American Debt Ceiling Debate- Default on August 2nd Looming

[Slathar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/07/gIQAPoV31H_story.html

Much of the article talks about raising the debt ceiling by August 2nd or else America will default on the current debt. I see that this move is necessary to prevent another economic crash, but all this does is raise the amount that we can borrow. It does nothing to combat America's spiraling debt. The fact that so much of it has become politicized is problematic. Spending has to be cut from entitlements (SS, Medicare, etc), national defense, and everywhere else.

This is where things begin to look bad or even worse than bad. A default on a loan not only would lower America's triple AAA credit rating but it would shoot the stock market in the foot and stifle any hope for job creation. How this is combatted by Washington will determine how bad the 'fallout' is.

[Ihealyou]

Not raising the debt ceiling is like deciding not to pay your credit card bill because you're unhappy with how much you spent. It doesn't decrease the amount you spent, but it does get you in deep shit. That being said, care has to be taken with deficit reduction efforts. The Fed has warned politicians about the need to reduce our long term debt, but has not been as concerned about our short term debt. This is because, despite Republicans screaming otherwise, government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy. Its important not to drop this support while we're in such a weak recovery. Unfortunately, its easier to cut welfare, social services and other programs which actually help the economy than entitlements, which are the main drivers of our long term debt.

(Not extending the Bush tax cuts would have avoided this problem all together, but don't tell anyone that)

[Doors]

Wouldn't be surprised if this country defaulted. Most republican politicians want us to default because then it makes Obama look like shit and when it comes election time they will stand a better chance at getting a republican president elected. Which is just another example of why politics is fucking stupid and the people we elect into office are better off being flogged to death than given anything.

On the other hand, Obama's big plan for fixing our debt is to tax the living shit out of people in this country who actually got off their lazy asses and made it big here. That isn't going to solve anything and at the same time as he's taxing billionaires the trade off is that people who barely fit into this category (small business owners, couples living together with combined incomes) are going to get absolutely slammed.

Either way both sides suck ass.

[Doors]

Also we've been in a war with the Middle East for what, a decade now? Not to mention military involvement all over the world. Any country thats at war for that many years is going to have financial issues.

[Messianic]

despite Republicans screaming otherwise, government spending has a stimulative effect on the economy.

What does it stimulate? Genuine economic growth, or phony GDP/Job numbers? I'd argue the latter, based on Bush+Obama's escapades in stimulus. Both were heavy stimulus abusers.

No one can show or prove that the stimulus was a success. We're just expected to believe it worked. I've looked at the numbers - even the job creation/saved numbers the presidency provides puts the cost of each job at $200,000 or higher. Countries that didn't stimulate are recovering far faster than we are.

Unfortunately, its easier to cut welfare, social services and other programs which actually help the economy than entitlements, which are the main drivers of our long term debt.

It's quite a bit harder politically to deal with entitlements - but people on both sides who have tried to deal with them get ostracized by their own parties and demagogued by the opposition.

And there are a myriad of entitlements or government promises that are coming down the pike that no one even talks about - Veteran benefits for the tons of soldiers that aren't re-enlisting or have been wounded around the world, student loans, etc.

(Not extending the Bush tax cuts would have avoided this problem all together, but don't tell anyone that)

That wouldn't have solved the problem at all. We probably would have spent more money on on turtle-tunnel stimulus or somewhere else since we may have had more projected revenue. The revenue difference isn't even that great. Long-term, revenues tend to some degree of normalization regardless of the tax rate since peoples' choices change in accordance with that rate.

[Ihealyou]

What does it stimulate? Genuine economic growth, or phony GDP/Job numbers? I'd argue the latter, based on Bush+Obama's escapades in stimulus. Both were heavy stimulus abusers.

No one can show or prove that the stimulus was a success. We're just expected to believe it worked. I've looked at the numbers - even the job creation/saved numbers the presidency provides puts the cost of each job at $200,000 or higher. Countries that didn't stimulate are recovering far faster than we are.

I'm not sure how you differentiate between genuine and phony growth, but government spending does have a real economic impact. In a strong economy, you can argue that the government crowds out private enterprise, but in a weaker economy government spending serves to replace the spending which was lost in the private sector. The government pays employees itself, and pays private contractors. These people go out and spend their money, which creates growth. As the private sector becomes stronger, the government should step back its spending. This way, the government promotes growth without crowding out private businesses.

