For the love of God , Please support Ron Paul

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » For the love of God , Please support Ron Paul
« Previous Page | Next Page »
Manfred
6/11/07 9:11:55AM
But since they get certain LEGAL rights by being married, they shouldn't be excluded. Else it's discrimination based on what religion says and that is against church and state separation

Civil unions are a nice compromise. Give them the same legal rights as straight married folks.

And the US is one of the only countries where a minister can sign a legal marriage certificate. Most countries you have to go to the courthouse or city hall to have the legal part and the church is optional.
mkiv9secsupra
6/11/07 10:56:39AM
Civil unions would be good. It wouldnt be fair if straight couples got benefits from the government and gays didnt. Im just saying only in hell can gay people "marry"...
disorderlyvision
6/12/07 1:55:42PM
to get back on topic. i posted this elsewhere but it fits this thread.

I agree that it will be difficult for him to get the nomination. because of his idealism there are probably a lot of people in the GOP, big money makers, and corporations that receive gov. subsidies who won't want him in office. since he is not beholden to these groups he will have a hard time raising the 100 million dollars that the other will have for their campaigns, but this is also the very reason a huge grassroots following has sprung up to support him. if he gets elected i think he will actually fight for some major changes in the way our government is being run, and do everything in his power to protect our civil liberties, which are being run all over by the current administration. he will also fight to bring back the gold standard and get rid of the federal reserve so our money will actually be worth something. currently our money has no backing, and they continue to print it causing deflation in its worth. it is about as good as monopoly money. he also wants to bring our troops from all over the world back home so we can focus on protecting the homefront instead of thinning out our military all over the world and sticking our noses in the foreign affairs of sovereign nations.
B_Goetz
6/16/07 1:10:57AM
ttt
disorderlyvision
6/19/07 8:40:06PM
when is the next debate? anyone know?
disorderlyvision
6/21/07 10:49:34PM
Just got this in an e-mail yesterday, WTF



Kevin,

!!!Your action is needed!!!

It comes directly from Ron Paul's Campaign:
<< Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa >>

Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a
presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des
Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam
Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom
Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn't
invited.

We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who
asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters
assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.

The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called
this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or
simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called
Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask
about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not
invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be
allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused
to explain. The call ended.

Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa
Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not
answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.

Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance
excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of
every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN
debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear
from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is
growing by the day?

We couldn't get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor
and Sheffler. Maybe you'll have better luck. Their contact
information is below.

It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax
Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from
their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News
confirming Dr. Paul's participation in its nationally broadcast
August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008

Contact Information:
====================================

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com

BigTomZ
6/23/07 4:34:52PM
I am already a Ron Paul supporter. I have been since the beginning. You can see his voting record is in line with everything he says.

He doesn't contradict himself and he votes in the best interest of the country. He has never been the type of representative to vote party line over what he really thinks is best for the country.

He doesn't sell out what he believes to vote the party line and isn't a far right conservative, which is why his party and the media are trying to ignore him.
Balthazaar
6/24/07 8:18:51PM
yep
Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
Svartorm
8/23/07 5:59:11PM
I like that hes ballsy and wants to do the right thing generally, but I can't support pulling troops out of foreign countries unless we're getting HUGE amounts of cash to give up our established bases in other countries. They're part of the spoils of war and shouldn't be given away.

My other big concern with Ron Paul is that he has enough money and support where he might run as an independent, which will draw votes away from whoever takes the GOP and then we're stuck with a democrat. I'd rather Paul stay at 2% at the polls and drop out of the race altogether, or take the primary. I'd have no problem voting for him if he can win, but I don't want to encourage him.

As of this moment I'm leaning more towards Thompson or Huckabee, but if Paul gains steam I'll have to take a closer look at him.
ncordless
8/25/07 1:30:11AM

Posted by mkiv9secsupra


Posted by loller90278


Posted by disorderlyvision

michael savage is a warped individual.
nothing wrong liking somone with balls, but i consider myself to be a libertarian, as such i support the free market, government staying the hell out of my private life, very limited taxes, and staying out of foreign affairs.

Ron Paul is the only major party candidate who supports those views! if he wasn't running i would not vote for either party, because they both suck!



libertarians are the wealthy anarchists.



im as poor as they come...but im a Libertarian.

