2 simple new laws that would drasticly cut crime and reduce taxes

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

hyperinflation wrote:

your disgusting social programs....

That about says it all. Priceless. Yes, we need to got back to the days of massive child labor and the elderly dropping dead because they can't afford to eat. Ahh.... the good ol' days. Your version of "USA #1" isn't about pride in your country as a TEAM, but really translates to: "In the USA, one should absolutely only look out for #1. Screw everyone else."

(and the rest of your rant was a pathetic load of crap)

This is a dangerous conflation of concepts. Pursuing your own self-interest is not to be packaged with "screwing everyone else." Taking people's money away is screwing them over.

But that's exactly what happens in the kind of society you want. Negative externalities and tragedy of the commons are completely ignored by so-called individualists, who like to pretend they are self-made men.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

really? lol wrote:

I really have a hard time figuring out if people are being sincere when they mention taking a political side. So are you kidding or what? Maybe I'm actually the ignorant one.

It just seems to me that anyone who lumps politics and policies into a 'left vs right or dem vs rep' is doing themselves(and everyone else) a bad service. My point is that all sides have good as well as bad policies. Identify these good policies one by one, not by choosing a team. But maybe you are just kidding/trolling in which case excuse me.

Generally an intelligent post, but you made the mistake of taking my expressed hatred of the left an an endorsement of the right. Quite the opposite. The right is more guilty than the left, because they wrapped themselves in the false trappings of small government and then proceeded to spend us into oblivion. They set the stage for Obama's rise by discrediting capitalism.

In other words, people who live in huge sparsely populated states went McCain, while those who live in more densely populated areas voted Obama. Thanks for the breaking news! BTW I hear they're going to add recorded speech to motion pictures any day now.

Since your disingenuous professor would like to paint Obama voters as parasitic slum dwellers leaching the blood of the honest and industrious, how about we also look at these numbers for each candidate's voters?

- average income

- taxes paid

- whether each state won by a candidate is a net tax contributor or a net leech

Someone will have those numbers handy, and I'm afraid they won't exactly support Herr Professor Olson.

Ho Hum wrote:

But that's exactly what happens in the kind of society you want. Negative externalities and tragedy of the commons are completely ignored by so-called individualists, who like to pretend they are self-made men.

Your own rotten scam is collapsing on your head. You will never again live in a society where you can steal from a rich person to finance your education, medical care, and retirement while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of industrial civilization. You might manage to get subsidized student loans for a few more years, but there won't be any jobs for you when you get out of school. The US economy will continue deteriorating until you concede that the rich do not exist to serve you, take your hands out of their pockets and let them work for their own profit.

A better simple fix would to grant more votes to people as they pay more tax in taxes. Why should someone who pays no tax have the same say as someone paying $1 million in taxes? The person who pays $1 million taxes has a much larger stake and is much more important to this country than someone who just collects welfare checks. The idea that everyone should have an equal say (vote) is anacronistic. We already eliminate plenty of people from voting (eg, felons, children and foreigners) so giving the people who pay the most into the system the most say in the system makes sense.

The saftey net of this country use to be family and churches, but then FDR stepped in and said the government will take care of you, you no longer had to rely on your family and your church.

Since that point we have seen the slow but continuous fall of the family, of Christian morals and accountability in this country. Now after a couple of generations we are getting close to point of no return and some serious problems.

Geez, thanks FDR. Typical politian, come up with plan for the immediate problem but at the expense of the long term. This is a major flaw of democracy, short term limits foster short sightedness.

eb white wrote:

A better simple fix would to grant more votes to people as they pay more tax in taxes.

I don't agree (although I'm also nowhere near being considered knowledgeable about politics and government policies). But I would suggest that the right to vote should not really have as much to do with income as it should with knowledge of things maybe like economics, philosophy, history, and sociology, etc.

Then, people make educated votes for either opponent instead of blind bandwagon stuff etc. There are a few times where I have not participated in voting because at the time I knew nothing about the issues. Seemed like the right thing to do to me.