With regards to the stimulus, yes it was expensive and yes it didn't help as much as anticipated, but it did have a real economic impact. The CBO estimated that the stimulus act would decrease the GDP by 0.1% to 0.3% in the long term, but would increase it by 1.1% to 3.3% in the short term (chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/CBO_GDP_impact_of_ARRA_2009.png)). I don't know if you would define this as a success or not, but it did help the economy from falling into a deeper recession.

I don't know much about countries who did not attempt to stimulate their economies, but you can look at Germany as an example of a successful stimulus program. Right now Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world, and they spent $110 billion on stimulus. This comes out to about 1.5% of their GDP, whereas the U.S. spent about 2% of its GDP on stimulus. The difference between the German and U.S. stimulus is Germany had a deficit reduction plan as part of its stimulus. Germany used short term deficit spending to stimulate the economy, while minimizing its impact on long term debt. This created growth without worrying investors and creating problems down the road. The U.S. needs to follow a similar path to ensure that we don't see the gains from the stimulus wiped out by debt. Reckless stimulus spending does more harm than good, but responsible stimulus can be a powerful tool to promote growth.

[Shannacore]

young economist

[Messianic]

I'm not sure how you differentiate between genuine and phony growth, but government spending does have a real economic impact. In a strong economy, you can argue that the government crowds out private enterprise, but in a weaker economy government spending serves to replace the spending which was lost in the private sector. The government pays employees itself, and pays private contractors. These people go out and spend their money, which creates growth. As the private sector becomes stronger, the government should step back its spending. This way, the government promotes growth without crowding out private businesses.

This is the Macro 101 explanation - and after a lot of reading and number crunching, I can tell you one of the major the faulty premises is that all spending of money is growth, and that spending is relatively equal.

Money spent by private individuals, generated by their own efforts in the market is very valuable - money spent that came directly or indirectly from government, regardless of its intentions, ends up on aggregate being poured into less successful enterprises and the money has a dead end.

Both private and public source spending have a net % of failure - that is, money placed into something that cannot sustain itself - and a variable associated with the "growth" they build - the government version is negative over time, and has vast diminishing returns. Individuals and groups begin to alter their behavior because they expect government intervention, which in effect decreases the impact of the intervention because people are just gaming the system. That's partially why Bush's stimuli - although much smaller - actually had more an effect, although more of it has to do with monetary policy.

Even given all of this, the government isn't creating anything new when it spends money - it is taking money from the private sector to give it back to the private sector, with much administrative cost. There can't possibly be a reasonable gain with this methodology. If the government is borrowing to give to the private sector, it is also crowding out loans that weren't based in the idea of stimulus - but loans where private individuals risk their own credit to achieve something (which is far more successful than most government borrowing).

If the government is easing monetary policy to flood markets with credit, thereby lowering the "cost" of borrowing money, it creates mixed signals in a market - where people are trying to deleverage because they are in too much debt, it tells them to go into more debt, even though it is creating a situation where interest rates have to rise even higher in the future than they would have if they had been allowed to appreciate normally.

This is called a bubble. You usually can't control or predict where it goes, but it always goes somewhere. It's heading into commodities right now, but who knows where it will end up.

The CBO estimated that the stimulus act would decrease the GDP by 0.1% to 0.3% in the long term, but would increase it by 1.1% to 3.3% in the short term (chart (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/CBO_GDP_impact_of_ARRA_2009.png)). I don't know if you would define this as a success or not, but it did help the economy from falling into a deeper recession.

It's based upon certain assumptions which aren't coming true. It's academic, but many argue a kind of constant value multiplier effect for government spending. It's not quite so simple as they say - which is why none of the people who argue in favor of government stimulus predicted the 2008 recession. There were plenty of people who predicted it in fairly certain terms (they weren't just doomsaying) with a good degree of accuracy.

I don't know much about countries who did not attempt to stimulate their economies, but you can look at Germany as an example of a successful stimulus program. Right now Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world, and they spent $110 billion on stimulus. This comes out to about 1.5% of their GDP, whereas the U.S. spent about 2% of its GDP on stimulus. The difference between the German and U.S. stimulus is Germany had a deficit reduction plan as part of its stimulus. Germany used short term deficit spending to stimulate the economy, while minimizing its impact on long term debt. This created growth without worrying investors and creating problems down the road. The U.S. needs to follow a similar path to ensure that we don't see the gains from the stimulus wiped out by debt. Reckless stimulus spending does more harm than good, but responsible stimulus can be a powerful tool to promote growth.

