U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Wells]

A study funded by Ronald Reagan concluded that weed kills brain cells and increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease.

That was also 30 years ago and Reagan pushed the racist crack laws so I really don't give a shit what his opinions on drugs are.

No you guys accused me for being a libertarian by miss-reading what I typed. Always was somewhat conservative.

In other words, libertarian when it benefits you and conservative when it comes to other people.

[Grizzly Willy]

The awful shit that smoking and drinking do to people is worth the jobs and money, but the relatively harmless effects of marijuana aren't? Not very economically conservative now, are we?

This is a rather large problem I have with the GOP. Ideally, for me at least, the government would be socially liberal, economically conservative. Not so much to the point of deregulation and bare bones taxes, but I feel that a government should spend within its boundaries.

The problem is, neither party really seems to be up for this. The Democrats are at least socially liberal, and their fiscal liberalism is true to what they present. The GOP, on the other hand, has neither. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, it is the least ideal form of government in my eyes. Sure, they are for deregulation and lower taxes, but they sure as hell aren't willing to reduce spending. Their stubborn approach to the defense budget and inability to recognize that more taxes isn't always a bad thing - at least in this election cycle - tells me that no, they really aren't interested in getting us out of this mess.

This is why I am absolutely repulsed by the GOP. Their attitude towards progressive social stances and the lie of fiscal conservatism that they hide behind makes me question their motives. The push against the legalization of marijuana despite the potential revenue that outweighs the minute dangers that it would pose is yet another example of how the GOP is afraid of fiscal conservatism.

[Wells]

I take issue with the notion that the GOP is fiscally liberal. They're fiscally corporatist. How they spend money is as important as spending it here.

They're not spending money on social welfare or development.

Nor are they really for deregulation so much as they're for removing controls and restrictions. They're for corporate profit. They have no problem with regulation and government control when their donors are making money on it. Like how you can't get drugs from Canada or how Medicare can't bargain on drug prices.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'll chalk this one up to my lack of knowledge on the topic.

Man, I've been wrong a lot lately.

[Chrysia]

I take issue with the notion that the GOP is fiscally liberal. They're fiscally corporatist. How they spend money is as important as spending it here.

They're not spending money on social welfare or development.

Nor are they really for deregulation so much as they're for removing controls and restrictions. They're for corporate profit. They have no problem with regulation and government control when their donors are making money on it. Like how you can't get drugs from Canada or how Medicare can't bargain on drug prices.

Deregulation is removal of controls and restrictions. That's what regulations are.

Social welfare is the mark of a truly enlightened society. We are only as good as we treat our most unfortunate citizens. Are there those that abuse these systems? Yes, but that doesn't mean strike them completely. It means streamline it, and for goodness' sake require people on welfare to pass the same drug test I have to to get a job.

EDIT: Leaving this post, as it still stand, but I replied for some reason thinking this was from a different poster, so read it in a tone that I suspect Wells did not intend. My bad, none of this is really directed at Wells.

[obdigore]

Deregulation is removal of controls and restrictions. That's what regulations are.

Social welfare is the mark of a truly enlightened society. We are only as good as we treat our most unfortunate citizens. Are there those that abuse these systems? Yes, but that doesn't mean strike them completely. It means streamline it, and for goodness' sake require people on welfare to pass the same drug test I have to to get a job.

Its been proven it costs the state more money to administer the drug tests than they save for the few that fail.

Meanwhile, read what Wells posted instead of what you wanted him to post. GOP isn't about deregulation at its core. The only deregulation the GOP wants is anything that stops corporations from doing what they think will make them more money. Asbestos, Lead, Slavery? Deregulation. Weed or Marriage? REGULATE THAT SHIT TO THE SKY!

[Chrysia]

Its been proven it costs the state more money to administer the drug tests than they save for the few that fail.

Meanwhile, read what Wells posted instead of what you wanted him to post. GOP isn't about deregulation at its core. The only deregulation the GOP wants is anything that stops corporations from doing what they think will make them more money. Asbestos, Lead, Slavery? Deregulation. Weed or Marriage? REGULATE THAT SHIT TO THE SKY!

You know what? I think I read that wrong, not realizing it was Wells that wrote it. I thought it was the conservative guy, so I read it in that voice. My mistake.

[Wells]

Deregulation is removal of controls and restrictions. That's what regulations are.

There's deregulation because you want less government for the better of all, then there's deregulation because you're just removing barriers to profit.

No one wants regulation that is not a net benefit, we just determine that differently.

[Chrysia]

There's deregulation because you want less government for the better of all, then there's deregulation because you're just removing barriers to profit.

No one wants regulation that is not a net benefit, we just determine that differently.

Yea, sorry Wells. I read that wrong. For some reason, I thought it was CapitalistChampion, not you writing it, so I applied the wrong tone to it.

