Hefter Prision Sentences for Drug Offenders (US)

[niv]

Listen you, I don't give a rat's ass about what you have to say. Tell me, how many people here do you think cares what you have to say? And when I make a moderately democratic comment on something, you either ignore it, or you call me a radical liberal. Of course I don't support the Bush tax cut plan! That amount is way too much, most of it should go to subsidies to the poor, those who won't recieve anything from the tax cuts.

And out.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hayama-kun


Sure it helps everyone, but not right away.

After the theory first was solidified by Adam smith, countries had to go through suffering, and the great depression of the 30s to reach a status where everyone's income is growing. Like under the Reaganomics era. Unfornately, countries like Russia didn't have a chance earlier, until the collapse of communism, therefore change could in the short term be hurtful, but in the long term really help everyone. It is hard for countries that haven't tried captialism, but instead have merchantalism, the kind of system Bigperm is explaining. He is right, unfornately he has the words merchantalism and captialism mixed up.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hayama-kun
Listen you, I don't give a rat's ass about what you have to say. Tell me, how many people here do you think cares what you have to say? And when I make a moderately democratic comment on something, you either ignore it, or you call me a radical liberal. Of course I don't support the Bush tax cut plan! That amount is way too much, most of it should go to subsidies to the poor, those who won't recieve anything from the tax cuts.

And out.

Look at the facts, you want to help the lower class by giving more benefits to bankrupt the country all together and inturn increase unemployment? Be my guest, that is not a view from a moderate.

 

[niv]

Whoops. What I mean was cut back on the tax cut, take about 300 billion dollars away from the tax cut, making it a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut and using that to fund services for the poor and elderly.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hayama-kun
Whoops. What I mean was cut back on the tax cut, take about 300 billion dollars away from the tax cut, making it a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut and using that to fund services for the poor and elderly.

Wrong, there is still plenty of money for that.

And take a look at Argentina... its markets are shooting upwards. The fears of default have been erased.

 

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Wrong, there is still plenty of money for that.

Prove it. Some of the money should have been spent repaying the national debt as well.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hayama-kun


Prove it. Some of the money should have been spent repaying the national debt as well.

Prove me wrong too. Infact, the debt will be paid off once businesses start growing again. And with no tax cut that wouldn't happen. The debt is still being steadily paid off as people's income rises under the Bush economy. The national debt? BLA, is that all you can do? Prove to me the tax cut was bad. Which it obviously wasn't, and it is helps most Americans.

There is plenty of revenue, and infact with higher incomes the revenue would increase naturally. The only way incomes would go higher was with a tax cut, and this is important to the American people, which once again ultra-liberals are against such a proposal.

 

[niv]

I'm sure the tax cut will help the people living in makeshift tents off the highway, struggling to stay alive. With higher incomes, the gap will widen even further. Sorry, but I cannot continue you to argue with you since I find this totally pointless as you are an ultra-conservative person and I cannot get my point across to you. Good day.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Hayama-kun
I'm sure the tax cut will help the people living in makeshift tents off the highway, struggling to stay alive. With higher incomes, the gap will widen even further. Sorry, but I cannot continue you to argue with you since I find this totally pointless as you are an ultra-conservative person and I cannot get my point across to you. Good day.

The gap between whom? Wrong again, the middle class will increase in size under the Bush economy. It shrunk 10% under Clinton. Point? What good points do you have? I am NOT ULTRA CONSERATIVE, I am a Republican Moderate but when it comes to tax cuts there should be no compromise to do what is right for the people. The people come first in my agenda.

 

[jason]

wasn't the last major ression under King George the 1st's reign?

 

[Giancarlo]

No it was not.

 

[Owen]

Time for me to get my opinion in

First about the economy, tax cuts, etc.

Disclaimer: When I make a generalization about an idea(such as "It is a Marxist idea") I am not doing it as a bash of the idea, but only as to where it stands on the political line.

