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

#1: Abolish taxes on income and property;

#2: Abolish victimless crimes.

It seems you are targeting the blacks, almost exclusively.

astrth...... wrote:

Social Reform in the USA wrote:

These two laws would also help eliminate the drug and gang problem in the country as well.

No it wouldn't. It would just mean a lot of drug addicts and gang members wouldn't be on government aid programs.

Exactly. It would actually probably increase the crime rate. You would have a lot of druggies that had no means to obtain food other than stealing. You and I both know there are other options but they don't.

asdfsdfa wrote:

It seems you are targeting the blacks, almost exclusively.

Racist

Don't forget the massive corporate welfare via privatization and too big to fail bail-outs.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who have it all have convinced so may people that the problem is the people who have next to nothing. This country is filled with suckers

wiseman sayeth wrote:

And return to the laws of the animal kingdom! This is MY pond! MY antelope! Step off or I'll eat you! Cuz I CAN. Don't tread on me!

No, it means taking care of yourself, being independent, responsible and self-reliant. Only the infants of the left would see that as a bad thing.

the reality of it wrote:

ndent, responsible and self-reliant. Only the infants of the left would see that as a bad thing.

lol

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver W. Holmes

No taxes = No civilization.

Animals.

the reality of it wrote:

No, it means taking care of yourself, being independent, responsible and self-reliant. Only the infants of the left would see that as a bad thing.

Only infants of the right would see a system that allows one group to rig the system to ensure its dominion over others as a good thing.

the reality of it wrote:

1) abolish government assistance altogether

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

'Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

wiseman sayeth wrote:

Only infants of the right would see a system that allows one group to rig the system to ensure its dominion over others as a good thing.

Only a bold-faced liar or a paranoid schizophrenic would equate "taking care of yoursef" with "allowing one group to rig the system." It proves to me that the left is not motivated to help the poor, but only to destroy those who value their independent. And I'm not just talking about the rich. You see people succeeding in life, people who have no need for your disgusting social programs, and want to be left alone to live their lives the way they want, and you despise them for it. You despise them for the fact that they refuse to spend their lives working for your benefit rather than their own. So you rationalize your hatred for "the rich" and for life in general by imagining that "the rich" are rigging "the system" against you. What you worthless parasites didn't realize is that the parasite always dies with the host. By destroying industry, you have ensured your own destruction, and believe me, you will get exactly that. Enjoy hyperinflation, mass unemployment, homelessness and death. You wanted it.

the reality of it wrote:

No, it means taking care of yourself, being independent, responsible and self-reliant.

So I guess that means you also want to take care of other 'freely provided' taxpayer funded things like: the roads you drive on; the police to enforce whatever draconian laws you think up; the firemen to put out your house that is burning down (because those darn poor people were feeling bitter); you garbage collection and a whole host of other things you currently take for granted.

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)

Damn freebies wrote:

the reality of it wrote:

No, it means taking care of yourself, being independent, responsible and self-reliant.

So I guess that means you also want to take care of other 'freely provided' taxpayer funded things like: the roads you drive on; the police to enforce whatever draconian laws you think up; the firemen to put out your house that is burning down (because those darn poor people were feeling bitter); you garbage collection and a whole host of other things you currently take for granted.

No. This tired argument has been rebuked 1000 times already on letsrun, but nothing can get change the willful ignorance of the left. That's why it's good that America will collapse - the parasites who are content to depend on government for their survival will be utterly wiped out, and justice will be served.

hyperinflation wrote:

It proves to me that the left is

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.

Instead of an Army of One the new motto could be A Country of One.

I'm conservative but not that damn conservative. In a country of 300 million people there WILL BE THOSE THAT CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent that. Whether it be physical or mental disabilities or people that are just flat out dumb or lazy. What do you do with them? You do not want your city streets filled with starving and diseased people cause they can't eat.

Granted cutting off social programs would get a LOT of people off their ass but not all of them.

joho wrote:

Instead of an Army of One the new motto could be A Country of One.

I'm conservative but not that damn conservative. In a country of 300 million people there WILL BE THOSE THAT CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent that. Whether it be physical or mental disabilities or people that are just flat out dumb or lazy. What do you do with them? You do not want your city streets filled with starving and diseased people cause they can't eat.

Granted cutting off social programs would get a LOT of people off their ass but not all of them.

Finally, a conservative with a brain. Thanks. I had heard about creatures such as yourself... good to finally meet one.

Maybe we could work together to find some middle ground on these issues, eh?

the reality of it wrote:

No. This tired argument has been rebuked 1000 times already on letsrun, but nothing can get change the willful ignorance of the left. That's why it's good that America will collapse - the parasites who are content to depend on government for their survival will be utterly wiped out, and justice will be served.

Like farmers and most of the red states (were you aware that the so-called "red states" typically get more from the Federal goverment than they pay in Federal taxes? Interesting, don't you think?).

You are very out of touch. I am quite certain that welfare and food stamps are an extremely small portion of the Federal budget, well less than 1%. Even if you just eliminated these programs it would not make a dent in our tax burden.

Administering a drug testing program is not cheap. When you factored in the cost of the program versus how much money you think it would save, it might just add to the cost. Also, many of these programs have waiting lists, so even if you are kicking people out, there will be new recipients, so it will not save any money.

Also, just curious what statistics support your ideas? What percentage of juvenile crime is committed by children of people on public assistance. It is not 100% and may not even be 50%. Juvenile crime is also a small percentage of total crime, so again, you are not talking about a lot of crime reduction.

In short, your ideas are pretty foolish, but I that is about what I would expect from someone who is a government employee.