72 Bodies found in North Mexico

[TheStig]

....and there you go assuming.

Did you read the part in my last post where I said you said those things? Clearly it is in there, and I'm not talking about other people who have posed the same question.

Yes, you said it would create a revenue stream, and Crystallas and I have both gone to lengths to show why that is a silly notion.

I don't think you understand revenue. If you have something new and tax it, it will bring in money. Thats revenue. How they spend it is different.

 

[TheStig]

Look Stig, you have been very civil in this discussion. Nobody is trying to make an ass out of you, and I'm personally sorry if that's how you feel.

I agree with Prope because I base my rule of government and economics on whether "all men are created equal" and that includes the people on the street and people in Washington. Everyone will make mistakes, but the moment you give people that freedom to make mistakes, the sooner we can learn, and less people suffer from 1 mistake. That is just my point of view. No politician, scientist, professor, or an individual poster should be put on a pedestal of any sort, especially when someone has power over other individuals.

I certainly understand and never felt you were. I just didn't appreciate Prope putting words in my mouth. And I certainly never thought would solve all of lifes problems. I just think that it would provide a safe way to consume a product that brings enjoyment to people and would create some cash for a cash strapped government. I appreciate your big picture view but with the government that can corrupt any idea. Their is just too much corruption and waste to really make anything as feasible as it should be.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I don't think you understand revenue. If you have something new and tax it, it will bring in money. Thats revenue. How they spend it is different.

Thank you, but I quite well understand how revenue works. What I've been trying to tell you is, despite a tax placed on weed, it probably isn't going to bring in as much as you think it would, nor would it even put a dent into any type of debt.

And I haven't put words into your mouth.

 

[TheStig]

Thank you, but I quite well understand how revenue works. What I've been trying to tell you is, despite a tax placed on weed, it probably isn't going to bring in as much as you think it would, nor would it even put a dent into any type of debt.

And I haven't put words into your mouth.

So nothing is better than something? And as brought up before, the cigerette takes brings in billions. Currently we bring in 0 and have a lot of crime and expenses to get that 0. We are at a complete loss.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

So nothing is better than something? And as brought up before, the cigerette takes brings in billions. Currently we bring in 0 and have a lot of crime and expenses to get that 0. We are at a complete loss.

If you decriminalized it, you need less cops patrolling stupid drug busts - which helps local economies. You also have less people in jail, so state governments are spending less on their Department of Corrections. Decriminalize pot, as well as a few other drugs, and all of a sudden you don't need that many DEA employees and their salaries/benefits/pensions.

A lot more ways to help the economy than this. One of which is to curb the spending this current and the previous administration has done. They must think an ATM machine is a slot machine that pays out on every pull.

 

[TheStig]

If you decriminalized it, you need less cops patrolling stupid drug busts - which helps local economies. You also have less people in jail, so state governments are spending less on their Department of Corrections. Decriminalize pot, as well as a few other drugs, and all of a sudden you don't need that many DEA employees and their salaries/benefits/pensions.

A lot more ways to help the economy than this. One of which is to curb the spending this current and the previous administration has done. They must think an ATM machine is a slot machine that pays out on every pull.

Decriminlizing is a start but I'd rather legalize it. It puts in minimum safety standards and allows it to become more of a cash crop for everyone. You know if companies start producing it, its gonna have to be legalized. It also gives the police less authority over drug dealers. As it will be easier to hide other drugs with weed and still makes you need to visit your neighborhood friendly drug dealer.

There are but no one is really going to curb spending. Its simple and could have been done decades ago. Government is in the business of government. Plain and simple.

 

[Crystallas]

You can tax decriminalized goods too. You can tax the whole industry. Where there is a sale, income, import and business, there is a tax.

 

[TheStig]

You can tax decriminalized goods too. You can tax the whole industry. Where there is a sale, income, import and business, there is a tax.

You can tax illegal activities too. See Capone. But drugs would clearly fall under the fda. There is no chance they leave it unregulated.

 

[Crystallas]

You can tax illegal activities too. See Capone. But drugs would clearly fall under the fda. There is no chance they leave it unregulated.

Nope, not unless a Cannabis Control Act is written. Marijuana would not automatically fall under the FDA.

 

[TheStig]

Nope, not unless a Cannabis Control Act is written. Marijuana would not automatically fall under the FDA.

More than likely it would be. They wouldn't leave it unregulated.