Because Germany/US plans are extraordinarily complex and comparing them proved difficult, I'm looking more at the underlying proofs of stimulus as a whole - and I point out that Paul Krugman was doomsaying about a second 1937 because we didn't spend enough - i.e. we didn't go into debt enough. He'd certainly support a higher-tax deficit reduction plan, but he supports running hard deficits until the world ends. Ironically, that's exactly what we did in the 30s - we never stopped spending. Never stopped stimulating. Never stopped acquiring more and more control over private industry. Created entitlements. His argument is that we didn't do enough.

And my proof regarding bad recessions and the real effect of spending is to look at the actual spending difference between Hoover and Roosevelt. The difference is very, very tiny. It's been a while since I did the study, but it was very marginal.

And the bad thing about stimulus is if it works, it gets credit for working. If it fails, proponents just say we didn't stimulate enough. There aren't underlying and reliable ways to predict its effects or even how to stimulate in the most effective ways.


Stimulus just creates the massive up and down swings of the economy as opposed to reasonable recessions and expansions - and honestly, the fiscal side of things isn't nearly as big as the monetary side. All the focus on taxes and spending belies the real damage being done by near-zero interest rates.


We never stimulated during some of our largest booms as a country - Yet during the ones where we did, a massive bust follows. It seems too much power for an administration - Bush or Obama - to flood the economy with money (as Bush did following the 2000 recession, where home starts increased for the first time on record in a recession) and leave a bust for the next guy. If Obama wins a second term and continues on the track he's on, My bet is we'll see an even larger crash on the next guy, because the crash cycles are starting to spiral inward and become more frequent (using the last 90 years as a frame of reference). Heck, it might even crash during the next presidential term, regardless. I'm watching some really bad technicals in world markets, and China is no exception. China is setting up one of the largest busts in history by their own stimulus efforts - it may take a decade, but China will see a massive bust in the future based on poor investment by its government.

Do we really trust politicians to determine the right velocity of the economy? I don't trust any of them to do that. And Obama absolutely ignored the deficit for his first two years, and was entirely complicit with the previous house not even passing a budget (do you just spend uncontrollably with your home finances, or do you actually make budgets). If Republicans hadn't even passed a budget, I would want political blood (because I'm registered as one to try to affect their primaries - I want libertarian minded republicans who don't want foreign wars and federal social legislation).

[Fist_The_Lord]

Seriously the war on drugs is by far our biggest loss, we pay to imprison potheads. Fully legalize and tax that shit, you get a multi-billion dollar industry, which in turn stimulates the economy.

[nalkin]

It's time to start learning chinese my friends.

[Feachie]

yes, but which dialect? i'm thinking yue.

[Hailto]

Wait wait, fist, your solution to the economic crisis is....legalizing weed....seriously?

[dojo420]

Get back to a tally stick system imo:
The Money Masters (http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=2&ved=0CD0QtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdo cid%3D-515319560256183936&rct=j&q=the%20money%20masters&tbm=vid&ei=dT0pTtObMYGDOuPB0McK&usg=AFQjCNEYxxtuJhJ0P_0BOC-T7l8dOmhCFg&cad=rja)
and it's remake
Secret of Oz (http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=2&ved=0CDcQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dswk q2E8mswI&rct=j&q=secret%20of%20oz&tbm=vid&ei=Mj4pTr6oONGaOpzLpM4K&usg=AFQjCNFkLj5tp0WSi6A3PnHxemjA735fjg&cad=rja)

[JayDee]

We should raid Dubai next and steal all their resources. Just tell the american people they are harboring terrorists.

[Tumdumm]

AAAAAAAAA
triple AAA

seems good

[Peatree]

I personally like Trump's idea of billing the countries our armed forces are in to police/protect! That and making weed legal would more than likely put us in the green (no pun intended).

[Polixenes]

I personally like Trump's idea of billing the countries our armed forces are in to police/protect!

Oh please, don't give the USA even more incentive to invade the rest of us!

[Peatree]

Oh please, don't give the USA even more incentive to invade the rest of us!

Another great idea! We can bill them a lower fee to not invade, and also offer a higher fee if they "need" us! Thanks for the great idea. Now I'm off to call Glen Beck to make this happen! :D

[naez]

Pretty sure America already lost its AAA rating with China like a year or so ago. Also every empire that has spread itself too far has eventually collapsed, so you can catch me looting the local wal-mart when obamageddon hits

[Doors]

Seriously the war on drugs is by far our biggest loss, we pay to imprison potheads. Fully legalize and tax that shit, you get a multi-billion dollar industry, which in turn stimulates the economy.

