Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, this topic seems to have been totally derailed by the pothead legalization clique. Which is only fitting, since that is the kind of trash that has destroyed California, and is wokring on the rest of the nation.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Imperator, in my profession, I do a lot of networking, go to a lot of conferences, etc. I meet a lot of people from California. I can tell you honestly, that I don't see WHY they live there. The cost of living is so high there that all they do is work. Most of them moonlight at two or three jobs in addition to their regular one so they can live near the sea. What is the point? If you never get to be at home and you are working yourself into an early grave, how can living there possibly be worth it?

Originally Posted by Chocobot

The cause of your troubles is not anyone but yourself.

As a right wing person you should be able to simply cut cost, abstain from cigars and tighten your belt, get a better job move ahead unlike the rest of the liberal scum.

So stop whining and get to it.

Meanwhile Ill laugh my arse off chilling in the Socialist paradise of Scotland where paid servants feed me grapes as I relax in unemployed heaven.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Of course, that all depends on what you mean by "disposable income".

To people in most countries in the world, things we take for granted are definately luxuries.

How many out there own a car? 2 cars? More then 2 cars? A car built in the last 2 years? 3 years? 5 years?

How many people have a bedroom for every child living in their house? Take 2-4 week vacations a year? Have cable tv, sattelite dish, VCR, DVD, BluRay players? A fridge and a chest freezer (or 2 fridges)? Cell phones? High speed internet? A computer? 2 computers? Computers and laptops? High speed internet? Celular internet?

I bet if most of you took out your luxuries, you would find that there really is quite a lot of disposable income. But most Americans are so driven to possess meaningless items, they do not consider these "Luxuries".

And to answer your question, that is where the "disposable income" has gone. It is still there, it is just already taken up on things that are not needed.

PS: To give an idea what my lifestyle is back in the states, my wife and I rent a 3 bedroom house. Between the 2 of us we have 3 TV sets (1 a big screen), 4 computers, and 2 cars. We have 3 refrigerators, a 1999 Silverado and a 1990 Lincoln Towncar. And when I get back after my year in paradise, I plan on getting a Honda Goldwing.

Most of that is not needed, but it is how we live. We have lived in the past in a ghetto 2 bedroom apartment in Compton, with 3 other people. And our only transportation was a 20 year old station wagon and a 15 year old motorcycle. But we have the income to live more comfortably, so we do. But it is not a requirement.

And we still save around 10% of my check every month. Of course, things are a bit easier, since I am no paying income tax at the moment.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think, if our federal government has the "disposable income" to afford to pay for an extra-constitutional drug war, it has the "disposable income" to eliminate official poverty in our republic as a form of providing for the general welfare.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

In the local rag, there was a blurb about some group that is demanding the number of police officers by a few hundred, to get the ratio up over 2:1,000 citizens (which they feel is some sort of significant mark). At over $100K apiece for salary and equipment, etc., this would cost roughly $40 million. The city's budget is in the red by several millions, and the state is facing a $1.3 billion shortfall.

Just pointing out a concrete example of the taxpayers constantly wanting something for nothing, and being unwilling to actually pay for it. I still see it all as a supply/demand issue. If California is facing an $8B loss, the citizens need to learn to accept severe cutbacks in services: no road or infrastructure repair, less police or fire protections, etc. Anyone wanna take odds on how loud the howling would be then? People consider themselves owed and entitled to what they consider certain levels of government services. Woe to any who would dare decrease them.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

How about this:

We increase social spending. Take all drug addicts and put them into forced rehab. Those that buy and sell such drugs, place them into prisons where they belong.

Then we can end the "war on drugs". And the money saved can help people that really need it, not those that simply want to get high.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

There are interesting statistics on that matter.

18% of federal inmates state they did their crime to obtain money for drugs.

40% of college rapes occur when the offender is useing drugs.

26% of those in federal custonde state they were on drugs at the time their crime was comitted.

Of those prisoners with mental health issues, 64% report a history of drug abuse.

Of the drugs reported having been used before the crime, 16% report the drug was cocaine based. 15% report that it was marijuanna.

Thirty-two percent of mothers in state prison reported committing their crime to get drugs or money for drugs, compared to 19% of fathers.

In 2002, jail inmates convicted of robbery (56%), weapons violations (56%), burglary (55%), or motor vehicle theft (55%) were most likely to have reported to be using drugs at the time of the offense.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Drugs and Crime Facts: Drug Use and Crime

Need I say any more? Or are the brain-dead going to try and continue to hijack this topic away from it's intended focus, and continue to aim it back to the foolish concept of legalization?

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, this topic seems to have been totally derailed by the pothead legalization clique. Which is only fitting, since that is the kind of trash that has destroyed California, and is wokring on the rest of the nation.

They can't hold meaningfull conversations, all they do is parot over and over again "prohibition fails".

OK, this topic os now dead. SO why not move along and kill another topic with your meaninless insanity.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

OK, this topic seems to have been totally derailed by the pothead legalization clique. Which is only fitting, since that is the kind of trash that has destroyed California, and is wokring on the rest of the nation.

They can't hold meaningfull conversations, all they do is parot over and over again "prohibition fails".

OK, this topic os now dead. SO why not move along and kill another topic with your meaninless insanity.

Originally Posted by BillyWitchDr.

Yes it is hard to support the criminally inept war on drugs. It stands in contradiction with the most basic law of economics, if there is a demand, there is a supply. Of course the bureaucrats first method of action is go 100% after the supply and do virtually nothing about the demand, guaranteeing that they get large budgets and splashy bust photo-ops. They also get to have their cake and eat it too, claiming the prohibition related violence is actually drug related violence, scaring the public into the irrational fear of a apocalyptic vision of a post-drug war world. Also regardless of failure or success they are going to get an increase in their budget. If drug use is down then they are doing something right, lets give them more funding. If drug use goes up, they need more funding to combat it.

The way I see it we have been doing the same thing for 40+ years without decreasing the use, supply and affordability of drugs. (There are drugs in super max prisons for &%#@ sakes.) And the policy has numerous, well documented unintended consequences that are pervasive throughout society and politics of the entire globe. It is time for a new approach.