"Kansas has found the ultimate way to punish the poor"

[giblets]

Cartels couldn't exist if drugs were legal. The fact that most people are unwilling to risk going to prison is a barrier to entry that stops potential law abiding producers from entering the market. If the government is supposed to prevent cartel violence, then banning drugs is contrary to a constitutional obligation.

[Berzerker]

Right, because the Cartels are all peaceful. We've got them just over on the other side. Do I want them here? No. Do I see it as part of the obligation of the government to protect their citizens from the Cartels? Yes. Does Abbott agree with me? Also yes.

Banning drugs created the cartels, but you want to spend other people's money to create and fight them and then you talk about security?

You should care about fulfilling constitutional obligations.

You're inventing "obligations" so you can spend other peoples money on stuff you want

Israel is an ally. I don't see what's wrong about helping an ally. Canada is an ally too and you'd better believe that I support us strapping our big boots on and helping the Americans.

There is no constitutionally enumerated obligation to pay for Israel's welfare state

[Ben Kenobi]

Cartels couldn't exist if drugs were legal. The fact that most people are unwilling to risk going to prison is a barrier to entry that stops potential law abiding producers from entering the market. If the government is supposed to prevent cartel violence, then banning drugs is contrary to a constitutional obligation.

No, Cartels exist because they've filled the vacuum in Mexico. The Mexican government has been unwilling and unable to shut them down and protect their citizens.

You're inventing "obligations" so you can spend other peoples money on stuff you want

No, you care more about getting high than you do the constitution. There's no enumerated right to getting high, Berz.

There is no constitutionally enumerated obligation to pay for Israel's welfare state

Israel has been a good ally to the US. I think that the US should stand behind their allies.

[Aeson]

The argument that Charity works says that charity is insufficient ergo charity doesn't work, also applies to government benefits which are also insufficient. Ergo, government benefits do not work either.

Which is why we need MORE charity and MORE government intervention. Just reducing government benefits as you suggest is going in the opposite direction.

The problem with the benefits is that it has to come from other people, and the folks required to run the programs. You can't pull up when you have to pull others down to get there. They are a zero sum game.

You are stupid. The economy is not a zero sum game. If you increase money supply you can increase economic activity. The best way to increase money supply is by funding infrastructure which benefits large populations and business, employing previously unemployed/underemployed/underpaid workers so they can also participate, increasing demand for other goods and services ...

Our production and physical based services have been well under current capacity and still has huge room for growth of that capacity. The capacity for IP is close to limitless. Yah ... there's a finite supply of some resources, but the ones that matter are vastly scalable (food, fresh water, shelter) and others are mainly self-imposed limits (medicine, IP). Even our energy capacity is vastly scalable if we have the economic incentive to do it (more consumer demand funding tidal, solar, biomass energy projects).

We have fiat currency for a reason ... so we're not stuck in some ridiculously stupid self-imposed zero sum game. We just aren't using it very well to develop the world economy because bigots gets distracted looking at lines on the map and skin color instead of what's actually good or bad for the economy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why we need MORE charity and MORE government intervention. Just reducing government benefits as you suggest is going in the opposite direction.

Given the average tax burden in families in America, there's simply too much being taken already. There would be more charity if the fraud and waster were cut out of the programs.

You are stupid.

Why? Do you know how much the government pays in salaries to administer their programs? How much they collect in order to service these programs. Every dollar that gets dumped in there is a dollar that cannot go to charity.

The economy is not a zero sum game.

Government programs are, and that's my point. They are a drag on the economy because dollars that could be used to grow the economy and provide jobs to poor people are instead being wasted on social programs.

If you increase money supply you can increase economic activity.

So why not triple the money supply and triple economic activity? Quadruple it?

The best way to increase money supply is by funding infrastructure which benefits large populations and business, employing previously unemployed/underemployed/underpaid workers so they can also participate, increasing demand for other goods and services ...

The best way to increase the prosperity of a nation is to invest private capital in productive enterprises. Every dollar that is taken from private enterprises is a dollar that cannot be used in these productive enterprises to invest and store up capital. Even for public works projects, all of it is funded by private enterprise.

Our production and physical based services have been well under current capacity and still has huge room for growth of that capacity.

