Simple Math

[Uncle Slam]

1228

[GrassrootsConservative]

They give it to the people who got them elected, clearly.

[Chloe]

I find it kind of strange that people consider taking taxes as theft. How else would things like roads get built if not for tax dollars?

[GrassrootsConservative]

I find it kind of strange that people consider taking taxes as theft. How else would things like roads get built if not for tax dollars?

In one of the places I used to live, they had some politicians there increasing taxes and buying things for themselves with it. That's why my local tea party there had a rally.

Taxes are strong-armed robbery, anything beyond what is needed to keep the country going and infrastructure strong. Any extra taxes you hear about are caused by corrupt politicians.

[pjohns]

I find it kind of strange that people consider taking taxes as theft. How else would things like roads get built if not for tax dollars?

Most people (except for those who occupy the anarchist wing of libertarianism) do not consider taxation per se to be "theft."

However, the sort of confiscatory taxation that is favored by the left--taxation that is really much more about income redistribution than it is about "building roads" (which, at any rate, is within the province of local government, except for interstate highways)--clearly is theft, in my opinion.

[Mainecoons]

Chloe, that "roads built" red herring is the excuse we see liberals time and time again trying to justify a government that has grown so big it is eating up nearly half the declining output of America when you include all levels of the government parasites.

In the first place, roads are built with gasoline taxes. In the second place, the services we really need from government are a small fraction of what they spend these days.

Here's what we don't need:

We don't need a government to police the world with a grossly bloated and expensive military to match.
(Local) we don't need governments who have so many "workers" that they go around citing kids lemonaide stands and home gardens.
We don't need a government that is actively promoting career welfare.
We don't need studies paid for by taxes about the sex life of aborigines and other such tripe.

I could go on ad nauseum but I hope you get the idea. You see, I lived in America when government consumed only 20 percent of a far, far smaller national output and had no trouble at all keeping the roads fixed, running GOOD schools with teachers that actually know their subjects. When there was a fire, the fire department showed up rapidly. We didn't have a bunch of police busting people for smoking a little dope. We had enough police to deal with real criminals.

I am telling you flat out that at least half of the government at all levels in America could be gone tomorrow and this would be a far, far better and more prosperous country. I lived in a time what that was the case.

Young people like yourself might even have a future to look forward to as well.

[Carygrant]

Simple ---- YES


Maths ------ NO

[Chris]

I find it kind of strange that people consider taking taxes as theft. How else would things like roads get built if not for tax dollars?

So the ends justify the means? If we crossed paths and I took all your money by force and donated it to a charity of my choice, you would be OK with that?

[truthmatters]

Anyone who claims taxes are theift hates democracy

[Chris]

Anyone who claims taxes are theift hates democracy

Democracy is the worst form of government. Fortunately we live under a republican form of government.

[KC]

I think the point Chloe is trying to make is that collecting taxes is necessary, and even the most hardcore libertarian has to admit that. We can debate the size and scope all day, but to argue that because a lot of spending is wasteful or counter productive we should eliminate taxes all together is completely unrealistic.

[truthmatters]

Democracy is the worst form of government. Fortunately we live under a republican form of government.

and that is a form of Democracy according to every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world.

[truthmatters]

Anyone who claims taxes are thieft hates our democratic republic and the founders dreams for this country

[Chris]

Anyone who claims taxes are thieft hates our democratic republic and the founders dreams for this country

I understand how you liberals want to try and slip democracy in there but the COnstitution begs to differ with you: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...."

[Chris]

and that is a form of Democracy according to every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world.

Another victim of common usage found in dictionaries. We're talking political science here, matters.

[truthmatters]

then go get me ONE political sceince book that uses different definitions of the words than the dictionary and the encyclopedia?


you will fail yet again

[truthmatters]

pretending doesnt make it true.

What did Jefferson label our government?

[Chris]

I think the point Chloe is trying to make is that collecting taxes is necessary, and even the most hardcore libertarian has to admit that. We can debate the size and scope all day, but to argue that because a lot of spending is wasteful or counter productive we should eliminate taxes all together is completely unrealistic.

Agree, as long as we agree, even implicitly, to the social contract we call the Constitution that creates government then taxes are a necessary evil to pay for it.

