Mother of all drug busts???

[teufelhunden]

He posted numbers about the budget, I let him know the billions spent on the war are not part of the budget, that is all. If you can't read maybe YOU shouldn't post.

However, the numbers to fall into the same bucket of national debt. Which, provided some democrat doesn't come and much it up, should be gone within a decade [I believe that was the forecast] if Bush's policies are left alone.

[ahellers]

Hey FiXeL,
dont you love how people who dont really know anything about holland use it as an example for how drugs are ok.
t

[Glickman]

However, the numbers to fall into the same bucket of national debt. Which, provided some democrat doesn't come and much it up, should be gone within a decade [I believe that was the forecast] if Bush's policies are left alone.

im gonna assume this is pending on the 9 trillion dollar debt freeze. did congress ever approve the bill to stop any more budgeting once the debt gets to 9 trillion?

i dont know how bush's policies would decrease the debt, let alone kill it in 10 years.





trickle down = fail

[bleachit]

That doesn't sound fair. Guess whose shoulders financing all the new jails is going to fall on? I like my labor camp idea. You get to do some lousy work, make $10/hr, pay income taxes, and your salary is garnished to cover room & board as well as pay the guards salaries and any other costs associated with running the place.

worst idea ever.

I have been working at the same retail job for 6 years, no way in hell some criminal is going to get paid more than I.

at the very most, minimum wage. even that is a gift, the are freaking criminals for crying out loud...

[bleachit]

trickle down = fail[/B]

you, sir, are no economist.

you should probably replace Northop Grumman and McDonnel Douglas with Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as they are the big aviation companies, hell McDonnel Douglas isn't even around anymore...absorbed by Boeing a while ago.



Govt lowers taxes

businesses pay less taxes

people pay less taxes

businesses make more stuff

businesses expand

businesses hire people

unemployment is below 5% forever (5% being "full employment")

People have jobs, make money

people buy lots of crap

government takes in taxes on all the crap you just bought

government kills terrorists because they have tons of cash to throw at the destruction of evil people

democrats dont like it so they try to throw tons of earmarks into budgets despite running on a campaign of "removing corruption and earmarks"

President Bush has a higher approval rating then Congress


the end

[Lohman446]

The "error" in trickle down

Businesses have more money

Businesses invest said money into technology to make current workers more efficient and or better products

Less workers produce more products and/or better products last longer needing less "new"

With machinery doing the very technical aspect of the job and being built to be as simple to operate as possible work is shipped to the lowest bidder for labor and equipment is built there.

[Glickman]

you, sir, are no economist.

Govt lowers taxes

businesses pay less taxes

people pay less taxes

businesses make more stuff

businesses expand

businesses hire people

unemployment is below 5% forever (5% being "full employment")

People have jobs, make money

people buy lots of crap

government takes in taxes on all the crap you just bought

government kills terrorists because they have tons of cash to throw at the destruction of evil people

democrats dont like it so they try to throw tons of earmarks into budgets despite running on a campaign of "removing corruption and earmarks"

President Bush has a higher approval rating then Congress


the end

except...

trickle down does NOT work (atleast face-value wise). and any economist can tell you that.

lets name the only instance of trickle down "REALLY" working, that would be reagan right?


*note there is no definitive effect of trickle down on the overall economy*


*note there is no definitive effect of trickle down helping create jobs*

unlike bush, reagan did not only focus mainly on cutting taxes. he made a lot of special policies for corporations. reagan pushed for not only wealthy spending, but for corporate growth, something bush has failed at.

truth is, the trickle down "theory" is just a conservative way of putting more money into the upper echelons.



bush SHOULD stop focusing on cutting taxes for the rich, and focus on business incentives.

[ProX9]

If it were up to me, I would end the drug war and legalize all the drugs. I think no one would argue that there are going to be drug addicts and irresponsible drug users regardless of the legal status of drugs. I also think everyone would agree that if one of those drug users did something illegal as a result of the drugs they would still be punished accordingly. So why should we punish those who use drugs responsibly or those who are too addicted to stop? The responsible users would continue to be responsible and wouldn't hurt anyone. But maybe if drugs were legal it would incite more addicts to seek treatment, knowing that they wouldn't risk imprisonment for something they lost control of a long time ago, and in the end we could have less addicts. But, then there would be the problem of someone just trying meth or coke because its legal and becoming addicted, what would we say to that? I don't know, it seems like there would be no way to stop someone from doing that, but there are a lot of harmful paths out there and having a free society means leaving a lot of them open. I could see that being a problem right as soon as drugs were legalized, when the new thing to do becomes trying all the cool drugs, but I think that people would be smart enough to see the risks of using highly addictive substances and decide not to use them despite them being legal and eventually their use would go down again, eventually leading to a better situation than we have now.

I know people will say that could never work but I say to them, how well has prohibition worked in this case and in the past?