The US's economy is a controlled market economy(not the technical term). In that sort of economy, you have a significant upper, middle, and lower class. There will always be poor in a controlled market economy such as the US. The obvious thing to do is try to bring the poor up, and at the cost as the rich(directly or indirectly). However, by doing so, you transform your economy to a marxist economy(the extreme side of government controlled economy).

While Marxism, without the influence of human nature, is the ideal system, it is not in an imperfect world, because A) the people at the top of the pyramid will not be honest and fair and B) production will slack off because people can have the same for less work.

In the tax cuts, some suggest to give the money to the poor(a marxist idea). I do not support the idea to the extent most beleive it should have been done. I do beleive the poor should recieve a slightly share percentage wise of taxes contributed than the rich did, but the rich should still recieve close to what they paid, percentage wise(hope I didn't lose anyone there, as I can not think of any way to word it clearer).

The reason for such, is that the rich do pay more taxes than the poor do. Therefore, they should recieve some of THEIR money back, which they earned.

And in general, about raising the level of the poor, by doing so, you do create a marxist economy, decreasing production.

Want an example of how trying to raise the poor decreases production? Welfare(yes. I know. The favorite program to be an enemy of, but it is a good example). I see its effects daily as a live in the state which has one of the high percentages of the population who are welfare recepients, that state being Mississippi. Human tendency is when you can recieve ample money for doing nothing, do nothing. While most will work and try to improve their status, some will stay on welfare, because they do not have to do hardly any work. These are the people who take from society, but contribute little towards it.

Don't get me wrong, welfare is needed, but not at the level it is currently. It needs to be given to people who are not able to find jobs, or those who are handicapped. However, there are people who are too lazy to work who take from the system, but do not give back.

Truth be told, the US is close to becoming socialist. At least it is closer to a socialist economy than a free market economy(although, the business part is closer to free market, the social part is closer to socialism). There is a fine medium between free market and socialism, but IMO, that mark is a little bit more towards the free market than we are currently at right now.

I have finished my who tirade, in which I probably rambled about what happens with the economy .

Giancarlo-
Take none of what I say as a flame, because I do not write any of this in malice or hatred.

Your ideas are not that of a modern moderate. At least you arent from what I have seen from your views on this message board. You are more of the right side. 30 years ago you would be considered moderate, but then again JFK would be considered moderate now, and he was to the left for his time. So in essence, the political views of the country as a whole, and what is considered moderate or not shift from time to time, with the shift slowly moving towards the left.

And as much as I hate to say it(since I am a moderate), the Democrats are closer to being moderate than Republicans are(I dislike both parties, but I dislike democrats more). Which is the result of the steady shift towards the left.

I am sure now because I disagree with you, you will flame me, and say I don't know what I am talking about, despite the fact I actually live through American politics that you like to talk about so much(not a flame, but a fact). Tell me because I am not in an economics class(despite the fact I had a AP US History teacher last year who also teaches economics, teach it to us last year) that I am not knowledgeable, because I am sure you would. I will debate your points, and I will do it maturely, and not cuss at someone(censored or uncensored) because they don't agree with me. I will not call them wrong, because none of us will know if they are wrong or not till the end result of this world, which I doubt any of us will be living on this earth to see.

Ok, I am off my soap box for the moment , but if I see many other political discussions, expect me to join in, as I do enjoy debating, but doing it in a mature manner.

Edit: ALso like to mention that I didn't read much of the thread where it basically turn into a flame, like most political debates here do.

 

[Giancarlo]

Truth be told, the US is close to becoming socialist. At least it is closer to a socialist economy than a free market economy(although, the business part is closer to free market, the social part is closer to socialism). There is a fine medium between free market and socialism, but IMO, that mark is a little bit more towards the free market than we are currently at right now.

I only have one thing to argue in your thread which I think was utterly wrong. The US becoming lesser and lesser socialist, it is a mixed economy shifting to a more captialist one and always has. I do not think that this economy is even slightly socialist, because that would decrease production. Socialism is not only wrong, it will bog down productivity in the industrial and commerical sectors.