That doesn't mean that morally it's not theft. I would argue any special-interested act of government outside general welfare is not agreed upon in that social contract and is therefore theft.

[Chris]

then go get me ONE political sceince book that uses different definitions of the words than the dictionary and the encyclopedia?


you will fail yet again

Do your own homework, matters.

[Chris]

pretending doesnt make it true.

What did Jefferson label our government?

I see, so you call the following pretending: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...." :geez:

[truthmatters]

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

[truthmatters]

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=2197

[truthmatters]

Jefferson agrees with me and would wonder why you are so poorly educated as to NOT understand your own government

[Chris]

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson wasn't involved in writing the Constitution, matters. He embraced democracy, the Constitution, as cited above, embraced a republican form of government.

I think you've managed to hijack this thread from it's original topic.

[Chris]

Jefferson agrees with me and would wonder why you are so poorly educated as to NOT understand your own government

Jefferson is dead, matters.

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates)) – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence) (1776) and the third President of the United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) (1801–1809). At the beginning of the American Revolution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/American_Revolution), he served in the Continental Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Continental_Congress),

[Uncle Slam]

Taxes are not like United Way where you can have a say on what social program you want to donate to. That would be kind of a neat idea - having the ability to earmark your taxes to what government programs you want to support. I, for one, didn't choose to pay for any of these fabricated wars, yet my tax dollars go to them.

[truthmatters]

pretending taxes can ONLY be spent the way as you as a individual approve of is anti American

[truthmatters]

Now tell me why the right spends so much enegry trying to rewrite dictionaries and encyclopedias to fit their historically failed ideas?

[Chris]

Taxes are not like United Way where you can have a say on what social program you want to donate to. That would be kind of a neat idea - having the ability to earmark your taxes to what government programs you want to support. I, for one, didn't choose to pay for any of these fabricated wars, yet my tax dollars go to them.


pretending taxes can ONLY be spent the way as you as a individual approve of is anti American

Agree, how taxes are raised and how they can be spent is determined by the Constitution. And it specifies for the general welfare, not special interests, be it corporate or social welfare.

[Uncle Slam]

Man, didn't know so many here like the idea of the wealthy continuing to steal from us. Whatever gets your rocks off, I guess...........................

[truthmatters]

Agree, how taxes are raised and how they can be spent is determined by the Constitution. And it specifies for the general welfare, not special interests, be it corporate or social welfare.



You are NOT joined by the scotus and the vast majority of Americans in that opinion of yours.


YOU dont get to redefine the constitution individually either silly boy

[Chris]

Man, didn't know so many here like the idea of the wealthy continuing to steal from us. Whatever gets your rocks off, I guess...........................

How are the wealthy stealing from us, slam? Where would they get such coercive power? Who says they would like it?

[Chris]

You are NOT joined by the scotus and the vast majority of Americans in that opinion of yours.


YOU dont get to redefine the constitution individually either silly boy

I just argued against redefining the Constitution. Are you saying it can be ignored and revised liberally? Or are you just into silly name calling.

[Uncle Slam]

How are the wealthy stealing from us, slam? Where would they get such coercive power? Who says they would like it?

You got to be wealthy to get elected. Then, when you get in office, you pay back your donors through legislation to advance and protect their financial interests, keep the pork rolling in, as they know full well the average FAUX News viewer or MSNBC viewer is more interested in winning pointless heated debates about abortion and guns instead of "following the money." We're easy pickin's for them.

[truthmatters]

Chirs......dude you have a couple of times now refussed to admitt you were wrong right in the face of facts.

what do you think it gains you to act like that?

[Chris]

You got to be wealthy to get elected. Then, when you get in office, you pay back your donors through legislation to advance and protect their financial interests, keep the pork rolling in, as they know full well the average FAUX News viewer or MSNBC viewer is more interested in winning pointless heated debates about abortion and guns instead of "following the money." We're easy pickin's for them.

Obama wasn't wealthy. So we're left with crooked crony politicians stealing from us with taxation and regulation that favors special interests.

[Chris]

Chirs......dude you have a couple of times now refussed to admitt you were wrong right in the face of facts.

what do you think it gains you to act like that?

