PrometheusMFD Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 No' date=' at least not yet. EDIT: by the way, you used the wrong profit in your sig.[/quote'] Ok, so, if nobody paid taxes where would the government get its money? -_________-They'd form leagues of pirates and rob other countries. How about you stop treating me like I'm six, and get to the point? ... I like to question-speak Anyway, the money for this bailout thing is coming from tax payersMoney that could be used by the taxpayers to stimulate the economyMoney that is wasted on CEO's that spend it on themselves, then ask for more.So, in conclusion, the bailout system is more detrimental to the economy than beneficial, proving my point that increased gov't involvement in the lives of the citizens is a bad thing.It didn't "create jobs", it merely stole from the poor and gave to the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 No' date=' at least not yet. EDIT: by the way, you used the wrong profit in your sig.[/quote'] Ok, so, if nobody paid taxes where would the government get its money? -_________-They'd form leagues of pirates and rob other countries. How about you stop treating me like I'm six, and get to the point? ... I like to question-speak Anyway, the money for this bailout thing is coming from tax payersMoney that could be used by the taxpayers to stimulate the economyMoney that is wasted on CEO's that spend it on themselves, then ask for more.So, in conclusion, the bailout system is more detrimental to the economy than beneficial, proving my point that increased gov't involvement in the lives of the citizens is a bad thing.It didn't "create jobs", it merely stole from the poor and gave to the rich. ...Do you ever read what I post? I have at no point ever said the bailout created jobs. I don't even support the bailout. I especially don't support what the CEO's ended doing with the money. I just see why it was necessary. I have said, time and time again, the bailout saved jobs. It's not creating new ones, it's keeping the old ones intact. And the point of the bailout was not to give CEO's a raise. If that's what happened, then it's the corporations that are corrupt for abusing the money, not the government for giving it to them. And this still doesn't clarify how public schooling and parking meters oppress the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Simple answer:Public schooling keeps children locked in a system where the area they live determines the quality of edcation they get. Even if there are good private schools nearby, they don't have the money to go there, and the federal government refuses to support school vouchers to give them the options they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well the amount of money you had always affects everything, way you can live, place where you live. Where you live can also affect how people view you. On topic:Well Regulation is there for a reason to maintain order for business. One reason they keep many businesses a way from cities because the population would just increase and effect everyone. Also housing is also a major thing that effects cities. If many businesses opens in small town. That would help out growth of towns and offer jobs for many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 But at this point in our economy, the time has passed for regulation to stop a recession, we are already in a recession. Now we must lower regulation to pull ourselves out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The regulation is what got us in the recession in the first place. The gov't took money from tax payers that could have gone to stimulating the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh wow, X-31's comment just reminded me about what this was supposed to be about... O_OGot a little off topic. Simple answer:Public schooling keeps children locked in a system where the area they live determines the quality of edcation they get. Even if there are good private schools nearby' date=' they don't have the money to go there, and the federal government refuses to support school vouchers to give them the options they deserve.[/quote'] As opposed to what? Privatized schooling? Then there would be families that can't afford schools at all. And location would determine the quality of education you get anyway...even more so if it were privatized. All the good schools would be built near the suburbs, where there are people with money, and all the bad (if any) schools would be located downtown. This still holds true right now, but I think privatizing it would make it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think Public schools are neccessary, I think that unfunded mandates from the federal government are not. Back on topic: Regulation didn't get us into this mess, it was a combination of multiple things.1) Gamling on the housing market.2) Corrupt CEO's3) The UAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The regulation is what got us in the recession in the first place. The gov't took money from tax payers that could have gone to stimulating the economy Regulation of the economy =/= taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yes it does.If businesses are over-regulated, then they can't grow. They die, and the government loses tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 The US government is based on the fact that the government must follow the Constitution strictly.I declare the Tenth Ammendmant[/topic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 rofl, elastic clause ftw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Nothing is elastic in the constitutionIt must all be taken literally.Anything that the constitution doesn't say absolutely must be left for state legislation to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Nothing is elastic in the constitutionIt must all be taken literally.Anything that the constitution doesn't say absolutely must be left for state legislation to decide. Except for the fact that there is in fact an Elastic Clause in the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 State the clause please. I don't want to look for it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Only thing I can see as elastic in the constitution is the Second Ammendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/statebuilding/terms/term_10.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 What about it?That still doesn't say that the government has to ignore the constitution, which is exactly what this bailout (as well as every appointee in Obama's cabinet) is doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 What about it?That still doesn't say that the government has to ignore the constitution' date=' which is exactly what this bailout (as well as every appointee in Obama's cabinet) is doing[/quote'] I'm sorry. I'm a little rusty on my constitution. Can you point out where in the constitution it says bailouts are illegal? Because I'm really tired of saying the same old spiel about the bailout, and having it ignored by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 The Bailout is NOT illegal. It is irresponsible. While there is no legal reason not to do it, it is not the right thing to do for the nation, as it drains money, raises taxes, and doesn't solve the problem. @Prometheus: The 2nd Amendment isn't elastic. It says, "A well-regulated militia, being neccessary for the existence of a free state, the government shall not infringe." I don't see anything elastic in that. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 The case against it is that unless the US citizen is part of a militia, the ownership of guns is unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 The case against it is that unless the US citizen is part of a militia' date=' the ownership of guns is unnecessary.[/quote'] I like how you ignore the other point. And how does Mr. Strict interpretation view this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 The case against it is that unless the US citizen is part of a militia' date=' the ownership of guns is unnecessary.[/quote'] Ah!!! But not illegal. It may not be insured by the constitution, but as there has been no legislation AGAINST it, the ownership of guns is entirely legal.Also, if you want a really strict interpretation, I would say that if you want to have your gun ownership be legal, join the NRA. (a militia) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordtyson Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 the gov should make a law that you can kill who ever you want that way the world be a better place with no crimeguns should then cost 1 millon in order for this to work right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 the gov should make a law that you can kill who ever you want that way the world be a better place with no crimeguns should then cost 1 millon in order for this to work right Because it's impossible to kill someone without a gun.Because there wouldn't be blackmarketsBecause this wouldn't cause massive anarchy and an eventual dictatorship. You sir, are an idiot :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.