 

[Owen]

Well, I guess we will just agree to disagree then....

But the US is closer than past years to a socialist way. Pure socialism with the human factor mixed in is wrong, but socialism done correctly, is the best thing for government, economy, etc.

However, the US has been gradually pushing to a more controlled economy. It started with the monopolies of the late 1800s and the early 1900s(with entrepreneurs such as Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, etc). AT the beginning of the US, the nation was its closest to a laissez faire market as there ever has been on this world, and in this country.

However, when the government's attempts to break up or control monopolies (Microsoft, AT&T, etc) or provide restrictions on business such as for pollution or production standards, the country is moving towards the left side. Not all of the government control is part of a communist country, but nonetheless, it does move towards a government controlled economy.

Government control is not all bad, but it must be restricted, as it is with any sort of power. If one side gains too much power, corruption will result. The key to a successful economy is to find the best combination of business and government control, and I am at the opinion right now that the US is close to that medium.

But if you look at the history of the US and its politics, the US is definately moving leftward. I don't like it, but that is how I see if, and 20 years down the road, I will probably be considered conservative, and you will be considered a radicial conservative. An example of a political shift is Kennedy. At the time, he would be considered a liberal, but now he would be considered more of a conservative.

 

[Giancarlo]

I agree in certain way. The Clinton regime was responsible for trying to break up monopolies, while the Bush adminstration has a strict emphasis on pro-business. Bush being a businessman himself with a degree in that particular area. The Reagan era was marked with unprecendented free market, though the internet was helped by technology subsidies, it was allowed to grow without restrictions. His policies were the best of all time, being by far the closest to captialist the entire world has ever seen, and that was twenty years ago. The Bush era is being ushered in as lesser government control is being placed on business. I disagree with controls on the economy, which can strangle the American people and their income. I disagree with environmental and business controls, which will inturn decrease productivity which wil inturn decrease technological advancements. The United States and other like-minded nations are turning to the right, and find themselves directly opposed by regime of contrary aims and a totally different style of life, that regime adheres to a false philosophy, which purports to offer greater security and freedom to man-kind. Misled by that philosophy many peoples have sacrificed their liberties, all is alearned to their sorrow that is defeat and mockery, poverty and tryanny are their rewards. That false philosophy is socialism. The Bush adminstration is moving this country forward, with his business-style tactics, and his pro business, anti-environmentalist policies. These policies are taking affect, making this country shift towards the right.

If this nation was restricting monopolies, if it was doing such a thing, then explain to me why Microsoft will probably most likely win, then explain to me why Coca-Cola hasn't been broken up? It controls Sprite, Coke itself, and several other companies it acquired. This is showing that this nation and its government is pro-business. You have misinterpreted the actual status of this country. You also have forgotten that this country had a cold-war with a communist nation which restricted its economy severely, eleven years ago. The American people aren't that stupid in restricting their own economy.

 

[Owen]

First off, Coca Cola is not a monopoly, because Pepsi has a large share of the market too. Pepsi is more popular in the northern markets, plus it has Mountain Dew, popular all across the nation.

In the Microsoft case, while it may not be broken up, there is a government interference.

Also look away from monpolies, and more towards quality standards, safety standards, and pollution standards. For instance, the automobile industry. The government requires an automobile have certain new features each year, and keep it on afterwards. The Food and Drugs Administration controlling the release of products.

Keep in mind, I see these as vital parts of the Unites States, as it protects the people, but the US is not moving towards a free market. I have seen no evidence of lessening restrictions upon businesses.

Also, to add a little bit or more fire to the blaze, the government is also restricting land that can be farmed on or water that can be used, such as the forest fire that happened a month or so ago, in which the water in a river nearby had a endangered fish in there, but they would have legal issues if they used that water to put out the fire. Instead of using the water, firemen lost their lives.

Or another example I remember reading in my local newspaper, is a chinese man had a successful rice farm in the US. However, he found an strange looking mouse on the land. Now he can not farm there becasue the mouse was endangred.

