quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He'd only have a goatee if he were from the Universe Where Everyone Is Evil and Wears a Goatee. If he were from Earth-2, he'd be a little older and more idealistic, or else totally psychotic.
And if he were from most of the Stargate alt-universes, his hair would be longer.
And if he were from the alt-universe of Lois&Clark, he'd be armed.
Beat me to it. Although in some of the SG alt-universes, he might just wear glasses, or be dead, or be President.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because I don't feel any other viable candidate as accurately represents my interests and views.
Which interests and views are those? I don't mean that to sound snarky; I'm genuinely curious.
Sorry this took me so long to get back to. Life came in the way.
I like Romney's focus on work and personal responsibility and accountability. I like the compromise he brokered in health care in Massachusetts. I like his focus on conservative social values, particularly his opposition to gay marriage. I like his moderate pro-life position. I like his focus on government efficiency and restricting tax growth.
I don't like his stances on energy and education, and I'm sure a slew of other things. But of all the major candidates positions, I find that I support more of his than any other's.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, he didn't, at least according to the opening post: "marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up."
It doesn't say he'd been told that ALL marriages are only 7 years. "Frequently" would be true even a small percentage of the time.
When did we cover marriage here? I thought we were talking about pacts of solidarity, which, as I understand it, are designed specifically to distinguish them from marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Squick's point is that whoever told Romney that marriage in France is frequenty contracted in seven year terms was mistaken, even if a pact of solidarity can have a term limit, and even if seven years is a frequently used duration, because a pact of solidarity is not a marriage.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
he talks a good game, but his record in MA finds it a bit wanting, combined with his flip-flopping nature.
quote:I believe Squick's point is that whoever told Romney that marriage in France is frequenty contracted in seven year terms was mistaken, even if a pact of solidarity can have a term limit, and even if seven years is a frequently used duration, because a pact of solidarity is not a marriage.
Yes, but it was being presented as a new form of marriage. I've read many times on this board that if we converted to all civil unions, people would still call them "marriages."
In many states, deeds of trusts have replaced mortgages. They are very different instruments to accomplish the same thing - secure a loan with real property. A politician who mentioned the practices associated with deeds of trust in another state would not be committing a serious error if he spoke of that state's "mortgage policies."
If 7-year terms were a common feature of PACS in France, then Romney's statement would be a fair one, and accurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but it was being presented as a new form of marriage.
By whom? I'm not at all versed on the issue, but what I've read so far leads me to believe that one of the main things about the Pacts of Solidarity is that they are emphatically not marriages.
quote:If 7-year terms were a common feature of PACS in France
But, if I understand what Snail posted, they are not in any official manner. It's possible that there is some common practice that no one has provided any evidence for that people are getting out of them after 7 years. But if people were getting married and then getting divorced 7 years later as a matter of course it would be at least as fair a statement (if we grant that you can use marriage as a referrant to pacts of solidarity). There's nothing that has come up about these pacts so far that makes they fit this statement any more than marriages themselves.
---
Also, have we gotten any confirmation other than from an anonymous blogger that this is what Romney was talking about?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering we've already gotten evidence through the leaked memo that certain members of Mitt Romney's campaign have advocated him taking potshots at "bogeymen", specifically naming France and here he is taking seemingly baseless potshots at France, I think it's reasonable to be pretty suspicious about the motives or justification here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Where's the basis then? Is there any indication that people in France are making contracts for 7 year marriages?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, if I understand what Snail posted, they are not in any official manner. It's possible that there is some common practice that no one has provided any evidence for that people are getting out of them after 7 years. But if people were getting married and then getting divorced 7 years later as a matter of course it would be at least as fair a statement (if we grant that you can use marriage as a referrant to pacts of solidarity). There's nothing that has come up about these pacts so far that makes they fit this statement any more than marriages themselves.
