Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (134411)	3/12/2001 10:27:44 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1576012

Like Dave said earlier, we are talking semantics...less taxes collected means a smaller revenue stream. A smaller revenue stream means less $$$ to reduce the deficit or for existing programs. A cutback in programs usually results in a reduction in services and hurts, not endangers, the quality of life. A cutback in programs and taxes means people have the freedom to choose how they will spend the money themselves. The increase in freedom itself is an improvment in the quality of life but it also allows for the money to be spent on better targeted and more efficently provided services. Awile back I posted my priorites for cuts. More recently I gave more detail. Do you have a problem with eliminating things like the mohair subisdy or the helium reserve? Just two weeks you posted something that identified some of the waste in the military and you still want a modest increase? Waste is found all over the federal government. You want an increase in social programs right? They are not without waste. If the waste in the military can be cut enough to fund the modest increase in productive spending then we will not need any actual spending increase but I have my doubts about waste cutting efforts being so successfull. What's your point? Because there are several ways to kill people, we need to pick the one that does it faster and easier? So lift those restrictions on guns? More people are killed in the US by non-guns even though the faster and easier guns are more available. This shows that people in the US are more prone to kill then people in Japan guns or no guns. My point is the desire of the criminal element for guns and there liklyhood to use them is effected by there greater desire to kill. If gun laws where the only difference between the US and Japan then the comparison of the two countries would do more to make your point. But since there is evidence that other aspects of US society or culture make it more likely for Americans to want to kill the issue becomes more complecated and does not prvodie clear evidence that if our gun control laws where similar to Japan that our gun murder rate would also be similar. But when they do, they usually maim or kill. True but irrelevant. You seem to be accepting my point. Guns are unlikly to kill or maim unless they are in the hands of criminals or dangerously unstable individuals. Running a red light doesn't always result in an accident but when it does they tend to be deadly. That's why its against the law to run a red light. Running a red light is far more likely to result in an accident. Running a red light is itself directly against the law. Using guns illegaly and with reckless disregard for the safety of other is similarly dangerous, but if someone does so they can face severe penaltess even if no one is hurt. A more equivilent danger from a responsible law abiding person owning a gun would be the danger from a resonsible law abiding driver. My ownership of a gun (if I had one) would be no more dangerous to my neighbors then my ownership of a car. In fact statistically it would be less dangerous as there are more guns then cars in the US but they cause less death and injury, and the death and injury they do cause are concentrated. They come from the guns that are owned by criminals, while deaths and injuries caused by cars are more evenly distributed so a carefull law abiding gun owner living next to you is less dangerous to you then a careful law abiding driver is. Not necessarily...guns can't tell the good guys from the bad guys...they just shoot to kill. Guns don't shoot themselves. People shoot them. People can tell the good guys from the bad guys (and should refrain from shooting when it really isn't clear). "Social spending exploded under Reagan." Tell that to the homeless. Its a simple verifiable fact. Look up the spending on all the large social programs in 1981 and look at the figure for 1988. The later numbers will be much larger. "Thats why we has such large deficits." We have large deficits because of the military spending under Reagan, and not the social spending. Social spending and federal redistribution gre by a larger amount of dollars in the 80s then military spending did. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next