Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 5

US government: can the President fire the Vice-President?

Let's say that the President of the United States was unhappy with the Vice-President's performance, or thought the VP had acted unethically. Does the President have the authority to fire and replace the VP, and if so, whose approval and what legal processes are necessary to carry this out? 69.224.113.5 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but according to the Spiro Agnew article, Agnew later said that Nixon threatened to assassinate him, which is probably on the extreme end of the scale of authority. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Constitution about a way to get rid of a Vice President in term, other than impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. This is in significant contrast to members of the Cabinet, who fall under the Constitution's provision that the President may appoint high-ranking executive officers with the Senate's confirmation. Because the Vice President is elected for a four-year term — not appointed — this provision doesn't apply. You say "had acted unethically": although it would be politically devastating, I suppose the President could urge the Congress to impeach and to convict the Vice President. Other than that, the only way to get rid of the Vice President legally is to wait until it's time to run for reëlection, going with someone other than the sitting vice president on the ticket. For an example of this, see Henry A. Wallace, one of three men to be Vice President during Franklin Roosevelt's time in office. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that in the original constitution, the VP was the person the president beat in the election. Thus giving the president the power to sack him would be rather silly. Algebraist 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point :-) By the way, the President does have the power to replace the Vice President: according to the 25th Amendment, if something happens to the Vice President, the President may nominate someone to the post, who will become Vice President upon confirmation of both houses of Congress. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of presidents did not get along with their veeps, Kennedy and Johnson never really clicked, and Reagan and Bush Sr. came from very different political mindsets, and were not known to get along very well. Bush Sr. was definitely against Reagan's economic policies; he famously called them "voodoo economics". Then again, it wasn't long ago that the veeps ONLY important job was waiting for the president to die. John Nance Garner once said that the job of vice president wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss". Constitutionally, the veep has only one job; to break tie votes in the Senate. Given that the veep really doesn't have any real purpose beyond what the president delegates to him (usually he's merely a mouthpiece for presidential policies and little more) its really not that big of a deal should the president not like him. The current situation, where the Vice President acts as the Éminence grise in the Bush Administration is an entirely recent development. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A President definitely cannot "fire" a Vice President. The VP would have to resign or be impeached. But the President directs the Executive Branch. He could give the VP no access to Cabinet meetings or secret documents or policy discussions. I'm not sure if specific legislation gives the VP certain funding for operation of his office. If not, the VP could be denied staff, shut out of the West Wing and otherwise humiliated. The VP would still apparently have the right to preside over the U.S. Senate. His official residence and salary would not be subject to arbitrary changes by a president. See John C. Calhoun for an example of a VP at odds with a president. Edison (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Old musical time signatures

I found a scan of an old 1680 encyclopedia on the Internet, and was randomly looking through it when I noticed something very interesting.

Look at where it discusses time signatures: there are three marks with some sort of common-time symbol in them. The text identifies them as "Characters that distinguish the Movements in Common Time, the first [common time] implying slow, the second [cut time] brisk, the third [a sort of reversed cut time] very quick.

My question is: a) When did using time signature as an indication of tempo instead of rhythmic accent fall out of favor, and b) is there any modern descendant to the reversed cut time symbol, like common time now means 4/4 and cut time means 2/2? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was only very gradually that indications of tempo became separate from what we now call the time signature. I think the earliest occurrence of words to indicate tempo was in Luis de Milán in 1536, but became increasingly common during the 17th century. Still, the symbols for time signature never completely lost their association with tempo (they still have it -- "cut time" certainly implies fast.) I don't know of any contemporary survival of the reversed cut-time symbol (those symbols themselves are survivals of the mensural symbols of the Middle Ages -- e.g. the tempus perfectum, a circle, triple meter; and tempus imperfectum, a half-circle, two-to-a-bar). Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to our article on time signatures, indicates some older symbols that were used to indicate tempo. In the last section on proportions, it notes that the "forward c crossed " indicated a tempo modulation to double speed, while a "o crossed" represented a tempo modulation to triple speed. Perhaps the "reversed c crossed" is a variant of the "o crossed" noted in our article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that is the Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences of Ephraim Chambers, published in 1728, not 1680. Strawless (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Close enough. Well, my best guess would be 1/1 time (based on the pattern of the other two), but I've never seen 1/1 used. 69.177.191.60 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have, and it was very fast and stressful to play. I'm trying to remember where, now. Music for the Royal Fireworks? Apparently not. 79.66.58.154 (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Chinese Political Economy courses in English

