Woo Hoo! Just wanted to say real quick that the legislation in Mississippi to ban abortions and prohibit all sorts of other stuff by making life begin at fertilization has FAILED!!! Also, the legislation in Mississippi to require some form of identification in order to vote has PASSED!!!
Yeah if they can't pass stuff like that in Mississippi of all places, they'll have a hell of time passing it in the rest of the country.
I'm a registered Republican, but I for one couldn't be happier to see that Mississippi's "Initiative 26" failed, and that "Initiative 27" passed.
To those who don't know what those are;
♦Initiative 26 (failed) - The measure proposes adding language to the Mississippi Constitution that declares that life begins at "the moment of fertilization".
♦Initiative 27(passed) - The measure requires voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote.
Last I checked you've got a window to vote, I'm sure you don't need the day off work just to accomplish it.
u misunderstood. i want to skip work. i couldnt care less about the voting. i live in a liberal area thats part of a conservative state. thats probably not going to change in my lifetime.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
1. Less tax breaks? There's plenty that aren't necessary.
Yes, less tax breaks. Fewer people being able to game the system means more revenue, which means the progressive tax rate isn't disrupted by individuals who have the funds to game the system with unscrupulous accounting. It would be very easy to reduce taxes in every bracket as a result.
Why? Tax credits for children promote irresponsible family growth at the expense of the state. It's a burden on responsible parents and people without children alike.
4. That sounds like a bad idea. How are you supposed to get out of the re-occurring scenario of food stamps etc if you can't afford anything to sustain yourself?
Being refunded a tiny ammount of tax money doesn't improve your odds of getting a job. Federal assitance far out-weighs the tax refund ammount, so I felt this was one path of least-resistance to appease republican voters.
5. I'm not sure the current % that Capital Gains are set at, but whatever Income is taxed at, should be what Capital Gains is at.
It's 15%, which is an all-time low and while I suggested raising it, bringing it to the level of income tax is not realistic in a capitalist society that relies on investment.
Reduction in the payroll tax means working people pay less whatever the windfall from the new capital gains rate is. I imagine it would be a few percent at most, but reducing payroll taxes is a win for everyone since they (working class) are the most abundant consumers.
7. That is obviously unfair, and aimed against rich people for being rich.
The estate tax was designed to do that. It was drawn up after the guilded age when Rockafeller/Morgan/Carnegie like families were accumulating wealth much faster than it was being returned to the economy. We've recently seen a similar trend in wealth accumulation at the top, but unlike back then our estate tax is now aimed at even trivially small estates which are hurt far more by the tax. My example was a bit extreme, but it accounts for the essence of the original tax which was to prevent oligarch dynasties from solidifying massive economic power over decades.
Why? Military industrial complex corporations milk the government and have done so for decades. It's a bloody business that's a hideously inefficient expenditure to boot.
5. What? That one is confusing in how it's worded but it sounds like.... F old people?
It sustains the medicare system by forcing it to work within it's budget rather than deplete the system whenever a retiring generation dwarfs it's subsequent payers. Without this change anyone under 40 is probably never going to see a dime of the social security money they paid up all their working lives.
6. Paying down the debt sounds fine, along with infrastucture repair, but who gets to decide which "scientific research" gets the money? That's a very big deal.
The same way it's decided right now. National foundations for scientific research award grants all the time. If you want to know how that works, google it.
Are you a huge fan of President Bush or just unaware that HLS is only a wasteful red-tape umbrella for pre-existing defense and intelligence agencies who worked together for decades prior to it's existence?
5. I have mixed feelings on this one. Are we going to tax the hell out of every single drug we're legalizing, much akin to tobacco? Also, maybe rehabilitation as opposed to just releasing people out of jail who are there for illegal substance charges. Prison normally makes worse criminals out of people, I'd had to see someone go to prison for possession and come out a legitimately bad criminal.
I don't really care if taxes come into play, but the war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar waste that hasn't done a thing but increase prison populations and fill the pockets of drug cartels (much like bootlegging gangsters during prohibiton).
6. Way to complicated to just blanket with "make them do more time". Each case/sentence/charge is different. Do not try and equate rape & murder to money laundering.
Did I make that comparison? Nope. But, if someone commits fraud or embezzels millions they'll go to jain for a shoter period of time than someone who robbed a gas station of 20 bucks. That's a problem because both are cases of theft and neither person should get off with a slap on the wrist.