What is the history and theory behind voting anyway? Why don't they do some sort of experience or knowledge qualifications further than just '18 yrs old/highschool'? Is there some voting theory out there that suggests that voters will vote for their best candidate regardless of whether it was a bandwagon choice or an educated choice? A sort of winning of the mean subconscious?

the reality of it wrote:

Your own rotten scam is collapsing on your head. You will never again live in a society where you can steal from a rich person to finance your education, medical care, and retirement while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of industrial civilization. You might manage to get subsidized student loans for a few more years, but there won't be any jobs for you when you get out of school. The US economy will continue deteriorating until you concede that the rich do not exist to serve you, take your hands out of their pockets and let them work for their own profit.

So I take it you don't have any understanding of macroeconomics?

LooneyBin wrote:

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Did Prof. Wilson factor in all the welfare farmers in the midwest? Who did they vote for?

You're suggestions are massively stupid. They only work if a significant number of people are doing drugs and have kids in trouble. Some are but not enough to make a difference. This is just more small-minded stupidity espoused by people who uneducated, tweaked and paranoid. Why don't you get a masters, or better a doctorate in sociology in an issue like substance abuse and its effects on policy before posing as an authority again.

Social Reform in the USA wrote:

Here are 2 simple new laws that would drasticly cut crime and reduce our taxes.

1) In order to get any govenment assistance such as welfare, food stamps, etc., you need to pass a drug test before you get your first check and at random times there after. Fail this test you are banned from getting government assistance again for at least 10 yrs. I have to take and pass a regular drug test to get/keep my job as a government employee why should other's standards be less for getting government money.

2) If you or a minor in your supervision (i.e. child or relative under 18 living with you) are convicted of a felony crime you lose the right to any government assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc.) for 10 years.

LooneyBin wrote:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

Amazing that this Professor Joseph Olson supposedly made the EXACT same observations about the 2000 election (just switch Gore for Obama and Bush for McCain):

Even more amazing is that Olson never actually made those observations, either in 2000 or 2010.

Nice try.

maybe just me? wrote:

And the crime rate would increase exponentially. Gov't costs would just be transferred to more prisons, jails, etc. You're paying one way or another, pal. (I'm speaking to the OP). Have a shred of humanity about you.

Unless, of course, you're an advocate of social class genocide. It seems you arent too far from that kind of thinking.

Congrats, Mr. Fuhrer.

According to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, you automatically lose the argument and the discussion is over.

1. I'm old enough to remember the trumped up "literacy tests" they gave in the South to prevent black people from voting. While the ignorance expressed by some voters is pretty appalling, I would be wary of bringing back tests of knowledge such as this. Improve public schools and include reading/writing/ critical thinking skills.2. Sad thing is that the greater the income, often the lower the portion of taxes to income... as the wealthy can hire tax accountants and find loopholes. Do we want a society in which the haves can tip the balance their way to the detriment of, say, the working poor or those just on the edge of the middle class? Goodbye American jobs....3. OP, I can to some extent sympathize with your desire to hold people accountable. But getting government assistance is no simple matter in the first place. The paperwork can be pretty daunting and (from what I've been told by someone trying to get SS disability), you surrender a LOT of privacy. It's not as attractive an option as people would like to think. Which isn't to say there's no abuse of the system.There are no easy solutions because this is a large, complex country, with ~300 million voices and opinions. We need some way to work together to help make this a country that works for everyone. To do this, people on all levels need to think beyond themselves and their own needs. JFK's advice to ask what you can do for your country rang true, whatever cynicism may have followed. We have lost so much trust in the system and in our fellow citizens--it will take a lot of work to regain any kind of trust. But sadly, those who simplify the picture and are good at sound bites seem to get the power. If we can turn that around, maybe we'll get closer to the kind of country we all look for.

or get extra support if you don't pass the drug test.

This will encourage people to use dope and die, and we are getting rid of them.

Some friendly advice wrote:

... This is a major flaw of democracy, short term limits foster short sightedness.

You got that right! About time someone on these boards woke up to the fact that democracy sucks and what we really need is a good old fashioned monarchy!

If only they could come up with a way that maybe certain people would be worth, oh I don't know, 3/5 of a person person or something like that.

wow this is a terrible idea. I didn't read any responses but the OP must be on crack.