You'd be surprised how much money our country makes off the judicial system when it comes to busting and convicting drug offenders.

The parole fees, probation costs, pleading out - all of these mean big dollars for the U.S. government because they catch so many offenders with Marijuana. It's actually why Marijuana is listed as a higher class drug than Cocaine, so the legal fees and penalties generate more cash because they're more people using Marijuana than there are using Cocaine.

Also theres conspiracy theorists out there that speculate this is also a way of keeping African Americans down, as Cocaine is usually consumed by upper and middle class white Americans and Marijuana is consumed mostly by minorities of all kinds.

[Fist_The_Lord]

Sorry didn't have time to elaborate last night, but I just think a lot of people overlook the economic possibilities. I know the government makes a lot of money from locking people up for weed, but that money is just used to sustain the fucking assholes who pass and enforce these stupid laws, i.e. cops, prison guards, judges, parole officers, etc. And I'm not just talking about making money from taxing people that smoke weed, think about how many small businesses would open, paper, textiles, hash bars, head shops, taco bells, etc. All paying taxes and creating jobs. If they did it right it could even bolster tourism. I really think this is a viable solution to a lot of our economic problems. Just my 2cp, but I would like to know what other non-smokers think about this. I'm a little bias, because from time to time I partake.

[tj218]

You'd be surprised how much money our country makes off the judicial system when it comes to busting and convicting drug offenders.

The parole fees, probation costs, pleading out - all of these mean big dollars for the U.S. government because they catch so many offenders with Marijuana. It's actually why Marijuana is listed as a higher class drug than Cocaine, so the legal fees and penalties generate more cash because they're more people using Marijuana than there are using Cocaine.

Also theres conspiracy theorists out there that speculate this is also a way of keeping African Americans down, as Cocaine is usually consumed by upper and middle class white Americans and Marijuana is consumed mostly by minorities of all kinds.

I think the war on drugs is stupid, but you are wrong here.

Schedule I and Schedule II has nothing to do with how drugs arrests are treated. In fact you will find trivial amounts of marijuana usually lead to a fine as opposed to cocaine. Schedule I were listed as having no accepted medical use, schedule II were listed as having a high abuse risk but in some instances can have medical uses (think pain killers). While you can debate marijuana's placement in Schedule I. It doesn't mean Schedule II = x penalty, while Schedule I = x2 penalty.

As for the conspiracy theories.....white kids don't smoke pot? You're kidding me. Second you really think law makers sat around and said "yeah let's punish pot worse because only minorities do it, and let's let cocaine users get a free ride."

[Haul]

Seriously the war on drugs is by far our biggest loss, we pay to imprison potheads. Fully legalize and tax that shit, you get a multi-billion dollar industry, which in turn stimulates the economy.

[Doors]

As for the conspiracy theories.....white kids don't smoke pot? You're kidding me. Second you really think law makers sat around and said "yeah let's punish pot worse because only minorities do it, and let's let cocaine users get a free ride."

Never said I agreed with said theories. Go read books on it bro, enough people have written them on the subject.

[Feachie]

Never said I agreed with said theories. Go read books on it bro, enough people have written them on the subject.

Actually I think the debate you're looking for is not Marijuana vs. Cocaine, because that argument is flimsy at best. The reason cocaine is not a schedule I drug is because schedule I drugs have zero accepted medical use for treatment. Cocaine, ironically, does have medical value. Go read books on it bro ;)

The one that shows racial and class disparities is when you get into the differences in sentences/punishment for Powder vs Crack cocaine. Who buys Crack cocaine? Po (stupid) folk. Who buys powder cocaine? White people, and people that make Crack. So stiffer punishments for possession for crack is kind of silly, considering the average crack user is so bad off already as it is. Punish the slanger, not the user imo.

I remember hearing something about a bill being passed in congress ending the disparity in punishments, but I don't know if it ever made it through.

p.s. yes, drug school.

[Doors]

Dunno what either of you dolts are talking about but the class offenses and schedule rankings of drugs are two completely different things. Also why the hell would tree be schedule I if there are legal medical uses for weed if you're stating that schedule I drugs have zero accepted medical use for treatment? Durrr.

And read a book on what exactly? Guy said he thinks I'm kidding, there are actual legit text books on the concept of keeping minorities down through stiff legal fines dealing with minor drug offenses which is why I told him to go read a book on it because he thinks I'm making this shit up.

http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/020568842X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311406717&sr=1-1

I'm not sure why I would go read a book on something nobody here is even talking about, but ok. Either way I don't really give a fuck about drugs or the people who do them.

