I'll trade you the minimum wage for a maximum wage.
The minimum wage and the War on Drugs should both be eliminated. Rather than serve their respective intended purposes they undermine them. Anyone who defends either, especially the minimum wage has not honestly done their research into the harm that both of these policies do and lack of true benefit that they bring.
False equivalences to show how he's above the fray of everyday liberals and conservatives is Jack Hunter's stock in trade. But with his bizarre comparison of the minimum wage to the war on drugs he finally gone far enough for people to call him on his bullshit.
Other than that Factory Connection covered his arguments pretty well.
How dare anybody write at above a sixth grade level on here!!
factoryconnection continues to try to impress people today with a smorgasbord of condescension and professorialism. He leads his comment with a compliment to the author; nicely done. Then he proceeds to validate the factual basis for one of the author's positions. This regurgitation tells us that most of the readers of this paper are not quite as smart as he.
Of course, he marries a high-minded logic term with conversational English and incorrect grammar. "Jack trots out a couple rhetorical fallacies today," trotted away from a necessary preposition that leaves us wondering if he would say or write, "there are a few of ridiculous sentences in his comment?"
To be fair to Mr. Connection, this is merely a fulfilled promise to use his Word of the Day Calendar once a day. Sneaky "Tautological."
Jack trots out a couple rhetorical fallacies today, with a nice cocktail of appeal to emotion and authority. His argument against the War on Drugs comes with several sources; nicely done. The big-money, macroeconomic picture of the drug industry and the military/law enforcement expenditures against it are described broadly. This gets our dander up, knowing that most readers of this paper in one way or another disagree with heavy spending and/or drug criminalization.
Of course, he pairs it with an non-citationed, tautological argument against the minimum wage. "Much like the minimum wage, virtually all data available on drug prohibition points to the utter ineffectiveness of our policies." What data on the minimum wage? He has provided none, trotting out what appears to be your opinion as a well-known fact. Basically what this leaves us is a set-up having to do with drugs to a opinion hit piece on minimum wage.
To be fair to the Southern Avenger, this is merely a copy of a blog on a conservative blogger's site. He's just preaching to the choir there.
A lot of Blah,Blah,Blah from both the author and folks commenting. The truth is that drugs are a MORAL issue and. Government creates a criminal issue when it tries to dictate morality through laws. That's plain talk. Not a bunch of politico mumbo jumbo (of which there is far too much theses days).
As for Malcom Kyle's assertion that alcohol and tobacco aren't very harmful, well that's just bullshit. They both are ways that people KILL themselves and each other. Comparing them to marijuana is apples and oranges. They are as dangerous as the "heavy" drugs like heroin and cocaine. But it isn't governments place to stop us from being idiots. Natural selection dictates that some animals will do stupid or inadvertent things that will cause their death. Humans are no different.
The Taliban was actually very harsh on opium and heroin production and the production of heroin in Afghanistan has increased dramatically ever since we took over almost ten years ago. Get your facts straight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2814861.stm
It's time for us all to stop being ignorant hypocrites and start being TRUE conservatives!
Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and "true" Conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. But a true conservative would have no problem with agreeing, that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business, and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.
Fake-Conservatism on the other hand has much in common with socialism; Both Leftists and Fake-Conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be anything he wants to be, or can for the "greater good", be "re-educated" into being. Leftists therefore think little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly Fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.
If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles, quite clearly, ARE:
1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
5) Fiscal responsibility.
Prohibition is actually an authoritarian War on the economy, the Constitution and all civic institutions of our great nation.
It's all about the market and cost/benefit analysis. Whether any particular drug is good, bad, or otherwise is irrelevant! As long as there is demand for any mind altering substance, there will be supply; the end! The only affect prohibiting it has is to drive the price up, increase the costs and profits, and where there is illegal profit to be made criminals and terrorists thrive.
The cost of criminalizing citizens who are using substances no more harmful than similar things that are perfectly legal like alcohol and tobacco, is not only hypocritical and futile, but also simply not worth the incredible damage it does.
Afghani farmers produce approx. 93% of the world's opium which is then, mostly, refined into street heroin then smuggled throughout Eastern and Western Europe.
Both the Taliban and the terrorists of al Qaeda derive their main income from the prohibition-inflated value of this very easily grown crop, which means that Prohibition is the "Goose that laid the golden egg" and the lifeblood of terrorists as well as drug cartels. Only those opposed, or willing to ignore this fact, want things the way they are.
See: How opium profits the Taliban: http://tinyurl.com/37mr86k
or: A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF NARCOTICS-FUNDED TERRORIST GROUPS
Zaftig, instead of attacking his voice, how about using your posts to actually scrutinize that clap trap?
Ron Paul needs some heels and lipstick when he starts squeeling in that high pitched voice of his...
that libertarian clap trap is so muddle headed you got to accept it like religion cuz it sure can't tolerate scrutiny ..
"The Democrats want welfare and the Republicans want warfare," Ron Paul.
"Bring the troops home and a sound monetary policy." Ron Paul
Ron Paul is the only alternative in 2012
Don't change the subject- the question is where is 1.1 trillion going to be cut from the budget, not how much to tax the rich, which I never mentioned aside from letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which would raise the top rate from 35 to a whopping 39.6 percent.
Big deal. And BTW, taxes will go up for everyone, as needed, especially if this is done along with getting rid if all of the nonsense tax breaks.
Everyone lives here and enjoyes the benefits of our country; everyone should pay taxes.
More revenue is absoulutely needed. If Social Security, which is pretty much in balance right now, is subtracted from spending and revenues, you still end up with a 1.1 trillion deficit out of a 2.8 trillion budget.
To get rid of this government spending would need to be cut almost in half.
Again, those who think the deficit can be eliminated through cuts alone, show me exactly what to cut.
If you can't do that, then you have to agree that more revenue is needed.
It's not signed because it's from the WSJ Editorial Board. Every paper has one, no paper feels a need to have it signed...most people just know that.
As for the budget and your desire for someone to show you where to cut $1.1 trillion...taxing the rich, even at 100%, isn't gonna cover it. It's just another drop in the same bucket that cutting funding for PBS would come from.
For anyone who wants to try to cut 1.1 trillion from the budget, try here:
The owner of this site claims to be a conservative, so use however many grains of salt you feel needed.
Some of those links became truncated. Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_S…
The charts I mentioned are on this page.
Doesn't make it true, either. It was not even signed. Anyway for the CBO's take on where the surpluses went, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Fore…
For where the money goes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_s…
Note that if you remove Social Security, which for now pays for itself, the biggest expenses are Department of Defense, including the wars, followed by Unemployment/Welfare/ Other Manditory spending; then Medicare and Medicaid.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell exactly how to cut 1.1 trillion dollars from the budget.
Social Security payed out about 675 billion and took in ( through payroll taxes) about 667 billion. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planni…
Here's some more opinion for ya.
Doesn't make it false. And isn't opinion sharing what we do here?
In the opinion section...
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper