I have personal experience trying to fight a "local" bank over charges they made on my account. In total fees which was not my fault, 458 dollars. why, well because the bank with-held my check over the weekend from my work (so normal direct deposit) and I had a automatic payment which came out on Monday (day after the weekend) at 902 am, well the bank released the funds just after that transaction went through. I got all the documents which all had dates and times of their mistake but they just said, oh well we can't refund all the money but here's a 50 dollar charge-back. I hired an attorney and after a few weeks finally got it all taken care of, but it ended up costing me much more than the 400 dollars. especially when I had to take off work to look for one, and gas, and more days off to meet with them. That's when I fully learned that middle income people are really on the noose by banks and large companies. This wasn't even a super large company...
i would pull all my money from that bank and do business elsewhere.
I don't believe I am saying that Canada is the most successful in health care and I don't Laker did as well. I'm sure they have problems as well, but it's still better than what we have. The speculation and talks in the new admin that have mentioned national health care for the US never said it would be the only way... That was never mentioned. It would be an option. I know the Oregon health plan is much better than any other insurance led plan here, wish I was on it.
I have personal experience trying to fight a "local" bank over charges they made on my account. In total fees which was not my fault, 458 dollars. why, well because the bank with-held my check over the weekend from my work (so normal direct deposit) and I had a automatic payment which came out on Monday (day after the weekend) at 902 am, well the bank released the funds just after that transaction went through. I got all the documents which all had dates and times of their mistake but they just said, oh well we can't refund all the money but here's a 50 dollar charge-back. I hired an attorney and after a few weeks finally got it all taken care of, but it ended up costing me much more than the 400 dollars. especially when I had to take off work to look for one, and gas, and more days off to meet with them. That's when I fully learned that middle income people are really on the noose by banks and large companies. This wasn't even a super large company...
i would pull all my money from that bank and do business elsewhere.
I did, but no blow to them, wish I had a few million to though...
Exactly kuzi, because your so in love with the idea that large "private" corporations should do things their way. Millionaires get to negotiate terms when they go into bankruptcy.. why shouldn't normal people? Well because rich people are allowed to make mistakes. NO those banks do not have the right to foreclose on people who were manipulated. I don't know the legal mumbo-jumbo but the bill had strict guidelines. Still it is much better for the value of the area, the people, and the banks to re-negotiate a loan. Another look at how the large businesses have a grip on the throat of the American People, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/republicans-defend-tax-ha_n_195617.html.
normal people do get to negotiate their terms in bankruptcy. thats part of the reason you need a lawyer. the banks have the right to foreclose on people who dont pay their bills. Manipulation is a very different issue. thats not what you said before. a bank does not have the right to manipulate people. this is theft. there is a huge difference.
i cant speak much on tax havens. let me do some reading and try to learn a bit before i make an opinion one way or another.
but my initial reaction is, good for them. they found a loophole in the tax code. of course this is an uninformed reaction....
Kuzi, maybe you have a attorney and can afford it but many people can not, so how is it fair? Oh so if you want to keep your home just hire a lawyer to fight a bank or company who has a whole team and maybe a team for the team. That makes so much sense. So corporations can put a hold on people and just take a chance on someone coming after them with an attorney, yeah they can afford it.
i cant afford an attorney. again you all assume that i am a "big rich republican" there are some things worth going into debt over. a lawyer in that situation may be one of them. of course it would be better if they didnt get into that mess in the first place. personal responsibility is a huge roll in this. I am quick to blame myself rather than others. I am in debt. why am i in debt? because i took out loans. not because banks are evil.
I have personal experience trying to fight a "local" bank over charges they made on my account. In total fees which was not my fault, 458 dollars. why, well because the bank with-held my check over the weekend from my work (so normal direct deposit) and I had a automatic payment which came out on Monday (day after the weekend) at 902 am, well the bank released the funds just after that transaction went through. I got all the documents which all had dates and times of their mistake but they just said, oh well we can't refund all the money but here's a 50 dollar charge-back. I hired an attorney and after a few weeks finally got it all taken care of, but it ended up costing me much more than the 400 dollars. especially when I had to take off work to look for one, and gas, and more days off to meet with them. That's when I fully learned that middle income people are really on the noose by banks and large companies. This wasn't even a super large company...
i would pull all my money from that bank and do business elsewhere.
I did, but no blow to them, wish I had a few million to though...
I don't believe I am saying that Canada is the most successful in health care and I don't Laker did as well. I'm sure they have problems as well, but it's still better than what we have. The speculation and talks in the new admin that have mentioned national health care for the US never said it would be the only way... That was never mentioned. It would be an option. I know the Oregon health plan is much better than any other insurance led plan here, wish I was on it.
i know it has its problems. I know we have out problems. the last line in the first link i posted kind of sums it up to me:
I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.
its all theory, but i think its valid and we have a responsibility as participants in our governing system to point out all flaws that a system may have before and after implementing it. we can strive for Utopia, but we will never get there. im just looking at what has worked in the past and what has fell apart in the past.
a capitalist system has its ups and downs but in the end works because everyone is looking out for themselves and nobody wants to fail. id a social system people are paying for people they dont know or care about. human nature makes people want things to make their lives better as individuals; not give away everything they have to help people they dont know. why work against human nature?
I don't believe I am saying that Canada is the most successful in health care and I don't Laker did as well. I'm sure they have problems as well, but it's still better than what we have. The speculation and talks in the new admin that have mentioned national health care for the US never said it would be the only way... That was never mentioned. It would be an option. I know the Oregon health plan is much better than any other insurance led plan here, wish I was on it.
i know it has its problems. I know we have out problems. the last line in the first link i posted kind of sums it up to me:
I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.
its all theory, but i think its valid and we have a responsibility as participants in our governing system to point out all flaws that a system may have before and after implementing it. we can strive for Utopia, but we will never get there. im just looking at what has worked in the past and what has fell apart in the past.
a capitalist system has its ups and downs but in the end works because everyone is looking out for themselves and nobody wants to fail. id a social system people are paying for people they dont know or care about. human nature makes people want things to make their lives better as individuals; not give away everything they have to help people they dont know. why work against human nature?
I agree. There will be problems but what is wrong with changing and trying new things? it seems that the idea of something new is just taboo why, because the insurance companies and banking industry would have to fight against the govt to get people to go with them, that's what should happen. People right now are stuck, well a lot of people. I know that waiting for treatment may suck but you still have to wait now, and if people had regular visits and could afford it (whether private or national) then treatments wouldn't be such an issue as it would be known in advance. And yes people are by nature out for themselves but as we evolve and many look at things as a whole. It's that thought that makes me have some hope for us as a species. Though it is our govt to make sure there is balance, as the constitution spells out. Not the corporations which have become more and more powerful.
that is a good question. I dont think it is because of the reasons you stated. yes the private sector will have to fight to maintain a profit but they do now as it is. costs, competition, regulation, and a slew of other reasons, make a profit a challenge. we shouldnt have to fight the government. the government should enable people to have successful, profitable, productive business that does not infringe on the rights of others.
we dont have that now.
we wont have that with government health care.
but back to your question: whats wrong with changing and trying new things?
i dont think people fear change itself. i would even venture to say that 75% or more of the people in the US feel that the health care system is flawed an a way that is hurting people needlessly. then along comes a system in another country that takes care of many of the flaws that the US system has but creates a set of NEW flaws. this is a lateral move. people expect more, especially if you are going to tax more. many people believe that this trade is not good enough to disrupt the system we currently have.
It is easily arguable that the federal government has the obligation to protect its people, provide sound currency, enforce contracts, and protect our borders and nothing else. Providing healthcare is written nowhere in our Constitution.
It is easily arguable that the federal government has the obligation to protect its people, provide sound currency, enforce contracts, and protect our borders and nothing else. Providing healthcare is written nowhere in our Constitution.
There is no such thing as "free" anything from the government. Someone , class of people, programs, or freedoms are sacrificed for everything thats "free". somewhere, someone or group or principals lost out. IMHO someone or something was sacrificed for that free whatever ...good or bad, necessary or un neccessary, needed or useless ...thats the real debate ...
There is no such thing as "free" anything from the government. Someone , class of people, programs, or freedoms are sacrificed for everything thats "free". somewhere, someone or group or principals lost out. IMHO someone or something was sacrificed for that free whatever ...good or bad, necessary or un neccessary, needed or useless ...thats the real debate ...
You are correct G-Man, and I'm sick of us having to be the people who sacrafice over and over and over for the bright ideas of our federal government! People think it is such a great idea to tax the big businesses but guess who is going to pay for it? Thats right, WE ARE! They aren't going to pay those taxes, they are going to pass them on to the consumers and are going to lay off more people to help cover those costs. Why people don't understand that taxing business is a bad idea I will never figure out.
