Your "Conservative" President

[Hagbard Celine]

If the government (rest of the tax payers) GETS TO pick your sorry addicted, ruined ass out of the gutter when you fuck up, then yes. SO the question remains: Do we let people die in the gutter?

Or should we come up with a more efficient system that does not include gutters? Hmmm.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If the government (rest of the tax payers) GETS TO pick your sorry addicted, ruined ass out of the gutter when you fuck up, then yes. SO the question remains: Do we let people die in the gutter?

What about those of us who don't end up in the gutter? Do we still get parented?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about those of us who don't end up in the gutter? Do we still get parented?

How much do you want to pay in taxes? We must indemnify the risk associated with however ever much drug addiction and ruined lives we must deal with, as a group. And we don't know WHO will end up in the gutter at any given point. Sometimes people lose it quick. Sometimes they pick themselves up. If you want to start factoring in the risk potential of individuals based on family, genetics, IQ, whatever correlates you can find, and give high risk people more taxes, to let the low risk people pay less, that'll be fine. Do you think that'll go over with the aclu, naacp, the dems .....?

 

[Max Power]

NEVER has the word MORON applied so aptly.

Your response was this:
In 19th century Ireland, when the price of potatoes would rise, poor people were no longer able to afford meat and potatoes, so they purchased more potatoes.

As I noted about your response, its nonsensical. "when the price of potatoes rose, poor people could no longer afford meat and potatoes, so they purchased more potatoes"??????

thats like saying, I cant afford that car, oh, the price just went up, so now I can afford it. Are you really that stupid, or can you see the problem with those statements?????? PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE tell me, "ahhh, now I see what you are saying"

Since it makes no sense, YOU HAVENT RESPONDED,

sheesh sonny boy , getting trounced in a debate by a girl, how embarrassing,....

That's exactly what a Giffen good is. One where you buy more when the price increases.

A Giffen good is a product for which a rise in price of this product makes people buy even more of the product

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's exactly what a Giffen good is. One where you buy more when the price increases.

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

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


"Giffen goods may or may not exist in the real world, "

 

[Bullypulpit]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf



George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


What does "conservative" mean again?

The real irony is that he first ran on a platform of small governemnt and fiscal responsibility, tradtional Republican values. But I could've told you this would happen and, come to think of it, I did.

Dubbyuh left the Texas budget and economy a smoking, radioactive crater in the ground that is just now cooling off. The mushroom cloud is still rising over the federal budget and the US economy.

<center><img src=http://www.politicalstrikes.com/images/lib3.jpg><?center>

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dems will raise taxes. That will kill the economy. Do we need to get Republicans to quit spending? Yes. Dems won't even recognize the Islamic threat to the world. Offer us a reasonable alternative and maybe the dems will win something.

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf



George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


What does "conservative" mean again?

And don't you find it interesting that much of that criricism is coming from the left asserting he is not spending enough?? On what more welfare?? Education??? Seems Conservatives are the only ones who should be complaining about spending.

 

[Max Power]

And don't you find it interesting that much of that criricism is coming from the left asserting he is not spending enough?? On what more welfare?? Education??? Seems Conservatives are the only ones who should be complaining about spending.

I guess I must not be on the left then.

 

[Bonnie]

I guess I must not be on the left then.

Are you implying you are a conservative??

 

[Max Power]

Are you implying you are a conservative??

No.
Nor am I in the center.

The whole "left-right" paradigm is lacking.

 

[OCA]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf



George Bush is the #1 president in terms of government spending. Of all time.


What does "conservative" mean again?

George Bush has bent conservatives over and fucked them right in the brown eye, no ifs ands or buts about it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No.
Nor am I in the center.

The whole "left-right" paradigm is lacking.

Just another way of saying Im a liberal but dont want to admit it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's exactly what a Giffen good is. One where you buy more when the price increases.

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

But you said "when the price rose and THEY COULD NO LONGER AFFORD potatoes..."

NO LONGER AFFORD means you dont have the money to buy them, so how the hell do you conclude with

"so they bought more potatoes"

Sorry if Im gonna hold you to the actual meanings of the words, kinda a habit of mine.

Besides, you left out alot of variables in the scenario,,,LIKE THE SUPPLY,,,MINOR detail in SUPPLY AND DEMAND economics, ya think? (oh, thats right, apparently you dont)

 

[Max Power]

But you said "when the price rose and THEY COULD NO LONGER AFFORD potatoes..."