8. I don't see a problem with salary caps for government workers, but I don't think every position should be at median-household-income. Some are more difficult and thus deserve a proportionally higher pay rate (though also capped).
I see it as an incentive for public service with positive outcomes, but you're right, some jobs are harder than others. I'd support making it a little more stratified in some cases.
1. Less tax breaks? There's plenty that aren't necessary.
Yes, less tax breaks. Fewer people being able to game the system means more revenue, which means the progressive tax rate isn't disrupted by individuals who have the funds to game the system with unscrupulous accounting. It would be very easy to reduce taxes in every bracket as a result.
Why? Tax credits for children promote irresponsible family growth at the expense of the state. It's a burden on responsible parents and people without children alike.
4. That sounds like a bad idea. How are you supposed to get out of the re-occurring scenario of food stamps etc if you can't afford anything to sustain yourself?
Being refunded a tiny ammount of tax money doesn't improve your odds of getting a job. Federal assitance far out-weighs the tax refund ammount, so I felt this was one path of least-resistance to appease republican voters.
5. I'm not sure the current % that Capital Gains are set at, but whatever Income is taxed at, should be what Capital Gains is at.
It's 15%, which is an all-time low and while I suggested raising it, bringing it to the level of income tax is not realistic in a capitalist society that relies on investment.
Reduction in the payroll tax means working people pay less whatever the windfall from the new capital gains rate is. I imagine it would be a few percent at most, but reducing payroll taxes is a win for everyone since they (working class) are the most abundant consumers.
7. That is obviously unfair, and aimed against rich people for being rich.
The estate tax was designed to do that. It was drawn up after the guilded age when Rockafeller/Morgan/Carnegie like families were accumulating wealth much faster than it was being returned to the economy. We've recently seen a similar trend in wealth accumulation at the top, but unlike back then our estate tax is now aimed at even trivially small estates which are hurt far more by the tax. My example was a bit extreme, but it accounts for the essence of the original tax which was to prevent oligarch dynasties from solidifying massive economic power over decades.
Why? Military industrial complex corporations milk the government and have done so for decades. It's a bloody business that's a hideously inefficient expenditure to boot.
5. What? That one is confusing in how it's worded but it sounds like.... F old people?
It sustains the medicare system by forcing it to work within it's budget rather than deplete the system whenever a retiring generation dwarfs it's subsequent payers. Without this change anyone under 40 is probably never going to see a dime of the social security money they paid up all their working lives.
6. Paying down the debt sounds fine, along with infrastucture repair, but who gets to decide which "scientific research" gets the money? That's a very big deal.
The same way it's decided right now. National foundations for scientific research award grants all the time. If you want to know how that works, google it.
Are you a huge fan of President Bush or just unaware that HLS is only a wasteful red-tape umbrella for pre-existing defense and intelligence agencies who worked together for decades prior to it's existence?
5. I have mixed feelings on this one. Are we going to tax the hell out of every single drug we're legalizing, much akin to tobacco? Also, maybe rehabilitation as opposed to just releasing people out of jail who are there for illegal substance charges. Prison normally makes worse criminals out of people, I'd had to see someone go to prison for possession and come out a legitimately bad criminal.
I don't really care if taxes come into play, but the war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar waste that hasn't done a thing but increase prison populations and fill the pockets of drug cartels (much like bootlegging gangsters during prohibiton).
6. Way to complicated to just blanket with "make them do more time". Each case/sentence/charge is different. Do not try and equate rape & murder to money laundering.
Did I make that comparison? Nope. But, if someone commits fraud or embezzels millions they'll go to jain for a shoter period of time than someone who robbed a gas station of 20 bucks. That's a problem because both are cases of theft and neither person should get off with a slap on the wrist.
8. I don't see a problem with salary caps for government workers, but I don't think every position should be at median-household-income. Some are more difficult and thus deserve a proportionally higher pay rate (though also capped).
I see it as an incentive for public service with positive outcomes, but you're right, some jobs are harder than others. I'd support making it a little more stratified in some cases.
Man these uber-long posts are hard to reply to but;
1. Less tax breaks is what I was suggesting, you wanted NO tax breaks.
2. Tax credits for children help single parents who don't really have a choice if their spouse (male or female, doesn't matter) decides they no longer want to be in the marriage. Child support traditionally isn't really enough to completely cover the costs of a child.