Puro, large corporations already pass taxes onto consumers.. When they move plants and factory's overseas to pay people much less, they spend less money but do you see products lowering? no, they even go up! What you just said makes no sense.. Oh and pre 1980's corporations had to pay taxes and wow, things were much cheaper and wages were actually able to keep people a-float and allow for people to have an income and a retirement...
Puro, large corporations already pass taxes onto consumers.. When they move plants and factory's overseas to pay people much less, they spend less money but do you see products lowering? no, they even go up! What you just said makes no sense.. Oh and pre 1980's corporations had to pay taxes and wow, things were much cheaper and wages were actually able to keep people a-float and allow for people to have an income and a retirement...
I never said we should lower taxes on them, what I said was raising taxes on them WILL hurt us in the long run. You said nothing to dispute that.
Also you are WRONG my friend, taxes were outrageously higher in the 70's and the economy was in the crapper and inflation was killing us. In the 80's taxes started coming down and what happened?? THINGS GOT BETTER! It's amazing how that worked huh? I never said big corporations shouldn't pay taxes or that we should even lower them. I'm saying they shouldn't be raised.
As if that wasn't enough for Carter to screw up the economy, but he is DIRECTLY to blame for the problems we have with Iran today. If he would have backed the Shaw like he said he would then the Ayatola would never have come into power and things would have been totally different!
Puro, large corporations already pass taxes onto consumers.. When they move plants and factory's overseas to pay people much less, they spend less money but do you see products lowering? no, they even go up! What you just said makes no sense.. Oh and pre 1980's corporations had to pay taxes and wow, things were much cheaper and wages were actually able to keep people a-float and allow for people to have an income and a retirement...
I never said we should lower taxes on them, what I said was raising taxes on them WILL hurt us in the long run. You said nothing to dispute that.
Also you are WRONG my friend, taxes were outrageously higher in the 70's and the economy was in the crapper and inflation was killing us. In the 80's taxes started coming down and what happened?? THINGS GOT BETTER! It's amazing how that worked huh? I never said big corporations shouldn't pay taxes or that we should even lower them. I'm saying they shouldn't be raised.
As if that wasn't enough for Carter to screw up the economy, but he is DIRECTLY to blame for the problems we have with Iran today. If he would have backed the Shaw like he said he would then the Ayatola would never have come into power and things would have been totally different!
things might have got a little better in the 80's but those same policies are what has made a lot of the same economic mess which we are in now. Regan-omics (so to speak) does not work, time for something new. I never said things were perfect back in the 70's, especially in the gas shortage but as far as the middle class was concerned things were much better through the 50's- early 70's. Even during the 70's people had more money than the average person in the last decade or so, wages were much better too. And raising taxes on large businesses will not cripple the economy. Raising taxes on fossil fuel consumption of companies will also be better in the long run as it will force better materials to be used and hopefully will prosuade them to be less dependent on fossil fuels.
I don't dispute lowering taxes on them btw, I agree with you.
i think reaganomics could have worked had he stuck to the plan of lowering taxes and lowering spending. instead, he went balls-to-the-walls on military spending to try and bankrupt the USSR. the USSR was going bankrupt to begin with- no military spending was needed and in the mean time our debt was getting larger.
if you are gunna cut taxes you need to cut spending. the problem is that government, as a general entity, likes to increase in size and power. usually this continues on until the people are so poor and/or repressed that there is a revolution, bloody or otherwise. i think we are seeing the first steps of both the rapid increase in size and power AND the revolution. I dont think it will be bloody nor will it dissolve the USA, but one party in this two party system will not survive. Right now i think the republicans are gunna fall apart unless they do something drastic.
of course this is all just pure speculation and opinion at the end of a fairly shitty day.... maybe some sleep would help.
i think reaganomics could have worked had he stuck to the plan of lowering taxes and lowering spending. instead, he went balls-to-the-walls on military spending to try and bankrupt the USSR. the USSR was going bankrupt to begin with- no military spending was needed and in the mean time our debt was getting larger.
if you are gunna cut taxes you need to cut spending. the problem is that government, as a general entity, likes to increase in size and power. usually this continues on until the people are so poor and/or repressed that there is a revolution, bloody or otherwise. i think we are seeing the first steps of both the rapid increase in size and power AND the revolution. I dont think it will be bloody nor will it dissolve the USA, but one party in this two party system will not survive. Right now i think the republicans are gunna fall apart unless they do something drastic.
of course this is all just pure speculation and opinion at the end of a fairly shitty day.... maybe some sleep would help.