 

[Scoot26]

If you decriminalized it, you need less cops patrolling stupid drug busts - which helps local economies. You also have less people in jail, so state governments are spending less on their Department of Corrections. Decriminalize pot, as well as a few other drugs, and all of a sudden you don't need that many DEA employees and their salaries/benefits/pensions.

A lot more ways to help the economy than this. One of which is to curb the spending this current and the previous administration has done. They must think an ATM machine is a slot machine that pays out on every pull.

While I agree in the long run that government spending needs to be brought in and controlled...ideally back to what Clinton had going in 2000 with a Budget Surplus (something to begin paying down our huge national debt)..but..I fail to see how that will help the economy right now?

Nope, not unless a Cannabis Control Act is written. Marijuana would not automatically fall under the FDA.

I'm sure something would be written and it would be heavily regulated.

 

[Crystallas]

While I agree in the long run that government spending needs to be brought in and controlled...ideally back to what Clinton had going in 2000 with a Budget Surplus (something to begin paying down our huge national debt)..but..I fail to see how that will help the economy right now?

There are a list of steps that need to be followed, in order to boost the economy properly, and not with bandaid fixes. Cutting spending is step one. Cutting the fat is number two. If you can do both at the same time, more power to you, but it's not possible because you can't fund the fat, and expect to cut it. While it sounds like the same thing, it's actually 2 different issues.
If you cut the money going into the special interest groups, the special interest groups have to make their own money. So if people really don't give a rats ass about a special interest, they wont fund it through private funds and/or charity. Those special interests die off, instead of keeping them on life support, while granting them special powers and privileges over normal Americans.
This helps the economy significantly because a lot of the leaders in special interest are some of the best entrepreneurs. These individuals can form legit businesses, and live by the rules of the market. They succeed and fail based on the quality of their services and goods, while paying taxes like everyone else. 1/3rd of the entire nation is owned by the government, and 50% of that is run by special interest, meaning tax exempt or they get heavy tax breaks. For what? Their own special interest, and not the interests of the majority. Yes, I care about finding a cure for rare diseases, but I care more about being able to do something myself, and in order to have that motivation and opportunity, I need less restrictions on my own harmless activity.

I dislike the ideas that support any laws to fight actions that hurt others, while at the same time hurt absolutely everyone in the process some way, some how.

I'm sure something would be written and it would be heavily regulated.

Nothing has to be written. That's the best part about decriminalizing any good. If you decriminalize it first, you can always regulate it later, but you can't regulate it and work your way backwards anywhere near as efficiently. Better yet, decriminalizing a good allows the states to execute their 10th amendment rights, this way you can have more social experiments within the tolerance of communities that demonstrates what works, and what doesn't. Going straight to Washington is just pure gridlock.

 

[Crystallas]

BTW, Clinton had a lot of bandaid fixes for the economy. I'm not discrediting him entirely, but people confuse the boom of a near completely unregulated internet and its effect on the economy with anything that Bill did.

The President is just a pawn for the party they represent, and a lot of people don't care about the details going fourth. I have yet to hear about anything specific that Bill Clinton did, that actually boosted the economy by law, and not the mere fact that he was in the right place, at the right time.

 

[Scoot26]

BTW, Clinton had a lot of bandaid fixes for the economy. I'm not discrediting him entirely, but people confuse the boom of a near completely unregulated internet and its effect on the economy with anything that Bill did.

The President is just a pawn for the party they represent, and a lot of people don't care about the details going fourth. I have yet to hear about anything specific that Bill Clinton did, that actually boosted the economy by law, and not the mere fact that he was in the right place, at the right time.

Yes an unregulated internet caused a boom which then crashed the market in 2000. But before that it was a boom industry and probably was responsible for drawing the country out of the early 90's recession. I feel itself that Bush Senior raising taxes (mainly on the rich) in 1991 helped bring the budget surpluses present by the time he left office, and if George W. had not cut taxes (mainly for the rich) started two wars, gave billions to special interests in the pharma and medical industry, we would not have had the huge deficits we did and would not have even further growing deficits present in the Obama Administration.

 

[Crystallas]

The internet boom didn't crash the market, it became regulated by 1999 in terms of content, commissions, and new rules to constitute fair use laws into "piracy".
I actually think the housing boom, and lack of government action to release public property from its own taxes hurt urban areas, and caused a major domino effect.

The taxes on the rich were temporary, until everyone moved money into the Cayman Islands LOL. It would have been nice if they didn't have to hide that money, and had more incentive to invest in domestic tech and industry. Maybe today, we would have more than just the few small areas in the nation where information technology blossomed.