4. Being refunded a bit of tax money can help an individual, who is forced to use the SNAP system, afford things that can help them get a job. I.E. new clothing, hair cut, possibly more gas so they can expand their search area for employment, etc.
5. I don't see why capital gains should be taxed at a higher percentage than income. If you tax is all that much higher then you'll see a lot LESS investments because higher-ups in corporations who currently pay themselves $0 a year (and instead give themselves equal compensation through other means, in order to get more 'bang for the buck') will instead start paying themselves salaries. I'm sure many other examples exist. Keep (or adjust) capital gains & income taxes to be equal.
6. I didn't comment because I didn't know enough about that particular topic to put my 2-cents in. However, this sounds like more "F the rich people, we outnumber them" sort of thing, as opposed to the logic of "equal rates and treatment for everyone regardless of how much they make/have".
7. Throw a non-sarcastic number out there and I'll give ya my opinion on it.
----
1. At this point in particular, I think I'm a bit biased. I'm a veteran and I loved having the opportunity to travel to other countries for my work. I'd hate to see that go. I know a LOT of people sign up & enlist with 'travel' as a top reason why. Also, having a base in Germany lets us react that much faster to any crisis in the Middle East or Africa.
2. I said mostly no. I'm sure we could save plenty of money in specific cuts on military spending. For example, development of more advanced joint-strike fighters when our F-22's and F-35's are far ahead of any tech any other country has.
4. Alright, well how about a middle ground. If the govt. gives a company funding and then they hire overseas, BUT the reason is because a huge savings in costs, will the govt. give them tax breaks to supplement the difference in losses by hiring in the U.S. for that position instead? Example; Apple makes a HUGE profit margin every year. They hire and do a ton of their product assembly etc in other countries because they can pay lower salaries and end up saving tons of money. Why should a company (of which the point is to make money & products) lose profits in order to hire here? There has to be a middle ground.
5. The entire medicare system is a ridiculously over-complicated ponzy scheme anyways and needs to be heavily reworked. It's a lot more complex than 1 simple fix to cure all of it's ailments.
6. Would this be voted on in the first place then? I'm willing to bet there are millions of Americans who would prefer for this surplus money to not be spent on scientific research & instead be used to pay back more of our debt or repair more infrastructure. And I'm sure there's people who feel the opposite way as well.
----
1. WOO HOO we've agreed on something!
4. To eliminate the department altogether would put us in an unnecessarily vulnerable position due to a sudden gap in intelligence. I don't doubt one bit that there is wasteful spending in the DHS just as there is in most other government organizations. Let's trim the fat instead of throwing it away.
5. I think only libertarians want all drugs legalized, but anyways. There would have to be a ton of additional things done. There needs to be an age limit to these newly-legalized drugs (like cigarettes & liquor) and those laws would have to be enforced. Also, as much as I kind of hate it, we imprison or at least begin to bring together charges on violent drug dealers through drug busts, which open them up to further investigation. That's much akin to how we ended up catching Al Capone (through tax code violations). Long story short, I suppose I'm in favor of legalizing things and letting idiot kill themselves with insanely harmful drugs, so long as there are laws in place to protect minors.
8. I think we pretty much came to a consensus on this one too. 2-out-of-16 lol.
Last I checked you've got a window to vote, I'm sure you don't need the day off work just to accomplish it.
u misunderstood. i want to skip work. i couldnt care less about the voting. i live in a liberal area thats part of a conservative state. thats probably not going to change in my lifetime.
Could always just make a fake doctors appointment? Since the goal is to get out of work one way or another lol.
Taxes! The government spends our money like irresponsible teens handed their first credit card. Until our government proves it has a shred of fiduciary responsibility and quits misappropriating the money it already gets, I don't want to hear anything about raising taxes. As it stands I might as well just take 25% of my money and go throw it in a fire.
I saw Bill Clinton on The Daily Show last night and he had all these great ideas of what to do with taxes to increase revenues, spur growth, and pay down the national debt. He like everyone else on TV missed the elephant in the room which I have been harping on here for some time. It's mathematically impossible to grow our way out of this mess with especially with taxes. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-november-8-2011-bill-clinton
78/m baby boomers retiring into a tax base of 51/m Generation-Xers, we're not growing our way out of anything!