What facts, matters. Sounds to me you want to ignore the message and attack the messenger. What do you think that gains you but the reputation you already have?

[truthmatters]

alito said those worlds dude and I proved it with tape.

[Uncle Slam]

Obama wasn't wealthy. So we're left with crooked crony politicians stealing from us with taxation and regulation that favors special interests.

Well, yea, and Obama wasn't exactly middle class either. It scares me people don't know what these criminals are really up to. They've done their homework well.

[truthmatters]

Do your own homework, matters.

you cant back you claim with facts can you

[Chris]

Well, yea, and Obama wasn't exactly middle class either. It scares me people don't know what these criminals are really up to. They've done their homework well.

He wasn't wealthy, slam.

It scares me as well that people fawn over crooked crony capitalists.

[truthmatters]

Chris why do you hate Jefferson and think hes a liar?

[Uncle Slam]

He wasn't wealthy, slam.

It scares me as well that people fawn over crooked crony capitalists.

Here's a post from a poster on another forum................

"I always wondered how politicians go to Washington rich and come out filthy rich. Now I know. It's called insider trading and it is actually legal!!
[/URL][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=l3DZh1109W8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=l3DZh1109W8)
Both republicans and democrats are doing it and it stinks!
Algore turned 16 million into about 80 million from insider trading in the solar power industry.
John Kerry dumped thousands of shares of a pharmaceutical stock just 3 days before it went public that Medicare would no longer pay for their particular drug.
We should demand that they live by the same laws that they write for us to live by. "

[Chris]

Chris why do you hate Jefferson and think hes a liar?

I like Jefferson. I don't think he's a liar. Why are you making up lies? Doesn't truth matter?

[Chris]

Here's a post from a poster on another forum................

"I always wondered how politicians go to Washington rich and come out filthy rich. Now I know. It's called insider trading and it is actually legal!!
[/URL][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=l3DZh1109W8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=l3DZh1109W8)
Both republicans and democrats are doing it and it stinks!
Algore turned 16 million into about 80 million from insider trading in the solar power industry.
John Kerry dumped thousands of shares of a pharmaceutical stock just 3 days before it went public that Medicare would no longer pay for their particular drug.
We should demand that they live by the same laws that they write for us to live by. "


Both republicans and democrats are doing it and it stinks!

Agree.

Go to the http://thepoliticalforums.com/forums/21-The-Economics-Room here and you'll find many a thread on the topic. That and other areas under Other Discussions is for more serious discussion. Good way to avoid the riff raff.

[truthmatters]

I like Jefferson. I don't think he's a liar. Why are you making up lies? Doesn't truth matter?


you said hes dead and implied he doesnt matter and you also chose Aaron Russo of all people over Jefferson

[truthmatters]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10111-Democracy-vs-Republic-Do-you-know-the-difference

[Carygrant]

Democracy is the worst form of government.


Why do you bother writing self evidently rubbish ?

[truthmatters]

the man is very dishonest.


He has a problem with facts

[Carygrant]

Why are you making up lies? Doesn't truth matter?


Not to you .
Your latest piece of filth was a PM telling me that I never knew WR , whom I had remembered with a few words in the appropriate thread . You are disgusting and of course also a liar .
You were not fit for purpose as a Moderator and now neither as a person .

[Mister D]

Not to you .
Your latest piece of filth was a PM telling me that I never knew WR , whom I had remembered with a few words in the appropriate thread . You are disgusting and of course also a liar .
You were not fit for purpose as a Moderator and now neither as a person .

How can you remember someone you did not know?

[Chris]

Not to you .
Your latest piece of filth was a PM telling me that I never knew WR , whom I had remembered with a few words in the appropriate thread . You are disgusting and of course also a liar .
You were not fit for purpose as a Moderator and now neither as a person .

I didn't send you a PM. Why the constant stream of lies?

[KC]

Not to you .
Your latest piece of filth was a PM telling me that I never knew WR , whom I had remembered with a few words in the appropriate thread . You are disgusting and of course also a liar .
You were not fit for purpose as a Moderator and now neither as a person .

Stop the personal attacks.