The reason for that being the massive waste. You spend more on green mandates and paying people to drive Piouses and to prop up unproductive enterprises, than you do on fixing roads. No surprise that you find yourself short at the end of the day. Stop spending money you don't have on things that draw money out rather than on roads and you'll have the money to build roads.

Even our energy capacity is vastly scalable if we have the economic incentive to do it (more consumer demand funding tidal, solar, biomass energy projects).

And there we go. More useless enterprises that actually don't earn profits. That's why you're pushing them instead of nuclear. You're probably going to go off on Fukushima, but heck, just a few solid ones and you'd be good to go. Nuclear is perfect for small out of the way places with little land and lots of energy. Solar is terrible for where you're at.

We have fiat currency for a reason ... so we're not stuck in some ridiculously stupid self-imposed zero sum game. We just aren't using it very well to develop the world economy because bigots gets distracted looking at lines on the map and skin color instead of what's actually good or bad for the economy.

You're the first person to mention skin color, Aeson. Are you saying that they are poor because they aren't white?

[kentonio]

Why? Do you know how much the government pays in salaries to administer their programs? How much they collect in order to service these programs. Every dollar that gets dumped in there is a dollar that cannot go to charity.

Government programs are, and that's my point. They are a drag on the economy because dollars that could be used to grow the economy and provide jobs to poor people are instead being wasted on social programs.

Money that goes into government salaries and running programs is money that is going into the economy you insufferable nincompoop. Those government employees and contractors are paying rent, buying food and purchasing products just like everyone else. Also the idea that people would be putting their tax money into charity in any kind of comparable quanities is incredibly stupid, please stop being an idiot.

[giblets]

No, Cartels exist because they've filled the vacuum in Mexico. The Mexican government has been unwilling and unable to shut them down and protect their citizens.

I'm not sure if you understand the definition of "cartel". It doesn't mean "organized crime organization".

[Berzerker]

No, Cartels exist because they've filled the vacuum in Mexico. The Mexican government has been unwilling and unable to shut them down and protect their citizens.

Mexico has been fighting our drug war for decades, Colombia did too... We pressured them into turning their societies into war zones. The cartels exist because people like you banned drugs, the same thing happened with Prohibition - banning booze led to the creation of cartels and homicide rates about doubled. When was the last time you heard about alcohol cartels having shootouts over market share?

No, you care more about getting high than you do the constitution. There's no enumerated right to getting high, Berz.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Thats the 9th Amendment to the Constitution and the reason it was added is because people like you would confuse the enumeration of certain rights to mean or imply other rights didn't exist. But you're wrong anyway, the 1st Amendment protects the religious use of drugs. Thats why wine was still allowed for Catholics during Prohibition. And one more thing, the Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers to the Federal government, there is no enumerated power to punish people for smoking a plant.

Israel has been a good ally to the US. I think that the US should stand behind their allies.

Does Congress have the enumerated power to fund Israel's welfare state?

[pchang]

Please insert Ben tags when you split up his quotes.

[Berzerker]

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

James Madison on the 9th Amendment

Why do you hate the Constitution, Ben?

[giblets]

There's no explicit mention of a right to life for fetuses in the Constitution. I guess Ben's arguments for criminalizing abortion go out the window.

[Kidlicious]

I doubt Madison intended people to smoke crack and kill fetuses.

[giblets]

I doubt he intended to incarcerate people for using drugs, or for early term abortions:

At the time of the independence of the United States, English common law on abortion applied in most of the then states, and abortion was not permitted after quickening, that is after the start of fetal movements. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained the view as follows:

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.^[6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Pre-1960s

lol

[Kidlicious]

Money that goes into government salaries and running programs is money that is going into the economy you insufferable nincompoop. Those government employees and contractors are paying rent, buying food and purchasing products just like everyone else. Also the idea that people would be putting their tax money into charity in any kind of comparable quanities is incredibly stupid, please stop being an idiot.

When you spend your money on taxes you no longer have the opportunity to spend it on charity.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure if you understand the definition of "cartel". It doesn't mean "organized crime organization".

Really. Because that's how I was using it, to refer to the capital C, Cartels, in Mexico. Do I have to name them specifically?