I just hate how the government can tell me i have to do this, and i cant do that, etc.

example 1) the retarded seat belt law - Why should i have to wear a seatbelt if i dont want to? Who else is it going to hurt if i get into a wreck? NO ONE!!! But instead i have to pay for a policeman to sit on the side of the road and watch for people without seat belts on? WTF? Thats bullshit.... I support a seatbelt law for minors but adults should have 100% say-so on this.....

example 2) [most states dont do this anymore but here in GA its still here] no buying alcohol on sundays - GA is run by so many hypocritcal southern baptists that they fail to realize that they are wrong. Why should they have a say so in if we buy alcohol on sundays or not? It actually hurts the Government by not being able to tax alcohol sales on sunday.

example 3) i have to bring this up.....gay marriage. i am a christian...a devout one at that. The constitution says there should be full separation between state and church....that being said MARRIAGE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT AT ALL. So the government should not be the ones to decide who can marry and who cant! i fully support the government on making a program for life partners but in no way is that marriage. Marriage is a uniting under god. So churches should be the ones controlling marriages. If the church says no God doesnt want gay marriage then no you cant get married. If the church says you can marry then theyre wrong anyways. but oh well.

i could go on and on about how hypocritical the government has been in the past years. The only way wrongs can be righted is if government withdrawls itself from everyday lives.




Some good points and bad points.

About the seatbelt thing... you are going to hurt my insurance premiums when you can't pay your hospital bill.

I totally agree with you on the alcohol on sundays. That is the kinda bullshit that only happens in the bible belt.

As far as the gay marriage thing... I draw a similar position coming from a different place. Government shouldn't have any say in marriage... at all. That means it should not recognize marriage as a legal agreement. It should stay in the church, synagogoue, mosque, or whatever. The issue of gay marriage shouldn't even come up at all because if a church wants to marry someone, they should be able to. The government should not be able to say who can or can't get married.
nubby
8/27/07 5:08:58PM

Posted by zephead


Posted by disorderlyvision

check out the you tube videos if you are not familiar with him.

he wants government out of individuals personal lives, he wants to drastically cut taxes, smaller government, open up many of gov programs to free market, he wants us to keep our noses out of foreign affairs, he bases his votes on the costitution which he was sworn to uphold like the others, except he takes it serious. check him out!



So what pays for the police, fire department, schools, road work, bridge repair, Social Services, Social Security etc. etc. if we "drastically" cut taxes? What government programs does he want to open up to the free market? To allow what Halliburton does? What Bechtal did for hurricane Katrina?

Private companies already rape the government when they are allowed to do the work. Bechtal dropped to ball bigtime with Katrina victims. Halliburton screw's the US taxpayers all the time when allowed to do government work. What happened with the 9 billion dollars?



The funny thing about cutting taxes is that it won't trully impact anyone but the richest half of the country. I agree with Ron Paul in reducing the size of the government, specifically the military budgets that are being used for no bid contracts like halliburton. But that money could be better spent to fortify government run programs like FEMA, better education, alternative energy research, national healthcare, and environmental issues.

The shitty part about our government is that it's so damn short sighted. Instead of spending all this money in the middle east to secure our interests there, we could have been researching new energy efficient models that could replace oil. And make no mistake boys and girls, our interests in the middle east all boil down to one thing, oil.
zephead
8/27/07 5:21:04PM

Posted by Svartorm

I like that hes ballsy and wants to do the right thing generally, but I can't support pulling troops out of foreign countries unless we're getting HUGE amounts of cash to give up our established bases in other countries. They're part of the spoils of war and shouldn't be given away.

My other big concern with Ron Paul is that he has enough money and support where he might run as an independent, which will draw votes away from whoever takes the GOP and then we're stuck with a democrat. I'd rather Paul stay at 2% at the polls and drop out of the race altogether, or take the primary. I'd have no problem voting for him if he can win, but I don't want to encourage him.

As of this moment I'm leaning more towards Thompson or Huckabee, but if Paul gains steam I'll have to take a closer look at him.




We're stuck with a Democrat??? I guess a Democrat would do worse then what is happening right now?
zephead
8/27/07 5:28:24PM

Posted by disorderlyvision


Posted by Manfred


Posted by disorderlyvision

i agree on the part about minors, however i do not think it is the governments job to be our babysitters, i think that is up to the parents. this includes monitoring the tv and internet etc. i dont think it is the governments right to regulate these things.



I agree on tv and internet, but when it comes to physical safety, it's a whole other story.

Children (I have two) can't, won't, don't know how or why protect themselves. That's my job. However, if I have a newborn chillin on the dashboard, (I've seen that in Saudi many times, believe it or not) I deserved to be punished.