Another example not using endangered species is a town in Virginia, in which the town government made a rule where only 1 house per 20 acres could be built in certain areas, while in other areas, only 1 per 50 acres. This being land owned by people not the government.

While I may not have much more credibility, I have studied the political movements in the US in AP US history, and it is more in a leftward direction, IMO. Some of the movement has been good, and some of it has been bad, but nonetheless, the government is moving towards an equal country(as the country was founded upon). To make things equal in this country, like we have been, freedom's have to be restricted. Equality and free market will never be in the same country.

 

[Giancarlo]

Just sad to see an american thinks this country is turning socialist, especially after fourty years combating it. IMHO, I think this country has been shifting more right, like Italy and Spain... and something like the Alaskan Oil Drilling will be allowed by Bush.

 

[Owen]

Don't get me wrong. The country is not going to turn into a communist country.

However, I do see the country moving slowly to the left. IT is borrowing some ideas from Marxism with modifications. However, the country is still far from a communist country.

The country moves the direction of its leaders. Right now with a conservative congress, slightly liberal senate, and a conservative president, a slight shift till the right will ensue. However, over the past 100 years, the country has moved towards the left.

Again, you misinterpreted me. I am simply saying political ideas of this country are moving leftward, which is closer to a communist country. However, I am not saying this country is turning into a communist country. I do not see that happening, as the farther left the country goes past a certain point, inefficency will plague the nation, causing a move towards the right.

Even if the country were to eventually turn communist, it would not happen for another couple of centuries, as this country is around in the middle right now.

 

[Giancarlo]

I did misinterpret what you said. However, I still disagree. This country is shifting to the right in the midst of a recession, because of macro-mismanagement that plagued the Clinton years. Another thing is the left is being disgraced, Gary Condit, hardly a conserative Democrat (voted four times against the Clinton impeachment) has disgraced the center-leftists and leftists. All the leftists are is mob-rule.

I will have myself frozen until they find a way for me to live forever to ensure that communism never takes over. People know marxism leads to tyranny. And tryanny leads to mismanagement.

This country is radical right, compared to Germany, Britain or France. Spain for example has had twenty five percent of restrictions removed to allowed business to grow, as it had a fascist dictator no less than twenty five years ago. Italy has been taken over by the FORZA ITALIA party, which have significant elements of Benito Mussolini's ideas. Another nation, Japan, is shifting to the right... with its new leader Koizumi who is a pro-business nationalist. The last leader, who was presumably left-wing was disgraced in corruption, and other management errors like letting the deficit grow to 150% of the GDP, that is right 150%. Socialism and Communism does that, it lets the deficit grow to a 150% by allowing bad investments either restricted or controlled by the government.

For furture references, I have taken two years of AP Macro and Micro Economics and will be getting an AP Certificate. I could then aim for a business degree, and follow the same path Bush did to becoming leader... unfornately I was born in a foreign country, so all I could do is becoming a senator.

 

[Owen]

Well. We see it differently.... As for the micromanagement from Clinton, I saw nothing drastically bad that didn't involuve sex scandals with the Clinton administration. I don't agree with his policies, but I fail to see where he was an absolute failure.

Over the past 10 years, I would say the country has moved a little towards the right, but overall, with programs such as welfare, affirmative action, etc. The government is moving towards the left.

Also, let me add, that saying Communist is not the only result from the far left, and a Free Country(truly Free) is the only result from a far right is incorrect, as with the right side there is also Facist governments. Basically, just remember that there are more than one results from an extreme. Actually, government characteristics could take more of a diamond look to it. It is easier to say left or right though

Also, I self taught myself economics along with help from my US History teacher last year. However, most of my knowledge with politics, economics, history, etc. has been in discussions and debates, because I frequently get involved in some sort of debate over the internet or over at school. However, I do not have the experience of an actual economics class.

I don't think we will convince the other in which direction this country is moving in, as this is based on interpretation of facts, and each person interprets it their way.