Not really true - they are explicitly contracts, so the "contracted" portion applies more to PACS than traditional marriages. Even though marriage is considered in some ways as a contract, it's not really one. PACS are - for example, the law specifically outlines the requirements for modifying a PACS. To that extent, there is something in the statement that applies more to PACS than to marriage.
Further, the fact that they are contracts leaves open the possibility that a contract term (e.g., 7 years) would be enforceable. I don't know. I'm interested mainly because it's the kind of thing I'm interested in, but it would also shed some light on Romney's statement.
But if a pre-defined term is enforceable, that is quite different from the situation in which a relationship is terminable by one of the parties at an undefined future date.
quote:Also, have we gotten any confirmation other than from an anonymous blogger that this is what Romney was talking about?
First, the blog isn't anonymous, although it might be pseudonymous. Second, the guy was very critical of Romney on this issue, so bias is unlikely. Third, this wasn't the blogger's analysis of what Romney was talking about, it was a claimed report from the Romney campaign.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where's the basis then? Is there any indication that people in France are making contracts for 7 year marriages?
No one seems willing to even look into this so far. Most of the people chastising Romney in the blogsphere didn't even mention the PACS.
There are a couple of studies on how the PACS are being used, but I don't have access to them.
This is a major gap in the knowledge needed to evaluate Romney's statement. We know 1) they are contracts, 2) they are easier to terminate than a marriage in France, 3) expiration dates are common attributes of contracts.
I don't see a reason to have a strong preference for whether term limits are allowed or not allowed here. And there's no information at all as to whether they are used if allowed.
What, exactly, is your conclusion of baselessness based on?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From some guy on the internet. This is not, to me, a credible source for any sort of the certainty you seem to be treating it with. Something from the Romney campaign itself or something in a repudible media outlet, but some guy saying that someone at the campaign told them without any other sort of reason to believe him isn't to me establishing it as a certainty.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What, exactly, is your conclusion of baselessness based on?
That there is no basis yet provided, that people have investigated and found nothing, and that it is pretty difficult to believe as merely a bald assertion. Especially since this has been laid out as a Romney campaign strategy.
I'm not even willing to grant that we are sure that it was these pacts that he was talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That there is no basis yet provided, that people have investigated and found nothing, and that it is pretty difficult to believe as merely a bald assertion. Especially since this has been laid out as a Romney campaign strategy.
I'm not even willing to grant that we are sure that it was these pacts that he was talking about.
There's a hell of a lot more evidence that he was talking about PACS than there is that he is wrong about term limits existing.
He talked about people contracting for marriage. PACS are specifically defined as contracts for a marriage-like relationship (an alternative to marriage).
A person with an anti-Romney slant who has a consistent and fairly large internet presence claims to have contacted Romney's campaign about the issue and been told that these are what he was talking about.
You still clearly haven't done a modicum of research into this. Time's (in association with CNN) blog now carries a reported interview with a Romney spokesman confirming that Romney was discussing PACS, and that he got confused regarding the 7 years based on how long they have been available.
Regardless, I'm still interested in an answer to the legal question as to whether limits are enforceable, and the social question as to whether limits are included. Those would be interesting facts to know, regardless.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
Or appropriate individual responsibility (i.e. shifting the burden for services from tax-base to pay-for-use). I'm generally (not always) in favor of moving costs from government (which is prone to inefficiency and bureaucracy) to individuals, and allowing social structures other than government (families, churches, charities) to help those individuals who can't afford the fees on their own.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because you've twice now asked questions where basic Google searches could reveal the answer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
Or appropriate individual responsibility (i.e. shifting the burden for services from tax-base to pay-for-use). I'm generally (not always) in favor of moving costs from government (which is prone to inefficiency and bureaucracy) to individuals, and allowing social structures other than government (families, churches, charities) to help those individuals who can't afford the fees on their own.
Except if you need to drive a car, and license, inspection and registration fees go up, then contrary to a reasonably intelligent financially secure individual, the average person who is most punished by the hikes will just try to get by without it for a while, completely meaning to pay it eventually... And then they get caught and have to pay stiffer fines they can't really afford.
