opened my eyes to the abuses of government agencies was BABBIT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREATER OREGON, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)

The role of the government is an umpire. Thomas Jefferson supported this idea, and it is embedded in our laws going all the way back to 1775 (e.g. Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions). The SEC, IRS, Social Services, and all the “alphabet police” incorporate another idea, the idea that government is a participant. Some judicial activists feel that the Constitution is a “flexible” document that should be interpreted differently as society changes. Based upon this theory, this is how some judges have gotten away with making law instead of interpreting it. There is no Constitutional justification for this idea, as far as I can see.

Additionally, government bureaucracies violate another intent of the Founding Fathers, the separation of powers. For example, Congress gives the IRS very broad powers to make law (legislative). The IRS has the power to go out to find the people who break “the law” (executive). Additionally, the IRS has the power to judge a taxpayer guilty (judicial).

“The SEC maintains that substantial penalties deter corporate criminals. But the more money the SEC collects from fines, the easier it is to justify larger budgets and more power.”

The SEC and regulations on financial transparency are a perfect example in explaining additional regulatory burden. More regulations mean more federal employees. Here is how the system works. In order to become a government supervisor, the federal employee must supervise a specific number of individuals. For example, a federal employee may have to supervise a total of 14 people before being promoted to a GM-15. However, to support these 14 people there must be some work for these federal employees. Enter a major regulatory proposal to expand reporting requirements on accounting transparency. Accounting transparency becomes a new form of regulatory burden. This increased regulatory burden provides many new jobs in the federal government. Additionally, regulatory burden promotes many federal employees to supervisor. New accounting regulations will cause the need for many new jobs in the Federal government. New regulations will also cause unnecessary additional regulatory burden for private companies.

At the present time a taxpayer does not have the right to a trial by jury if there is a dispute with a government agency. I would like to remedy that. I do not want our judicial system run by “professionals,” lawyers and judges. I want to limit the role of judges. I believe that the eroding role of juries is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. To remedy the eroding role of juries, I support a constitutional amendment to inform all jurors of their Constitutional right to nullify the law. Juries have the right to evaluate both the facts and the law in a court case.

 

[sidbrown]

The government has stopped representing us in many ways. Government represents whoever shines the most money in their faces, discreetly, of course. There are laws, after all. Yes, I blame the government, and their ties to big business.

There is a revolving door between government employees and big business employees. Government employees regulate their former employers! Economic research highlights the sad phenomena. That is why I say that the government is a government of special interests, by special interests and for special interests. It is no longer our government. The government creates special interests through their regulatory powers. We would be better off without all of the regulatory agencies.

With government, we have the electorate and we have the possibility of running for office ourselves. What control does anyone have over General Motors? Basically they can pay whatever salaries they want and have they given America the cars that Americans want and need? No. They just go around begging for tax bailout money.

 

[sidbrown]

The end does not justify the means. I happen to know of three families that the SS (Social Services) tore apart because of someone’s accusations of sexual abuse. Such concentration of power and abuse of power is unconstitutional. SS also violates the separation of powers. They are the judge and jury, much like the feudal lords were before the Magna Carta around 1225.

Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson saw concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary man. The 3 documents that support this view are:

1. Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776
2. U.S. Bill of Rights – 1791
3. Separation of Powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial)

What is Milton Friedman’s conclusion in his book, Free to Choose?

“The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States…We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good purposes.”

“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.”

References

Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.

There may be some truth here to your accusation that social services may have too much power concentrated in the hands of incompetent people. On the other hand, what is your solution to the problem of abused children and abusive parents?

 

[sidbrown]

The beauty of the free market is that no one has to know how to run the economy.

If corporations want a free economy, how come they were begging the government for bailouts ?
Do corporations really want a free economy?

 

[sidbrown]

The reason that we have economists is to make the make the weather man look good! Economics is in a sad state. We are following the socialist economics of Keynes. Paul Samuelson is a socialist too. Even Friendman did not support the gold standard, a basic tenet of our founding fathers. Government is out of control.

We have built our house on the quicksand of socialism and without God. I am watching that house come tumbling down. All of the government men will not be able to rebuild the house of democracy.

What can be done with gold? We can’t eat it.

 

[sidbrown]

We’ve been talking about Wall Street firms aka banks- THEY are expected to pay their loans back…

When and how?
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_bank_fees

1. When - It will take at least ten years for some banks to pay back the “loans”. And by that time, inflation will have eaten into the dollar, so that they will be paying back in dollars worth much less than what the dollar is worth today.
2. How. In some casees it will be with dollars worth less than today, and in other cases it will be with warrants, not dollars, which are not worth their face value.
   In either case, the poor little taxpayer will be the one who is footing the bill so that these financial institutions can pay huge bonuses and huge salaries to their fat cat executives who are making salaries much higher than those of comparable executives in other countries.

 

[sidbrown]

The role of juries is shrinking in the United States. This trend is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

A lot of people do not want to serve on juries and if you refuse, you can be locked up in jail. Why should people be coerced to serve on a jury trial, if they don’t want to? Isn’t this a form of slavery? You have a business, such as plumbing, and you have a family to support. Then they require you to be on a jury for four months or so. Your business is ruined and will the judge help you out? No. He will put you in jail if you refuse jury duty.