[truthmatters]

what do you do with people who refuse to recognize facts

[GrassrootsConservative]

what do you do with people who refuse to recognize facts

Please tell us so we can do it to you.

[KC]

what do you do with people who refuse to recognize facts

Tolerate them.

[Dr. Who]

Or you can refuse to respond to their vitriolic criticism. Shun them.

[Chris]

Or you can refuse to respond to their vitriolic criticism. Shun them.

Generally that's true, you should ignore the trolls. But there always newbies who fall for and feed them.

[Uncle Slam]

Generally that's true, you should ignore the trolls. But there always newbies who fall for and feed them.

I'm a newbie too and plead guilty - I don't know anyone here that well yet, and the ones I find funny, I'll feed. I'll do anything for a laugh!

[Chris]

I'm a newbie too and plead guilty - I don't know anyone here that well yet, and the ones I find funny, I'll feed. I'll do anything for a laugh!

But you're not guilty. Everyone's got to learn.

[pjohns]

I think the point Chloe is trying to make is that collecting taxes is necessary, and even the most hardcore libertarian has to admit that.

Actually, some libertarians (and I emphasize the modifier, "some") believe that all taxes should be of a purely voluntary nature.

[Chris]

Agree, if it's not voluntary, if only by implicit agreement with the social contract we call the Constitution, it's coercive.

[KC]

Actually, some libertarians (and I emphasize the modifier, "some") believe that all taxes should be of a purely voluntary nature.

I think even a voluntarist would admit that at some level of government there must be some revenue collection. How that revenue comes about is also debatable, but the idea of having no revenue collection would lead to no government, at which point we do not have libertarianism or minarchy, we have anarchy.

[Peter1469]

This is where I move away from libertarianism, at least the more hard core types.

We live in a society, we owe taxes to run it. But I support limited powers for the government; and government serving the people, not the other way around.

[Dr. Who]

This is where I move away from libertarianism, at least the more hard core types.

We live in a society, we owe taxes to run it. But I support limited powers for the government; and government serving the people, not the other way around.
The problem lies in having a government that serves the people, once elected. Which people should it serve, as the people are diverse in their expectations?

[KC]

The problem lies in having a government that serves the people, once elected. Which people should it serve, as the people are diverse in their expectations?

The best way it can serve the most people is by sticking to the basics. Protect peoples lives, liberty and property and society will go far.

[Carygrant]

The best way it can serve the most people is by sticking to the basics. Protect peoples lives, liberty and property and society will go far.


Unfortunately, issues arise where "serving" the majority now or very soon does not necessarily produce the right long term result .
That's when the arguments start and I don't propose to get into that intractable area here .
Equally , apparently simple labels (ideas) like "protecting people's lives" , produce a huge range of different possibilities to achieve the target or promise .
My point , therefore , is that though your statement of overall government intent sounds cozy and desirable , it is effectively just a bland dream promise that is meaningless until political wrangling produces manifestos that can be voted for etc etc .

[zelmo1234]

The design of the govenment was Congress was to serve the pople that elelcted them.

Senators were origionally appointed by the states, and were to serve the interest of States Rights.

The President was to provide the leadership and direction.

And the court was t make sure that the laws were ont in violation of the constitution

This was set up this was so that it would not be easy to pass new laws and regulations on the people, all but the most important would likely fail and be left to the states to figure out.

Once the Senators were elected by the people as weill there was no seat at the table for the states and they have been loosing rights ever since.

This has also lead to the people being able to vote themselves money, many times at the expense of the states as well as the federal government. This is a form of taxations without representation. on the part of the states.

but maybe they will start doing what is right, as we draw ever closer to insolvency

[Chris]

Unfortunately, issues arise where "serving" the majority now or very soon does not necessarily produce the right long term result .
That's when the arguments start and I don't propose to get into that intractable area here .
Equally , apparently simple labels (ideas) like "protecting people's lives" , produce a huge range of different possibilities to achieve the target or promise .
My point , therefore , is that though your statement of overall government intent sounds cozy and desirable , it is effectively just a bland dream promise that is meaningless until political wrangling produces manifestos that can be voted for etc etc .

Can someone translate this? Sounds to me like a whole lot of words to say nothing.