Does anyone know where I can find online textbooks or lecture notes from a Chinese university on modern Chinese economic thought?Something like this: http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:O6lBkOpjb2MJ:www2.jci.jx.cn/2006/zzjjx/images/4.1.2%2520The%2520outline%2520about%E3%80%8APolitical%2520Economics%E3%80%8B.doc+%22state+monopoly+capitalism%22+%22socialist+market+economy%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

What are the mainstream economic views currently held in China, are there any resources on that topic? How have they integrated Marxism with Neoclassicalism? --Gary123 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for very academic analysis, my advice is to look to scholarly journals rather than textbooks. The reason is that the Chinese leadership isn’t all that concerned with neoClassical vs. Marxism any more. Deng Xiaoping’s cat killed off the Marxist rat once and for all (we hope). Try China Quarterly, The China Journal, China Economic Journal, China Economic Review, China and World Economy or Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal status of divorced women in history

I know the legal status was different for a woman in the 19th century and before, depending if she was married, unmarried or a widow; a married woman was under the legal guardianship of her husband. As for an unmarried woman, she was under the guardianship of her nearest male relative all her life (although this may differ between the european countries), and a widow was of legal maturity just like a man. Wat was the legal status for a divorced woman in, say, the 18th century? Was she of legal age, or under guardianship? I know, of course, that divorces was unusual in those days, but I am talking about the times when they did happen. I hope someone can answer me! Thanks!--85.226.45.121 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In the common law of England from ca. the 17th-century on, an unmarried woman was not "under the guardianship of her nearest male relative all her life". After she turned 21, an unmarried woman could make contracts, keep her earnings, and marry whom she chose. (See Coverture.) However, in wealthy families, there were frequently a variety of trust arrangements, which removed from women direct control over money or property they had inherited (though it was still supposed to be used for the benefit of themselves and their descendents)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unsure. But my question was about divorced women. Do you know that answer? By the way, it was interesting to know that unmarried women were seen as adults in England; in most countries in Europe, they were not, so England must be an exception to that rule. In my own country, (Sweden) they were minors until 1858. Can you tell me about the divorced women? I would be grateful. My question refers to the countries in Europe, were divorce were legal before ca 1850. --85.226.45.121 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the specific question you asked would be long and boring, and it's difficult to answer it with great confidence unless you're a professional legal historian. Before the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, a divorce which allowed someone to lawfully remarry while the ex-spouse was still living (and for the children of such a marriage to be considered legitimate) could only be obtained in England through a long convoluted legal and parliamentary process which only a few rich people could afford. Such a full divorce presumably would have re-established a woman's feme sole status (unless parliament said otherwise), but was quite rare. For couples who didn't want to go through the whole long and debilitating rigamarole (or for whom it wasn't realistically feasible), there was a form of legal separation which was sometimes called "divorce" (but which didn't allow lawful remairriage). To what degree a separation gave a woman effective feme sole rights was probably a quite complex question; certainly Caroline Norton found out at one point that a separation seemed to diminish her estranged husband's duty to support her economically without necessarily correspondingly diminishing his rights under coverture to appropriate any earnings she made... AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to summarize and simplify: it seems as though the ex-husband still did have rights over her, if he choose to practice them, and that she was only independent if he allowed it. I suppose after 1857, when the divorce was complete and not mere separation, she was completely independent? It would be interesting to know about other countries: does anyone know about France, Germany, Sweden etc? --85.226.43.62 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Every little helps

What advertising company does Tesco currently use? Donek (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but am I right in assuming you mean Tesco in the UK, and not say Malaysia or China? While it's possible they use the same company universally, I doubt it personally Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir Frank Lowe's company Red Brick Road are handling their UK advertising, including their new Xmas ad[1], though they will contract some work out. RBR's website has more info on their campaign. Other press stories:[2][3][4] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rational action

