Raising taxes on certain categories of people to pay for our egregious spending habits in Washington only passes the buck to future generations.
Technically raising revenue pays for the spending we’re doing now—which eliminates the need to pass the buck to future generations. Any budget has two sides. Money in. Money out. Taxes are low now. A more progressive tax system can both eliminate the deficit and allow us to fund our priorities.
By western standards, yes, taxes are relatively low. I would suggest 1) that our priorities are out of whack and 2) that 20% of GDP should be the maximum amount of revenue consumable by the Federal Government.
Further, I contend that there is no such thing as a tax being too low, just as there couldn’t exist a stabbing by kitchen knife that was too gentle. Any taxation above zero is too high; taxationistheft.
Exactly. Glad there are some people on tumblr that actually understand this.
Our issue isn’t that we don’t tax enough. In fact, we tax too much. The issue is that we spend even more. Way more than we bring in. That’s why we have a deficit. We’re spending more and also incurring way more debt that we can actually pay off.
As a result, our dollar is losing value, we are feeling the venom of inflation and that’s why most Americans can’t afford to buy things that were easily obtainable just a decade ago.
People need to wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid from the fountain of Congress. The solution is not taxation. These two factions of what seems to be the same political party want to start a war between classes, so they can use the mob-power of the many to force the entire country into a socialist, corporatist country where your Congressmen will have the ultimate power because they will have the final word on who does what, where, how and why.
They want to rule and control everything you do, right down to your sexual behaviors and food consumption. This ensures that the gov’t gets to touch every single dollar that is generated by the American people.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.
You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren’t crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don’t be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.
(2) Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.
It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if there’s any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.
If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said “no” to the search.
(3) Saying “no” can prevent a search altogether.
Data on police searches are interesting, but they don’t show how many searches didn’t happen because a citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.
I know refusing searches works because I’ve been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there’s a good chance they’ll back down, because it’s a waste of time to do searches that won’t hold up in court anyway.
(4) Searches can waste your time and damage your property.
Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can’t count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.
(5) You never know what they’ll find.
Are you 100 percent certain there’s nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn’t yours, and they’ll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can’t challenge the evidence. But if you’re innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.
“When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they’re in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven’t been willing to talk about this.”—
Mitt Romney, at Wednesday’s CNN debate in Arizona.
Hey, you know what prevents unwanted pregnancy? This.
Love the insinuation that poverty IS child abuse. And the racism. That throwaway remark is quite possibly one of the worst things to come out of last night’s debate.
Birth control I have zero issues with (condoms, birth control pills and even plan B). I think you’d have to be an idiot to oppose those (or the Pope) so I won’t even touch up on those here. As for abortions, I’m not a big fan of abortion.
In fact, I can probably claim that I’m Pro Life. But that doesn’t mean I’m not Pro Choice, which I’ll explain later.
I 100% understand the statistics and facts behind it. Abortions prevent unwanted children which in turn lowers the poverty rates, crime rates and other daunting statistics in society.
But why can’t we work from both sides?
Why can’t we allow these services to continue (it doesn’t HAVE to be gov’t funded, there’s clearly a lot of public support and private funding for it) while at the same time educate the youth on the adverse effects of having children in broken homes or at a young age? We don’t have to be black or white about it because we don’t live in a black or white world. There are options and choices and an infinite number of ways to approach a situation and solve it. Let’s exercise that ability.
One thing I want to say about having such easy access to the abortion option is that many people become reliant on it and I totally understand that side of the argument. But there is a compromise. We can satisfy both extremes without eliminating one of them.
Perhaps Chris Rock’s (great example, I know) idea about guns and bullets can be applied here. He once said that if bullets cost thousands of dollars each than people would be less willing to just shoot up a club or use the bullet for violence. And yet, at the same time, you wouldn’t have to outlaw guns and take away peoples ability and access to them.
Maybe the same mentality can be applied to abortions and then both sides can shut the hell up.
This is the one reason I like Ron Paul’s stance on abortions. He’s personally Pro Life. He’s against them as he values human life and spent decades delivering babies as an OBGYN. He thinks what we need to do is help the people correct their morality. Not to create laws or regulations to force people one way or the other.
But at the same time, he doesn’t think that his morality or stance should be forced on to you. He doesn’t think the federal gov’t should regulate such a topic. And this is where many people misunderstand him. They think that his motion to repeal Roe vs Wade is the same as outlawing abortions.
He actually wants to give the people the choice and that’s exactly what the constitution does, or was supposed to do. This should be a law that is decided on the state and/or local level. If people in California want to kill unborn children, that’s their choice. They should be able to vote for it through their own state level legislature. And if it passes and there are those that don’t like the law, they can simply move to a state where it is outlawed.
That is or was the beauty of this country. A federal gov’t is only supposed to imposes the laws that are written in the Constitution and that’s it. Everything else is to be decided on a state level that way these small differences in ideals and morality don’t become epic battles that might ultimately determine who runs this country.
See, you can be Pro Life yet Pro Choice at the same time. I guess you can just call me Pro Liberties.
“Newt Gingrich didn’t do much of anything last night, but he never wanted to be President anyway; he just wanted to be on the precipice of possibly receiving the GOP nomination so that he can fetch gigantic speaking fees for future appearances wherein he’ll tell rapt audiences exactly how the world would have been different if he’d been allowed to build a colony on the moon. Professional Monday morning quarterback, that one.”—
I’ve been saying this forever. Newt Gingrich doesn’t want to be president. Never has, never will. He’s got way too much dirty laundry and he’s way too in love with money to care to do so.
It’s like LeBron and the dunk contest, he’s got nothing to gain and everything to lose.
This entire campaign for him is nothing more than a year long advertisement and credit builder for his up coming book(s), speaking arrangements, consultation fees, all sorts of board membership offers and various other ways for him to make money without doing much of anything.
And if that’s not enough, you know that he is going to keep the millions of dollars that he’s been holding off on spending from his war chest and Super PACs. All he has to do is donate it to a charity of his choice (wink, wink) and then pay himself handsomely for speaking appearances and “management” fees.
It’s all one big charade for him. His end game isn’t the Oval Office, it’s a golden office in his own personal home.