I will only continue this discussion with you when you show me EXACTLY where I said that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I will only continue this discussion with you when you show me EXACTLY where I said that.

Your whole giffen good argument is ridiculous. Most items don't work that way. So stfu.

 

[Max Power]

Your whole giffen good argument is ridiculous. Most items don't work that way. So stfu.

You're right most items don't work that way.
Your point?


Exactly, you have none.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're right most items don't work that way.
Your point?


Exactly, you have none.

The point is it's stupid to bring up something so arcane and remote as geffen goods in a realistic discussion.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Government rules by the consent of the governed. You have smaller government confused with total anarchy. One of the powers given to the Federal government is to look after the public welfare. The war on drugs clearly falls within that scope.

Caffeine, alcohol etc have been used for centuries and there wasn't a general decay in society, as there has been with the widespread use of illicit drugs. Cocaine, heroin, speed and other drugs are highly addictive, whereas caffeine and alcohol are not.

First of all, the general welfare clause was originally intended to limit the power of the federal government, and it was well understood right up until a power-hungry socialist named FDR tried his court packing scheme. James Madison explains:

That the narrow interpretation of the powers of Congress is the one intended by the Framers is a matter of public record. Prior to its ratification, opponents of the Constitution expressed concerns that the General Welfare Clause might be interpreted so broadly as to allow Congress to usurp any powers not specifically forbidden to it. James Madison, in Federalist 41, responded to the idea that anyone might interpret it in such a way with outright ridicule and a lecture on grammar:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/11/03/judges-as-rulers/

Make no mistake. The US constitution does not say "The government can do whatever it wants, just not the things on this list." What it does say is basically: "The federal government may do nothing at all--unless it is on this list". And regulating drugs--any drugs--is not on that list. If the states wish to, they can (but shouldn't). But not the feds.

Also, "illicit" drugs have been around for a very long time. Marijuana/hashish, opium, and coca have been used for untold centuries. There was no wholesale societal breakdown, certainly not any worse than alcohol (which is deadlier than pot), or tobacco (which is more addictive than pot). And there was not an epidemic of 12 year olds getting addicted to over the counter morphine 100 years ago--that's the silliest thing I've heard all day.

People, stop believing the whopping fat lies the bloated federal government tells you! They lie about guns, they lie about the effects of welfare, they lie about drugs, they lie about anything that would reduce their budgets and power.

Are we willing to allow people to die in the street? If not, society has a vested interest in keeping them OFF the social programs they will end up on.

Unrestricted drugs will result in more people using government programs, yes. Which is part of the reason why we need to end those programs. That's a problem with socialism, not a problem with freedom.

If you're wondering what will happen in the abscence of government programs to aid the poor, I can recommend a book called The Tradgedy of American Compassion. It's the history of private charity in the US, and how vastly superior it was at saving people from their own self-destructive habits (as opposed to government "help", which will never be sucessful, because that would result in smaller budgets for the different departments).

Where does one end and the other begin? Would you feel safe being a passenger in a plane whose pilot is a cocaine addict? How about being the patient of a surgeon who is addicted? Would you trust your auto mechanic if he or she was a heroin addict? You seem to assume that addicts are junkies on the street, but oftentimes, they hold jobs and put other people's welfare at risk. The addict is not the best judge of when they are putting other people's lives and welfare in danger.

If they can't do their job, their employer would fire them to maintain profitability. In fact, the employer's self-interest is so strong, they might use random drug tests. Kinda like what happens now. You don't actually think that people have a particularly hard time getting drugs right now, do you? Your "OMG WHAT IF!"'s sound just like a lefty ranting about guns.

Dems will raise taxes. That will kill the economy. Do we need to get Republicans to quit spending? Yes. Dems won't even recognize the Islamic threat to the world. Offer us a reasonable alternative and maybe the dems will win something.

Repubs will lean on the Federal Reserve to devalue the currency by buying government bonds with paper money made up from thin air--which gives us a hidden "stealth" tax of inflation. And the opening salvos in the war on Iraq was started under President Slick btw.

 

[William Joyce]

First of all, the general welfare clause was originally intended to limit the power of the federal government, and it was well understood right up until a power-hungry socialist named FDR tried his court packing scheme.

Exactly right.

The Congress used to be so careful about this that they shot down even the smallest internal improvement schemes, like bridges and canals.