We have already passed the 70% point of no return with respect of debt to GDP. The last chance to nip it was in 2001. Just like the time to deal with housing bubble was before it became a bubble. For this post, I'll overlook some glaring things Clinton Summers, Rubin, and Geithner did help create the conditions which greased the wheels for the crash of 2008.
Ghost, you're expressing a lot of progressive opinions. Are you sure that you're a registered republican?
And Vegas, Clinton is marching the party line. He's always been a pragmatic and effective politican, never an ideas man. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I wouldn't take anything in his new book seriously and doubt anyone else will either.
Ghost, you're expressing a lot of progressive opinions. Are you sure that you're a registered republican?
And Vegas, Clinton is marching the party line. He's always been a pragmatic and effective politican, never an ideas man. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I wouldn't take anything in his new book seriously and doubt anyone else will either.
Haha yes I'm sure I'm a registered Republican. I, unlike most people who align themselves with any political party, actually prefer having ideals as opposed to just copy/pasting my registered parties ideas. You either register independent, or you register the side you have more in common with. Or neither lol.
As far as specific things that Republicans are against, like drugs, I've got mixed feelings. Like I said, if they're gonna do something with it I guess they could legalize & heavily tax it (libertarian P.O.V.) and whoever dies from black tar heroine.... fuck em. Personally I hate drugs though. I don't even smoke cigarettes and I barely ever drink, most alcohol tastes like shit.
6. Way to complicated to just blanket with "make them do more time". Each case/sentence/charge is different. Do not try and equate rape & murder to money laundering.
Did I make that comparison? Nope. But, if someone commits fraud or embezzels millions they'll go to jain for a shoter period of time than someone who robbed a gas station of 20 bucks. That's a problem because both are cases of theft and neither person should get off with a slap on the wrist.
6. The major difference here (with your example) is that someone who goes into a gas station to rob them of $20 more-than-likely used some form of a weapon. That puts another person in a situation with possible direct physical harm. The law sees this as a much harsher crime and I for one agree that holding someone at gunpoint while stealing from them is worse than stealing through fraud/embezzling. If you held someone at gunpoint WHILE embezzling, I'm sure you'd get the worst sentence out of all 3 examples.
And Vegas, Clinton is marching the party line. He's always been a pragmatic and effective politican, never an ideas man. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I wouldn't take anything in his new book seriously and doubt anyone else will either.
I agree he's marching the party line. My issue with Clinton is this; when President with the help of Summers, Geithner, and Rubin (same folks working with Obama) played a role in the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act to allow for the formation of the too big to fail bank Citigroup. That ushered in all these asinine side parlor bets and derivatives that eventually lead to the 2008 crash. Also under Clinton he discounted long term discouraged workers changing how unemployment was calculated. Real unemployment is closer to 24% using the older measuring stick. He also took Reagan's hedonic adjustments on the CPI and twisted them more to the point you can't trust the CPI.
so what exactly are you protesting? the fact that those people found a way to make money and you didn't? if you were one of those people making all the money you wouldn't care. this is just people who think they deserve something in life when no one deserves anything. work hard and make something of yourself and stop looking for the government or anyone to help you, expect everyone to shit on you because that's life. protesting is going to do nothing, absolutely nothing.
if you want to make a difference, get into politics. that's the only way your going to accomplish anything at all. because you'll never get millions of people to protest this, which is what you would need to change anything. because they're too busy living their lives and not blaming their troubles on other people or institutions. "oh nos government is shitting on the little guy" and this is different in any point in HISTORY how? unlike many years ago "peasants" didn't have rights to do or say anything. now you do and you waste it on complaining about how you deserve more rights. every person in America has the opportunity to make good money, unless your stuck with 5 kids (your fault) living in the ghetto with a shit job and you have no time to get a new one. and in that case, how do you have time to protest?
actually do something productive and try and make a change, standing in the streets holding signs is wasting your life, and time is money.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
I guess they could legalize & heavily tax it (libertarian P.O.V.)
Taxes? Not a libertarian PoV. That would be a liberal PoV.
Perhaps, but the nice thing about legalizing and taxing it is this. The conservatives will be upset that it's legal, but happy that it's HEAVILY taxed. The liberals will be upset that it's taxed, but happy that it's legal. Even being 1/2 happy is way above average when both parties are concerned simultaneously. It's like having 1-in-5 odds at a casino, insanely high in your favor.