To PROTECT and serve, and that includes protecting children who have irresponsible parents



i dont see how writing a ticket is PROTECTING the children. it is just a stupid law issued to generate revenue for the police departments. if they were really so concerned why not turn the irresponsible parents in to child protective services.

in fact writing tickets for seatbelts (in MO it is $10, IL $75) may hurt the children aswell. if the family is poor $75 is a lot of money, and would take away from providing the necessities to the children such as food and clothing.

i do see your point, i just dont think it is the governments buisness to regulate these things. I'm sure in the past kids were put in more dangerous situations than not wearing a seatbelt. our government tries to regulate evrything, eventually the will turn each and everyone of us into a criminal.




Since it's a law, the parent is the one stupid. If they know they can't afford to pay a ticket, why would you drive around without a seat belt. It is against the traffic laws to not wear one. I have been driving for 26 years, I have never been in or caused a accident. I have one speeding ticket from 10 years ago. I am 42 YO. Married with 2 kids. I pay $1200 a year for full coverage. Why?? Because I am paying for what other fools do.


mkiv9secsupra
8/27/07 8:56:44PM

Posted by zephead
Since it's a law, the parent is the one stupid. If they know they can't afford to pay a ticket, why would you drive around without a seat belt. It is against the traffic laws to not wear one. I have been driving for 26 years, I have never been in or caused a accident. I have one speeding ticket from 10 years ago. I am 42 YO. Married with 2 kids. I pay $1200 a year for full coverage. Why?? Because I am paying for what other fools do.



that is beside the point.

WHY do we have to wear seatbelts? Why should someone else decide what is safe for me?
Svartorm
8/28/07 2:41:44AM

Posted by zephead

Since it's a law, the parent is the one stupid. If they know they can't afford to pay a ticket, why would you drive around without a seat belt. It is against the traffic laws to not wear one. I have been driving for 26 years, I have never been in or caused a accident. I have one speeding ticket from 10 years ago. I am 42 YO. Married with 2 kids. I pay $1200 a year for full coverage. Why?? Because I am paying for what other fools do.





Whats your health insurance bill a year? I'd wager a hell of a lot more, and its because you're paying for people who smoke, don't excercise, can't figure out how birth control works, and so on. Should we ban smoking, laziness and sex as well to keep your coverage low?

Sometimes freedom involves giving someone just enough rope to hang themselves with. The arguement that everyone should be forced to wear a seatbelt based on this is fundimentally flawed and leads down some nasty roads.
Rush
8/29/07 12:50:26PM
I'm not an American, but I though I would throw a couple logs on the fire


1 - Wearing a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt does not only protect the person wearing it, but it also protects other people from getting hurt because some idiot went flying through their windshield. Certain laws are needed in order to protect other people and not just the person doing the stupid act. I am so tired of the North American mentality that people have a RIGHT to do whatever they want despite what the law says. Well, sure they can, but they need to be able to accept the consequences for their actions.

I am not sure about the insurance premiums argument (or what the point of that comment was), maybe someone can clarify it for me, but I don't think insurance premiums would go down if there was no law saying you should wear your seat belt. In fact, I am pretty sure they would skyrocket. Maybe you should be asking the question why it's the law to have auto insurance?

2 - Gay marriage. I see where the church is coming from. They defined marriage long before the supreme court was even invented and now the supreme court is deciding what the definition of marriage is. However, there are other points that need to be considered

a) You need to get approval from the government before you get married in a church. i.e. a church will not marry you without a marriage licence.

b) A certificate from a church saying that you are married has no legal power.

c) Any church has full authority over whom they want to marry. They do not have to marry a couple if they don' t want to.

d) Anybody saying there are governmental privileges for being married are just nuts. In Canada, there is a tax break for married couples, but only if one person is declared a dependent. In fact, I pay more in taxes now that I am married than when I was single.


All three of these points are for Man-Women marriages, so personally I don't see what the fuss is about for the average person.



I personally don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to free-loaders (social assistance) and people that don't stay healthy (health care). However, it's the price you pay for the peace of mind that if something bad happens in my life and I lose my job, I wont have to worry about me, my wife or kid's next meal/hospital care.
mkiv9secsupra
8/29/07 3:50:11PM

Posted by Rush

I'm not an American, but I though I would throw a couple logs on the fire


1 - Wearing a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt does not only protect the person wearing it, but it also protects other people from getting hurt because some idiot went flying through their windshield. Certain laws are needed in order to protect other people and not just the person doing the stupid act. I am so tired of the North American mentality that people have a RIGHT to do whatever they want despite what the law says. Well, sure they can, but they need to be able to accept the consequences for their actions.



