T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Can we at least do that for awhile instead of simply cutting anything and everything that is designed to help the poor?

If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you subsidize poverty, guess what?

Oh and please wake me up when Congress actually cuts "anything that is designed to help the poor."

88 wrote:Anecdotally, I know that there are huge taxes on cigarettes and other products right now, and that most Americans do not shop for such products via the black market.

No, but we do drive to the reservation to avoid such unfair taxation. I'm guessing this Fair Tax plan would make a lot of Indians really happy. "Screw casinos, let's open a bunch of supermarkets and car dealerships!"

IMO, some combination of the Fair Tax and a flat income tax (sans loopholes) would be the fairest solution. Then again, if the gub-mint would just significantly cut defense spending and end the "war" on drugs, we'd have a balanced budget in no time and everyone could pay less taxes.

Now if only there was a candidate who promised to do those two simple things...

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Then again, if the gub-mint would just significantly cut defense spending and end the "war" on drugs, we'd have a balanced budget in no time and everyone could pay less taxes.

Uh no, we wouldn't. Not even close. It would be a baby step in the right direction and nothing more. Defense spending isn't even the problem. It can be curbed to an extent immediately.

The budget busters are medicare, social security, welfare entitlements and debt service. Those problems are structural and are going to grow at an increasingly rapid pace in the very near future. Nobody wants to bite the bullet and fix it, though.

mvscal wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Then again, if the gub-mint would just significantly cut defense spending and end the "war" on drugs, we'd have a balanced budget in no time and everyone could pay less taxes.

Uh no, we wouldn't. Not even close. It would be a baby step in the right direction and nothing more. Defense spending isn't even the problem. It can be curbed to an extent immediately.

The budget busters are medicare, social security, welfare entitlements and debt service. Those problems are structural and are going to grow at an increasingly rapid pace in the very near future. Nobody wants to bite the bullet and fix it, though.

According to this link, defense spending accounts for about the same percentage (20%) of the budget as Social Security (another 20%) and Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP (21%). "Safety net programs," aka welfare entitlements, account for slightly less than the above three.

The Feds "only" spent $15 billion on the drug war in 2010, while states wasted, err, spent another $25 billion. So yeah, I guess you're right that it's a much smaller share of the total budget, but it's clearly one of the most wasteful and unnecessary expenditures. At least Medicare and SSI actually help some people.

Do some folks take advantage of such handouts? Absolutely. But if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'd rather our government stop incarcerating non-violent drug users and stop blowing up brown people in countries that pose no immediate threat to us before they stop providing cheap health care and retirement benefits to Americans who don't need them.

I'm not disagreeing with you, really. All of the things you mentioned need to be fixed. I just personally believe that defense spending and the failed drug war are more pressing issues...

88 wrote:I would legalize the weed if I had the reins. Just sayin.

I know you don't wanna hear it, but I honestly think it could happen if Obama gets another term. He and Holder have already called off the dogs to some extent, but there are still way too many "Just Say No" types on both sides of the aisle for him to seriously address decriminalization before the elections. But once he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected anymore, I seriously believe he might actually try to push for some significant changes in this country's archaic drug policy. At the very least, I can see him pushing the DEA & FDA to reschedule marijuana...

88 wrote:Ron Paul favors decriminalizing the weed too. It isn't just lefties. Libertarians and many of those like me who prefer to live under the Constitution (which reserves such questions to the States) do not see the criminalization of the weed as a proper federal role.

Oh, I know. That's who I was talking about when I typed this:

Now if only there was a candidate who promised to do those two simple things...

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if he actually won the nomination. I might even be persuaded to vote for another Republican if he had the balls to pick Paul as his running mate. But neither of those scenarios is going to happen, and I'm unable to vote in the GOP primaries, so I'm pretty much resigned to voting for whoever the Libertarian party comes up with and hoping one of the neo-con/fundamentalist/evangelical types doesn't unseat Obama.

I guess I'm a rare breed: a left-leaning Libertarian. For me, it's more about individual rights than states' rights. I don't think the state government has any more right to restrict my freedoms than the federal government...

So the whole "states' rights" thing just comes down to this: "If ya don't like it, get the hell out!" Still seems a little tyrannical to me, just on a smaller level. Sometime I think my fellow Libertarians just use "leave it up to the states" as a copout when it's a freedom they don't particularly agree with or choose to exercise. Utah shouldn't be allowed to restrict my freedom any more than the federal government. Maybe I like living in Utah, despite disagreeing with a majority of the voters. My only recourse is to just leave? Why can't the Utahans who oppose marijuana simply just not smoke it? What gives them the right to impose their personal beliefs on me?

My dream is simply to be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, as long as I'm not harming someone else. Why is that such a scary proposition to so many people?

If you don't like drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, don't use them. If you don't like abortion, don't have one or pay for one. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. But as long as I'm not not blowing smoke in your face, pointing a gun at you or smacking you upside the head with an aborted fetus, leave me the fuck alone.

I don't know. Some would argue that the role of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Granted, telling someone they can't smoke weed or play poker or exchange money for sex might be a liberal interpretation of the word "tyranny," but mightn't such endeavors fall under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness"?

When you use a phrase like "put up with your bullshit," that sort of implies that my actions are actually impacting another citizen. For example, if you're out to dinner with your family and I'm at the next table chain-smoking, you could make a reasonable argument that the bullshit I'm engaged in is having a direct negative effect on your own pursuit of happiness. But if I'm at home smoking a bowl or at a friend's house playing cards for money with a group of consenting adults and the mere thought of such activities bothers you, you just need to get over it. I don't care if a majority of the people agree with you or not.

As far as abortion goes, I'm not the lawyer here, but I thought the Supreme Court decided that it was, in fact, one of those sacred individual liberties (the right to privacy, if I'm not mistaken). Really don't want to derail this thread with an abortion discussion, but it seemed worth noting...

88 wrote:The Constitution does not speak to the issue directly.

No, but it does indirectly -- something about "All persons BORN yaddayaddayadda." Citizenship Clause, or some such shit.

Ergo, no rights.

I agree with your "states' issue" stance completely.

88 wrote: according to the Constitution, a fetus is not eligible to be elected to the Office of President.

Yes, I would imagine there aren't many 35 year old fetuses.

88 wrote:I guess the Supreme Court could have said in Roe v. Wade that until a fetus is born, it is not a citizen of the United States or of any state (since it cannot be a resident until it is born) and thus is not entitled to any privileges or immunities of the United States.

Non-citizens still have basic human rights and, in the US, quite a bit more than just that. Hell, that fetus could get in-state tuition rates in many states along with a DNC membership button and an SEIU t shirt.