Take the first sentence: "Unfortunately, issues arise where "serving" the majority now or very soon does not necessarily produce the right long term result ." What issues? What serving? What majority? When? What result is not produced?

[Carygrant]

Can someone translate this? Sounds to me like a whole lot of words to say nothing.

Take the first sentence: "Unfortunately, issues arise where "serving" the majority now or very soon does not necessarily produce the right long term result ." What issues? What serving? What majority? When? What result is not produced?

You repeatedly refuse advice to study General Comprehension . You must pay the price .
I have also highlighted your inability to deal with anything that has non literal perspectives , irony or imagination .
I frankly think it unwise of you to parade all of your weaknesses publicly along with your list of other recent blunders .Your integrity is coming under the severest scrutiny and found wanting .
But because I believe you genuinely don't have the ammunition to deal with more complex propositions , try this simple example .

Some people believe that their appalling national record involving violence can be solved by blanketing everyone with the means of dealing with that violence by even more potential violence --- which they label protection . Short term attempted solution .
Others know that all progression and resolution of disputed matters is only finally resolved through altering the initial causes of violence and introducing new opportunities , perspectives and solution routes .Long term solution .
It's easy once you have picked up the rules.

[Chris]

You repeatedly refuse advice to study General Comprehension . You must pay the price .
I have also highlighted your inability to deal with anything that has non literal perspectives , irony or imagination .
I frankly think it unwise of you to parade all of your weaknesses publicly along with your list of other recent blunders .Your integrity is coming under the severest scrutiny and found wanting .
But because I believe you genuinely don't have the ammunition to deal with more complex propositions , try this simple example .

Some people believe that their appalling national record involving violence can be solved by blanketing everyone with the means of dealing with that violence by even more potential violence --- which they label protection . Short term attempted solution .
Others know that all progression and resolution of disputed matters is only finally resolved through altering the initial causes of violence and introducing new opportunities , perspectives and solution routes .Long term solution .
It's easy once you have picked up the rules.

Just more meaningless babble from someone whose karma is an astounding -2901.

If anyone questions how cary ranks here on this forum, see http://thepoliticalforums.com/memberlist.php?order=asc&sort=reputation&pp=30.

I think the cause for that is obvious.


You said elsewhere you're deaf, maybe that's why your prose is so crabbed and overworked.

[Nemo]

In school you were taught that "two plus two equals four". However, this basic arithmetic - which worked with consistent regularity in the classroom - breaks down immediately when applied to the affairs of men where you are confronted with the confounding fact that two plus two equals five, or only three (depending on one’s investment counselor or tax advisor); and according to Congress, the actual sum may amount to several billion (depending on how you "crunch the numbers"). But now the nation is facing a financial crisis, and people are demanding an accounting. You listen in dumb amazement to the news of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury testifying before Congress on the need for "fiscal conservatism." (What does that add up to?) Anxious for some reassurance, you punch up two plus two on your pocket calculator; but in your hurry you press the wrong function key and make an error. You reflect on life’s contradictions: Why didn’t they teach that in school?

[zelmo1234]

You repeatedly refuse advice to study General Comprehension . You must pay the price .
I have also highlighted your inability to deal with anything that has non literal perspectives , irony or imagination .
I frankly think it unwise of you to parade all of your weaknesses publicly along with your list of other recent blunders .Your integrity is coming under the severest scrutiny and found wanting .
But because I believe you genuinely don't have the ammunition to deal with more complex propositions , try this simple example .

Some people believe that their appalling national record involving violence can be solved by blanketing everyone with the means of dealing with that violence by even more potential violence --- which they label protection . Short term attempted solution .
Others know that all progression and resolution of disputed matters is only finally resolved through altering the initial causes of violence and introducing new opportunities , perspectives and solution routes .Long term solution .
It's easy once you have picked up the rules.

I see what you are saying now, I am sorry I did not see what you were trying to say.

So even if moe guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means a short term drop in violence rates, and baning and restricting guns leads to higher violence in the short term, it may be a better route for the lpong term like in your country?

So while you still have a larger violence problem than we do, and your rate is not dropping as fast as ours, someday your solution will be the right one!

So until then You like all of the other Brits have to imagine that it is working! even though the results do not support that stance.