This was going to be my next point, the reason Reaganomics didn't fully work was that it only covered half of the solution. Lowering taxes improved the economy greatly, but if spending had also been lowered it would have improved more quickly. Cutting taxes AND spending are the best way to stimulate the economy. Right now in our current economic situation I would say a slight cut in taxes and MASSIVE cuts in spending would be the best thing. The cuts in spending would be so easy too.
1. Require drug tests for EVERYONE that receives ANY kind of government assistance.
2. Cut all funding for "The Arts." Seriously what good does this do for our country??
3. Cut funding for international travel for ALL members of congress.
4. (This will piss some people off) Cut funding for climate change research.
5. The biggest one on this little list.... CUT THE PORK OUT! 100% of it! Cut all the little pet project crap out of every bill passed by congress. No more funding for research on the effects of cow farts on the environment, no funding for research on why moss grows on rocks, or any other of the stupid little things we waste BILLIONS of dollars on each year.
That right there along with some minor tax cuts would improve things in our economy quicker than any bail outs or spendulous packages. But as I look at the news I see this DAMN sure won't be happening in the next 4 years...
1. Require drug tests for EVERYONE that receives ANY kind of government assistance.
how about cutting the war on drugs instead. decriminalize the disease of addiction and start treating it for what it is: a disease.
this could cut down on the number of people in jail for victimless crimes (smoking weed in your house) and also eliminate the illegal and often violent drug trade. (look what happened when prohibition started, then ended) promote personal responsibility. if you are dumb enough to smoke crack, you deserve the consequences. but, at the same time people that push addictive, harmful, impure, etc drugs on people and are manipulating people in order to CAUSE addiction... well, thats a violation of rights.
PuroFreak:
2. Cut all funding for "The Arts." Seriously what good does this do for our country??
actually, it does do a lot of good. not enough good that it should be getting crazy amounts of money from taxpayers. if people want to own/fund art programs (outside of schools, thats a very different story) they should do it on their own. let people make art. let people buy it. let it run like the music industry does/should
PuroFreak:
3. Cut funding for international travel for ALL members of congress.
yes
PuroFreak:
4. (This will piss some people off) Cut funding for climate change research.
yes
PuroFreak:
5. The biggest one on this little list.... CUT THE PORK OUT! 100% of it! Cut all the little pet project crap out of every bill passed by congress. No more funding for research on the effects of cow farts on the environment, no funding for research on why moss grows on rocks, or any other of the stupid little things we waste BILLIONS of dollars on each year.
yes and no. some things arent a waste.
PuroFreak:
That right there along with some minor tax cuts would improve things in our economy quicker than any bail outs or spendulous packages.
agreed. i would propose a major tax overhaul... but it would never go through. i dont feel like spelling out the tax plan i agree with, but many call it a fair tax.
This started in 2008 so do we blame Bush or the liberal Congress. Either way, neither side is innocent. Man I'm so sick of retarded spending.
I blame the our idiotic government in general for the stupid spending that goes on. These are OUR tax dollars being pissed away as fast as they possibly can. Everyone, democrats and republicans alike should be irritated by this story!
^ Why did you remove that link? That was a good story.
i removed the link (and more importantly the tone that i posted it in) because squabbling over who got impeached or should have gotten impeached is becoming more and more pointless. nothing will change in the Clinton case. Bush wont be prosecuted. Neither will Pelosi. this is a fairly small story that would create a debate over a subject that will not effect the people of this nation in almost any way.
I am all about debate and thinking critically about topics at hand. that is what i like to do in these politically based threads. I am not here to fight. I am not here try and piss others off. I am here to discuss what is important to me. Individual rights are important to me. Beating a dead horse in the hopes of "winning" or making a jab in a meaningless argument that is actually a bit of train derailment is not what im about
I removed the link not because it wasnt an important story, but because of the spirit that it was posted in.
1. Require drug tests for EVERYONE that receives ANY kind of government assistance.
how about cutting the war on drugs instead. decriminalize the disease of addiction and start treating it for what it is: a disease.
this could cut down on the number of people in jail for victimless crimes (smoking weed in your house) and also eliminate the illegal and often violent drug trade. (look what happened when prohibition started, then ended) promote personal responsibility. if you are dumb enough to smoke crack, you deserve the consequences. but, at the same time people that push addictive, harmful, impure, etc drugs on people and are manipulating people in order to CAUSE addiction... well, thats a violation of rights.