It's the paradox of the American ideal of rugged self-independence meeting plain old ignorance. --
I'm all for personal responsibility, but that's easier to say when you are financially secure, or have a large church organization that has a system set up for this... Unless someone in the church doesn't like you/holds a grudge and won't provide you the funds, or you lose your job due to the company going out of business.
I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
EDIT: This shouldn't mean I'm not for governmental reform and streamlining, it's just that when people usually use such terms, it's a euphemism for some variant of the "starve the beast" scheme, which assumes an adversarial position concerning government that I don't hold, nor like much.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a well-established political tool, and not unique to America.
I know. It certainly happens here in regards to the EU, and politicians are also keen to use perceived faults of America to cover for real faults in themselves.
quote:Time's (in association with CNN) blog now carries a reported interview with a Romney spokesman confirming that Romney was discussing PACS, and that he got confused regarding the 7 years based on how long they have been available.
That's good to know. I do think it'd be more classy for him to apologize for the statement, as it was rather misleading.
quote: Regardless, I'm still interested in an answer to the legal question as to whether limits are enforceable, and the social question as to whether limits are included. Those would be interesting facts to know, regardless.
I'm still rather skeptical that limits are included, because I do think even an isolated incident with a limit would have drawn headlines from the French media and protests from the French right-wingers. I agree, however, that it'd be interesting to know if they're enforceable.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
Why wouldn't you meet your social responsibilities through giving to organizations rather than giving (or being compelled to give) to the government? If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor? We don't need governments to meet our social responsibilities; they are just a good hammer for compelling us to do so. And that compulsion comes at a price of inefficiency and bureaucracy.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor?
Right now, it's hard to find non-religious charities that fulfill those functions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: interestingly, amount given to charity per dollar income is extremely insensitive to changes in the tax rate, historically.
In other words, whatever you think people (in genera) would or wouldn't do, people don't. I know you were speaking to a particular person, but across the population as a whole the aggregate is important.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
Why wouldn't you meet your social responsibilities through giving to organizations rather than giving (or being compelled to give) to the government? If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor? We don't need governments to meet our social responsibilities; they are just a good hammer for compelling us to do so. And that compulsion comes at a price of inefficiency and bureaucracy.
The government is the only organization I know that will provide these funds to Muslim citizens, Jewish citizens, Christian citizens, Asian citizens, Black citizens, White citizens, children, the elderly, and whoever else I may be forgetting.
I know we can't prove it either way, but I can't help but thinking that $100 given to the government is at least as efficient than splitting that same money between the 5-10 groups, and ensures that more varied types of folks will be able receive the aid.
-Bok
EDIT: Also another point of consideration. When push comes to shove, any NGO providing benefits will choose to serve their underlying ideology, whereas with the government, I, as a citizen, am part of the pushing.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government is the only organization I know that will provide these funds to Muslim citizens, Jewish citizens, Christian citizens, Asian citizens, Black citizens, White citizens, children, the elderly, and whoever else I may be forgetting.
Then maybe you should start an organization which does that instead of leaving it up to the government to do so.
quote:I can't help but thinking that $100 given to the government is at least as efficient than splitting that same money between the 5-10 groups, and ensures that more varied types of folks will be able receive the aid.
I find that hard to believe, considering the efficiency of the government.
quote:When push comes to shove, any NGO providing benefits will choose to serve their underlying ideology, whereas with the government, I, as a citizen, am part of the pushing.
You're also part of the pushing if you're a member of a NGO doing the good works you think should be done.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A poster for this upcoming mini-series reminded me this morning that one needn't leave the US to find populations where temporary marriages are normal.
And I'm not just talking about divorce, but the attitude that "starter marriages" are ok, or even recommended. While not terribly common, it is definitely out there.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then maybe you should start an organization which does that instead of leaving it up to the government to do so.
Unless he thinks the government is actually relatively efficient, which I believe he's already said is the case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