So you are suggesting that we adopt the same laws and process, and then our violence rate would skyrocket like yours did, and you can feel better about your decissions that did not work and we can imagine that the policies that we have inacted are working, even though they are not!

You are absolutly right if you apply logic and reasoning, this is totally stupid, and counter productive. But If you apply imagination, and hope, it makes perfect sense!

Just courious are the walls in your room pink and padded?

[Uncle Slam]

I see what you are saying now, I am sorry I did not see what you were trying to say.

So even if moe guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means a short term drop in violence rates, and baning and restricting guns leads to higher violence in the short term, it may be a better route for the lpong term like in your country?

So while you still have a larger violence problem than we do, and your rate is not dropping as fast as ours, someday your solution will be the right one!

So until then You like all of the other Brits have to imagine that it is working! even though the results do not support that stance.

So you are suggesting that we adopt the same laws and process, and then our violence rate would skyrocket like yours did, and you can feel better about your decissions that did not work and we can imagine that the policies that we have inacted are working, even though they are not!

You are absolutly right if you apply logic and reasoning, this is totally stupid, and counter productive. But If you apply imagination, and hope, it makes perfect sense!

Just courious are the walls in your room pink and padded?


Dude, I don't want "moe" guns, I want CURLY guns!

[Dr. Who]

I see what you are saying now, I am sorry I did not see what you were trying to say.

So even if moe guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means a short term drop in violence rates, and baning and restricting guns leads to higher violence in the short term, it may be a better route for the lpong term like in your country?

So while you still have a larger violence problem than we do, and your rate is not dropping as fast as ours, someday your solution will be the right one!

So until then You like all of the other Brits have to imagine that it is working! even though the results do not support that stance.

So you are suggesting that we adopt the same laws and process, and then our violence rate would skyrocket like yours did, and you can feel better about your decissions that did not work and we can imagine that the policies that we have inacted are working, even though they are not!

You are absolutly right if you apply logic and reasoning, this is totally stupid, and counter productive. But If you apply imagination, and hope, it makes perfect sense!

Just courious are the walls in your room pink and padded?

Since we are specifically talking about the US, with a gun ownership right both entrenched in the Constitution and in the minds of many of the people, any solution to incrementally more gun ownership would have to be far more creative than a direct attempt to disarm the population, in order to avoid catastrophic results. As is patently obvious by the posts on this forum, some people are willing to fight to the death for the right to keep guns. Therefore you must begin with addressing the reasons for gun ownership. Why do people keep and bear arms? Some for their amusement i.e. sport, hunting or for ideological reasons. Many for protection. Some for both. Some for criminal purposes. The first three categories have both careful gun owners and careless gun owners. For those who keep guns for protection, you must address the societal reason why they feel the need for protection. For those who keep guns carelessly, you have to have consider the safety of the rest of the population. How do you prevent careless storage of weapons? You may have the right to keep and bear arms, you do not have the right to do so in a fashion that is a danger to your community. You must also address the wisdom of allowing the mentally and emotionally disturbed the right to own weapons. This would be a difficult task. How many people are likely to be diagnosed versus those who are not and will never be diagnosed? There is of course the criminal use of guns. If you address the primary root of crime, i.e. poverty, then you go a long way to reduce the reason for criminal gun use. Since there are so many ways that criminals can obtain guns or even make them themselves, without addressing the underlying reason for crime, you can never really resolve the problem. You are caught in a vicious circle which will continue to gather momentum. The worse the economy, the more criminals, the more the momentum. I leave it to your imagination where this ultimately can end up. It won't be pretty.

[zelmo1234]

I can agree with much of what is said above.

But just like the afordable care act it appears that our President will rush some feel good legislation through, and he may even take excutive orders.

None of these will prevent one crime or mass shooting!

Controling poverty will absolutly help, but the social programs at this time are designed to keep people in poverty

Unfortunatly the issue of excutive orders, is a very problmatic, and could end badly.

I saw a person today with a shirt on that said "I have yet to meet the cop that is willing to trade his life for my gun!" This is scary to me, because I have spent time in security and have been tought to identify dangerous behaviour, and it is out there right now.

If this President have govenrment over reaches and trys an excutive power grad, and he has shown signs of just that, you could be talking about a blood bath.