PuroFreak:
2. Cut all funding for "The Arts." Seriously what good does this do for our country??
actually, it does do a lot of good. not enough good that it should be getting crazy amounts of money from taxpayers. if people want to own/fund art programs (outside of schools, thats a very different story) they should do it on their own. let people make art. let people buy it. let it run like the music industry does/should
PuroFreak:
3. Cut funding for international travel for ALL members of congress.
yes
PuroFreak:
4. (This will piss some people off) Cut funding for climate change research.
yes
PuroFreak:
5. The biggest one on this little list.... CUT THE PORK OUT! 100% of it! Cut all the little pet project crap out of every bill passed by congress. No more funding for research on the effects of cow farts on the environment, no funding for research on why moss grows on rocks, or any other of the stupid little things we waste BILLIONS of dollars on each year.
yes and no. some things arent a waste.
PuroFreak:
That right there along with some minor tax cuts would improve things in our economy quicker than any bail outs or spendulous packages.
agreed. i would propose a major tax overhaul... but it would never go through. i dont feel like spelling out the tax plan i agree with, but many call it a fair tax.
I agree kuzi, except for climate change research.. The arts are important puro. One of the things I hate how public schools (at least in oregon) have been constantly cutting arts programs and other creative projects.
1. Require drug tests for EVERYONE that receives ANY kind of government assistance.
how about cutting the war on drugs instead. decriminalize the disease of addiction and start treating it for what it is: a disease.
this could cut down on the number of people in jail for victimless crimes (smoking weed in your house) and also eliminate the illegal and often violent drug trade. (look what happened when prohibition started, then ended) promote personal responsibility. if you are dumb enough to smoke crack, you deserve the consequences. but, at the same time people that push addictive, harmful, impure, etc drugs on people and are manipulating people in order to CAUSE addiction... well, thats a violation of rights.
PuroFreak:
2. Cut all funding for "The Arts." Seriously what good does this do for our country??
actually, it does do a lot of good. not enough good that it should be getting crazy amounts of money from taxpayers. if people want to own/fund art programs (outside of schools, thats a very different story) they should do it on their own. let people make art. let people buy it. let it run like the music industry does/should
PuroFreak:
3. Cut funding for international travel for ALL members of congress.
yes
PuroFreak:
4. (This will piss some people off) Cut funding for climate change research.
yes
PuroFreak:
5. The biggest one on this little list.... CUT THE PORK OUT! 100% of it! Cut all the little pet project crap out of every bill passed by congress. No more funding for research on the effects of cow farts on the environment, no funding for research on why moss grows on rocks, or any other of the stupid little things we waste BILLIONS of dollars on each year.
yes and no. some things arent a waste.
PuroFreak:
That right there along with some minor tax cuts would improve things in our economy quicker than any bail outs or spendulous packages.
agreed. i would propose a major tax overhaul... but it would never go through. i dont feel like spelling out the tax plan i agree with, but many call it a fair tax.
I agree kuzi, except for climate change research.. The arts are important puro. One of the things I hate how public schools (at least in oregon) have been constantly cutting arts programs and other creative projects.
Ok, I should have made my statement a little more clear, how does funding the "Arts" help the economy? It's pumping a bunch of money into crap 90% of the time. I agree with Kuzi it should be privately funded like most of the music industry. I agree art is a valuble thing in the world, but not something that the government needs to be pissing away a ton of money on in the middle of a financial crisis.
Comments
British, Canadian, Former USSR, Cuban, New Zealand, Austrailian health care issues. along with US issues from government regulation.
More canadian issues.
waiting lists
Architect of Canadian Healthcare system admits that it has failed
more
The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But Shouldn't
want me to keep going?
there are some things worth going into debt over. a lawyer in that situation may be one of them. of course it would be better if they didnt get into that mess in the first place.
personal responsibility is a huge roll in this.
I am quick to blame myself rather than others. I am in debt. why am i in debt? because i took out loans. not because banks are evil.
