The Senators who voted No

I completely support the full legalisation of drugs. But SH said downsize police departments, and I know full well what he means by that because I know his view from other threads.

Is this thread nothing but complaining about politicians who voted in a direction you didn't approve of?

That's what this sounds like by singling out folks with names in such a manner.

^ That and SH's usual "anarchism FTW" schtick.

Which is entirely unrelated to the thread subject, mind you. Police department funding is a local issue, for the most part, with federal grants/loans for specific purposes as a distant second-place source of PD income. Cutting those grants/loans wouldn't even generate enough of a change of federal expenses to qualify for "margin of error".

Having the DEA close shop, and freeing (and pardoning) all non-violent guys serving federal drug sentences would save a lot of money. In fact, you'd probably get to shut down many Federal prisons, which are quite expensive. Of course, sacking the DEA guys without compensation and rescinding their benefits would be both entirely appropriate from a moral standpoint and a great money-saver.

When it comes to defense, there's probably many military bases abroad that the US has no business having. Y'know, you bring the boys back home, sell the base back to its home country, and have a discharge normally, but not replace plan for surplus troops.

Abstinence-only sex ed is a fucking fraud: It should be wholly defunded. And a thorough end to corporate welfare might begin to square the bills.

edited 3rd Aug '11 5:03:12 PM by SavageHeathen

It's not the fault of the DEA agents. It's the fault of the government, and the voters for egging them on.

What career options do you have if you're an axed government agent, just out of curiosity?

In the current society? Well, there's rent-a-cops, security personnel at a PMC, applying to another law enforcement agency... There are some possibilities.

edited 3rd Aug '11 5:45:47 PM by SavageHeathen

Yeah great idea flood the job market more.

Now I'm picturing an ex-PMC working as a paperboy.

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:28:14 PM by johnnyfog

Mercenary postal workers roaming the streets, delivering the mail along their territory's routes, completely uncountable to the original USPS chain of command.

buh

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:42:43 PM by deathjavu

Well, there's people who voted no because the deal was terrible, people who voted no because they wanted a default, and people who voted no to be liberals that opposed the terrible deal, but only after a lot of Republicans had voted yes so that there was enough of a margin of error so that they wouldn't be responsible for driving the economy off a cliff.

Instead, we've driven it into a ditch, but, hey-could be worse!

I feel like there's a Team America joke to be had here...

Poof, you just increased cost of living because companies hiked up prices to make the same profits while having to pay their employees more. Cumulative effect — a bit of inflation with little to bad impact on actual spending power.

edited 3rd Aug '11 10:45:38 PM by Pykrete

Possible. It's more complicated than that. Raising wages raises consumer demand which raises prices. What really needs to happen is introducing some mechanism whereby employees have more bargaining power, so that all utility from increased productivity doesn't just get transformed into profits.

We've got the pussies and assholes, now we need a party of dicks?

edited 3rd Aug '11 10:59:24 PM by Barkey

"But dicks. Also. Fuck. Assholes."

You're basically saying that competition doesn't really matter. To be honest, that's a great argument for communism. It's not something I agree with.

If companies were able to dictate the higher price, they already would have done so in order to maximize profits. Now, prices DO go up in such a situation, but it's for the reason that Tomu mentions. It's because people can afford more so they're willing to pay more.

This is why, in my opinion inflation is less of an economic issue and more of a cultural issue.

Inflation arguments are used as a pseudo-scientific explanation for why we must "get our deficit under control!" but actual numbers show that we have not had the hyper-inflation that Sarah Palin thinks we've had (what with her slim jims. GODDAMNIT SARAH, I LOVE SLIM JIMS-DON'T RUIN THOSE FOR ME!)