If an action is rational in a given circumstance if it is the action most likely to achieve an agent's ends, given the information available to him, can two differing actions be rational in identical circumstances? Has anyone written anything on this? Thanks in advance 62.30.249.131 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Buridan's ass is relevant. Algebraist 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a rational action is one most likely to achieve your goals, it's one that maximises utility (value, usefulness). Say you see your friend on the other side of the road and want to get over there before they leave and there is a pedestrian crossing nearby. You have two options, go to the crossing or cross where you are. The latter will be quicker so makes it more likely that you will get there before your friend leaves, but the former is safer. The rational choice may well be to take the slower route and risk missing your friend in order to avoid a large, although unlikely, loss (your life). Given that definition of a rational action, you can very easily get differing conclusions on what is rational with them all being just as logically valid - you just have to start from a different value system. For example, is is rational to have an abortion? The answer depends on your values (do you value the life of the fetus more or less than your convenience/health/whatever other reason you have for not wanting the child?). --Tango (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is often rational to throw a dice to decide what to do, see Game theory. Also different people in the same circumstances can have different priorities. Personally I'm rather surprised by the way people seem to have quite different motivations and yet come to the same conclusions so often, but that's practically the opposite of what you're asking. Dmcq (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Public Transportation between Springfield Mass and Hartford Conn.

I live in the Springfield area and I wish to take a job in Hartford. Unfortunatly, I do not drive a car yet I still wish to commute from Sprinfield to Hartford. Is their any low cost public transit that connects Springfield and Hartford? Are their any private companys that conduct relativly cheap van service between hartford and Springfield? I would really appreciate any information I can get on this subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.255.30 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are services that likely provide transportation to Bradley International Airport from both cities; but given that they are in different states, I am not sure that there is a single agency that provides public transport between the two cities directly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you CAN use two public services to get between Springfield and Hartford. Connecticut Transit has a connection in Enfield, Connecticut to Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. No guarantees on how convenient the connection or travel times will be to your situation. The articles above have links to the websites of these public bus services. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) The number 5 Hartford Express route map has a note at the northern terminus stating "Connections available with PVTA Route #5 to Springfield at Mass Mutual. Call 413-781-PVTA or visit www.pvta.com for information.". Google turned up a ton of other rideshare and carpool websites. --LarryMac | Talk 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This map shows that the CT Transit 5 Hartford Express connects with PVTA Route #65 to downtown Springfield, from where you can connect to other PVTA buses to other parts of the Pioneer Valley. If you check the websites of PVTA and CT Transit, you can get more info on schedules and fares. This site has a rideshare offer for a female nonsmoking rider from Forest Park, Springfield, to Downtown Hartford. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Miami tribe

Did the miami tribe of Indiana ever live close to the Great Lakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.229.142 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there's an article on that: Miami tribe. Cheers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They lived on the St. Joseph River by Lake Michigan, and along the Maumee River ("Maumee" is a variation of "Miami") near Lake Erie. —Kevin Myers 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Bao Zheng in the Water Margin

Someone told me the Water Margin mentions Judge Bao as being the reincarnation of the Wen Qu (Scholar or intellect star). Does anyone know what chapter this appears in the foreign press English translation? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I was unaware that Bao Zheng was in Water Margin at all. Having read the foreign press translation, I don't think he was ever mentioned. bibliomaniac15 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He obviously wasn't a character as he died several decades before the events of the book. However, it's possible that one character was just referring to Judge Bao and told the legend to someone. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Customs and Body Language

I forgot what channel but I watched a clip of Yasser Arafat, President Bush and someone offical from Israel. They were all having a photo op outside some building and then Bush tried to escort them both into the building. Bush wanted to be the last to walk into the building. However Arafat and the Israel did not want to enter th building first. It almost looked like they were going to have a tussle because each tried to push the other first. Then the announcer said something about an middle eastern custom were the "alpha male" (sorry, don't have a better word) always enters the building last. What is this custom? Is there a list of other customs in Wiki? --Emyn ned (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The "alpha male last" complex comes close but is a bit simplistic, I guess. Semitic custom requires anyone offered something to deny it at first. Say I offer you some chocolate cake, you are expected to say, "No, I couldn't," even though you really want it. Then the offerer is supposed to press you harder to accept. So you can see what could happen...

Bush: After you

Arafat: Oh no, you first, I insist.

Israeli Official: Ah, no, if you would do the honor...

etc.