[Feachie]

Dunno what either of you dolts are talking about but the class offenses and schedule rankings of drugs are two completely different things. Also why the hell would tree be schedule I if there are legal medical uses for weed if you're stating that schedule I drugs have zero accepted medical use for treatment? Durrr.

And read a book on what exactly? Guy said he thinks I'm kidding, there are actual legit text books on the concept of keeping minorities down through stiff legal fines dealing with minor drug offenses which is why I told him to go read a book on it because he thinks I'm making this shit up.

http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/020568842X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311406717&sr=1-1

I'm not sure why I would go read a book on something nobody here is even talking about, but ok. Either way I don't really give a fuck about drugs or the people who do them.

I see you completely skipped my second paragraph. It points out something that you should be concerned about, not silly marijuana vs. cocaine. "Durrr?" :rolleyes:

Also, Cannabis is schedule I. Cocaine is schedule II. I don't make the rules. According to the feds, there is no medical value to weed.

Close as you're going to come to a book: recent action on the subject of paragraph two http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-7403-act-shrinks-cocaine-.html
also more reading http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/cocaine_fact_sheet.pdf

[Akim]

outlaw fractional reserve lending
google it

[Akim]

Dunno what either of you dolts are talking about but the class offenses and schedule rankings of drugs are two completely different things. Also why the hell would tree be schedule I if there are legal medical uses for weed if you're stating that schedule I drugs have zero accepted medical use for treatment? Durrr.

And read a book on what exactly? Guy said he thinks I'm kidding, there are actual legit text books on the concept of keeping minorities down through stiff legal fines dealing with minor drug offenses which is why I told him to go read a book on it because he thinks I'm making this shit up.

http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/020568842X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311406717&sr=1-1

I'm not sure why I would go read a book on something nobody here is even talking about, but ok. Either way I don't really give a fuck about drugs or the people who do them.

http://www.aspects.org/carter/cocaine/03.html
read a book

http://www.aspects.org/carter/cocaine/06.html

[Doors]

Rule 1 of arguing with drug addicts - don't bother.

[Akim]

Rule 1 of arguing with drug addicts - don't bother.

you learn fast

[Tumdumm]

The one that shows racial and class disparities is when you get into the differences in sentences/punishment for Powder vs Crack cocaine. Who buys Crack cocaine? Po (stupid) folk. Who buys powder cocaine? White people, and people that make Crack.

a lot of time when people go buy that powder cocaine it was crack only minutes earlier... didnt read that in a book though

[Tumdumm]

so who ends up lookin (stupid) in that situation

[FuglyP99]

The debt ceiling should not be raised. Not raising the debt ceiling does not mean that we will default. We have plenty of money to pay the principal and interest and figure out how far we can stretch what is left. Besides, we've had several significant defaults in our history, and this is nothing new. Not to mention we continually default through inflation.

What we really need to do is stop giving politicians blank checks and force them to work within some sort of budget dictated by tax revenue, not by putting the whole country on an adjustable rate mortgage while we have interest rates this low when it is certain that they can't remain low forever.

That said, it certainly doesn't mean just raise taxes until we can cover our current obligations. Our current obligations exist because of a culture of reckless spending on both sides, and that is what needs to be addressed. There can be such a thing as a fiscally conservative Democrat. Too bad Republicans tend be be more of social conservatives than fiscal ones. Maybe I could get behind them more if they stopped pushing social issues.

As for the other direction of this thread, no drugs should be prohibited by law, at least not at the Federal level. Addicts and abusers shouldn't be treated as criminals. Non-violent drug offenders do not deserve to be in prison. They aren't hurting anyone but themselves, and they should be free to do so. Instead of trying to protect people from themselves, try giving them no option but to be responsible, and maybe you'd see the populace wise up a bit.