What right do you have to say i cant do something? none. And the likelyhood of someone flying out of their car at hurting someone is sooooo unlikely that there isnt even a point discussing it. I do take full responsibilty for my actions. If i dont want to wear a seatbelt then i get into a wreck then my consequence will most likely be pain....so why add on top of that some bullshit government taking my money for something they have no business in?

The north american mentality?! Everyone in the world should have a right to do whatever they want. I follow my religion and thats it. I could care less in what the american government says i can and cant do. I have my morals and i have my priorities and none of those involve putting a setablet on everytime i get in a car.
Rush
8/29/07 5:37:40PM

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

What right do you have to say i cant do something? none. And the likelyhood of someone flying out of their car at hurting someone is sooooo unlikely that there isnt even a point discussing it. I do take full responsibilty for my actions. If i dont want to wear a seatbelt then i get into a wreck then my consequence will most likely be pain....so why add on top of that some bullshit government taking my money for something they have no business in?

The north american mentality?! Everyone in the world should have a right to do whatever they want. I follow my religion and thats it. I could care less in what the american government says i can and cant do. I have my morals and i have my priorities and none of those involve putting a setablet on everytime i get in a car.



I did have a lot more typed, but I decided to cut it down to this as you're running in circles with your reasoning.

Compare the two (bolded) statements you made.


added -

Basically, replace the "Everyone in the world" with "I" and that is what I call The North American mentality


jdubs
8/29/07 11:28:57PM
ttb
Svartorm
8/30/07 1:28:11AM

Posted by Rush

1 - Wearing a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt does not only protect the person wearing it, but it also protects other people from getting hurt because some idiot went flying through their windshield.




Thats insane. The only time people generally are ejected from a vehicle is on the highway doing highways speeds. Theres no one to hit on the highway, so the odds are next to zero your flying body will hurt someone.



I am not sure about the insurance premiums argument (or what the point of that comment was), maybe someone can clarify it for me, but I don't think insurance premiums would go down if there was no law saying you should wear your seat belt. In fact, I am pretty sure they would skyrocket. Maybe you should be asking the question why it's the law to have auto insurance?




The reasoning is that when someone gets into a wreck and has insurance, the insurance company pays to fix the car, the other car, and whatever else your car insurance is set to cover. This makes your rates go up, and the rates of everyone else so the insurance company can get its money back.

And auto insurance isn't the law everywhere in the US. NH doesn't require it unless you've been convicted of a DWI or get into a car accident and can't afford to fix the other persons vehicle.


I personally don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to free-loaders (social assistance) and people that don't stay healthy (health care). However, it's the price you pay for the peace of mind that if something bad happens in my life and I lose my job, I wont have to worry about me, my wife or kid's next meal/hospital care.


If you didn't have to pay for freeloaders, you'd be making extra cash every week on your check, which you could put away to take care of your family and yourself. I'd prefer the peace of mind and dignity of having $$$ in the bank, rather than hoping a government agency will look out for me.
Rush
8/30/07 8:46:25AM

Posted by Svartorm


Thats insane. The only time people generally are ejected from a vehicle is on the highway doing highways speeds. Theres no one to hit on the highway, so the odds are next to zero your flying body will hurt someone.




Well, I've been in a number of accidents (all of which I was a passenger) and with the exception of one, they were all on roads where the limit was 80 km/hr or higher. In fact one of them was a head on collision in GA on the highway. A car in another lane got bumped and spun around and hit us head on. Luckily we were all wearing our seat belts because someone would've been ejected.

To those that do not agree with this concept, please take a physics course and learn about Newton's laws, especially his first law.



Posted by Svartorm
The reasoning is that when someone gets into a wreck and has insurance, the insurance company pays to fix the car, the other car, and whatever else your car insurance is set to cover. This makes your rates go up, and the rates of everyone else so the insurance company can get its money back.

And auto insurance isn't the law everywhere in the US. NH doesn't require it unless you've been convicted of a DWI or get into a car accident and can't afford to fix the other persons vehicle.



That's pretty much what I said. However, I wasn't aware there are states that don't require insurance by law, which is the case here.



If you didn't have to pay for freeloaders, you'd be making extra cash every week on your check, which you could put away to take care of your family and yourself. I'd prefer the peace of mind and dignity of having $$$ in the bank, rather than hoping a government agency will look out for me.