Typically, I would imagine whoever is host of the meeting would go last. Wrad (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a Semitic custom, it's considered polite (although perhaps not required to the same extent) in the UK, at least. --Tango (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly there are varying shades of it in other cultures. Wrad (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphonse and Gaston... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a 2000 photo and caption from the Camp David Summit: heads of state Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Ehud Barak doing the "after you" routine. I can recall its being broadcast and widely perceived (as I recall in Israel) as goodnatured and revealing no actual reluctance to proceed. As regards that "alpha male" remark by Emyn ned's unidentified newscaster: it perhaps could be understood as an artifact reflecting the editorial policy of that particular media outlet, the level of professionalism of its staff, and its collective assessment of its material and audience. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation to Latin, please

Hi - I'm writing a scene where a character in renaissance times is performing a facial exercise called 'swallowing beauty'; can anyone translate that phrase to Latin for me please?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The translation will depend on what that phrase means. Does it mean "a swallowing beauty" (a beautiful man/woman in the act of swallowing)? In which case, is it a male or female beauty? Or does it mean "the act of swallowing beauty", or swallowing in a way that removes beauty? Marco polo (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good to see you, Ser Marco. Yeah, this is why using one of those online English/Latin dictionaries is no good, I suppose. The phrase means 'the act of swallowing beauty'. If possible, I'd prefer it if the translation was such that a lay person could work out what it meant. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is swallowing beauty your own phrase, Adam? I ask because both words there are less than straightforward, and you may be able to say what you're after. I think Marco is asking, Is this about someone metaphorically gobbling up beautiful things and, if so, is it about possessing beautiful things and keeping them away from others or about feeding on them, so that they are gone? Xn4 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, do you want a literal translation, or something idiomatically Latin that has a similar meaning (if we could find such a thing)? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for all this. Think of it as a yoga pose, like Salute to the Sun, or Panther Startled by Vacuum Cleaner, or whatever - he's not actually swallowing anything, but performing an exercise of the muscles of the jaw and throat to build them up, with the aim of making himself more beautiful. So the suggestion might be that he is swallowing the beauty of the world into himself, and making himself more beautiful thereby...? Does that help? Adam, I imagine an idiomatic translation would be better. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorbere formam? "To swallow beauty" Very literal. Wrad (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "haustus" would be better here, plus the genitive? So "haustus formae". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Those suggestions certainly convey the notion of taking beauty into oneself, but I can't help thinking that something involving mandere (or manducare) or vorare might better fit the muscular movements such an exercise might involve. As for "beauty," why not pulchritudo as something that might be suggestive to a "lay person" (one who's encountered the word pulchritude, at least)? Mandere pulchritudinem? Deor (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "absorbere"? That would be easily recognizable as "absorb". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful: so is it absorbere pulchritudinem, or vice versa? I must admit, I always thought pulchritude meant female beauty, specifically, but looking it up I see its meaning is more general.

The word order depends on which part you'd like to emphasize, but "absorbere pulchritudinem" seems to roll off the tongue better! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful! thanks again, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase would roll right off the tongue of someone at Hogwarts. Edison (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where was this quote originally from?

"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich"? I have heard it as a common jab at people. What is its origin? And who first said it in what context?

128.100.123.154 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer for this particular expression, but the general notion of "If you're so X, why don't you do Y" goes way back, at least as far back as the time of Jesus. When he spent 40 days in the wilderness, the Devil tempted him with "If thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it become bread". And Jesus answered unto him, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone". Later, at his crucifixion, the rulers scoffed at him, "He saved others; let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God". And the soldiers mocked him, "If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just curious! What was Jesus' reply to that? Jay (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, he asked God to forgive the soldiers, since they didn't really understand who he really was, anyway. Wrad (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it is the original context, but Louis Jordan had a hit song (written by Walter Bishop) called "If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" in 1951. It's probably where that particular phrasing was popularized. It's the earliest the phrase is mentioned in any form in US newspapers according to ProQuest. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Partridge, E., Beale, P. (1992). A Dictionary of Catch Phrases. OCLC 26628502 guesses around 1920 for original use, but Aristotle's tale of Thales and his olive presses in Politics[5] probably shows that the sentiment is a bit older.—eric 06:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

David Lewis had a paper called "Why ain'cha Rich" in Noûs (Volume 15, No. 3, 1981). It was about the failure of game theory to predict rational action. But I doubt that this is what you're after. Llamabr (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Private Citizen Bailout?