[Feachie]

a lot of time when people go buy that powder cocaine it was crack only minutes earlier... didnt read that in a book though

yeah but that's dirty :rolleyes:

[Convict]

As for the other direction of this thread, no drugs should be prohibited by law, at least not at the Federal level. Addicts and abusers shouldn't be treated as criminals. Non-violent drug offenders do not deserve to be in prison. They aren't hurting anyone but themselves, and they should be free to do so. Instead of trying to protect people from themselves, try giving them no option but to be responsible, and maybe you'd see the populace wise up a bit.
This ^. Vote Ron Paul

[deakolt]

Fitter, happier, more productive,
comfortable,
not drinking too much,
regular exercise at the gym (3 days a week),
getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries,
at ease,
eating well (no more microwave dinners and saturated fats),
a patient better driver,
a safer car (baby smiling in back seat),
sleeping well (no bad dreams),
no paranoia,
careful to all animals (never washing spiders down the plughole),
keep in contact with old friends (enjoy a drink now and then),
will frequently check credit at (moral) bank (hole in the wall),
favors for favors,
fond but not in love,
charity standing orders,
on Sundays ring road supermarket (no killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants),
car wash (also on Sundays),
no longer afraid of the dark or midday shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate,
nothing so childish - at a better pace,
slower and more calculated,
no chance of escape,
now self-employed,
concerned (but powerless),
an empowered and informed member of society (pragmatism not idealism),
will not cry in public,
less chance of illness,
tires that grip in the wet
(shot of baby strapped in back seat),
a good memory,
still cries at a good film,
still kisses with saliva,
no longer empty and frantic like a cat tied to a stick,
that's driven into frozen winter shit
(the ability to laugh at weakness),
calm,
fitter,
healthier and more productive
a pig in a cage on antibiotics.

[Tumdumm]

yeah but that's dirty :rolleyes:

its ok, we can't expect you all on the meth coast to remember how crack works ;)

[Nedala]

Money as Debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

watch this, very interesting.

[waldo]

Arguing about the legalization of marijuana will get us nowhere. Yes it is classified as a class I drug, but in actuality it does have multiple medical uses. The only reason it is illegal is because of personal agendas. It was grown as a cash crop back in washingtons day, became illegal in the jazz movement because black people smoked it, and the government did not want white society embracing something with the jazz movement. Look it up you can find many books on this. The people who argue that marijuana is as bad as cocaine are narrow minded and don't know what they are talking about, but people believe what they are told.

As far as the government changing for the people, ha, the government is run by corrupt people who are only concerned about their own agendas. We get to elect who we want into office, yet we are forced to choose between two people who are picked for us. Sure there are other people running but they are not shown on the debates or televised. Things wont change around here until the government starts to see a collapse. But if that happens i'm sure some so called "bad guy" will do something and we will go to war and be united under the government and completely forget about the way things were being run.

Lol sorry if this seems like a long unpunctuated rant, but it is becoming more and more obvious that we the people no longer matter in making decisions for ourselves.

[Shrubwise]

HEY GUYS

What's going on in this thread


http://www.thefirstruleaboutfightclubisyoudonottalkaboutf ightclub.com/images/pineapple.jpg

[Feachie]

Arguing about the legalization of marijuana will get us nowhere. Yes it is classified as a class I drug, but in actuality it does have multiple medical uses. The only reason it is illegal is because of personal agendas. It was grown as a cash crop back in washingtons day, became illegal in the jazz movement because black people smoked it, and the government did not want white society embracing something with the jazz movement. Look it up you can find many books on this. The people who argue that marijuana is as bad as cocaine are narrow minded and don't know what they are talking about, but people believe what they are told.

As far as the government changing for the people, ha, the government is run by corrupt people who are only concerned about their own agendas. We get to elect who we want into office, yet we are forced to choose between two people who are picked for us. Sure there are other people running but they are not shown on the debates or televised. Things wont change around here until the government starts to see a collapse. But if that happens i'm sure some so called "bad guy" will do something and we will go to war and be united under the government and completely forget about the way things were being run.

Lol sorry if this seems like a long unpunctuated rant, but it is becoming more and more obvious that we the people no longer matter in making decisions for ourselves.

Legalization will never be real until the definition of what a Schedule I drug is changes. States may pass laws "legalizing" it as they did with repealing alcohol prohibition, but the federal government will push back just as they did then also.

[Corrodith]

http://youtu.be/zqTXgNM8Kcs

It's all just political drama. Staying firm to the debt limit now when they've increased it at least 30 or 40 times in the past 50 years will turn things around? OK!

Watch this for the big picture of things and then you can LOL at the pettiness of this "debt ceiling debate":

http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A

Then after you're done laughing I guess you can cry a bit.

[Pringles]

SNL figured it out - why cant the federal government?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/1389/saturday-night-live-dont-buy-stuff

[Bardalicious]

How has a Slathar thread made it to page 5 without a single diabetic and/or fat reference directed toward one party or the other?


THAT'S THE REAL FUCKING MYSTERY HERE PEOPLE. THE DEBT IS A LIE.