Perhaps, but the nice thing about legalizing and taxing it is this. The conservatives will be upset that it's legal, but happy that it's HEAVILY taxed. The liberals will be upset that it's taxed, but happy that it's legal. Even being 1/2 happy is way above average when both parties are concerned simultaneously. It's like having 1-in-5 odds at a casino, insanely high in your favor.
Not really "perhaps," at all. Libertarians don't believe in taxation, period. Don't mis-construe the neo-conservative faux-libertarian ideology with the real deal (Ron Paul). Conservatives would NOT be happy, at all, that it is legal. Liberals would be OVERJOYED that it's taxed (they love taxes on vice).
I'm not disputing the odds, but I think you're seriously confused about what the political parties we have stand for.
Perhaps, but the nice thing about legalizing and taxing it is this. The conservatives will be upset that it's legal, but happy that it's HEAVILY taxed. The liberals will be upset that it's taxed, but happy that it's legal. Even being 1/2 happy is way above average when both parties are concerned simultaneously. It's like having 1-in-5 odds at a casino, insanely high in your favor.
Not really "perhaps," at all. Libertarians don't believe in taxation, period. Don't mis-construe the neo-conservative faux-libertarian ideology with the real deal (Ron Paul). Conservatives would NOT be happy, at all, that it is legal. Liberals would be OVERJOYED that it's taxed (they love taxes on vice).
I'm not disputing the odds, but I think you're seriously confused about what the political parties we have stand for.
i was replying to the OP, not the random arguments that occurred over 20 pages
Oh, then you should find whatever arguments you were looking for in the next 20 pages. Good luck.
Hmm not sure, I replied at like 4am and was quiet tired lol. SOME conservatives would be happy, I think the Republican party however might be overall-unhappy. Conservative isn't a political party nor is liberal. They're generalized categorized outlooks. You can be a pro-choice conservative for example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Double good job Mississippi, I'm proud of you.
Interesting I just made my 999th post, and that's no endorsement for Herman Cain
I'm a registered Republican, but I for one couldn't be happier to see that Mississippi's "Initiative 26" failed, and that "Initiative 27" passed.
To those who don't know what those are;
♦Initiative 26 (failed) - The measure proposes adding language to the Mississippi Constitution that declares that life begins at "the moment of fertilization".
♦Initiative 27(passed) - The measure requires voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Why? Tax credits for children promote irresponsible family growth at the expense of the state. It's a burden on responsible parents and people without children alike.
Being refunded a tiny ammount of tax money doesn't improve your odds of getting a job. Federal assitance far out-weighs the tax refund ammount, so I felt this was one path of least-resistance to appease republican voters.
It's 15%, which is an all-time low and while I suggested raising it, bringing it to the level of income tax is not realistic in a capitalist society that relies on investment.
Reduction in the payroll tax means working people pay less whatever the windfall from the new capital gains rate is. I imagine it would be a few percent at most, but reducing payroll taxes is a win for everyone since they (working class) are the most abundant consumers.
The estate tax was designed to do that. It was drawn up after the guilded age when Rockafeller/Morgan/Carnegie like families were accumulating wealth much faster than it was being returned to the economy. We've recently seen a similar trend in wealth accumulation at the top, but unlike back then our estate tax is now aimed at even trivially small estates which are hurt far more by the tax. My example was a bit extreme, but it accounts for the essence of the original tax which was to prevent oligarch dynasties from solidifying massive economic power over decades.
Why? What benefit do we gain from having bases everywhere from Korea to Germany? It's wasteful.
Why? Military industrial complex corporations milk the government and have done so for decades. It's a bloody business that's a hideously inefficient expenditure to boot.
Unrealistic.
It sustains the medicare system by forcing it to work within it's budget rather than deplete the system whenever a retiring generation dwarfs it's subsequent payers. Without this change anyone under 40 is probably never going to see a dime of the social security money they paid up all their working lives.
The same way it's decided right now. National foundations for scientific research award grants all the time. If you want to know how that works, google it.
Fair enough.
Are you a huge fan of President Bush or just unaware that HLS is only a wasteful red-tape umbrella for pre-existing defense and intelligence agencies who worked together for decades prior to it's existence?