Is there a process by which a private US citizen can apply for a portion of the federal bailout money? Not for their business - just for their self or their family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikingshaun (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Private citizen bailout" is called unemployment benefits and welfare. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. We pay for unemployment benefits on every check. The mortgage and auto industry didn't pay for their bailouts. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, they paid taxes just like every other company. Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they did not pay any taxes for the bailouts. Not a single penny. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Er they paid general taxes. Perhaps things work differently in the US but as far as I'm aware in the vast majority of countries welfare is paid for by general taxation too. You don't pay a special tax for welfare, nor do you pay more if you have used or may use welfare nor do you get a rebate if you have never used welfare. You still get welfare if you've never paid a cent in tax. So I don't really get your point. (None of this answers whether the bailouts or welfare are justified of course, that's irrelevant) Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Every year, the President submits an annual budget to Congress. All income derived from taxes has already been allocated. In fact, the US government has been operating at a deficit for a long time now. The national debt currently stands at $59.1 trillion or $516,348 per household. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Give or take $52.7 trillion . . . http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So is your complaint it was not part of the budget? If so what did you mean by "We pay for unemployment benefits on every check"? I should point out that emergency spending that comes in between budgets is, I'm pretty sure, not unheard of in most countries, including I presume the US (actually these can be considered an additional budget or mini-budget). If your trying to argue that welfare is paid for by taxes but the bailouts are not because the US has a deficit, I could just as well argue that welfare is not paid for by taxes but by the deficit. Indeed you could even argue that you should cut out welfare for the next X years and use that money (which can be tax money if you want) to fund the bailouts if you want. Ultimately the whole argument is going nowhere. If you want to attack the bailout, you should attack it for other reasons like effectiveness, fairness, etc etc (and do so elsewhere since the RD isn't the place for such a discussion), not the moot point of whether the money is coming from taxation and whether thats the same source as welfare. (There's nothing wrong with opposing an increase in spending, but that's a different issue too and also not one for the RD) Ultimately what it comes down to is that the US government pays for all their spending including bailouts and welfare from the federal budget. Incoming for that budget comes form a variety of sources including taxation and debt. Trying to ringfence parts of the spending and say this comes from taxation, this comes from the debt doesn't make much sense unless perhaps the money is actually ringfenced when it is collected. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm simply pointing out the fact that they did not pay taxes for the bailout. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't pay taxes "for" something, you just pay taxes. They did pay taxes. --Tango (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Sure you do. Unemployment benefits are paid through a tax on your income. Look up the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. But as I already pointed out, the budget for 2008 has already been passed and all the money allocated. The only way the auto industry could have possibly paid taxes for the bailout is if for some reason they were paying extra taxes. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that what I've been (trying to) saying all along. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxes have lots of different names, but that's all just political. Tax is tax. It all goes into one pot and it all comes out of one pot. The corporations paid corporation tax, that went into the public finances and the bailout came out of those same public finances. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The point that 67.184 wants to make is that employed individuals in the United States pay a payroll tax specifically for unemployment insurance. This comes out of every American's paycheck, and the money goes into a fund dedicated to unemployment insurance. If claims on any state's unemployment fund exceed the money available, the state receives a loan from the Federal government that must be repaid with interest. So workers in the United States really do pay directly and explicitly for their own unemployment benefits. By contrast, corporations do not pay a "corporate bailout tax", and there is no fund of money set aside for this purpose. So 67.184 is making, in my opinion, a valid distinction between bailouts granted by the government and insurance benefits prepaid by individuals. Marco polo (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The great debate here is the difference between "Should we give federal money to people who messed up their own businesses this bad" and "What is going to happen to the country should these businesses fail". IOW, Is it better to directly reward incompetance, if it prevents the rest of us from suffering the ill effects of that incompetance, or should we let the incompetant go down, and let them take us all with them. Its not pretty regardless of which side you come down on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationalisation gives an alternative to those options - those that were incompetent are replaced and get nothing but the employees and customers are (largely) unaffected. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationalization replaces the stockholders but I wouldn't bet much on its replacing the managers. Here's an idea: if a corporation is to be subsidized because it is "too big to fail", break it into pieces small enough to fail. —Tamfang (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)