What's 700,000 jobs?

Views:      
 
 
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 9:59 am

New revenue sources are not the answer. 

Spoken like a true minimum wager.  How could it possibly be bad to have a country that makes more money?

Exactly.  More money is always the answer.  Even if we cut spending, it is still prudent to have "more money".

Just ask your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever.


What is the solution to your money problems?  Duh...MORE MONEY!!! 
sioux1976
SinceMar 15, 2007
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:00 am

Easier to grow and sell weed than it is to grow tobacoo and manufacture it into cigarettes.  And yes, selling contraband cigarettes is a HUGE problem in this country.  People get busted all the time transporting smokes between states with differening prices due to taxes.
Unruly_Lot
SinceSep 19, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:06 am

Spoken like a true minimum wager.  How could it possibly be bad to have a country that makes more money?

Taxes were just raised LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AGO.  How much money do you want to suck out of the people to fund some of these absolutely retarded gubnent projects/ideas?.


Unruly_Lot
SinceSep 19, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:08 am

Colorado is already starting to see a problem with rogue dealers selling pot illegally to circumvent the taxes on it.

I live in Colorado and I haven't heard about this. But of course there are a lot of dealers who will lose their business to legalization. But you still need a shroom/coke dealer.



Easier to grow and sell weed than it is to grow tobacoo and manufacture it into cigarettes

Growing decent quality marijuana is tough. It's a lot of work and you never really know how good it is. Turning tobacco into cigs is completely different because they add so many chemicals and stuff to make it addicting. Which is my fear if the govt gets involved in weed. Joints full of chemicals.
cubufffan1
SinceAug 13, 2007
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:09 am

Taxes were just raised LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AGO.  How much money do you want to suck out of the people to fund some of these absolutely retarded gubnent projects/ideas?.

I don't want to raise taxes, I want to generate revenue by taking a currently illegal product and making it legal.

I have no problem with taxing someone who wants to buy some weed.  A "sin tax" like that is a great way to increase revenue without taking money out of the pockets of people who don't choose to purchase the consumable in question.


Mannyrules2
SinceAug 12, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:10 am

 How much money do you want to suck out of the people to fund some of these absolutely retarded gubnent projects/ideas?.

How about we just raise taxes on the wealthy. They are doing fine.
cubufffan1
SinceAug 13, 2007
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:15 am

Easier to grow and sell weed than it is to grow tobacoo and manufacture it into cigarettes.  And yes, selling contraband cigarettes is a HUGE problem in this country.  People get busted all the time transporting smokes between states with differening prices due to taxes.
Growing weed for personal use is fairly easy, but it's a lot different than growing it for mass sale and is a helluva lot more involved than people think.

Selling contraband cigarettes is a lot different because the cigarettes are already packaged and ready for sale as opposed to growing and manufacturing from scratch. 
Mr. Shickadance
SinceDec 13, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:16 am

How about we just raise taxes on the wealthy. They are doing fine.
A) You just did less than two months ago.

B) It is not the mission of the gubnent to raise taxes on people for the sole reason that "they are doing fine" in someone's opinion.
Unruly_Lot
SinceSep 19, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:27 am

Washington has a spending problem.  Plain and simple.  Cuts have to be made.

Don't get me wrong, this part is true also.  I just think it's silly to say "new revenue sources are not the answer."  Why reject new possible sources of revenue?  No company would ever be so stupid as to turn down a new income stream, even if it was simultaneously involved in cost cutting efforts.

Mannyrules2
SinceAug 12, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:48 am

Don't get me wrong, this part is true also. 

Also?  No, moron.  Spending is THE problem.

I just think it's silly to say "new revenue sources are not the answer."

Because they aren't.  Spending reductions are.  And if the gubent were to get all the money they needed to balance the books today, what makes you think they would do anything else but try to raise more taxes when they overspend down the road?

Why reject new possible sources of revenue?

Why reject new possible spending cuts?   If they want to legalize weed and collect money from the sale, I am for it but it is not going to be the cash cow you think it will be because the gubnent has proven time and time and time again that it cannot spend money collected in a responsible manner.

Take a look at gasoline taxes.  We pay 18.4 cents for EVERY GALLON of gas we buy to the federal gubnent.  We pay 24.4 cents for EVERY GALLON of diesel fuel.  PLUS we also pay anywhere from  26.4 cents (Alaska) to 69.6 cents (New York) for EVERY GALLON of gas to state gubnents (32.4 to 75.1 cents per gallon for diesel fuel to the states).  What the hell are they doing with all that money?  The roads should be smooth as silk and paved with a coating of gold for all that money.

No company would ever be so stupid as to turn down a new income stream, even if it was simultaneously involved in cost cutting efforts.

The gubnent is not a business.  If it were, there would be massive amounts of indictments for fraud, abuse, embezzlement and the likes.  If the federal gubnent was beholden to the same rules that apply to private companies via the SEC and other regulatory bodies, they would have to build a new prison just to hold all the convicts.

Unruly_Lot
SinceSep 19, 2009
-

What's 700,000 jobs?

February 27, 2013 10:51 am

If the federal gubnent was beholden to the same rules that apply to private companies via the SEC and other regulatory bodies, they would have to build a new prison just to hold all the convicts.

Should have said private and publicly traded companies (for you a-n-a-l retentive people out there).
Unruly_Lot
SinceSep 19, 2009