 

[tjm190]

When and how?
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_bank_fees

1. When - It will take at least ten years for some banks to pay back the “loans”. And by that time, inflation will have eaten into the dollar, so that they will be paying back in dollars worth much less than what the dollar is worth today.
2. How. In some casees it will be with dollars worth less than today, and in other cases it will be with warrants, not dollars, which are not worth their face value.
   In either case, the poor little taxpayer will be the one who is footing the bill so that these financial institutions can pay huge bonuses and huge salaries to their fat cat executives who are making salaries much higher than those of comparable executives in other countries.

if the government wanted their money back quickly they should have made that clearer in their initial agreement with the banks- however, since most banks don’t want the fact that they owe the government money to be used against them, they’re paying rather quickly anyway.

Not very many STATE banks have repaid the treasury, but by and large most of the ‘fatcats’ had paid the money back in full in June.

 

[tjm190]

If corporations want a free economy, how come they were begging the government for bailouts ?
Do corporations really want a free economy?

Not all of the firms even asked for bailout- JP Morgan had to fight the government to be allowed to give the 25 billion they received back.

Do you or do you not understand that EVERYONE would have been in deep trouble had our financial institution died? In fact, the rich probably would have been better off since they have had a lifetime to save up money.

 

[sidbrown]

Not all of the firms even asked for bailout- JP Morgan had to fight the government to be allowed to give the 25 billion they received back.

Do you or do you not understand that EVERYONE would have been in deep trouble had our financial institution died? In fact, the rich probably would have been better off since they have had a lifetime to save up money.

What you are claiming is not true according to Eugene Fama and others.

 

[tjm190]

What you are claiming is not true according to Eugene Fama and others.

Amex, Citi, Bank of America, JP Morgan (Chase), Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Capital One, and Stare Street. Are the organizations that have repaid their TARP funds off the top of my head.

Over 600 banks still owe the Feds at least some of the money. However, most of these are the state banks that received much smaller sums.

 

[sidbrown]

Amex, Citi, Bank of America, JP Morgan (Chase), Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Capital One, and Stare Street. Are the organizations that have repaid their TARP funds off the top of my head.

Over 600 banks still owe the Feds at least some of the money. However, most of these are the state banks that received much smaller sums.

Banks giving back heir bailout money are repurchasing their warrants for less than their market value. See:
"Bank Bailout Loans Become Partial Subsidies
Remember back when we bailed out the banks? Remember how politicians promised they would work tirelessly to get taxpayers as fair a deal as possible? Looks like they lied. "
business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/bank_bailout_loans_become_partial_subsidies.php

 

[tjm190]

Banks giving back heir bailout money are repurchasing their warrants for less than their market value. See:
"Bank Bailout Loans Become Partial Subsidies
Remember back when we bailed out the banks? Remember how politicians promised they would work tirelessly to get taxpayers as fair a deal as possible? Looks like they lied. "
business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/bank_bailout_loans_become_partial_subsidies.php

We’ve been over this. The treasury department sets the prices after a great deal of market analysis. If you think they’re pricing them too low, take it up with them.
AND the article only applies to a small sample of small banks- J.P. Morgan paid the government back with interest, for example.

 

[sidbrown]

We’ve been over this. The treasury department sets the prices after a great deal of market analysis. If you think they’re pricing them too low, take it up with them.
AND the article only applies to a small sample of small banks- J.P. Morgan paid the government back with interest, for example.

The fact remains that the poor little person, as Leona Helmsley refers to us, is unable in many cases to obtain a loan to save his house from foreclosure, whereas it is easy for the wealthy fatcats to get this billion dollar loans from the taxpayers and on top of it these million dollar bonuses. The banks have severely tightened up the regulations for obtaining a home loan and these restricitons were put into effect at the beginning of the year so the home foreclosures are continuing at an alarming rate.

 

[CPA2]

“Washington has so thoroughly botched its supervision of the banking industry that 200 banks are likely to fail this year — easily surpassing last year’s 140 bank failures … inevitably involving the greatest bank losses in history … and already costing the FDIC ten times more than the great S&L and banking crisis of the 1980s did (Weiss).”

 

[tjm190]

The fact remains that the poor little person, as Leona Helmsley refers to us, is unable in many cases to obtain a loan to save his house from foreclosure, whereas it is easy for the wealthy fatcats to get this billion dollar loans from the taxpayers and on top of it these million dollar bonuses. The banks have severely tightened up the regulations for obtaining a home loan and these restricitons were put into effect at the beginning of the year so the home foreclosures are continuing at an alarming rate.

The banks tighten regulations because the “give everybody a loan lulz” logic you’re asking for was an enormous contributor to the collapse.

If the bank thinks you can pay your loan and the associated interest, they will give you that loan- that’s how they make their money.

If they don’t think you can, giving you that loan would be stupid.

 

[CPA2]

From my point of view, property taxes are the same as rent. If you are paying $4,200 in property taxes and the house is worth $350,000, then the city must own your house. Why?

Who do you think really owns your house? You are paying rent (taxes) to the local government to the tune of $4,200 per year. If you do not pay the property taxes (rent), the local government will put your house up for sale at a sheriff’s auction.

Do you or the local government own the house? If the local government has the power to sell your house because you did not pay your house taxes (rent), then I think that the government must own your house.

Corporations are 39% socialist in terms of ownership. How can I say that? I looked at the income tax rates for corporations. All income over $100,000 is taxed at 39%. Therefore, the federal government owns 39% of every corporation. The federal has it right when they say that they want to be your partner in business.

What does stock ownership mean? It means that if you own 2% of the common stock of a company, you share in 2% of the income and 2% of the losses. The federal government shares in 39% of the income but does not share in the losses.

Keep in mind that the right to own private property is the cornerstone of economic freedom. Taxes are a major restriction on that economic freedom.