4 ms·

You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This shoul

by gnosis 15y ago

You forgot the War on Drugs. Get rid of it, free all the people in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, and tax the newly legalized drugs. This should free up a lot of money that's being wasted on ruining people's lives right now, and make more money from taxing legal drugs. As a bonus, it'll get rid of a lot of organized crime. Witness what happened with the repeal of Prohibition.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.
- Someone 15y ago
  I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts Sure. And just because it's a small fraction doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? When you need drastic improvement fast, it's just a waste of time to dally on pet agendas that don't represent a significant chunk. Get to them later when you have the time and energy to spare.
    - bermanoid 15y ago
      But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? Is it any less of a waste of time to talk about those three items, each of which is considered a core concern of one of the two parties in control and will likely never be properly gutted? If you can't afford the shit that you're unwilling to live without, you need to find a way to make more money. To me, America seems to be in this situation, yet the anti-tax sentiment is so strong here that that stark reality is never addressed honestly. People fairly broadly want these things, so we best find a way to pay for them. Personally, I'd love to see a situation where the tax rates are mandated to be mere functions of spending, rather than being negotiated as if they're completely disconnected entities. Then Congress has only one knob to fiddle with, how much they want to spend. By letting them decide completely independently how much they want to make we expose ourselves to the obvious outcome, that a lot more goes out than comes in, and that's never going to be properly addressed unless we take it on directly.
      - dreamdu5t 15y ago
        You can't just tax to cover whatever you spend. Historically, great revenue comes with greater spending. There must be a limit to taxation in order for the economy to function. You cannot raise enough taxes to balance the budget. Based on income, you'd have to raise approx. 175%. Based on all taxes you'd have to raise by 50%! Such enormous tax increases would destroy business, investment, and people's paychecks. We want more people paying the same rates through economic growth. It's not a waste of time if you want to balance the budget to focus on medicare and the military, but addressing the war on drugs is. I already provided numbers proving this. The fact that two parties aren't addressing them is why everyone is pissed off and freaked out. Neither party has introduced a budget that is balanced, or even on a path to being balanced. Poeople don't want taxes raised, but they don't want medicare cut. So they borrow. And borrow. And borrow... and now borrowing is hurting us because we've done it so much. Eventually we won't be able to borrow anymore. Infinite borrowing is consequentially the same as defaulting. Fareed Zakaria said in February 2010: "But, in one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget. Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level...So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends."
  - wisty 15y ago
    Legalize cannabis, and you can tax it too.
    - billybob 15y ago
      If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings. It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345...
    - billybob 15y ago
      If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings. It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345... And it's a lot harder to differentiate illegal goods from legal ones if the physical item could be either. I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't legalize it, but I keep hearing people say "legalize it to remove the criminal element and tax the heck out of it." That doesn't necessarily end the associated crime issues.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  Prisons are primarily a state-level expense. You don't get sent to federal prison for possession.
  - william42 15y ago
    A good part of the federal debt from the stimulus and such is to keep state governments from collapsing due to the fact that they can't run a deficit.
Jach 15y ago
That has to come in parallel with a bunch of lower-skill job programs centered around prisons with the highest non-violent drug-related offense inmates about to be released. The current system makes the unemployment issue seem a bit less, but it also lets the corporations who contract out prisoners for work make a killing. It's a modern form of slavery. Though as others have noted, while this is an important issue, solving it wouldn't give us the greatest bang-for-buck so to speak. If we can solve it concurrently with other problems, all the better, but there are sadly bigger issues...

by gnosis 15y ago

dreamdu5t 15y ago

The war on drugs is only 0.5% (approx. $18 billion) of the Federal budget (approx. $3,456 billion), so it's inconsequential to our debt crisis. I whole heartedly agree that drug prohibition should be repealed, and that we need to put an end to the war on (some) drugs. But, the military, social security, and medicare comprise approx. 70% of the budget, so it's really not going to help us solve the debt.

Someone 15y ago
I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts Sure. And just because it's a small fraction doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be addressed. But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? When you need drastic improvement fast, it's just a waste of time to dally on pet agendas that don't represent a significant chunk. Get to them later when you have the time and energy to spare.
  - bermanoid 15y ago
    But should a 0.5% line item take precedent over three items which combined total to 70%? Is it any less of a waste of time to talk about those three items, each of which is considered a core concern of one of the two parties in control and will likely never be properly gutted? If you can't afford the shit that you're unwilling to live without, you need to find a way to make more money. To me, America seems to be in this situation, yet the anti-tax sentiment is so strong here that that stark reality is never addressed honestly. People fairly broadly want these things, so we best find a way to pay for them. Personally, I'd love to see a situation where the tax rates are mandated to be mere functions of spending, rather than being negotiated as if they're completely disconnected entities. Then Congress has only one knob to fiddle with, how much they want to spend. By letting them decide completely independently how much they want to make we expose ourselves to the obvious outcome, that a lot more goes out than comes in, and that's never going to be properly addressed unless we take it on directly.
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
      You can't just tax to cover whatever you spend. Historically, great revenue comes with greater spending. There must be a limit to taxation in order for the economy to function. You cannot raise enough taxes to balance the budget. Based on income, you'd have to raise approx. 175%. Based on all taxes you'd have to raise by 50%! Such enormous tax increases would destroy business, investment, and people's paychecks. We want more people paying the same rates through economic growth. It's not a waste of time if you want to balance the budget to focus on medicare and the military, but addressing the war on drugs is. I already provided numbers proving this. The fact that two parties aren't addressing them is why everyone is pissed off and freaked out. Neither party has introduced a budget that is balanced, or even on a path to being balanced. Poeople don't want taxes raised, but they don't want medicare cut. So they borrow. And borrow. And borrow... and now borrowing is hurting us because we've done it so much. Eventually we won't be able to borrow anymore. Infinite borrowing is consequentially the same as defaulting. Fareed Zakaria said in February 2010: "But, in one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget. Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level...So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends."
- wisty 15y ago
  Legalize cannabis, and you can tax it too.
  - billybob 15y ago
    If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings. It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345...
  - billybob 15y ago
    If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings. It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345... And it's a lot harder to differentiate illegal goods from legal ones if the physical item could be either. I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't legalize it, but I keep hearing people say "legalize it to remove the criminal element and tax the heck out of it." That doesn't necessarily end the associated crime issues.
cookiecaper 15y ago
Prisons are primarily a state-level expense. You don't get sent to federal prison for possession.
- william42 15y ago
  A good part of the federal debt from the stimulus and such is to keep state governments from collapsing due to the fact that they can't run a deficit.

Jach 15y ago

That has to come in parallel with a bunch of lower-skill job programs centered around prisons with the highest non-violent drug-related offense inmates about to be released. The current system makes the unemployment issue seem a bit less, but it also lets the corporations who contract out prisoners for work make a killing. It's a modern form of slavery. Though as others have noted, while this is an important issue, solving it wouldn't give us the greatest bang-for-buck so to speak. If we can solve it concurrently with other problems, all the better, but there are sadly bigger issues...