I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.
its all theory, but i think its valid and we have a responsibility as participants in our governing system to point out all flaws that a system may have before and after implementing it. we can strive for Utopia, but we will never get there. im just looking at what has worked in the past and what has fell apart in the past.
a capitalist system has its ups and downs but in the end works because everyone is looking out for themselves and nobody wants to fail. id a social system people are paying for people they dont know or care about. human nature makes people want things to make their lives better as individuals; not give away everything they have to help people they dont know. why work against human nature?
that is a good question. I dont think it is because of the reasons you stated. yes the private sector will have to fight to maintain a profit but they do now as it is. costs, competition, regulation, and a slew of other reasons, make a profit a challenge. we shouldnt have to fight the government. the government should enable people to have successful, profitable, productive business that does not infringe on the rights of others.
we dont have that now.
we wont have that with government health care.
but back to your question:
whats wrong with changing and trying new things?
i dont think people fear change itself. i would even venture to say that 75% or more of the people in the US feel that the health care system is flawed an a way that is hurting people needlessly.
then along comes a system in another country that takes care of many of the flaws that the US system has but creates a set of NEW flaws. this is a lateral move. people expect more, especially if you are going to tax more.
many people believe that this trade is not good enough to disrupt the system we currently have.
It is easily arguable that the federal government has the obligation to protect its people, provide sound currency, enforce contracts, and protect our borders and nothing else. Providing healthcare is written nowhere in our Constitution.
Also you are WRONG my friend, taxes were outrageously higher in the 70's and the economy was in the crapper and inflation was killing us. In the 80's taxes started coming down and what happened?? THINGS GOT BETTER! It's amazing how that worked huh? I never said big corporations shouldn't pay taxes or that we should even lower them. I'm saying they shouldn't be raised.
As if that wasn't enough for Carter to screw up the economy, but he is DIRECTLY to blame for the problems we have with Iran today. If he would have backed the Shaw like he said he would then the Ayatola would never have come into power and things would have been totally different!
I don't dispute lowering taxes on them btw, I agree with you.
instead, he went balls-to-the-walls on military spending to try and bankrupt the USSR.
the USSR was going bankrupt to begin with- no military spending was needed and in the mean time our debt was getting larger.
if you are gunna cut taxes you need to cut spending.
the problem is that government, as a general entity, likes to increase in size and power. usually this continues on until the people are so poor and/or repressed that there is a revolution, bloody or otherwise. i think we are seeing the first steps of both the rapid increase in size and power AND the revolution. I dont think it will be bloody nor will it dissolve the USA, but one party in this two party system will not survive. Right now i think the republicans are gunna fall apart unless they do something drastic.
of course this is all just pure speculation and opinion at the end of a fairly shitty day.... maybe some sleep would help.
1. Require drug tests for EVERYONE that receives ANY kind of government assistance.
2. Cut all funding for "The Arts." Seriously what good does this do for our country??
3. Cut funding for international travel for ALL members of congress.
4. (This will piss some people off) Cut funding for climate change research.
5. The biggest one on this little list.... CUT THE PORK OUT! 100% of it! Cut all the little pet project crap out of every bill passed by congress. No more funding for research on the effects of cow farts on the environment, no funding for research on why moss grows on rocks, or any other of the stupid little things we waste BILLIONS of dollars on each year.
That right there along with some minor tax cuts would improve things in our economy quicker than any bail outs or spendulous packages. But as I look at the news I see this DAMN sure won't be happening in the next 4 years...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/white-house-official-obama-cut-programs-save-b-budget/
this could cut down on the number of people in jail for victimless crimes (smoking weed in your house) and also eliminate the illegal and often violent drug trade. (look what happened when prohibition started, then ended) promote personal responsibility. if you are dumb enough to smoke crack, you deserve the consequences. but, at the same time people that push addictive, harmful, impure, etc drugs on people and are manipulating people in order to CAUSE addiction... well, thats a violation of rights. actually, it does do a lot of good.
not enough good that it should be getting crazy amounts of money from taxpayers. if people want to own/fund art programs (outside of schools, thats a very different story) they should do it on their own. let people make art. let people buy it. let it run like the music industry does/should yes yes yes and no. some things arent a waste.
agreed. i would propose a major tax overhaul... but it would never go through. i dont feel like spelling out the tax plan i agree with, but many call it a fair tax.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/
What idiots came up with THIS f***iing idea!!!
This started in 2008 so do we blame Bush or the liberal Congress. Either way, neither side is innocent. Man I'm so sick of retarded spending.
I am all about debate and thinking critically about topics at hand. that is what i like to do in these politically based threads. I am not here to fight. I am not here try and piss others off. I am here to discuss what is important to me. Individual rights are important to me. Beating a dead horse in the hopes of "winning" or making a jab in a meaningless argument that is actually a bit of train derailment is not what im about
I removed the link not because it wasnt an important story, but because of the spirit that it was posted in.