Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The difference between Conservatives and Liberals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1514223" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>So much again for the false "Conservative" claim of "fiscal responsibility" much less "limited gov't"! Of the states who have already done this, Florida for example, the cost benefit to money spent was an utter failure. Something on the order of less than 3% of those tested, and that maybe to high, were found to test positive so the so-called money saved didn't even come close to the amount of total spent. When does gov't ever give a value of return on investment?</p><p></p><p>The testing also disproved the claim that welfare recipients weren't the denizens of druggies often laid on them. You want to do something about so-called welfare, like say starting towards ending it? I'm all for that and more so here we go.</p><p></p><p>1) Start thinking about making the areas in which the poor live a real freed market area and for starters, get rid of the zoning laws that really serve to suppress local market upstarts and in reality favor privileged businesses that exist not just outside the community but are also absentee owned thus serve to move money out. Zoning laws serve as a barrier not as a benefit.</p><p></p><p>2) Make the areas in which the poor live and often try and work a totally tax free zone for those who live and work there. This also serves to keep money within the community (taxation takes it out for others to use and benefit) and allows it to re-circulate which stimulates economic activity. The State in any of its capacities should try where it can to reduce its own external cost burden upon said community to as near zero as it can get. Also encourage the community itself to begin to take control of its own issues and needs. </p><p></p><p>Instead of further dipping into my wallet in a fruitless venture that the real purpose served is only to give you a political woody, why not show these people you really believe in limited gov't by actually limiting gov't in such as way as to benefit them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1514223, member: 2189"] So much again for the false "Conservative" claim of "fiscal responsibility" much less "limited gov't"! Of the states who have already done this, Florida for example, the cost benefit to money spent was an utter failure. Something on the order of less than 3% of those tested, and that maybe to high, were found to test positive so the so-called money saved didn't even come close to the amount of total spent. When does gov't ever give a value of return on investment? The testing also disproved the claim that welfare recipients weren't the denizens of druggies often laid on them. You want to do something about so-called welfare, like say starting towards ending it? I'm all for that and more so here we go. 1) Start thinking about making the areas in which the poor live a real freed market area and for starters, get rid of the zoning laws that really serve to suppress local market upstarts and in reality favor privileged businesses that exist not just outside the community but are also absentee owned thus serve to move money out. Zoning laws serve as a barrier not as a benefit. 2) Make the areas in which the poor live and often try and work a totally tax free zone for those who live and work there. This also serves to keep money within the community (taxation takes it out for others to use and benefit) and allows it to re-circulate which stimulates economic activity. The State in any of its capacities should try where it can to reduce its own external cost burden upon said community to as near zero as it can get. Also encourage the community itself to begin to take control of its own issues and needs. Instead of further dipping into my wallet in a fruitless venture that the real purpose served is only to give you a political woody, why not show these people you really believe in limited gov't by actually limiting gov't in such as way as to benefit them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The difference between Conservatives and Liberals
Top