 

[Scoot26]

The internet boom didn't crash the market, it became regulated by 1999 in terms of content, commissions, and new rules to constitute fair use laws into "piracy".
I actually think the housing boom, and lack of government action to release public property from its own taxes hurt urban areas, and caused a major domino effect.

The taxes on the rich were temporary, until everyone moved money into the Cayman Islands LOL. It would have been nice if they didn't have to hide that money, and had more incentive to invest in domestic tech and industry. Maybe today, we would have more than just the few small areas in the nation where information technology blossomed.

I thought the regulations didnt come until 2000. And piracy laws didnt really start until 2001. I could be wrong though.

Well to me there could have been two huge projects (that can still be done) but should have been done during the 2000's and one was upgrading our power grid using modern technologies and in the end it would save energy and the other was alternative energies.

 

[Crystallas]

There were a lot of good solutions. But with ignorance of the environmentalists who were hopped up on Al Gores ideals, we pushed them to the side. Instead of company A releasing a solution that is 4% better and cleaner, the environmentalists wanted 100% better and lobbied hatred until the government gave in LOL. Sad, because if company A succeeded, company B wouldn't be to far behind, and so on. I guess people saw this major change in communications, and they figure everything else could change just as fast. It's called a breakthrough for a reason.

It's like locking yourself in a room, because that protects you from the bad parts of the world! LOL

 

[TheStig]

There are a list of steps that need to be followed, in order to boost the economy properly, and not with bandaid fixes. Cutting spending is step one. Cutting the fat is number two. If you can do both at the same time, more power to you, but it's not possible because you can't fund the fat, and expect to cut it. While it sounds like the same thing, it's actually 2 different issues.
If you cut the money going into the special interest groups, the special interest groups have to make their own money. So if people really don't give a rats ass about a special interest, they wont fund it through private funds and/or charity. Those special interests die off, instead of keeping them on life support, while granting them special powers and privileges over normal Americans.
This helps the economy significantly because a lot of the leaders in special interest are some of the best entrepreneurs. These individuals can form legit businesses, and live by the rules of the market. They succeed and fail based on the quality of their services and goods, while paying taxes like everyone else. 1/3rd of the entire nation is owned by the government, and 50% of that is run by special interest, meaning tax exempt or they get heavy tax breaks. For what? Their own special interest, and not the interests of the majority. Yes, I care about finding a cure for rare diseases, but I care more about being able to do something myself, and in order to have that motivation and opportunity, I need less restrictions on my own harmless activity.

I dislike the ideas that support any laws to fight actions that hurt others, while at the same time hurt absolutely everyone in the process some way, some how.



Nothing has to be written. That's the best part about decriminalizing any good. If you decriminalize it first, you can always regulate it later, but you can't regulate it and work your way backwards anywhere near as efficiently. Better yet, decriminalizing a good allows the states to execute their 10th amendment rights, this way you can have more social experiments within the tolerance of communities that demonstrates what works, and what doesn't. Going straight to Washington is just pure gridlock.

Crystallas, I agree that we need to cut spending and the fat but thats like going up to a politician and asking them to cut off their thumb and then leg. Its not gonnna happen till there is a larger scale reform. Unfortunately people just don't care enough. The shit has to really hit the fan first.

 

[Crystallas]

Crystallas, I agree that we need to cut spending and the fat but thats like going up to a politician and asking them to cut off their thumb and then leg. Its not gonnna happen till there is a larger scale reform. Unfortunately people just don't care enough. The shit has to really hit the fan first.

It's sad. We still have our 2nd Amendment rights to bare arms and form a militia. Heck, the Revolutionary War started on less misuse of power than what is happening now. I'm not one for violence, but I think some of us may see those rights exercised in our lifetimes. =/ Hopefully more people will dig into the issues, so we can get on with our lives.

 

[TheStig]

It's sad. We still have our 2nd Amendment rights to bare arms and form a militia. Heck, the Revolutionary War started on less misuse of power than what is happening now. I'm not one for violence, but I think some of us may see those rights exercised in our lifetimes. =/ Hopefully more people will dig into the issues, so we can get on with our lives.

I don't know. I think we have just gotten fat and happy. Its really gonna take a lot to provoke that kinda response and the powers at be will keep us just above that. It seems one area at a time has been attacked and evaporated. They do it slowly but surely.