I don't really care if taxes come into play, but the war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar waste that hasn't done a thing but increase prison populations and fill the pockets of drug cartels (much like bootlegging gangsters during prohibiton).
Did I make that comparison? Nope. But, if someone commits fraud or embezzels millions they'll go to jain for a shoter period of time than someone who robbed a gas station of 20 bucks. That's a problem because both are cases of theft and neither person should get off with a slap on the wrist.
I see it as an incentive for public service with positive outcomes, but you're right, some jobs are harder than others. I'd support making it a little more stratified in some cases.
Man these uber-long posts are hard to reply to but;
1. Less tax breaks is what I was suggesting, you wanted NO tax breaks.
2. Tax credits for children help single parents who don't really have a choice if their spouse (male or female, doesn't matter) decides they no longer want to be in the marriage. Child support traditionally isn't really enough to completely cover the costs of a child.
4. Being refunded a bit of tax money can help an individual, who is forced to use the SNAP system, afford things that can help them get a job. I.E. new clothing, hair cut, possibly more gas so they can expand their search area for employment, etc.
5. I don't see why capital gains should be taxed at a higher percentage than income. If you tax is all that much higher then you'll see a lot LESS investments because higher-ups in corporations who currently pay themselves $0 a year (and instead give themselves equal compensation through other means, in order to get more 'bang for the buck') will instead start paying themselves salaries. I'm sure many other examples exist. Keep (or adjust) capital gains & income taxes to be equal.
6. I didn't comment because I didn't know enough about that particular topic to put my 2-cents in. However, this sounds like more "F the rich people, we outnumber them" sort of thing, as opposed to the logic of "equal rates and treatment for everyone regardless of how much they make/have".
7. Throw a non-sarcastic number out there and I'll give ya my opinion on it.
----
1. At this point in particular, I think I'm a bit biased. I'm a veteran and I loved having the opportunity to travel to other countries for my work. I'd hate to see that go. I know a LOT of people sign up & enlist with 'travel' as a top reason why. Also, having a base in Germany lets us react that much faster to any crisis in the Middle East or Africa.
2. I said mostly no. I'm sure we could save plenty of money in specific cuts on military spending. For example, development of more advanced joint-strike fighters when our F-22's and F-35's are far ahead of any tech any other country has.
4. Alright, well how about a middle ground. If the govt. gives a company funding and then they hire overseas, BUT the reason is because a huge savings in costs, will the govt. give them tax breaks to supplement the difference in losses by hiring in the U.S. for that position instead? Example; Apple makes a HUGE profit margin every year. They hire and do a ton of their product assembly etc in other countries because they can pay lower salaries and end up saving tons of money. Why should a company (of which the point is to make money & products) lose profits in order to hire here? There has to be a middle ground.
5. The entire medicare system is a ridiculously over-complicated ponzy scheme anyways and needs to be heavily reworked. It's a lot more complex than 1 simple fix to cure all of it's ailments.
6. Would this be voted on in the first place then? I'm willing to bet there are millions of Americans who would prefer for this surplus money to not be spent on scientific research & instead be used to pay back more of our debt or repair more infrastructure. And I'm sure there's people who feel the opposite way as well.
----
1. WOO HOO we've agreed on something!
4. To eliminate the department altogether would put us in an unnecessarily vulnerable position due to a sudden gap in intelligence. I don't doubt one bit that there is wasteful spending in the DHS just as there is in most other government organizations. Let's trim the fat instead of throwing it away.
5. I think only libertarians want all drugs legalized, but anyways. There would have to be a ton of additional things done. There needs to be an age limit to these newly-legalized drugs (like cigarettes & liquor) and those laws would have to be enforced. Also, as much as I kind of hate it, we imprison or at least begin to bring together charges on violent drug dealers through drug busts, which open them up to further investigation. That's much akin to how we ended up catching Al Capone (through tax code violations). Long story short, I suppose I'm in favor of legalizing things and letting idiot kill themselves with insanely harmful drugs, so long as there are laws in place to protect minors.
8. I think we pretty much came to a consensus on this one too. 2-out-of-16 lol.
Could always just make a fake doctors appointment? Since the goal is to get out of work one way or another lol.
