1 - 10 Next
And the cartels use those profits to bribe government officials, leading to the corruption that brings down both the effectiveness and the respect for government needed for it to function like a first world one. Legalizing drugs would also cut into the profits of the gangs, here, that are responsible for most of the violence in the inner cities. But we have to keep up the farce that is "drug inforcement" because it sends the message that "drugs are bad" and all those "drug warriors" would be out of jobs.
I firmly believe that Republicans do better further down the ticket because it is easier to detect vote fraud, the smaller the voter pool. On a nationwide, or statewide basis it is easier to conceal uncounted votes due to the difficulty of voters to track their candidate's support. If votes were siphoned off in heavily democrat districts, the Republican voters probably wouldn't notice that the margin was larger than it really was, boosting statewide margins in favor of the democrat Senate or presidential candidate. Done in "swing states" this could, and I believe did, swing the nationwide and statewide victories.
Funny how this wasteful spending coincides with the advent of the income tax, begun as a way to pay for the WNO, discontinued after 1872, revived in 1895 until declared unconstitutional. Enter the 16th amendment and things wet down hill from there. As long as there was a source of, someone else's money, that politicians could use to buy votes, there is no restraint on use/misuse of the fruits of the citizen's labor.
Defense spending is one of the few expenditures the Constitution supports. Why focus on these costs when the real spending problems are the extra-constitutional outlays. Those are where REAL cuts need to be made. Sure, the estimates were published before the 9/11/01 attacks but also after 8 years of Clinton using defense as the "peace dividend" and cutting it to create his "surplus".
In response to:

The Goodness of Marriage

retiredfire Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:17 AM
I can understand gay couples wanting to use the term marriage for their unions to try to legitimize their aberrant lifestyle but isn't it ironic that non-gays, who advocate for same-sex "marriage", are the same liberals who virtually forced welfare recipients to eschew marriage, by granting easier, and more, free money to women who gave birth out of wedlock.
I don't remember Oblamo saying that he supported our troops, but then again I have to change the channel whenever he speaks, for fear I will projectile vomit all over my TV. If he ever did say so, I'll bet his lips were moving, so, by definition, it was a lie.
Whoa! A poll that asks the question in a neutral way? What is this world coming to? Next we might just get honest reporting of how those of us "outside the beltway", and not in the courtroom, really feel about law-breakers and how they should be treated.
In response to:

Two Years After a Very Modest Proposal

retiredfire Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:07 PM
You may not be able to get liberals to pay their "fair share" as determined by what they want government to provide but here is an idea: Eliminate withholding from paychecks so that one's entire tax bill comes due on a single day. Make that day the day before election day or change election day to April 14th. Wonder how many would vote liberal if confronted with just how much we pay each year.
How can anyone be so completely backward on how an economy works? Though the term hasn't yet been coined, probably because it is laughable on its face, "trickle-up" economics seems to be the Obama, and his sycophant's, economic mantra. With people like that in charge - WASS!
In response to:

Junk Laws

retiredfire Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:49 AM
Sorry, can't muster any outrage over this. Unless you think every single dollar the Federal Government spends is absolutely necessary, and any reduction in the amount forcibly taken from a business (which BTW comes from the consumer, anyway) must be replenished from somewhere else, allowing businesses to keep more of their own money is a good thing. Outrage should be reserved for such things as those that were attempted to have been included in the Sandy "relief" bill, that were direct transfers of taxpayer dollars to pet projects and government spending, taking advantage of a bill's claim to be "helping".
1 - 10 Next