National Service

[Justin M]

Last time my country was worth dying for in war was 1944. No, I don't believe in the National Service.

 

[Gimgak]

Luckily in America you can just say you're gay or some other BS and they can't let you in. Which is also a nice way to scam yourself free college 😀.

 

[David]

It would be against one's own free will. There are hundreds of millions who are educated enough to distinguish and acknowledge what is being said.

Anyway, an easy referendum would probably overturn the idea, as it would be a constitutional matter. Conscription has failed in Australia 2 times through referendums.

Conscription would easily pass Congress in the United States if there were even a small threat.

That's where the constitution differs; you have some 500 members representing your nation deciding conscription or not. With Australia, it's the whole nation that decides through a referendum.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Luckily in America you can just say you're gay or some other BS and they can't let you in. Which is also a nice way to scam yourself free college 😀.

Not anymore , cause obama is lettin the gay serve in the MILATARY, THE GAY IS GONA TRY TO RAEP OUR SOLDARS, AND NOW WHOSE GONA BE LAFFIN, OBAMA WILL <

 

[Gimgak]

Aww sheet. Well there goes my plan for paying for college. Guess I'll actually have to do the gay-for-pay male escort thing.
Obama Sucks 🙁

 

[Deleted member 1609]

It would be against one's own free will. There are hundreds of millions who are educated enough to distinguish and acknowledge what is being said.

Anyway, an easy referendum would probably overturn the idea, as it would be a constitutional matter. Conscription has failed in Australia 2 times through referendums.

Conscription would easily pass Congress in the United States if there were even a small threat.

We already have the SSS... and yeah, just like the patriot act and the approval to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where were the "radically liberal Democrats" on those?

 

[katy perry is hot]

Once again, I have to ask why somebody who worked hard their entire life has to pay higher taxes than somebody who did not. The government is punishing hard work. Less tax cuts for middle/upper class = less money in the economy.

First of all, don't even try the "tax cuts on the rich help the economy" argument. Because they don't. Look at the reports from the nonpartisan CBO. Extending tax cuts for the wealthy was on the way bottom of what could help stimulate the economy. Ironically, what would help the most was reducing military spending and extending unemployment benefits.

Regarding the taxes, you make a great argument. However, it's called being fair. Having a 10 % flat tax for example, is not fair. You take a gigantic chunk out of a family that brings home 35 grand a year, but you take barely anything out of the guy who brings home 8 million a year in comparison to how much you took from the lower middle class 35 grand earner.

Furthermore, if you look at the statistics, the rich are richer than ever in the past 10 years, and the middle class are poorer than ever in the past 10 years. That's because of the Bush tax cuts.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Once again, I have to ask why somebody who worked hard their entire life has to pay higher taxes than somebody who did not. The government is punishing hard work. Less tax cuts for middle/upper class = less money in the economy.

First of all, don't even try the "tax cuts on the rich help the economy" argument. Because they don't. Look at the reports from the nonpartisan CBO. Extending tax cuts for the wealthy was on the way bottom of what could help stimulate the economy. Ironically, what would help the most was reducing military spending and extending unemployment benefits.

Regarding the taxes, you make a great argument. However, it's called being fair. Having a 10 % flat tax for example, is not fair. You take a gigantic chunk out of a family that brings home 35 grand a year, but you take barely anything out of the guy who brings home 8 million a year in comparison to how much you took from the lower middle class 35 grand earner.

Furthermore, if you look at the statistics, the rich are richer than ever in the past 10 years, and the middle class are poorer than ever in the past 10 years. That's because of the Bush tax cuts.

The unemployed are getting 99+ weeks of unemployment benefits. Is close to two years of government support not enough?
So how about I drop out of high school (technically I could already graduate, but beyond that), find a way to get laid off of my job and have the government support me, via unemployment, have to pay little to no taxes and be a bum for the rest of my life? By giving the wealthy tax cuts, it rewards hard work and boosts the economy.

Do you have a link to the CBO report? I looked on the website, and could not find it.

 

[katy perry is hot]

With regard to your underlined statements, that BS about you making yourself unemployed doesn't mean anything. Most unemployed people are not lazy bums, sorry to tell you.

And no, it does not boost the economy. Just look at this link : http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3241#_ftn2

According to the CBO, extending tax cut is the LEAST effective way to help the economy, and it says specifically, though they may give some short term help, in the long term, it will cause diminishing effects on the economy.

It shows a citation to the actual full CBO report at the bottom for you to examine if you don't believe the site.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

With regard to your underlined statements, that BS about you making yourself unemployed doesn't mean anything. Most unemployed people are not lazy bums, sorry to tell you.

Somebody in my family works directly in the NYS Dept. of Labor and can vouch for the exact opposite. There ARE tons of people that get unemployment that genuinely need it, however there are also tons of people that work the system, never get caught, and certify for unemployment when they are in the hospital, visiting family, or even on cruises (yes, on cruises) etc. All the time they are on unemployment, they are supposed to be actively looking for a job and be available for work.

Should somebody be able to get money to go on cruises and not look for work?

And no, it does not boost the economy. Just look at this link : http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3241#_ftn2

According to the CBO, extending tax cut is the LEAST effective way to help the economy, and it says specifically, though they may give some short term help, in the long term, it will cause diminishing effects on the economy.

It shows a citation to the actual full CBO report at the bottom for you to examine if you don't believe the site.

Will look into that.

EDIT: How does extending unemployment benefits create jobs? More people to push papers at Dept. of Labor? I think a tax credit for buisnesses to hire new employees would be more effective than tax cuts for upper class and extending unemployment.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3241#_ftn2