I saw Bill Clinton on The Daily Show last night and he had all these great ideas of what to do with taxes to increase revenues, spur growth, and pay down the national debt. He like everyone else on TV missed the elephant in the room which I have been harping on here for some time. It's mathematically impossible to grow our way out of this mess with especially with taxes.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-november-8-2011-bill-clinton
We have already passed the 70% point of no return with respect of debt to GDP. The last chance to nip it was in 2001. Just like the time to deal with housing bubble was before it became a bubble. For this post, I'll overlook some glaring things Clinton Summers, Rubin, and Geithner did help create the conditions which greased the wheels for the crash of 2008.
And Vegas, Clinton is marching the party line. He's always been a pragmatic and effective politican, never an ideas man. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I wouldn't take anything in his new book seriously and doubt anyone else will either.
Haha yes I'm sure I'm a registered Republican. I, unlike most people who align themselves with any political party, actually prefer having ideals as opposed to just copy/pasting my registered parties ideas. You either register independent, or you register the side you have more in common with. Or neither lol.
As far as specific things that Republicans are against, like drugs, I've got mixed feelings. Like I said, if they're gonna do something with it I guess they could legalize & heavily tax it (libertarian P.O.V.) and whoever dies from black tar heroine.... fuck em. Personally I hate drugs though. I don't even smoke cigarettes and I barely ever drink, most alcohol tastes like shit.
6. The major difference here (with your example) is that someone who goes into a gas station to rob them of $20 more-than-likely used some form of a weapon. That puts another person in a situation with possible direct physical harm. The law sees this as a much harsher crime and I for one agree that holding someone at gunpoint while stealing from them is worse than stealing through fraud/embezzling. If you held someone at gunpoint WHILE embezzling, I'm sure you'd get the worst sentence out of all 3 examples.
I agree he's marching the party line. My issue with Clinton is this; when President with the help of Summers, Geithner, and Rubin (same folks working with Obama) played a role in the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act to allow for the formation of the too big to fail bank Citigroup. That ushered in all these asinine side parlor bets and derivatives that eventually lead to the 2008 crash. Also under Clinton he discounted long term discouraged workers changing how unemployment was calculated. Real unemployment is closer to 24% using the older measuring stick. He also took Reagan's hedonic adjustments on the CPI and twisted them more to the point you can't trust the CPI.
Cute, but it is factual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUHmxBEZeU0
We can thank Henry Kissinger for that.
if you want to make a difference, get into politics. that's the only way your going to accomplish anything at all. because you'll never get millions of people to protest this, which is what you would need to change anything. because they're too busy living their lives and not blaming their troubles on other people or institutions. "oh nos government is shitting on the little guy" and this is different in any point in HISTORY how? unlike many years ago "peasants" didn't have rights to do or say anything. now you do and you waste it on complaining about how you deserve more rights. every person in America has the opportunity to make good money, unless your stuck with 5 kids (your fault) living in the ghetto with a shit job and you have no time to get a new one. and in that case, how do you have time to protest?
actually do something productive and try and make a change, standing in the streets holding signs is wasting your life, and time is money.
Pure evil.
Prob wanna read the thread before you post. It's been a while since we were on the topic and i'm not sure anyone cares.
i was replying to the OP, not the random arguments that occurred over 20 pages
Perhaps, but the nice thing about legalizing and taxing it is this. The conservatives will be upset that it's legal, but happy that it's HEAVILY taxed. The liberals will be upset that it's taxed, but happy that it's legal. Even being 1/2 happy is way above average when both parties are concerned simultaneously. It's like having 1-in-5 odds at a casino, insanely high in your favor.
Not really "perhaps," at all. Libertarians don't believe in taxation, period. Don't mis-construe the neo-conservative faux-libertarian ideology with the real deal (Ron Paul). Conservatives would NOT be happy, at all, that it is legal. Liberals would be OVERJOYED that it's taxed (they love taxes on vice).
I'm not disputing the odds, but I think you're seriously confused about what the political parties we have stand for.
Oh, then you should find whatever arguments you were looking for in the next 20 pages. Good luck.
Yes, a smart evil man, a real life Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious character.
Hmm not sure, I replied at like 4am and was quiet tired lol. SOME conservatives would be happy, I think the Republican party however might be overall-unhappy. Conservative isn't a political party nor is liberal. They're generalized categorized outlooks. You can be a pro-choice conservative for example.