Just goes to show, be absolutely sure you are replying to who you think you are.

[Naxere]

Is making a profit a bad thing?

[Wells]

Is making a profit a bad thing?

Profit making at unreasonable expense. I'm sure the coal industry for instance would make amazing profits if we removed all the regulation they have to deal with, but I'm pretty sure west Virginia would be completely uninhabitable.

[obdigore]

Is making a profit a bad thing?

Has the legislative arm the government ever made a regulation/law because 'someone is making a profit!'? Or are they attempting to protect their citizens since it is clear corporations wont protect their employees if it is cheaper for them to let them die then hire and train new ones?

[Naxere]

I consider WV uninhabitable now, no offense to any West Virginians we might have on this board

[Reeve]

The awful shit that smoking and drinking do to people is worth the jobs and money, but the relatively harmless effects of marijuana aren't? Not very economically conservative now, are we?

This is a rather large problem I have with the GOP. Ideally, for me at least, the government would be socially liberal, economically conservative. Not so much to the point of deregulation and bare bones taxes, but I feel that a government should spend within its boundaries.

The problem is, neither party really seems to be up for this. The Democrats are at least socially liberal, and their fiscal liberalism is true to what they present. The GOP, on the other hand, has neither. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, it is the least ideal form of government in my eyes. Sure, they are for deregulation and lower taxes, but they sure as hell aren't willing to reduce spending. Their stubborn approach to the defense budget and inability to recognize that more taxes isn't always a bad thing - at least in this election cycle - tells me that no, they really aren't interested in getting us out of this mess.

This is why I am absolutely repulsed by the GOP. Their attitude towards progressive social stances and the lie of fiscal conservatism that they hide behind makes me question their motives. The push against the legalization of marijuana despite the potential revenue that outweighs the minute dangers that it would pose is yet another example of how the GOP is afraid of fiscal conservatism.

Republicans: Socially conservative, fiscally irresponsible.

[Grizzly Willy]

Pretty much. I'm waiting now for some of the Conservatives here to call me a liberal shill again.

[Lenonis]

Is making a profit a bad thing?

This isn't a black and white question. And I'm tired of everyone making it out to be one.

Two scenarios:
Company A makes a modest profit while offering a reasonably priced, safe and effective product in the marketplace. They offer their employees decent wages and benefits.

Company B makes a modest profit while offering an incredibly expensive product that is a necessity for people to survive. They cut corners on safety and quality while offering as low a wage as possible and no benefits.

Are those two profits equal in the "bad thing" scale?

[Felya]

My dad is one of the most highly sought after neurologists in CT. It is hard to get an appointment with him. People who are there seeking drugs waste his time and risk the health of others who could use his services. He informs the patients that he does not prescribe MJ.

Does your dad get paid for the visits? This is ridiculous, your problem is that patients are seeking help and your dad does not want to do the work? All these pot heads trying to get an appointment with your highly thought after neurologist, instead of going to a general practitioner? You sir are full of shit!

[Catta]

Are those two profits equal in the "bad thing" scale?

Computer is objective!

[mistuhbull]

The establishment of marijuana, even medical marijuana, as a class 1 substance is a federal law. Obama does not have the authority to denounce such a law, which is clearly what you expect him to do. As for the rising number of raids, well, I could provide what I know but Felya seems more informed on this specific subtopic than I am, so refer to his post.

late to the party, and may have been mentioned, but actually Obama can.

Congress establishes what the legality of the Schedules are, but the Executive can reschedule anything.

Theoretically, Obama could wake up tomorrow, have a chat with the head of the DEA, and tell him(her?) to reschedule Cannabis to a lower schedule

He won't, and that's a terrible way to legalize because it leaves it open to the next administration just undoing it, but it is possible

[Felya]

late to the party, and may have been mentioned, but actually Obama can.

Congress establishes what the legality of the Schedules are, but the Executive can reschedule anything.

Theoretically, Obama could wake up tomorrow, have a chat with the head of the DEA, and tell him(her?) to reschedule Cannabis to a lower schedule

He won't, and that's a terrible way to legalize because it leaves it open to the next administration just undoing it, but it is possible

Yeah, it can't be just made legal and be sold at 7/11 as Duidri suggested. We need states to have provisions in place, before removing it from class one. It's not going to happen unless states take initiative, like some have. You can't have the fed regulate state provisions, like DUI and alcohol sales being different per state. Simply making it no longer class one, just creates too any holes because of the way the drug was treated before. If they are no longer class one, does it fall back on stamp taxes?

A black president removing pot from class one, would also return the very racist foundation that made the drug so bad in the first place. It's how good the Rockefellers and Hurst were with selling news papers on fear. It's a tried and successful way to sell news.