Again, I don't think the amount of money you save in taxes really amounts up to that much. Also, the only way you wouldn't lose money is by investing it because it will only devalue by sitting in the bank.

Politics are a very complicated thing and in a lot of cases there is no right or wrong answer. I just don't understand why people are getting so worked up over something so small as wearing a seat belt. it takes one second to put it on and one second to remove it.
mkiv9secsupra
8/30/07 7:18:43PM

Posted by Rush
Politics are a very complicated thing and in a lot of cases there is no right or wrong answer. I just don't understand why people are getting so worked up over something so small as wearing a seat belt. it takes one second to put it on and one second to remove it.



its not just the seatbelt thing it was just an example.there is a whole list of things. I dont agree with 95% of the things the government spends our money on. I dont want to pay for some lazy SOB that doesnt want to go get a job so he can have food and shelter while i work 50-60 hours a week and barely make enough for me and my family. And i dont want to pay for some 600+ lb person to sit at home and get disability when they could do something about it. I sure as hell dont want to pay for people who have a ton of kids because they dont want to use birth control. I dont take responsibilty for everyone elses actions but somehow im stuck with the consequences.
nubby
8/30/07 7:31:01PM
While I was in highschool a friend of mine was driving in her car. It was one of those old cars where the front seat was actually a bench. She didn't wear her seatbelt while driving and one day she slid from the drivers side to the passenger side. Her car went right through a house ona corner. Now technically if she had been wearing a seatbelt she wouldn't have been able to slide. Similarly, when driving if you aren't wearing a seatbelt and you suddenly get jarred or lifted out of your seat, you could potentially fly all around inside your car. That turns your car into an even more dangerous object. Seatbelt laws are fine. I think you can find better things to complain about.
Svartorm
8/30/07 10:03:31PM

Posted by nubby

Similarly, when driving if you aren't wearing a seatbelt and you suddenly get jarred or lifted out of your seat, you could potentially fly all around inside your car. That turns your car into an even more dangerous object. Seatbelt laws are fine. I think you can find better things to complain about.



Where are you driving?! On the ******* moon?!? If you're flying around the inside of your car, its because you're already rolling down an embankment.
Svartorm
8/30/07 10:07:50PM

Posted by Rush
Again, I don't think the amount of money you save in taxes really amounts up to that much. Also, the only way you wouldn't lose money is by investing it because it will only devalue by sitting in the bank.



You don't think? Why don't you bust out a pay stub and figure it out. Once you do, you'll be less that thrilled about it, I guarentee it. If you're cool with losing that much money a week, then please feel free to send me a cut as well.

And your devaluing money comment makes no sense. Your car only devalues over time too. Do you want to keep your car? Probably. Besides which, I'd rather have my money devaluing in a bank than devaluing by supporting some lazy ******* loser who can't be bothered to work for a living.
Rush
8/30/07 10:36:51PM

Posted by Svartorm

And your devaluing money comment makes no sense. Your car only devalues over time too. Do you want to keep your car? Probably. Besides which, I'd rather have my money devaluing in a bank than devaluing by supporting some lazy ******* loser who can't be bothered to work for a living.




It's simple mathematics. The interest rates nearly every bank offers are well below the rate of inflation.



Posted by Svartorm

You don't think? Why don't you bust out a pay stub and figure it out. Once you do, you'll be less that thrilled about it, I guarentee it. If you're cool with losing that much money a week, then please feel free to send me a cut as well.



I don't think you should lecture me about taxes. As a Canadian I most certainly pay more (% wise) in taxes than any American. Also, if you're proposing that taxes be eliminated completely, then you're mad. The contributions you American make to things that I've seen discussed heavily in this thread aren't that high. You guys don't have universal health care like us. That alone consists of a large portion of our tax dollars.

I'm sure if the US government spent less on its military your taxes could be significantly lowered, but let's not trek down that path.



Posted by mkiv9secsupra

its not just the seatbelt thing it was just an example.there is a whole list of things. I dont agree with 95% of the things the government spends our money on. I dont want to pay for some lazy SOB that doesnt want to go get a job so he can have food and shelter while i work 50-60 hours a week and barely make enough for me and my family. And i dont want to pay for some 600+ lb person to sit at home and get disability when they could do something about it. I sure as hell dont want to pay for people who have a ton of kids because they dont want to use birth control. I dont take responsibilty for everyone elses actions but somehow im stuck with the consequences.



I agree with that a lot of that too. However, there are a lot of counter arguments to just cutting those types of people off. For example, what do hungry, desperate people tend to do? They turn to crime. Then either the government has to spend more money on fighting that crime. Keep in mind that it costs more money to keep a criminal in jail for a year than what most of you make. A ballpark figure that I heard was 80,000 a year per inmate (in California)

If the government doesn't spend more money on crime fighting, then you have poorer living conditions.

The door swings both ways.
ncordless
8/30/07 10:38:25PM
Utopian communist governments and tax-free governments have something in common. They are not real. If the income tax was abolished, the money would be collected in another way.

We had a tax-free federal government for a while... The Articles of Confederation. It didn't work.

I hate taxes when I have to pay them. They don't bother me so much when while I'm driving on a road, or I see someone getting help in their lives when they need it, or I see that my soldier friends are being paid.


Name me one country as large and with as good of standard of living as ours that doesn't pay taxes.


If you think about it, it's a bad situation that we have to die, too. I don't want to. But I know it's gonna happen and I accept that and live with it.

You know what they say about the only things you have to do in life.
Svartorm
8/30/07 10:56:31PM

Posted by Rush

Posted by Svartorm

You don't think? Why don't you bust out a pay stub and figure it out. Once you do, you'll be less that thrilled about it, I guarentee it. If you're cool with losing that much money a week, then please feel free to send me a cut as well.



I don't think you should lecture me about taxes. As a Canadian I most certainly pay more (% wise) in taxes than any American. Also, if you're proposing that taxes be eliminated completely, then you're mad. The contributions you American make to things that I've seen discussed heavily in this thread aren't that high. You guys don't have universal health care like us. That alone consists of a large portion of our tax dollars.

I'm sure if the US government spent less on its military your taxes could be significantly lowered, but let's not trek down that path.




We're talking about two different things here. You said you didn't think you paid out much money to welfare and social programs. I'm not talking about how much we're taxed, but what the taxes are for.


I agree with that a lot of that too. However, there are a lot of counter arguments to just cutting those types of people off. For example, what do hungry, desperate people tend to do? They turn to crime. Then either the government has to spend more money on fighting that crime.


Poverty is indeed heavily associated with crime, but that doesn't mean you throw money at the savages so they don't attack you. I'm not all for getting rid of welfare, but I believe you should be placed in schooling so you can make something of yourself and be required to pay it back. FDR was a shitty president, but his idea of governement jobs for families with low income was actually a decent idea. Can't hold down a job? Heres a shovel. Go dig a ditch and we'll pay you. Can't do that? Starve.


Keep in mind that it costs more money to keep a criminal in jail for a year than what most of you make. A ballpark figure that I heard was 80,000 a year per inmate (in California)


What does this even have to do with anything? Are you arguing you shouldn't arrest people because its expensive? Or that you should give poor families your money so they don't turn to crime and get arrested, because it'll cost more in the long run?

The prison system and justice system is ****** in this country, especially when there are .17 cent solutions to $80,000 problems.
Rush
8/30/07 11:26:05PM

Posted by Svartorm

What does this even have to do with anything? Are you arguing you shouldn't arrest people because its expensive? Or that you should give poor families your money so they don't turn to crime and get arrested, because it'll cost more in the long run?

The prison system and justice system is ****** in this country, especially when there are .17 cent solutions to $80,000 problems.




No my arguement was that if you don't give anything to the freeloaders (i.e. people that live off of the hard working people), many of them will turn to crime. Then your tax dollars would have to be increased to jail them as opposed to feeding/housing them.

As for the 17 cent solution(s). I don't even have to touch that one, but I might come back to it in the future. I figured that aspect would come up.

As for your FDR example. I proposed that same thing to a friend once and he had a pretty good counter arguement. I'll post that when I have more time. I have to get to bed.
Svartorm
8/31/07 12:28:15AM

Posted by Rush


Posted by Svartorm
Or that you should give poor families your money so they don't turn to crime and get arrested, because it'll cost more in the long run?




No my arguement was that if you don't give anything to the freeloaders (i.e. people that live off of the hard working people), many of them will turn to crime. Then your tax dollars would have to be increased to jail them as opposed to feeding/housing them.



Thats exactly the same thing, and a bleeding heart mentality. How is that different than giving a bully your lunch money when he threatens you? Just because someone could potentially make a bad decision down the line doesn't mean you give him what he wants, unless you want to breed another generation of similar minded people.
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Related Topics