[Steelrat]

I know people will say that could never work but I say to them, how well has prohibition worked in this case and in the past?

Hey Matt,

I hope you aren't comparing the prohibition against drugs to the old prohibition against alcohol. Two totally different things.

[Lohman446]

I am going to maintain that we, as a nation, do not have the right or responsibility to legislate responsible choices in regards to health.

[kruger]

I am going to maintain that we, as a nation, do not have the right or responsibility to legislate responsible choices in regards to health.

And, I agree with this 100%.

It all comes down to choice. And taking responsibility for your choices. If you choose to play around with drugs, then you should also (by default) choose to take responsibility for any actions that you are a part of while under the influence of said drugs. This includes while you are high, and any actions that you are involved in in your search/desire to obtain more of the stuff.

There are laready laws that deal with driving under the influence. Try driving thru Georgia drunk or High. It aint pretty. And, I see no difference between alchohol or drugs. They both can be bad for you. They both can be addictive. Both are mood changers. And, that is why you do drugs, or drink, to change your mood.

If it was just a health issue, then beer, whiskey, ect. ect would have been gone a long time ago. Its more of a social engineering thing than anything else that I can see, not to mention the money that is made by the Gov'ment and the liquor business.

I used to think that we should leagalize everything, then let Darwinism run its course.

If drugs were leagal today, then you would have three groups of people.

One that would never try any drug, just like they dont drink.
One that would try it, just to see what its like, and either be a casual user, or not do anything ever again.
And, one group that would do drugs regularly. This last group is the one that would thin out pretty quickly. Either thru Darwinism, or thru the legal system. Breaking other laws and getting good "friends" in the Penal system (pun intended)

You already have these three groups now, but, the difference is that if drugs were legal, then you really do take most of the criminal element out of the mix. You have to be 21 to drink, apply this same law to drugs. At 21, you are a legal, thinking adult, able to take responibility for you own actions, and thus able to make decisions for your self.
Think carefully and use wisely.

Oh, and just for the record, I never experimented with drugs, I was in full research mode.

[AirAssault]

rehab only works when the victim of addiction wants to be rehabbed and without self control or personal desire to stop, the victim won't....

Rehab is for quitters!! :rofl:

Hey Matt,

I hope you aren't comparing the prohibition against drugs to the old prohibition against alcohol. Two totally different things.

yeah, how?



Of course what all you economic smarties are not saying is this. bush signs a bill that makes it easier (and cheaper) for an employer to send jobs over seas, giving it to some guy in India that I can't understand when I have a question about my CC statement. Yeah, THAT helps us out here in the US.

Some of you keep bringing up the evil dems, Again, didn't we have a budget SURPLUS when one of those money wasting dems was in office? I honestly don't know much about economics, call me crazy, but isn't a budget surplus (have money) better than a growing budget debt (no money)? Ohhh this is where you tell me it IS better that way :rofl:

[Lomarandil]

When are people going to realize, drugs are not the problem, people that do them are. Legalize it, tax it and let responsible people consume it in a responsible way. If you take away the criminal part of all drugs, the drug related crimes will drop like a stone. Other countries with either legal or relaxed laws regarding drugs do not have the same crime issues related to them as we do here in the US. The billions spent on the so called "war on drugs" is a joke. It wastes tax payer dollars that could be used on other needed projects.

Crime may have gone down, but do you know how much money the European governments that have relaxed drug laws have paid to do that?

They have government trucks that go around the streets of nearly every major European city to distribute "rationed" cocaine, heroin, etc to the druggies with new needles, etc. Keeps the drug addicts happy, less crime, sure, but it creates slum districts and costs a fortune.

I work seasonally for a company that is one of the largest drug rehabilitation center organizations in Europe. I know.

Lo

[druid]

you are arguing 'entitlements' with the dems vs reps stereotypical propaganda. Historically speaking, dems tax the **** out of everyone and everything...then 'provide' this and that program to make the people think they are 'doing their job'. Reps tax less and tell you do do this and that for yourself...and no one likes that. People want the 'easy road' through life and it just doesn't happen that way (barring you hit the Lottery or something)...

No one is 'entitled' to anything that the Constitution doesn't guarantee. In fact, if Congress followed the letter of the Constitutional outlines, they'd only be in office about 1/4 of the year and have to work at another job for the other 3/4...

The debate is not a dem vs rep debate...it's not even "tax the drugs to make $$ off them" debate...it the simple fact that these drugs ruin lives.
The drug addict is financially and morally bankrupt...their family members are destroyed by their addictions...society is in danger because of them...

[Lomarandil]

you are arguing
The debate is not a dem vs rep debate...it's not even "tax the drugs to make $$ off them" debate...it the simple fact that these drugs ruin lives.
The drug addict is financially and morally bankrupt...their family members are destroyed by their addictions...society is in danger because of them...

Hear Hear!

Lo