Right now you have a criminal populations that has no reguard for the police, and you might very well make criminals out of many, if not most of the gun owners. The police should be looked up to and respected, they will become the enforcment arm of this admnistration.

The men and women will be viewed as the SS by many, and I fear that there lives will be worthless, after the first attempt of enforcment!

[Dr. Who]

I can agree with much of what is said above.

But just like the afordable care act it appears that our President will rush some feel good legislation through, and he may even take excutive orders.

None of these will prevent one crime or mass shooting!

Controling poverty will absolutly help, but the social programs at this time are designed to keep people in poverty

Unfortunatly the issue of excutive orders, is a very problmatic, and could end badly.

I saw a person today with a shirt on that said "I have yet to meet the cop that is willing to trade his life for my gun!" This is scary to me, because I have spent time in security and have been tought to identify dangerous behaviour, and it is out there right now.

If this President have govenrment over reaches and trys an excutive power grad, and he has shown signs of just that, you could be talking about a blood bath.

Right now you have a criminal populations that has no reguard for the police, and you might very well make criminals out of many, if not most of the gun owners. The police should be looked up to and respected, they will become the enforcment arm of this admnistration.

The men and women will be viewed as the SS by many, and I fear that there lives will be worthless, after the first attempt of enforcment!

It may be a naive opinion, but I think the President has altuism in his heart. Unfortunately he is in a no win situation. A universal health care plan cannot succeed in Congress because the elected members represent not the people, but their financial supporters. Universal health care would spell the end of HMOs and a great deal of private insurance. The fact that an individual state or a country could, with less money than is spent annually on insurance through payroll deductions or private insurance plans, run hospitals and provide health care to more people, through a universally acknowledged principal of economics of scale will not be permitted, although this is how other countries manage. In the current situation, the President can advocate, but ultimately any plan is so subject to compromise, that the result is, and I apologise in advance for the offensive description, but it is an " abortion on toast".

Similarly any plans to change any measure of the status quo, whether it be welfare or education, must first travel through the special interest filter. As a result, nothing that does not ultimately benefit the special interests a.k.a. lobbiests reaches the point of legislation intact. This is not unique only to the US, but increasingly to world at large. The solution to a dangerous society is not JUST fewer guns, but a society where there are only haves, not haves and have nots.

[Chris]

nothing that does not ultimately benefit the special interests a.k.a. lobbiests reaches the point of legislation intact

You mean like Obamacare?


A universal health care plan cannot succeed in Congress because the elected members represent not the people, but their financial supporters.

But that is how Obamacare passed, financial special interests wrote it.

See Guns, Walmart, and crony capitalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10145-Guns-Walmart-and-crony-capitalism).

[Carygrant]

Just more meaningless babble from someone whose karma is an astounding -2901.

If anyone questions how cary ranks here on this forum, see http://thepoliticalforums.com/memberlist.php?order=asc&sort=reputation&pp=30.

I think the cause for that is obvious.



I just knew you would have no sensible response . The moment you face anybody with a University or Professional background , your lack of pedigree shines out .You are as easy to unzip as a kipper in disguise .
The Master Troll trapped and verbally mauled .
Your acolyte is in the History Section . Smart move to join him

[Peter1469]

A universal health care plan will only save money by Congressional control over the budget.

Health care won't have anything to do with it.

[Uncle Slam]

I just knew you would have no sensible response . The moment you face anybody with a University or Professional background , your lack of pedigree shines out .You are as easy to unzip as a kipper in disguise .
The Master Troll trapped and verbally mauled .
Your acolyte is in the History Section . Smart move to join him

Hey, I have a masters in history. While it was basically a waste of time and three years of needless stress, don't lump us together in the same catagory.

[Chris]

I just knew you would have no sensible response . The moment you face anybody with a University or Professional background , your lack of pedigree shines out .You are as easy to unzip as a kipper in disguise .
The Master Troll trapped and verbally mauled .
Your acolyte is in the History Section . Smart move to join him

What on earth are you babbling about now, cary? Does anyone know?

[Mister D]

Cary has been desperate for attention lately. :grin: I'm inactive for a few days and the poor man breaks down.