Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2012-09-04 21:06:07

Burnsy said

[orig][quote]

Shadow, there have been more prosecutions of dispensaries under Obama than under Bush, although I guess Bush was probably too busy spending hundreds of billions in Iraq in Afghanistan to focus on pot. Obama has not been forthright on something he campaigned on, total shocker coming from a politician, I know.

The notion that the rich pay less of the total tax burden is misguided. It's simply not true. Taxes need to increase regardless. How else is the US going to reduce the deficit? If you're blaming current inflation totally on Bush, I have nothing further to say. Bush was abominable in terms of adding to the debt but Obama has been no champion of deficit slashing. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt will be at $16 trillion by September 30.

You misunderstood me. I didn't say the rich pay less than everyone else. That would be untrue. I said the less of the tax overall tax burden the rich pay, the more everyone else pays. That is true.

Yes, the debt is too much. Deficits are too much.

Problem is that the deficit and a big slice of the debt comes from three policies: the Bush tax cuts in 2002, Medicare D, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Take those out, and Obama's actually running yearly surpluses, not deficits. There's also the $4 Trillion deficit reduction deal he negotiated with the Speaker of the House until Congress shit the bed on the deal; $3 Trillion Dollars were spending cuts and only $1 Trillion tax hikes on the rich, and the Republicans still wouldn't go for it. I honestly don't see what Obama could do to get people who are committed to not working with him to suddenly start doing it. The problem is getting those people out of Congress.

I know there have been more dispensaries prosecuted under Obama, but that's not because Bush didn't crack down, that's because there were exponentially fewer dispensaries under Bush, because the federal government's position under Bush was to obstruct states from passing or enforcing lax marijuana laws at every turn; the executive order by Obama is WHY dispensaries in Colorado increased by 100x in his first couple years of office. The dispensaries became so numerous and huge that some in certain states have lost track of their supply going across state lines to states without medical marijuana and decrim - so in the end was Bush better because he allowed so few dispensaries to begin with that cracking down on all of them AND THE USERS was less crackdowns than a small fraction of the countless dispensaries that were allowed to pop up under Obama? Really?

It's like the hyperbolic quote from that article from the med marijuana guy just above. Really? We were better off when users were targeted and lived in fear? When people literally died in prison from cancer for seeking cancer treatments? When 100% of the few dispensaries out there were targeted instead of a small fraction of the countless that exist today? I'm a progressive/moderate type for the most part, but that guy's quote is an example for me of when activists on the left occasionally jump the shark, and exaggerate themselves right out of common sense in the effort to make a powerful point for a good cause.

[default homepage]

[print][

3:23:36pm Jun 06,2024
load time 0.00761 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]